The Man in Blak

"Rocky Raccoon" begs to differ.

Other comments: - I like the Cardinals round of signings. Kip Wells seems like a great, albeit expensive, reclamation prospect and Eli Marrero is a very savvy MLC, especially if we can sweet talk him into catching again. Bennett's resigning is a reward for having a hot streak while filling in for Yadier Molina last year, which is fine by me. Adam Kennedy is the most interesting guy of the group - he's a big upgrade, defensively, over Belliard and has some speed to boot. I don't think .275/.340/.400 with a half dozen homers and maybe ten to fifteen steals is out of reach - if Hal McRae can undo the damage that Mickey Hatcher did to his swing over the last two years, he could do even better. - Replacing Manny with J.D Drew seems, to me, like an desperate shot to clear off some payroll for signing Matsuzaka. Every year we hear about how Manny is such a financial vice on the team, but while signing Drew to 4/60 or 5/70 is a cheaper deal (per year) than Manny that will give them an extra $5 million to play with for a short-term Matsuzaka deal, it's also a much larger long-term financial commitment to a guy approaching the wrong side of thirty, who has eclipsed 500 plate appearances just once in his career and still may not be as good a player as Manny Ramirez, even when defense is factored into the equation. - Crisp may not be as good of a player as Damon throughout the length of Damon's contract (and even that is up for grabs, if Crisp really bounces back), but he'll be a better value, dollar for dollar. Just keep him out of the leadoff spot.

Well, for one, there are a ton of pitchers left on the market and it's very likely that pitching will be the last thing to go in this market, as clubs try to "starve" out the huge demands from the big name free agent pitchers. Secondly, there's no interest for Mulder because his mechanics are an absolute wreck, nobody's sure if he'll ever get back to being the pitcher he was before the hip injury in 2003, and the guy is a bit of a meathead. Even before the injury hit him this year, he was an average groundballer that leaned heavily on an excellent St. Louis defense. Furthermore, his peripherals (particularly his strikeouts) are trending downward. There just aren't a lot of positive indicators that he'll bounce back or even be a league average hurler.

Well, I appreciate Danny's clarification at any rate. If there's anybody from NMB that has a right to trash-talk me for past decisions with that board, it's him. That being said, while I appreciate the invitation to return, I post at two forums and that's probably two too many, really. It's probably better for all parties involved if I hang out elsewhere.

Rating numbers. Judging by the abrupt program switch on ESPN Classic, I'm guessing that they're desperate to drive up numbers (or cut costs, depending on how much they have to pay to air that old footage). Poker, even in a declined state of popularity, will still probably outdraw certain college basketball matchups or other "lesser" sporting events (such as hockey) and that's why they'll air it on those evening time slots.

Not to derail this too much, but the only real watchable poker show anymore is High Stakes Poker on GSN and, consequently, I think it's the only one that has remained fairly unscathed from the drop in ratings. The rest are steadily devolving into pure shit. The WPT and WSOP coverage (especially the Main Event) is completely dedicated to pre-flop all-ins and idiots sucking out on ridiculous crap because, supposedly, the casual viewer likes watching regular joes hit three-outers over and over again. You can certainly blame ESPN for part of the decline, as they've been their own worst enemy as far as saturation is concerned, but they aren't the only ones pushing it out there (Fox Sports) and the quality of TV poker, in general, has gone south in a hurry, due to clueless TV producers and exponentially growing tournament fields. All of that said, poker is extremely cheap to produce - you hire a couple of guys to work a steadycam, you create some simple HUDs for the cards, and pay little or no broadcasting rights - so ESPN can still turn a profit on it, even when the ratings are in decline. I doubt we'll see it go anywhere any time soon.

How hard do you have to swing the damn remote for bowling? Can anybody who's played Wii Sports provide more details?

It's crazy, but I actually haven't really listened to that much of the Stones. I own Beggars Banquet, but "Sympathy For The Devil" is the only track that stays with me from that album. I absolutely adore "Gimme Shelter" but, outside of that, I haven't really heard enough to form a real opinion on them.

I'm curious if you explored this any further. I'd think you might enjoy some Bartok and maybe even some Holst - there's a fair share of The Planets Suite in King Crimson's early period. Stockhausen, Varese (who was an influence on Zappa), and Stravinsky might appeal to you as well.

Sonic Youth is fantastic, but I can see how it's hard for some people to get a handle on them because there are more than a few tracks that are complete zeroes (e.g. much of what Kim Gordon brings to the table, especially in the later albums), increasing the odds that a random sampling of tracks will result in an underwhelming impression. For me, the earlier you go in their catalogue, the better - I'm not as sold on their output from NYC Ghosts & Flowers onward. Even though Daydream Nation is (rightfully) the album that everybody would recommend as a starting point, I would definitely recommend checking out Sister, EVOL and maybe even Confusion is Sex as a follow-up. Even though the songs are more pedestrian, the first couple of SY albums might appeal to more of the musicians in the crowd, if only because they use some bizarre guitar tunings and other weird configurations (think "prepared piano", only on guitar) to generate some really dissonant and fascinating stuff. As for the Velvets, I really tend to stick with the first three albums, particularly the ones with John Cale. The self-titled is a nice album, but it doesn't blow me away like the first two and I rarely listen to it. Outside of "Sweet Jane", I have little or no use for Loaded. For me, I'd probably pick The Smiths, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Television. Album-wise, Trout Mask Replica and Pink Flag come to mind.

It looks like the domain name ran out...I've been looking around for more information on it from other sites, but I haven't seen anything as of yet.

That's very important! The McKenzie Group will not settle for reduced page views from its advertising affiliates. Failure to comply may result in a phone call to your residence.

Or maybe they're just selling like crazy:

Shut your fucking mouth, you sanctimonious pussy. Who are you to tell people who they should flame?

And that's the main point - McGwire was linked with andro, which was a legal supplement at the time of his use, but he hasn't been confirmed for any other kind of drug use at this time. As painful as it was to watch his congressional testimony, he's innocent until we get some concrete evidence to the contrary. For me, the steroid issue is fairly easy because we only have proof for three guys: Palmeiro (tested positive), Bonds and Sheffield (implicated from evidence in the BALCO trials). None of them have been prosecuted for breaking any federal laws with steroids (so far) and only one of them, Palmeiro, actually broke a rule of baseball regarding said drug use. Therefore, Palmeiro is the only one that I would leave off my virtual ballot as a result of his steroid usage. Bonds and Sheffield are somewhat trickier. Sheffield is a borderline case to begin with and other accounts of his character would rule him out of my ballot before steroids even came into play. Bonds, on the other hand, was basically a HoF lock before he went on the late career home run binge - even if you heavily "discount" his numbers after 1999, he's got 400/400 with absurd rate stats over a long period of time. As much as I despise the guy, I'd put him on my ballot. As for the rest, McGwire, Sosa, and virtually everybody else from the era should be judged on their accomplishments in the game. If you hold out McGwire or Sosa for suspicions of PEDs, then you might as well blackball any player that excelled from the late 80's onward.

Please tell me you're joking. Vick has a career completion percentage of 53.6% and he's barely completing 50% of his passes this year. Obviously, drops do play a role in his performance this year, but calling him "ridiculously" accurate is a stretch. For a QB that can scramble so well, why is this even an issue? How can he be a "game changer" at the position with his athletic ability and a guy who's screwed by lack of pass protection at the same time? And do you remember exactly how that coaching change came about? Who was it that had a ten week injury rehab that mysteriously ballooned to three and a half months, tanking the season and leading to Reeves getting fired one year after beating the Packers in Lambeau in the playoffs? Vick has been given a ton of leeway in his NFL career; he blows off film study, has constantly had the same issues with mechanics and footwork for years and, until very recently, hasn't really taken on a leadership role in the team. Save for a decent year in 2002, he's been remarkably mediocre, especially when you consider that he fumbles the ball almost once per game and that any negative runs aren't applied to his rushing averages (since they're scored as "sacks").

That's Martin Gramatica, BTW. Why do NFL teams spend any kind of substantial money on kickers again?

Surely, UseTheSledgehammerUh can elaborate.

Fistpump smiley. Rock on, Axl Fucking Rose.

This thread should kill itself.

And then, when the Cubs figure out that Alfonso Soriano isn't a center fielder, they'll deal Ronny Cedeno to the Pirates for Lofton and make the playoffs. It's like deja vu all over again!

The Broncos have been cut blocking for years - why would you be disgusted now?

They're sold out - the page just came up for me on my laptop.