Dan Gould

What "spin"? The man's given a perfect example of how Burns' film helped a woman who didn't like jazz to "get" a jazz performance. Jeez, you can't even give a crumb to Burns, can you? Talk about spin ...

John, All I can say is, I fully approve of mine! We need a "lustful drooling" smilie!

With news like this, I think its time to open up the official MLB Hot Stove League Thread: Red Sox Place Ramirez On Irrevocable Waivers BOSTON -- The Boston Red Sox placed All-Star slugger Manny Ramirez on irrevocable waivers, The New York Times, the Boston Herald and the Providence Journal reported Thursday. The move means any major league team can have Ramirez -- if it is willing to pay his salary. The outfielder has five years and $104 million remaining on a $160 million, eight-year contract. He is scheduled to make $20.5 million next season. When contacted by The Associated Press, Red Sox spokesman Kevin Shea said: "The waiver procedure is a confidential procedure, and we're prohibited from commenting on it. We're not permitted to say whether a player is on or is not on waivers." A phone message left by the AP for Ramirez's agent, Jeff Moorad, was not immediately returned. Under the waivers, which exist for a 48-hour period that expires Friday, the Red Sox would not be able to counter would not be able to counter a claim by another team, thus losing Ramirez. In that case, the Red Sox would also not be responsible for the more than $95 million Ramirez is owed in remaining base salary, according to Providence Journal's report. Even if another team does not claim Ramirez off the waivers, the Red Sox have essentially sent out a signal that they are willing to deal Ramirez, which could lead to future trade talks. Ramirez hit .325 this year, one point behind teammate Bill Mueller for the AL batting title, and had 37 homers and 104 RBIs. The Red Sox won the wild card and advanced to AL championship series before losing to the New York Yankees in seven games. The Journal reported that baseball sources told the paper on Wednesday night that the Yankees would be the team most likely to claim Ramirez. In the days since the Yankees' World Series loss to the Florida Marlins, owner George Steinbrenner has taken control of the team with the apparent attention to dramatically alter the roster. Ramirez, who moved to New York from the Dominican Republic at age 13, told ESPN's Joe Morgan in late August of his childhood dreams to play in Yankee Stadium, where he has always hit well, with the Yankees. Ramirez also told Morgan that the Yankees had expressed interest in him after the 2000 season, when he was a free agent, but signed Mike Mussina instead. While the Yankees appear the most likely of teams to make a move for Ramirez, there are other teams in need of a power-hitting outfielder that may consider the right-handed slugger. The Journal reported that the New York Mets, the Baltimore Orioles, and, though less likely, the Anaheim Angels and Los Angeles Dodgers may show interest. The left fielder was placed on waivers just two days after Boston announced it would not bring back manager Grady Little, who led the team to 188 regular-season wins the past two years. Ramirez is one of baseball's best hitters, but he often struggles in the outfield and on the bases. He was benched by Little late this season after he missed a crucial series against the Yankees with a sore throat and fever, yet managed to pull himself out of bed to reminisce with New York infielder Enrique Wilson about their days in Cleveland. Then Ramirez didn't show up for an appointment with the team doctor, and when he joined the club the next day he sat on the bench but said he was "too weak" to pinch-hit. And in a game at Yankee Stadium in September, the absent-minded Ramirez tossed the ball into the stands after making a nice catch, thinking there were three outs when there were only two. According to the Journal's report, those actions by Ramirez set off internal discussions by the club to deal him this off-season, even though the Red Sox would likely have to pay much of the remaining money owed Ramirez. If no team claims Ramirez by the midnight deadline Friday, he will remain with the Red Sox, The Times reported in Thursday's editions. Ramirez, 30, was signed as a free agent by former Boston general manager Dan Duquette in December 2000. Ramirez is scheduled to earn $20 million in 2005, $19 million in 2006, $18 million in 2007 and $20 million in 2008. He also is due $4 million a year in deferred, no-interest salary from 2004-10, and he's still owed $10 million of his $16 million signing bonus, the Herald reported on its Web site. Ramirez's club options for 2009 and 2010 are each worth $20 million. In his past three seasons wtih the Red Sox, Ramirez has hit .300 each year, while hitting more than 30 homers and 100 RBI. He won the American League batting title in 2002 and has recorded 100 more RBI in eight of his nine seasons in the majors, playing for the Cleveland Indians during the first six. ********************* Certainly a surprising move, I'd heard that the Sox might try to deal Manny but I figured it wouldn't happen because what's the point of paying 10 or 12 million dollars of his salary so he can play somewhere else? Even as overpriced as he is, having signed at the top of the market, Manny has to be better playing for the Sox than playing for a rival. And now, for taking on his salary, he could very well end up in the Bronx even ... But I think there's some logical method behind their madness: The Sox have Pedro, Lowe, Varitek, Nomar and Trot Nixon all becoming free agents after next year. Clear 100 million dollars owed to Manny off the books, and who knows? Maybe four of those five can be resigned, which is a much better situation than the likelihood that two or maybe three might be kept. So what do you think? And what do you think your own teams might/should do this offseason? Will the Evil Empire cross the two hundred million dollar threshold? Will the Marlins keep everyone on board? What do the Cubs need to do to reach the promised land?

I've been curious about this because I think to appreciate jazz you need a certain level of musical/listening maturity, unless of course you were smart enough to pick up on it as a young 'un, but I would bet that for many, jazz came after the more typical adolescent musical fascinations.

Well, I'd say I did exceptionally poorly on this one, and I own five of the albums! #1-Well, I just might have to check more Guaraldi out, since I only have the Peanuts music. #2-I guess I got this partially right, since I said "not Bags" I believe the only Lem I have is the Argo LP with Ramsey Lewis, again I just might have to correct that. #3-As I listened to this track again, I tried to figure out why I made the ludicrous connection to Sweets Edison. I think it was the playfullness of Mogie on the theme as he circles around the tenor. But no excuses, I used to be known as Mogie Man and I have had this CD for a very long time. #4-all I can say to Jim is, has Stewart considered making an all-Brazillian date? Based on this cut, it ought to be killer #5-Of course, I have the Golson Mercury LP in its original form. I hate it when I realize I own something I can't recognize in a million years! #6-Not only do I have this, courtesty of Mr. R., but how could I fail to consider the likelihood that Jim would pick an Eddie Higgins tune? #7 didn't do much for me, and out of respect for Jim S., I have circularly filed the Harry Allen CD for all eternity #9, Strozier, yet another I own. And how come Coleman is so recognizable except to me? Kessell, Hawes, Eddie Harris-all names I should have investigated more by now ... Breakstone, well, I reallly should have taken the time to figure out the Monk tune, just so I could say I got one thing right. Sassy, well, I definitely suspected it was her but didn't actually verbalize it, so I really ought to get partial credit, right? Dex, well, of course Jim is right but when I hear sopranos I hate the tone so much I immediately tune out. And I have no excuse for not ID'ing The Good Life, considering the terrific versions I have from Mobley and Stitt and probably others, and on top of that, I have a burn of the Wilson LP floating around here somewhere. So, thanks again to Jim R. for kicking my ass but at the same time opening my ears to a number of people I have slept on, like Guaraldi, Winchester and Kessell. They should definitely be getting more attention from me in the future.

Does this mean that you have completed the Carmell project or that you need to start a new one in the meantime? Or have you actually completed any of your "every recorded note" Mosaic projects?

What I don't understand, Chris, is what you would have said that the Army would even find useful. What were the questions asked by this faux Hugh Downs, and did they give away what was going on? Even as sneaky as the US Army may be, how could they possibly con you into saying things to make an Army Recruitment PSA out of?

Good to give credit to the compilers, though I'd understand if you labelled them "GREASY" and "Guitars, Brazilian, and Brazilian Guitars"

Well, I for one have not found Horace's latest efforts to be terribly subpar-I particularly enjoyed "Prescription For The Blues" which reunited the Brecker brothers front line. What is definitely disappointing though is that a year or so ago I corresponded with Brian Lynch who had mentioned a planned recording session with Horace which did not happen due to Horace's health troubles. Hopefully that can be rectified soon, but obviously this recording happened in the meantime. I will definitely be looking for this one.

Certainly not my favorite King, but this guy's Argo albums have their moments:

OK, I want to know who's searching for little old me! That shit's creepy.

Here's what it looks like: I think I'm going to pull the trigger and grab this from Mundo in Japan, $20, which isn't bad for Japanese CD, though the shipping makes it a bit more. I'll let you know, Mike!

Yeah, I hope they plugged the record on each intro, and its definitely good to get some national exposure. So, Jim, do tell. How did you guys get the opportunity?

Happy Birthday, my man!

No but they mentioned Cannonball Adderly instead of Adderley.

SS1 will appreciate this: Jerry "The King" Lawler

Thanks for the link. Looks like Albom needs to get his website updated-there's this line in the "television" section of his bio: "Mitch is currently creating a one-hour drama for the CBS Television Network that is targeted for the Fall 2002 season."

It is my devout wish that no one else decides to do this.

Isn't he the guy who wrote "Tuesdays with Morrie" and does ESPN talk shows? Just how did you finagle this, and is it an interview or what? And congratulations!

I've been systematically shuttling CDs to the office for a while now-in fact, I am on my second pass through the alphabet, and something just occured to me as I popped in another Coltrane OJC: I used to listen to Trane all the time, when I first started exploring, but its actually been a long long time that I've gone deep into his catalog (outside of classics like Blue Train and the Hartman collaboration) and that got me wondering. Are there artists you used to dig but haven't paid much attention to? If you return to them, do they have the same appeal now? (I'm actually thinking on some of these tracks, "sheets of sound" my ass, say your piece and shut up! )

Shouldn't this be "misc. music discussion", not "misc. non-jazz" discussion? I mean, there are often general discussion topics in jazz that don't fit in "artists" or "reissues" and I usually put them in the misc. music forum even though the topic is jazz. You munch on that food for thought, while I go and post a general jazz topic in the Misc. Music section!

Who'da thunk it! Be interesting to hear your comments, Jim. Its a great album, but damn if it doesn's sound like its Monk at the ivory.

The funny thing is, you're about to see a new KFC advertising campaign, predicated on the *health* benefits of eating their chicken. I kid you not! I think one of the tag lines references Atkins diet people because if you're following a low carb-high protein diet, fried chicken's a great choice!

Peace back atcha! If I may interject, Stanley sounds very fine on these two dates, very soulful on the original session while, as noted, the remaining cuts have less of the so-called "snooze" factor that some feel. Honestly, if you dig Stanley and don't hate the Sounds, you ought to enjoy this one.

Happy Birthday!