dc.

Predictions have gone up a bit actually. And it's supposed to be more in DC/Annapolis area - pushing 8" there. They are saying roads won't see that much of course because of the warmth... but yards will, especially because it's all coming between 12am and 6am.

Personally I always thought Oher got screwed on some of the false start calls. Some were certainly legit, but he had a super-quick first step that was maybe anticipating too quick or maybe was dead on... but sometimes he got caught, in my mind, for being first off the line - but he wasn't early. That said, it doesn't really matter and either way did not really affect his overall performance. I just hate when people whine about the false starts because I saw it as an official problem.Maybe I'm the minority.

I've always heard and believed it is for commercial business... People stay out later when it is light later, but we don't get up earlier when it is light earlier.

Loewen was troubling before his elbow issues and never had Tommy John - it was all stress fractures and other weird issues. Tommy John on the other hand is now almost "normal" surgery - huge success rate - it just takes a while to come back. Bundy is actually ahead of his rehab schedule. He's not supposed to be pitching off a mound yet. He'll be pitching for real by June and probably on the team by the end of the season.

Some more to compare... Jimenez wins K/9 by about 1 (8.3 to 7.5), but loses BB/9 (4 to 3)... FOUR walks per nine! Yikes. Jimenez wins HR/9 (.8 to 1.0), but loses K:BB (2.05 to 2.55). More K's but to substantially more walks. Bah. I guess the best news is in some other metrics... Jimenez has a WAR or 20.4 vs. 14.8 for Garza over their careers. Fairly significant. More significant, Jimenez's two awful seasons (ERA and L-wise in 2011 and 2012) were not that bad by "other" metrics like WAR, while some of Garza's better seasons were not as good as they looked.

ESPN had a feature on Garza today ... it caught my eye to see he signed a 4 yr, 50m contract this year with Milwaukee. I remember his name being thrown around by fans, but not much in terms of real O's interest. Then I remembered we the contract the O's gave Jimenez was nearly identical - maybe 48m instead of 50. But pretty much dead on. And... we look like losers despite waiting almost a month to get the discount. They are the same age, so that can't be the difference. While their career ERAs are similar (Garza wins by about .1 runs), Garza has never pitched a season with an ERA over 4.00 since his rookie year, while two of Ubaldo's last three were over 4.00 (one over 5.00). Garza also wins WHIP 1.28 to 1.35, which is no small difference. Jimenez does win the strikeout contest and the HR contest - which are perhaps important for the O's. Jimenez wins health - having almost never missed a start, while Garza has been injured a few times the last two years - but while Jimenez wins games started easily, he wins IP by less than 100 (half a season). Anyway - just some reflections. I remember seeing (and talking) about how Jimenez was a good deal (and I think it is overall) ... and especially about how we probably got a deal "after the market" had settled. We touted a "good play" by the FO; a nice contract that was a stretch for our team's normal, but not a stretch overall. But the reality is, an equally good/better option was available a month prior... and we sat on our hands. But because Garza isn't a big name, few will ever notice or pick up on the fact that the Jimenez contract could have bought us arguably more...

The earth doesn't actually change its tilt by the way... It's always tilted the same way, it's simply that as we are moving around the sun the north side of the tilt is now coming back towards the sun. Right Now of course we are just about even up on the equator tho...

Crav... it's a stupid system, but I am confused by your question. All we did was move clocks forward an hour. So your 6:30 day break became 7:30 daybreak... and your 6pm sundown became 7pm.

Fix one and we are right there. My point re JJ is that he blew 9 of almost 80 appearances. Both numbers are high. But the conversion % is pretty much average if not still a bit better than average. I just don't see us "fixing" that given we've done nothing to address it. And the bigger issue - evidenced in other bullpen issues and injuries - was simply overuse. Almost all of our pen were past 70 appearances last year. That's crazy. Maybe we can get a few SPs past the 6th

Crav nice try.. JJ blew 8 I believe. Out of almost 80 appearances, that was an average amt - not that we want avg but who do you see being above avg this year? Meanwhile, in how many of those was it - as mentioned - an offense that only scored 2 or 3 and a pitching staff that had a good outing of 5 innings? Too many to put it simply. JJ made his mistakes but got a bad rap a few times over ... Not sure how anyone can see our close situation being vastly improved. And we still will have an OBP leader at 350. Meanwhile, the Sox won last year because guys like Napoli might only hit 280 but get on base at a 400 clip.

BTW just counted... 24 losses last year when opponent scored 4 or fewer.

I'm not worried about closing too much - there are options. I would consider Norris there. But I agree more w VA - it's all the situational hitting. How many games did we lose 3-2 or 4-3 while leaving 15 men on base? How many Ks from our "big hitters" when a sac fly scores a run?

Still worried about OBP. We're going to be a HR only team. Will struggle w "manufacturing" runs without the HR. That will be problem as much as blown leads and starting pitching.

Papa - from what I know of bipolar, that's not how the "states" work. It is not minute to minute. It is week to week or year to year.

TS - I have to disagree again. Are there things Martin could have done differently? Certainly. And he does have his issues. But the abuse is the issue of the abuser. And you can say Incognito wasn't intending to be a bully, but you don't know that. It sure looks like, after the fact, that he is continuing to be a bully. By Martin's account - and the league report - Martin was not the only victim. And Martin's actions in "cozying up" were an attempt to lessen the harassment. Here's where I think we see it differently. You see some texts with some banter and say, "oh, that's banter - no harm." But I'm looking past that. You don't think Martin knew the difference between the banter and the real stuff? The stuff said in person, over the phone or simply done to him? The stuff that wasn't just banter but was actual harassment? I think he knew where to draw the line. And I still think the bi-polar issue is a sidenote. I don't know anything about Incognito's situation. I also don't know enough about Bipolar disorder. The one thing I do know is that it can be at least mitigated in part by medication. And further that you can't blame being an asshole every day on bipolar disorder.

And like it's been said, this is exactly the kind of "mentality" that makes an employer liable. Let's really play this out once more... If he stands up and say "I don't like this." Do you think it gets better or worse for him? According to you and others, my best guess is that everyone's response is "you don't fit in here" or "toughen up, pansy." In which case, saying something - anything - makes a bigger problem. Anyway, let's say after being told that he should just get used to it, he responds like this: I can see that working out well too. The rookie saying such things to the clique of lineman who are "like a pack of dogs." More likely I imagine a bigger problem long-term. I also imagine a fight breaking out at some point. Both positive options. But let's just play this one step further. A fight breaks out. Well, that leads to some suspensions and perhaps some investigation, right? If Martin is suspended or in any way given a hard time, you know he's going to "go upstairs" and say "here's what was going on" - in which case, well, here we are. If Incognito is suspended, we wind up with a big question about, well, "what got him suspended" and then I bet his buddy Pouncey comes out and says, "Nothing wrong with Richie, it was all Jon." And that... well, that again starts to look like where we are now. Doesn't it? So you can see why Spen, myself and thousands of others might say, "Hmmm - doesn't seem like there's a way out of this for Martin." And why, legally, the team/league are at fault. And every time someone says, "Just deal with it," that makes the point even more.

As is proof by Steel's comments above

His issue? Isn't it the issue of the people hurling insults and harassment? And lastly, when you (and the world) have said forever that you just need to "man up" and "this is how it goes in the locker room" ... how much of an option is there to "deal with it?" Deal with it by reporting it and you're in trouble... like now. There is no end game but for someone to get in trouble.

TS - First, good for you. But my point was this: you have previously said (and many, many others here and nationally), that this is "part of the game" and "part of the locker room." And pretty much said Martin needed to toughen up. That argument is mutually exclusive to your present argument about how he should have just reported it. The second flaw with "just report it" is ... he did. Maybe not in the order he did. But let's say he follows your plan. You said the harasser got fired. Incognito gets fired. You also say others involved who didn't listen got suspended. In this case, if he works his way up to the GM, that would mean the head coach gets suspended for this situation. That would be even bigger news than this event is now. Think about it, NFL head coach suspended for allowing workplace harassment! And of course we come back to - the entire situation would still be, as it is presently, chalked up to a guy who "just couldn't take it." So there is a major disconnect between the two pieces of argument you are making. Lastly - the few articles I saw on who you'd want as a teammate, Martin always won - not by much, but he did. In several, the majority was "neither." http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9945888/most-players-survey-want-richie-incognito

Dee's comment x2. Aren't these two comments contradictory: "This is the NFL. This is an NFL lockerroom. This happens in every locker room around the league. Toughen up." "All he had to do was say he didn't like it and it would have stopped." No. The first sentence says that, had Martin spoken up, he would have been further chastised and harassed for not being man enough to handle what happens in "every locker room in the league." This by the way is the exact definition of an environment for an employer is liable in these cases as well. If it happens everywhere and everyone knows it and everyone knows that speaking out will mean more trouble and more harassment - there is a legitimate issue. Meanwhile, the defense of Incognito is absurd. Yes, if he truly has a mental disorder, he deserves some sympathy. But he also has a long track record of being an absolute tool. And now he gets called on it and we're supposed to feel sorry? Had Martin called him on it to the coach, would we still feel sorry when he got suspended or cut?

The recent signings push me to saying this will likely be a team over 500, but I am not totally sold.

The point is that THAT shouldn't matter. It's a locker room of a multibillion dollar industry with professionals making multimillions. It's one thing to goof off. But grow the hell up. You can say "it's a locker room" all you want. They are grown men getting paid to do a job. They are grown men getting paid to work together. Act like it. Why don't we expect people to act like adults? That's what I don't understand.

Early police report pretty much describes he and his girlfriend/fiance(?) getting into it a bit at the casino. Lots of speculation from there that's not worth figuring out. I'm sure we'll see video eventually. Best hope is that charges are dropped on both parties as a 'domestic dispute' - but who knows what else could follow?

And Pouncey, who was in on it all, was also the first to back Incognito when it all came out. Surprised? The texts really prove nothing either way. Workplace harassment is workplace harassment - even in the NFL. And, just like anyone else in any other workplace, of course you are going to try and "tough it out" or joke it off in an attempt to get people to ease up. It doesn't make the other actions any less harassing or abusive. I'm really tired of the "deal with it" attitude - especially because "this is the NFL." Shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? "This is the NFL" - you are a well-paid professional, you are in the highest, most elite level of professionalism in your field, you should act like it. Maybe in college they are college antics. And in high school or rec league what can a coach really do when you aren't getting paid? But this is a job. This could be a much longer rant - but I'll leave it at this. All of these guys - NFL, MLB, NHL - are grown-ups who we idolize for playing a game. And they eat it up. And we feed more to them. No one ever really holds them accountable for realizing that they are playing a game. Instead we feed this immaturity. We train them that everything in life is just like it is on a football field or a baseball field. Why are we surprised when they act like oversized children? That's what we trained them to be. Maybe we should train them in another way. (Of course this doesn't apply to ALL players, but a good number - I mean these are guys who are paid to play a game for crying out loud and we treat them like demi-gods for it.)

Because Pierce showed such talent last year?