Dan Gould

From the NY Times, regarding Chuck Knoblauch's statements after his interview with committee staff: That sure sounds like another former McNamee client acknowledging that McNamee told the truth about him. Is Roger really going to testify and risk a perjury charge?

So when the issue seemed to be guaranteeing a sixth year, he ended up with six years, plus an option/buyout on a seventh year? I'd say the Mets blinked, big time. But its not like they had a choice. I'm sure at the start he'll dominate the NL the way Clemens/Pedro did, but that's a long time and a lot of money for a pitcher. And they still need a big performance from at least one other pitcher before they'll be a dominant team. I guess the best I should hope for is for Phil Hughes to have some growing pains while Santana completely dominates - then you'll see some mortar shells lobbed from Lil' Boss at Cashman.

Incoherent, but I'm not sure if its irrelevant.

Oh, I am so in for this!

I've been meaning to ask, Paul, how you've enjoyed the winter in Tallahassee so far. I told you it would get cold eventually - and then the temperatures would bounce back to a nice range. I really miss that down here in Palm Beach county.

PM sent! Well, stuff is "new and exciting" if its been ages since you've dug out your copy of the vinyl. At least I know now what will be next in the "transfer to CD" pile. FINALLY!!! I thought nobody would pick up on this! I'd love to take full credit for this one, but the reality is that Booby is my default guess for vibes. So ...

Well, I hate to say it but Disc 2 wasn't nearly as pleasurable as disc 1. Track 1: Sounds like a cheesy MOR instrumental, circa 1967. NMCOT is too harsh, we need something to signify disinterest, not outright rejection. Track 2: Nice - and very familiar. Makes me think of those larger-band Stanley T. BNs that Duke Pearson arranged, but its not Stanley on tenor. Track 3: Chet Baker, who I've never been able to tolerate for more than about thirty seconds. NEXT! Track 4: Sure sounds like Sweets to me, on "Mean to Me". Track 5: Perfectly pleasant but just not the sort of thing I seek out. Track 6: Ditto. Track 7: And we've got three in a row. Track 8: Same as it ever was. Track 9: I think you see the pattern here ... Track 10: Sounds vaguely familiar ... I presume Jim R. will enjoy sniffing out the guitarists but I'm neither equipped to do that nor all that interested. Track 11: First I recognized Sweets ... and then Duke and Hodges. Backwards, Sideways, Forwards - its classic stuff. But will you look at me weird if I say that I like Sweets best on them? Track 12: Short and sweet. What's not to like? Track 13: At first I didn't want to like this but I couldn't help myself. No guesses though. Track 14: No guesses, and not really MCOT Track 15: Ah, back to the pretty but not terribly engaging. Ah well. Al, Disc 2 had more misses than the first one but was still enjoyable in its own way. Thanks for putting these together.

I think Allen is the one person with a shot to catch Sangrey on the post count meter.

that sounds about right. I got up at 8:15, tried to log on around 8:45, couldn't, but then got on a few minutes later.

If you've lurked here for any length of time you would realize that the band that hosts the forum does not want to associate itself with anything connected to copyright violations. That isn't to say that people here aren't well aware of BT sites, but there are some general ground rules that are followed: We don't solicit burns We don't recommend sharity blogs We don't talk about what may or may not be available at bit torrent sites

Thanks to Al for a BFT that has far more hits than misses - in fact, none of them are clunkers, just a few didn't really grab my attention, as pleasant as the tracks were. The dirty details: Track 1: Nice. Gotta be Blakey on drums ... was there a reissue of Blakey leading a big band in the early 50s? For some reason that's what I am thinking of but AMG is no help. Track 2: Nice, but no guesses. Track 3: Sounds Dukish to me, or at least his guys. Definitely Hodges in there. Classic, that's for sure. Track 4: See #2. Track 5: Very tight, whoever it is. Track 6: Classic Dameron tune, an all-time favorite, "On a Misty Night". So many recordings of this ... but this one has Griff on it. Track 7: Was track 6 the pivot point in the programming? Looks like we've moved on from Big Bands to small group bop/post-bop. Sounds like Blue Mitchell, from his Riverside, not BN recordings. Definitely Bu again. Another good 'un. Track 8: Very familiar tune, this one is going to annoy me til I find out what it is. That's three great tracks in a row. Track 9: Well, that streak came to an end. Not to say its not nice and all, but getting closer to sonic wallpaper here. Track 10: More of the same, only more instrumental variety. Not bad, but not to the level of the trio of tunes that came before. Not even close. Track 11: No guesses but impossible not to dig this. This is the first cut that is new and exciting enough to make me want to hear more from the LP. Track 12: Well, that's Lee, obviously. That sounds like Cliff Jordan on tenor, which brings to mind Take 12. It was the one Morgan recording that I bought early on as OJC vinyl, never replaced on CD, and never really listened as much to as his classic BNs. Not recognizing this as a BN track, that's what I'll say it comes from. Track 13: It took a little while but I finally ASSOCIATED this with a certain favorite "older" tenor player. Come to think of it, I believe that my love for Webster actually pre-dates Hank and Dex in my trio of tenor titans. Thanks for reminding me that I need to crack open the recent Storyville box set. A thousand Track 14: Pleasant like tracks 8 & 9 were, but it holds my attention a bit more. Smoothness of the tenor makes me think of Getz but I'm sure that is wrong. Track 15: Is that Booby? Track 16: More pleasantness but not really my preferred piano style. Can't wait to download Disc 2, Al!

I think I may have to make this my new signature:

It seems to me that the odds of a Giants victory is about equal to the odds that the Pats, with history firmly in their sights, will show up with fire in their eyes and come up with a blow-out performance like they did in the early part of the season. Say 25% chance for either outcome ... otherwise I see a 50% chance that the Pats win, by between 6 and 14 points.

I was reading through the Sharon Jones thread and came across this: So which is it, dumpy mama?

Well I'm not getting here too late but last week my brother emailed me to say he was at a Barnes & Noble and was so blown away by the music being played in the CD/DVD section that he was compelled to ask who it was. Long story short, he took it upon himself to order 100 Days, 100 Nights from Amazon for both of his brothers. That box just arrived so I can finally join in this discussion myself.

Quick, people, post like there's no tomorrow! Maybe someone can supplant him as the Big Kahuna - at least by the numbers, if not in our hearts.

The years with a single week between conf. championships and SB are so much better...we're spared a full week of media drivel. I'm a Jints fan and also like the Pats (due to the BB->NYG connection) and still can't stand to read the crap out there. Whether its a week of crap or two, its still easy to ignore. So I'd rather have two weeks for minor injuries to heal and have a better game, or at least the potential for a better game. Indeed it is easy to ignore. I have. We'll see if I still have interest/curiosity in this NFL season by gametime. Probably I will, but... You may be correct about minor injuries, but I'm not convinced that it means a better game. At the other extreme, I'd argue that a month off for college football players is not a good thing for the bowl games (of course if they use that time to do their homework assignments, write their papers, etc., that's a good thing! ). Well-stated, Patrick, but if you can't regain interest in what will either be one of the biggest upsets in NFL history or else the final game of a historic season, then you probably didn't have all that much interest to begin with.

Newsday has a little more detail from their own source: If Pettitte verifies the details in the first paragraph, Clemens' goose is cooked. And Pettitte has been a stand-up guy so far (relatively speaking).

I was waiting for them to say, in the small print at the bottom, "no pets, no children", but they didn't. Five wood burning fireplaces! And staff quarters, so you can employ your own live-in lumberjack to cut down half of Central Park Can you actually BUY firewood in Manhttan? MG At a purchase price of 70 million, the $38000 a month maintenance is chump change. I'm kind of surprised it only lists "park views" "city views" and "river views". What about views of New Jersey and Long Island?

Say something funny, which happens about once out of a hundred times when you go off on these riffs.

Yeah, its bad news for the Phils but with Lidge in the pen and the old closer back in the rotation, the Phils have made big improvements to their weakest areas. I'd still like their chances because Santana can't pitch every day. If Pedro isn't effective or breaks down, or El Duque stinks - the Mets can still have big problems. They'll be like the Sox were for most of the time they had Petey - one great, exciting pitcher went ever five days, and it was an event. But the rest of the supporting staff wasn't enough to take advantage of having the best pitcher in the game.

Looks like the noose might be tightening around old Roger: I have to wonder if the committee staffers intend to inform Clemens what Pettitte or Murray say. If Pettitte confirms the conversation about Clemens using PEDs, or that he came to McNamee after a conversation with Clemens, and then Murray confirms the 2003-04 conversation with McNamee - well, the jig is up, as they say. Roger would have no choice but to 'fess up or take the Fifth.

Maybe he's concentrating on his school work.

I haven't given a lot of thought to it but my dreamhouse would include: A sizeable music room with ample, built-in storage of all media A very large lot so that I could not hear neighbors or cars/trucks and so that the dogs would have ample space to run and play A tennis court (clay or har-tru) in the back

Well, it looks as though, pending the requisite enormous contract extension, the METS are the winners of the Santana sweepstakes. I find it very interesting that the Twins ultimately settled on what is widely considered to be a weaker offer than what the Red Sox had on the table (maybe they withdrew Lester or Jacoby?). It really seems that the Mets prospects aren't nearly as close to being major league ready and there are even questions about the long-range potential of the centerpiece outfielder. So this looks to me like a great deal for the Mets, and absolutely necessary for the franchise, when you consider that Pedro (signed for only one more year and entering his first full season after surgery) and El Duque (104 years old) headlined the rotation. Plus of course their GM loves to make a splash and hadn't done anything to fix the team after their epic collapse. but the bottom line is this: The Yankees can't throw their money around next November to get Santana without giving up any young talent, and that is great news. The Yankees and their fans think they have great young pitching. The Red Sox and their fans think the same thing about their prospects. Let's get ready to RRRRRUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLEEE! The best thing the Sox have going for them though is Beckett and Dice-K. I think the Yankees would do well if two of their three "can't miss" guys turn out to perform at that level - but the Sox already have those guys, they are signed for several years to come, and they are in their prime. The only way I see the Yankees beating out the Sox with their pitchers is if Beckett or Dice-K go down with injuries or walk when their contracts are up, and that will happen only if Buchholz and Lester (and Masterson and Bowden) end up not living up to the hype. Can't wait for Pitchers and Catchers!!!!