Dan Gould

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens? Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes.

I saw the review in the Times yesterday and was all psyched for it yet can't find when my PBS station is actually running the damn thing.

I couldn't care less about the NBA or the Celtics, but thanks just the same.

What Shawn and Noj said. "kind of tame and boring"? FUCK THAT.

That last sentence is a bit dishonest, since it was the first baseman's decision not to be part of that future that made it possible to secure a "brighter" future. I would tend to agree that the Braves gave up a lot for someone who is likely to leave at the end of next season. The long term impact of the Gagne trade is really dependent on that 17 year old they threw in. From what I've now learned, he's got a very high ceiling, a Darryl Strawberry type body that could project to superstar status. But its tough to know this far in advance. He's really stinking up the FL Rookie league, hitting .212 or something like that. And it seems as though there are a lot of mixed views of both Gabbard and Murphy. Some think that the Sox sold Gabbard at just the right time, that his stats so far scream out "first time through the league", and some think Murphy will never amount to more than a fourth outfielder, lacking sufficient power or speed to play regularly. One thing is for sure, the Sox will know how they made out by the end of October: if they're planning another parade, this trade goes down right next to the Nomar trade in the Legend of Theo. If they fall short, the only way the trade backfires is if Gabbard exceeds his ceiling or the kid turns out to be a star. Meantime, Big Schill is ready to return, having pitched 15 innings in his AAA rehab assignment, with 18 strikeouts and not allowing a walk or a run. If he's really ready to come back and be a true ace down the stretch, well ....

Keep in mind too that Gabbard was unbeaten as a starter at Fenway, which is pretty impressive for a rookie lefty. For this deal to work out, its pretty simple: The Sox have to win it all this year, and long term, Lester has to live up to his reputation and prove he was the right guy to keep. I'm not certain because I really liked watching Gabbard pitch and felt like he was going to turn out to be a late bloomer that could really excel. I can't complain about adding Gagne to what was already the best bullpen in the majors, but at the same time I have to wonder if Jermaine Dye would have made a bigger impact. The bullpen was already great, this will help keep everyone fresh. But you still have to score runs to win and to do that, Drew has to pick it up, Papi has to remember how to hit lefties again, Manny has to keep doing what he's been doing, and Lowell can't fade as the season goes on (He hasn't so far, so I am a less worried about that). I can still see us losing games for wont of a timely hit when the bullpen doesn't even get loose - its already happened to Beckett a couple of times and to Dice K, too. Still when you consider that the Yankees got rid of a bullpen arm, kept Farnsworth, and didn't add anyone, this is a great Deadline Day. Add in the fact that Detroit and Cleveland didn't land anyone for their bullpens either, and the Angels didn't add a bat, and its hard not to believe that the Red Sox should be overwhelming favorites to be champions twice in four years.

Well, apparently David Murphy is the second prospect going to Texas (according to Stark). He projects only as a fourth outfielder, and they aren't hard to come by. As for Gabbard, he's really come into his own and I almost believe that right now he knows how to pitch better than Jon Lester. Obviously Lester has the higher upside. Most likely Gabbard tops out as a number three, and a pretty average one at that. I do like his arm though and wish him well. If he keeps balls down and throws strikes, he'll succeed. His 1.66 Ground Out to Fly Out ratio bodes well in Texas, assuming he maintains it.

A-Rod is likely to finish this year around 515. If you presume Bonds ends up at 765, that's 250 to go. He does it in 8 years with only 31 or so per year, which is practically nothing. If A-Rod somehow ends up in Boston next season, we're talking 6 years, max. No chemical assistance necessary. But concentrating on the here and now, Rosenthal at Fox Sports is reporting that Gagne will go to Boston, pending medical record review and his waiver of the no-trade. That would really be a remarkable addition, the only team with a sub-3.00 bullpen ERA adds the guy with the best career save percentage in history? And the Yanks send Proctor away and don't add anyone but a prospect in an unfamiliar role?

Interesting trade rumors swirling as the deadline approaches. Can the Sox really add Jermaine Dye and Eric Gagne? Meantime the Yankees moved the wrong relief pitcher just to strengthen the bench (Proctor to LA for Betamit) which just makes no sense to me unless they're going to swoop in and get Gagne for themselves. Apparently they are begging people to take Farnsworth off their hands and can't find a taker. Too bad he's got another year to go on that deal. Pavano, Igawa, Farnsworth - and Cash still has a job? So either the Yanks must be trying to land Dotel, Gagne or Cordero, without giving up their best prospects, or else they plan to turn the eighth inning over to that prospect, Joba someone or other. And that is putting a lot of pressure on a guy in his first year in professional ball, only a few starts at AA, and has never been a reliever before. Yet the reports seem to be that the Yanks are out on the Gagne talks ...

Right. Just like we won't confuse you with the facts about Clinton and your republican get-back for Nixon. Well argued, Dan. It wasn't an argument it was an observation, dumb ass. Consult 70% of the rest of the thread for arguments that you have never come close to refuting in any way, shape or form. I see. Safety in numbers then, eh? Then tell us why Bush is presdent when the numbers of votes went against him. It was an argument against my position, Dan. Observation my rosey red.... Dumb ass. WTF???? Poor, sad, pathetic Goody. I hope you plan to stick around when Bonds is indicted and goes to trial. Then I want to hear you rebut the sworn testimony that puts him in prison. let's see - he didn't use steroids, and anyway, "the media" planted that doping calendar. He didn't cheat on his taxes, and anyway that bitch is just a nasty tramp trying to get back at him. Steroids have no impact on home run hitting, even if home runs skyrocketed during the "steroid era", even if known steroid users like Juan Gonzales and Jose Canseco combined for 900 homers between the two of them. Keep dancing, Goody, keep dancing. You remind me of that episode of Buffy where the demon makes people sing and dance and when they stop, they burst into flames. You're dancing for your life, Goody only soon the music is going to stop and the piper will be paid.

Right. Just like we won't confuse you with the facts about Clinton and your republican get-back for Nixon. Well argued, Dan. It wasn't an argument it was an observation, dumb ass. Consult 70% of the rest of the thread for arguments that you have never come close to refuting in any way, shape or form.

Take this for whatever it's worth, but I have friends who are around the inner workings of the Rangers and the consensus is that he is an arrogant fan-unfriendly jerk. Also, to be clear, I never said he only hits homers when they count. Quite the opposite, actually: I've been saying all along he hits homers whenever the game is out of reach, winning or losing. Put him at the plate with men on, and more often than not he'll choke. Frankly, I hope the Yanks get him. Nothing will humble him faster. Gagne has stated over and over that he wants to stay in Texas. I believe the strategy is to trade him for some young prospects, then bring him back when he declares free-agency at the end of the season. Number one, my bad, I obviously meant to type that he hits homers when they don't matter. And number two, you're saying that Gagne wants to stay on that team, regardless of its potential to reach the World Series, or lack thereof?

Don't confuse Goodspeak with facts, and don't forget he is the only Bonds apologist on the board.

There were Red Sox commentators who wanted to see them land Teixeira but I don't see the point of dumping either Youk or Lowell when both are playing so well ... but I have no doubt that the Yankees and Red Sox will go very hard for him after 2008. I have to admit I've never heard anything that suggests he's not a good clubhouse presence, and while Al may say he hits his homers when they count, his OPS is almost the same on both sides of the plate and he provides GG defense. In short, the Yanks and Red Sox may chase everyone off but I can't imagine a more sought-after guy in the free agent class of 2008. Meantime, I almost spit up my soda over a report in the Globe that there was a "pretty good chance" of landing Jermaine Dye, but now apparently the White Sox want Wily Mo Pena plus either Manny Delcarmen or a Double-A pitcher who has been mowing them down, Masterson, and apparently the Sox regard both of those pitchers as too valuable for a rent-a-player like Dye. I'm still not sure how they'd satisfy Dye's desire to play 5 days a week anyway but he'd be a major offensive improvement, he could certainly play for Drew against lefties or whenever his quad tightens up. So Al, what is the deal with Gagne? My biggest fear is that the Yankees land him and he instantly transforms their setup situation, but I can't see how they do that without giving up one of the top prospects.

If steroids had no effect on a player's performance, why would MLB care about banning them then? (That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer, though I'm sure you will). Making one big (i.e. increasing muscle mass) DOES have an effect on the distance a ball travels, and that's why hitters were taking them. It gave them the ability to hit balls further, and turn routine fly-ball-outs into home runs. Guys like Bonds who could hit home runs anyway, suddenly were able to hit MORE of them due to steroid usage. Canseco and Giambi's numbers are inflated as well. As are Mark McGuire's. You can deny it all you want, but it's "patently true" to most people who aren't SF Giants homers. As said before in this thread, it's extremely doubtful you'd be sticking up Bonds if his whole career had been spent elsewhere - with the Twins for instance. The MLB outlawed steroids because they are unhealthy and kill the very athlete using them. Some benefit is gained, but not enough to create great hitters out of mediocre ones. In short, steroids do not work...they just make you bigger. The common run-of-the-mill belief is they make you hit HRs. That is total crap. The MLB knows it too because they would have done something about this sooner if they did think steroids cause Hrs. It is total PR to satiate the sporting news media jackals and guys like you who bought it. Look at Bonds yearly output. He hit 40+ HRs EIGHT times in his career and 20+ HRs ELEVEN times in his career. Now you're going to sit there and tell me that all happened because of steroids? You see, this is where your whole argument falls apart and why it is sheer foolishness to even suggest steroids made Bonds a better HR hitter. Better than what? Better than great? Think of what you are supporting here, Aggie. A first year HS student could see through that pretend argument. Buddy, we have already argued the whole business about mass vs distance of the ball hit and it has been doubted and/or out right debunked...and not just by me. I am not going to rehash it for you....go back and read it and on this thread. Blinders on. You are truly the most ignorant fool on the planet. They acted on steroids because of health risks? No, they acted on steroids because Congress took action through the hearings process and embarrassed them, all the while holding the anti-trust exemption over their heads as a cudgel. MLB knows that steroids don't help hit home runs and would have done something sooner otherwise. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING? MLB turned a blind eye because while so many players were using steroids, home runs flew out of the park and people flocked their to watch the spectacle. Let me get this straight though: Steroid use exploded in the 1990s through the early 2000s. Home runs and offense in general also exploded. Records that had not been approached in years were broken multiple times. And this had nothing to do with steroid use? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING?? And let's take a look at Bonds' home run totals. Bonds began to use steroids after McGuire and Sosa stole his spotlight in the summer of 1998. Barry Bonds from 1986 through 1998: 13 seasons, 3 40 homer seasons 411 homers in 6621 ABs for an average of 1 per 16.1 ABs Barry Bonds from 1999 to today: 8 seasons (I don't count 2005 which was all but entirely lost to knee injuries) 5 40 homer season 343 homers in 3135 ABs for an average of 1 per 9.1 ABs Barry Bonds achieved these results from the age of 34 on, when every other athlete shows deteriorating skills. THE PROOF IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE AND YOUR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND IT MAKES YOU A LAUGHINGSTOCK.

I honestly can't think of anything that I refuse to skimp on, unless you count things like not buying generics at the grocery store.

The two things I'll remember about Tom Snyder was Ackroyd's impression on SNL, and the time he was doing the local news on Channel 4 in New York, he was on screen fiddling with his earpiece and apparently someone off camera motioned to him in some way, and Tom flipped him the bird.

Still waiting on a plausible explanation for this question. Still waiting. I have already answered this question: He has already admitted to using "the clear" when it wasn't against MLB rules to do so. What the hell else do you want....flowers? I'd like you to answer WHY he chose to use them, if they have no effect. edit - as usual, you answered a question that wasn't asked. OK...do you follow sports, I mean, at all? Athletes will look for anything they think will give them the edge over the next guy. Back in the 90s guys fooled themselves into believing steroids somehow enhanced their game. This is patently false and has been proven time and again through those who [like Giambi and Canseco to name a couple] took them, that all they do is make you big....they don't make you good. Are you asking me to get inside Bonds mind and tell you what he was thinking at the time, or what? I fail to understand your problem here. We knew you were hopeless before but this really takes the cake. Jose Canseco - 462 career home runs, 17 seasons, career OPS+ of 131. Yeah, he struck out a lot. He also took a lot of steroids and played well enough to achieve some very respectable career numbers (when you set aside the fact that he used steroids to do it). Ken Caminiti - steroid user, MVP winner. No connection there, no, no way. Rafael Palmiero - 500 homers, steroid user. Its all coincidence, right? All of it. Its coincidence that after McGuire set the single season homer record, Bonds suddenly decided to start lifting weights like a fiend and use any chemical assistance he could find - but it wasn't because he wanted to become a big power hitter. No not at all. The fact that he became a big power hitter was mere coincidence. Neither cause nor effect. Barry didn't use steroids because he wanted to be stronger and hit more home runs. He used them because he'd always had a big head figuratively and he decided it was time that he have a big head literally, too.

Works for me. Or Bonds could do the right thing and simply retire from baseball today. No, my preference would be the old HBP in every at bat until he quits. Then when his teammates don't do anything to protect him, Bonds will learn the consequence of treating them all like shit. (this plan might also give Barry the chance to obtain a career record honestly, which is quite an accomplishment for him.)

Yes, I would speak to him on the phone to see what he says and how he says it. Its theoretically possible that he isn't the lying cheat he seems to be, so it can't hurt to see what he says in person. The one question I would ask though is why you would accept a promise to ship within 30 days. Was this a buy it now transaction or an auction, and aren't people expected to possess the items in question? Did he give a reason why shipping would take so long? Personally, I would never deal with such a seller. I expect prompt shipment in all cases - in a day or two if I pay via Paypal and on receipt of the money order if that is what he accepts.

What is an "amateur soundboard"? Audience members lugging a soundboard to the concert to run their microphone through? I have no doubt that they rolled a tape off the house audio feed and the sound should be more than acceptable. What is more intriguing to me is the Concord page's description of the concert: There aren't very many recordings of Monk with a larger group, so the West Coast guys could make for an interesting concert. But I have never heard of Rouse on alto with Monk.

On the contrary; I always thought they found their groove behind Mobley and felt really in-the-pocket. But then, what's "in-the-pocket" to one man may be boring to the other. YMMV. I agree. Wynton Kelly and PC played and recorded with Hank a great deal. Only Jimmy Cobb was "new" to Hank, the others obviously dug his sound/feel/conception.

Of course not. Would I express my man-love for David Ortiz if he didn't play for the Red Sox? Would Goody have so much emotionally invested if Bonds wasn't doing this in San Fran? Now watch as he is going to tell us that he is really for fair play, constitutional rights, etc. and that he'd be defending Bonds even if he played for the Dodgers. Yeah right. Oh well - it will be over soon and afterwards it will be real interesting to see Bonds' reception on the road when he is the so-called "Home Run King". He gets a great deal of boos on the road now but my guess is that in the aftermath of this farce, the reception he gets will be ten times worse, as fans who aren't blinded by allegiance to the home team will really let him know what they think of him. And then, in the offseason, the Giants will try to pick up the pieces of their broken down, sad pathetic franchise, where old farts litter the roster, and when they sign free agents, they are pathetic busts like Zito. Goody says he wants to root for a winner yet he somehow can't see how the team sold out any chance it had for a championship by being do desperate to enable Bonds' fraud to continue. My guess: the ballpark will be empty in the aftermath as the chickens come home to roost (Bonds in jail, the Giants in the cellar, and the owners wondering where the fans went).

Feedback should be the last thing that you do with this liar/cheat/fraud. Your first order of business is to determine your options regarding securing a refund of the money paid. Did you use a credit card? Paypal? Exhaust all means of recovering your money first, through Ebay and/or Paypal or your credit card company. Then give him most the vicious feedback you can, and be prepared for whatever he dishes back. You can use the "response" feature to make it clear to anyone who looks at your feedback that this is lame, tit-for-tat bogus garbage that does not reflect upon you in the least. Good luck.

Its asinine for the appeal's court to find "ambiguity" in the text of the statute. Break down the statement into its component parts: A crime has occurred "whether a victim is dead at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse." OR "whether a victim is alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse." It has nothing to do with rape/murder situations, because there can be no bar to making separate charges of rape and murder, if evidence exists that the accused had sexual contact with the victim, and that the accused killed the victim. Unless the appeal's court based its decision on the legislative history of the adoption of the law, in which the legislature discussed and then failed to make specific reference to necrophilia, its a completely ridiculous ruling.