Dan Gould

Assuming it goes through, this Troy Glaus for Scott Rolen is a somewhat surprising deal, with a lot of risk on both sides. If Rolen recovers his power stroke, the Blue Jays got a major upgrade at 3B. If not, they've committed a lot of money for three more years of a guy who looked like a potential hall of famer until he started getting hurt. The Cards dump the salary (and the nastiness between him and LaRussa) for a passable 3B who probably stays healthier on grass. Most importantly, I think that Glaus is only signed through 2009, and for fewer dollars than Rolen. So even if he falls off a cliff or keeps getting hurt, he'll be easier to deal with going forward. Funny, I always liked Rolen (and had to prefer him over LaRussa's monstrous ego) but now I am going to have to hope that he will continue his decline. Otherwise, if he gets healthy, the Blue Jay lineup just got closer to the level of the Sox/Yanks.

I was coming here to post this just now ... sad news, but I'm glad she had her never-too-late career blossoming. Some of those Savant recordings are quite good. RIP.

That would be half rotten. You mean Jacqueline is still alive? That's good news for Sam Malone.

But isn't that only Barry Bonds? Interesting story today about absesses on Clemens' buttocks, and the statement by a doctor (this was in the NYT) that while any injection can cause an absess, they are more common with steroid injections. The Toronto people they interviewed couldn't recall Clemens getting treatment, but who knows what might appear in the medical records? The real interesting thing is that I think it suggests the Feds are looking for external corrabaration of McNamee's story, and that can only mean that they are waiting for the opportunity to take Clemens down on a perjury charge.

What do you get the Blue Note Kid when he has everything? :party:

Nice to see Cedar in support rather than out front (not that I don't enjoy his trio albums, but I especially enjoy him with horns) and what I've heard of Curtis Fuller in recent years tells me this ought to be a real good 'un.

Oh c'mon Paul, all I am saying is that a number of these 'babes' don't deserve a second look. If I offended you for calling them "nerds" well excuse me, its a term generally used for brainy people. And yes, Judit is not a babe unless you've got some much more attractive photos than what you've shown so far. And as far as "skin deep" goes, how else is anyone supposed to judge someone who only exists as a bunch of pixels in this thread???? So kindly give me a break.

Who isn't a nerd? :bwallace2: Post #6 is a freaking genius. She may not be a super model, but she's a brilliant woman. She may be, but the thread is "Chess Babes" - if you're not a babe but you play chess, you don't belong. No grading on a curve for chess nerds.

Is it just me or are some of them just plain nerds? It was downhill from the second post on ...

It would be really cool if someone put out the Baby Face Willette singles on Hollywood.

Al, I think I'll jump back in for yours, though I don't know how much time I'll have to devote. I know that yousendit has started being annoying with restrictions on non-paying accounts, so I want to suggest rapidshare.com as an option. You can zip a file and send the link, the only restriction is that non-paying users have to wait a minute or two before they can download. And with only one disc, you won't run into the restrictions on how much you can download in a given time period.

There's a dollar bin?

I always thought that Jazz Hour trafficked in boots. Don't they have sessions with the Messengers that are short of being PD anywhere?

Have to say I laughed at the opening grafs of this NYT review: What the heck happened to Jeff Conaway?

Eric Bedard to the M's? That would be the smartest move the M's have made in a long time. King Felix and Bedard would make an excellent one-two punch, it almost makes up for that ludicrous Silva signing. Or at least it puts him where he belongs, a 3-4-5 guy instead of something he's not, which is an ace. You M fans should keep your fingers crossed that this gets done.

This is highly unlikely to work in Roger's favor: Sounds to me that its likely that the Justice Department is getting ready to move on Clemens, or is ready to make a move pending any denial he makes under oath. Regardless, the gathering of evidence and coordination of an investigation with the Justice Department, which already regards McNamee as credible, is a very bad sign for the Texas Con Man. How long before Roger's attorney makes noise about a "rush to judgment" or a 'stacked deck' or heaven forbid, reasons why Roger might not be able to attend after all?

Gotta share this comment in today's Times, by Murray Chass, who apparently actually still has some functioning brain cells:

Good points. I think the proof that he knows he didn't lie is in the taped conversation - when asked what he should do, Clemens never said "tell the truth". That's not because of the risk of a charge of witness tampering. How can advising someone to tell the truth constitute witness tampering? Its encouraging someone to be forthright and honest! If he tells him what to say, that is witness tampering. But to tell him to tell the truth cannot possibly constitute tampering. But, Clemens can't say "tell the truth" because he knows that the truth destroys him. And as for the whole "he won't take a lie detector test" statement by the sleezy lawyer: When the question is a he said/he said situation, and its a battle for public opinion, don't you think any lawyer worth his salt would order up a polygraph? If he passes it, you trumpet it everywhere you can as "proof" that he is telling the truth. The fact that he won't take one is compelling evidence to me that he took one and failed it.

Because GEE Dumbya needs a smoke screen for his failed Iraq War, housing/mortgage crisis and environmental gaffs. Bush is all about the cover not the reality. Gosh, didn't know Harry Waxman was on the Bush payroll as well! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/14/...in3618383.shtml Thanks for revealing the latest asinine statement. It really is nice to know that the Democratic majority in the House is doing the President's bidding.

On that I disagree, T.D., to the extent that Clemens and Bonds will not and should not get away with false testimony under oath. Should there be legal or baseball penalties for those who juiced? No, I don't think so. But Bonds and Clemens have or intend to testify falsely, and there should be a penalty for it.

They did a nice job because often its tough to make these edits "work" unless the person used a lot of "down" inflections. When you make a statement, you naturally speak with a down inflection - if there were "up" inflections, the edited sentences would sound off. But getting past the fun people have messing with his words, I saw on SI - or maybe it was ESPN, something no one else has seemed to notice - that when Wallace asked him whether he'd had contact before the Mitchell report, and he mentioned the email about fishing equipment. Roger said that he didn't say anything about "he was fixin' to bury me". Notice it wasn't "fixin' to lie about me to the Mitchell report". "Fixin' to bury me." Wouldn't we all agree that in common usage, "bury me" means "betray me" or something similar?

Some good points there, Eric. To clarify what I meant about Rice - if you put him in, there's no reason to stop voting for him subsequently (unless you really really hate his home/road splits and think he was just a by-product of Fenway) - otherwise, those changes you mention generally started working in his favor, once the issue of PEDs broke through. I've always been a more inclusive guy when it comes to the Hall - but I do draw the line at Jack Morris.

Well, the Hall of Fame votes are in and while I am disappointed that Jim Rice won't be joining Goose Gossage in the Hall, I have to believe that 15 will be the charm, considering that he fell 16 votes short, and had a higher percentage in his penultimate year than Goose did in his. I'm also glad to see the Hawk getting some support, despite his terrible OBP, he was a complete player for a long time, as well as reaching a couple of milestone numbers that traditionally get you in. Blyleven too ought to be in, and is overwhelmingly more qualified than Jack Morris. Its a shame too that Tim Raines has started with only 24.3% in his first year. Sure, he had a low slugging percentage and that cocaine scandal, but his OBP, steals, steal percentage, and several other stats I can't think of at the moment, make him a no-doubt hall of famer. Too bad its going to take some time for him, too - probably another 8 or 9 years. It would be really screwy if his vote total actually goes down next year when Rickey Henderson is on the ballot, as if voters would be foolish enough to decide he is so "inferior" that he should get fewer votes while Rickey is on the ballot. But that just reminds me of how much bullshit the voters put out, year in and year out. In my opinion, the following votes should be grounds for immediate dismissal from the electorate: Anyone who votes for any of the new nominees, the ones who haven't any possible claim to qualifying. And yet every year, some idiot writer puts Chuck Knoblauch or this year, Todd Stottlemeyer or Shawon Dunston. You vote for crap, you lose your vote. Period. Anyone who changes their vote from year to year based on who the top candidates are. Nothing has changed for Jim Rice since he retired. Either he belongs or he doesn't. Yet every year, the marginal candidates have votes that go up or down based on who is at the top of the ballot. If you don't understand that you are supposed to vote for up to 10 players and that no one is a Hall of Famer one year, not a Hall of Famer the next year, and then a Hall of Famer the next year, you're out. Period. Ever since Rice topped Gil Hodges, everyone has assumed that he'd get in eventually, since no one with a higher vote percentage than Gil has been denied - I just hope that is the case, especially now, and that Rickey's slam-dunk candidacy doesn't perversely take away too many votes in his last year. In a way I do think it is appropriate that Rice will wait til his last year. He is a marginal candidate. If he hadn't broken down and lost it at a relatively young age, he'd have reached those milestone marks like 2500 RBI and 400 homers. Heck, if he had only averaged a single hit more for his 15 year career, he'd have hit .300 overall. So this will mean that next year, Rice will be the focus of discussion and commentary. He's practically at the goal line, so feets don't fail me now.

In Texas and New York (among other states) it is legal to tape so long as one party is aware of it. California and some other states require that both parties are aware. Yes, it really does sound like a sad breakup, with McNamee in the role of the spouse who is sorry for hurting the other. That has been Clemens' MO for a very long time. It will be really interesting if he tries to bully the committee members next week - and interesting too if they turn into brown-nosers in his presence. I think there is still a chance for a tough interview, but it really looks like Roger is taking the Pete Rose - Barry Bonds express route to infamy. I wonder if he'll ultimately regret that "take your Hall of Fame vote and shove it" attitude?