Chalupa

Whoa. Check this out.... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...yson&id=2232133 Mets, many others, can enjoy tax-free offseason By Jayson Stark ESPN.com Archive Since finals are approaching, it's time for a little baseball-economics quiz to help us make sure you're fully educated on a key development in the 2005-06 offseason: If the Mets' payroll inflates to, say, $150 million next season, how much luxury tax would they have to pay -- if the 2006 tax threshold is $136.5 million? A) $3.04 million (22.5 percent)? B) $4.05 million (30 percent)? C) $5.4 million (40 percent)? D) Way more than that, just because they're making Bud Selig really nervous? E) Zero dollars (nada percent), because of a little-known technicality in the Basic Agreement? OK, kids. Pencils down. All those answering "E" pass this test. And if you answered that correctly, either you've spent way too much time reading the Basic Agreement online (and feel free; it's here) ... or you cheated. But it's true. No matter how much cash the Mets insert in the wallets of free agents, Manny Ramirez, Carlos Delgado or all those talented and charming players they already have added this winter, their luxury tax next year is guaranteed to be exactly ... zilch. Same with the Angels, who were No. 4 (just behind the Mets) in the 2005 payroll standings. Or the Phillies, who were No. 5. Or any other team not known as the Yankees or Red Sox. That's because -- as first noted by CNN.com's Chris Isidore -- back in the crazed pre-agreement hours leading to the 2002 labor deal, the frenzied labor negotiators inserted a mysterious clause into the impending deal. That clause says, essentially (in language way more complicated than this) that any team that didn't pay luxury tax in the 2005 season is 100 percent off the hook in 2006. Doesn't matter by how much that team blows by the payroll threshold. Doesn't matter how many different tax rates are listed in the agreement for next season. Doesn't matter whether that team paid the luxury tax in any previous season. None of that matters. So, unbeknownst to most of the sport, the only teams that face a potential tax bill next year are the Yankees (guaranteed to be taxed at 40 percent, as four-time offenders) and the Red Sox (who paid this year but probably won't pay next year unless their payroll goes up by $13 million). But that's it. All righty then. We know what you're thinking: How the heck did a strange rule like this find its way into this labor agreement -- with just about nobody noticing? Well, here's the story, as we've heard it: You might remember that in the previous labor deal -- the first one to contain one of these payroll taxes -- the last year of the agreement was completely tax-free. OK, even if you don't remember, trust us. It was. Well, because of that wrinkle in the old deal, the union was pressing for the same free ride to be included in the current agreement. The idea was to give the market a year to adjust, in case the tax turned out to suppress player salaries more than anticipated. Oh, and one more thing: That one-year gap was supposed to establish the principle that the two sides weren't necessarily committed to this tax forever and ever. So naturally, as negotiations heated up, this issue remained a thorny little tug o' war. The owners didn't want any year to have no tax. The union was digging in. So in the end, they did what negotiators are supposed to do: They compromised. And this was the compromise: No matter how much tax a team paid in 2003 or 2004, if it dipped under the threshold in 2005, it was safe from the tax man in 2006. "I admit it's kind of quirky," says one baseball man who was involved in those talks. "But that's the compromise we came up with." So now here we are, more than three years later. And here's that compromise, ready to take hold for this, the final year of the labor deal. But when we polled high-ranking officials of four teams last week, only one had ever even heard of this rule. Why? Because MLB never mentioned it at the time the deal was done -- and hasn't advertised it since, even now that the time to apply that rule has arrived. Matter of fact, MLB has never even advised the Mets (or the Angels or Phillies, either) that it could directly affect them -- and save them millions of bucks. Why? Because it obviously was hoping nobody would bother to read the fine print. Oops. Somebody did. We didn't mean to blow anybody's cover. But someone needs to read this stuff -- and let the world know the rules. Sorry about that. Meanwhile, there's one more reason this rule could be even more significant than it might appear: We've been hearing murmuring beneath the surface that enough people in the sport are so happy with the current labor deal that they'd be interested in taking advantage of another clause in the agreement -- a clause that allows the two sides simply to extend the deal for 2007. But if they just extend it, they would be extending another tax-free year along with it (a potentially monstrous advantage for the Red Sox in 2007 if they pay no tax in 2006). Or they could negotiate yet another compromise on that particular issue. Now it isn't likely the Mets will actually add enough dollars to their payroll (which was about $101 million this year) to have this wrinkle kick in. But it's possible. Which means that, with a new TV network ready to hit the air, Mets GM Omar Minaya and his good friends, the Wilpons, have been handed the right to go on their very own fun-filled free-agent supermarket sweep. All thanks to the Wacky World of Labor Deals. Gotta love it.

That can't be right. I got that from them last Winter along w/ the 7 Steps box. See above

I can't see Minny taking on Lowell's contract.

She sang backup on "From Elvis in Memphis" and "Elvis Back in Memphis" albums both recorded in 1969. I don't think she ever toured w/ him. Btw, what's up w/ the new format????

LDBS # 7035 IS IN DA HOUSE!!!!

ON THE HORIZON Blue Note Records is filling up its 2006 calendar with noteworthy CDs, including a solo piano outing by Gonzalo Rubalcaba -- appropriately titled "Solo," arriving March 7 -- and a Wes Montgomery tribute by guitarist Pat Martino, out February 7. Pianist Andrew Hill, who began recording for the label in 1963, has re-signed with Blue Note for the third time. Coming up is a quintet release, "Time Lines," out February 21. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051119/music_nm/jazz_dc

Philly media is saying that the Mets are trading for Nady to free up cash to make a run at Wagner.

I'm going to miss this one. I've been fighting off a cold all week and last night I biked out to see William Parker. Great show but, I'm paying for it this morning.

http://www.loureed.com/new/news/video/lawr...underground.wmv

http://passedoutwookies.com/

I guess I'm in the minority here but I saw the Lanois/Tortoise show I was mighty underwhelmed. Maybe my expectations were too high going in. Maybe it because of my unfamilarity w/ Lanois' solo material. Then again maybe it was because I saw them the same night as a FANTASTIC Roscoe Mitchell/Muhal Richard Abrams show that I attended but the Lanois/Tortoise collaberation did nothing for me. I LOVE Tortoise and I like Lanois as a producer/performer on other people's albums but as a solo performer I think he's kind of blah. I didn't think much of his guitar playing or his songs. In fact I was rather bored. His pedal steel excursions were nice but he only played it on one or two songs . The guys from Tortoise didn't seem to add much to his songs either. AFAICT, the only one who seemed to be into it was the drummer. The entire band only backed Lanois up on a couple of songs. The whole thing sounded under-rehearsed to my ears. However, the Philly show was early in the tour so maybe that's why it wasn't clicking. I wanna give Lanois the benefit of the doubt but for now color me unimpressed.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/fartingpreacher.html

This has already been discussed here but that Philly date is wrong.

Two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders who allegedly were having sex with each other in a bathroom stall at a Tampa, Fla., nightclub were arrested and charged early Sunday following a run-in with patrons and police. According to a police report obtained by the CBS TV affiliate in Tampa and the Charlotte Observer, Angela Ellen Keathley and Renee Thomas were arrested following an incident at Banana Joe's, in Tampa's Channelside district, at 2:10 a.m. ET. In the police report, witnesses claimed Thomas and Keathley were having sex with each other in a stall when other patrons grew angry that the two were taking so long in the bathroom. Another woman waiting to use the bathroom got into an argument with the two, and Thomas hit that person in the face, according to details of the report posted on TampaBay10.com, the CBS TV affiliate's Web site. Keathley, who was escorted from the nightclub, was so drunk she could barely stand, the report said. Police described Keathley as rude and belligerent with police. When Thomas was arrested, she gave police the name of another Panthers cheerleader -- Kristen Lanier Owen, the Observer and TampaBay10.com reported. Thomas, who was charged with one count of battery, might face additional charges for lying to police, once they confirm her identity. Keathley was charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing or opposing an officer. Other Panthers cheerleaders bailed Thomas and Keathley out of Hillsborough County jail later Sunday morning, TampaBay10.com reported. The cheerleaders made the trip to Tampa on their own -- the squad performs on the sideline only at home games. Panthers officials at Sunday afternoon's game said they were aware of the report, but declined further comment when contacted by the Observer. According to the Panthers' official team Web site on NFL.com, Keathley is a registered nurse and second-year member of the TopCats. Thomas is listed as a student at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and first-year member of the cheerleading squad.

The record company's site has the wrong date. The Philly show is on the 25th. The 24th is Thanksgiving.

The Either/Orchestra with guest Mulatu Astatke — Either/Orchestra's new release is: Ethiopiques 20: Live in Addis - 2 CDs (Buda Records ) — World Cafe Live, 3025 Walnut St, Philadelphia Nov 10 (Thu) — 7:30 pm — $23 Really want to go to this but I'm boycotting the WCL for no good reason. Guess I'll have to breakdown I'll be @ the Wadada and William Parker shows.

Amir(Dan, I think?) Do you know OD from somewhere else?? It seems that I'm missing part of your exchange w/ him. Also, how do you know how Latvala felt about him? Just curious.

It was very demanding music. I wonder if Braxton(and the audience) would have been better served if they had had two shorter 45 minute sets instead of one long 90 minute set. Towards the end I was feeling a little fatigued(both physically and mentally) and I suppose some of the people who walked out may have felt that way too. Though I blame the fatigue factor more on the setting than the music. The room was really hot and made for a very uncomfortable listening experience for me.

The walkouts were disturbing but not unexpected. The show looked to be a sellout and he did get a standing ovation (w/ a 2nd call back) from the crowd. However, one would think that at a concert presented at an university that there would be a number of open minded people in attendance. Hopefully it won't be another 13 years before his next Philly show.

FYI... there are a limited number of 1/2 price tix.... http://www.tix.com/Event.asp?Event=42063

Thanks

Two of my favorite songs by Curtis - "Move On Up" and "Billy Jack" - does anyone know which albums they were originally released on??? I know I could prolly find them on a comp but I'd rather hear them in their original context. Thanks in advance.

Hey Alan it was great meeting you and Ron last night at the show. Vonski was great last night. Watching him play and listening to him talk between numbers you sometimes forget that he's 83! He seems at least 10 years younger - very coherent and full of energy. His playing is very fluid, his fingers were flying at what would be a fast pace for a man half his age. The music was pretty much straight ahead bop - no excursions into the stratosphere but every now and then Von would start to veer off though he managed to stay on course. Regardless, they sounded pretty tight. Maybe that had something to do with all of the standards("Night in Tunsia", "Take the A Train", etc.) which they have probably both played hundreds of times. I'm wondering if that(thechoice of known standards) had something to do w/ the fact that this was the first time they had ever played together. Mickey was playing his ass off all night long. They were definitely enjoying the chance to play w/ each other. Every time Von or Mickey would take a solo they would yell something back and forth at each other and crack up at the same time. It was almost as if they were testing each other, like two prize fighters looking for their opponets weak spot and laughing when they realized that they were not going to out fox the other one. Von and Mickey were complimented nicely by guitarist Mike Alleman and bassist Matthew Ferguson. Alleman was especially good I thought and I would go and see him again if he ever comes back to town. After the first set Mickey and Von came out and gave a little talk(with Danilo Perez) about how they both grew up which was hilarious. I would have paid just to hear them talk about the old days, they were so entertaining. Vonski is a real character. He was wearing his White Sox World Series Champs button all night. The whole thing was taped and will be broadcast on the local jazz radio station in the future. Can't wait for that. Oh and I woud say the crowd was over 400. I was in the upper balcony for the first set and I only counted 4 empty seats. So that would be about 120 right there.