jackie hayes

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) Huge, super bold moves? He walked into David Wright and Jose Reyes. That helps a bit. He signed Beltran. Good signing, but he basically outbid everyone else in baseball, and since then, Beltran has been hot and cold. Plenty of rumors about them willing to move him in the right deal over the past year. A couple other high profile signings- Delgado, LoDuca, but nothing earthshatteringly brilliant there. Best moves have probably been getting Oli Perez and John Maine, although Maine came back to earth the final few months. I don't think he's necessarily bad, but I don't see him as anything above average, either. With the resources he has to work with over there, I don't think he's done anything more than be a beneficiary of having almost every player available to him in one way or another. And some of his worst moves, IMO, are ones he didn't make. Has refused to deal for a top of the rotation starter when his team desperately could of used one at the end of the last two seasons... The Pedro signing was pretty bold, imo. 4 years for a guy with a lot of questions. Beyond that I'd agree. I guess you could call the Milledge trade bold, if bold means foolish.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) And some team will give it to him. I just don't think it should be us. I wouldn't argue with that. I don't think having Prior for half a year would do much for the Sox. It sounds like he's going to the Padres, anyway (good call, G&T).

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Isn't this the reason he didn't stay with the cubs? They wanted an option and he didn't. Yes. Prior is saying he will refuse any contract longer than one year or with any team option of any sort. There's no point in discussing anything but a one-year deal.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) 3 more names, unmentioned in the Mitchell Report, are noted in the Jason Grimsley affidavit, which has been unsealed. Pete Incaviglia, Geronimo Berroa, and Allen Watson. That US attorney who stated that the story leaking names was inaccurate is vindicated.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) Maybe, but if Prior is smart he won't go to a team that's in the national spot light like that. That will only add to the pressure. Of course, he probably wouldn't want to stay in Chicago because he might still be a lightening rod. He'll probably end up in a big park like San Diego where he might get some starts in important games down the stretch but won't have the scrutiny of other cities. That makes too much sense to happen.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:47 PM) But the human element is part of what makes HOF election so special. The voters are given the right to use their best judgement to determine who is and who is not worthy. The steroid issue WILL figure into the equation. The BBWOA members who vote will be the first to judge. I believe that if a Roger Clemens doesn't get voted in by the writers, that he'll never get in. The 'veterans comittee' is now made up of HOF'ers that got there without the benefit of PED's. I think they'd be much harder on these guys than writers, and the writers seem to be split about 70-30. I think that's taking a BIG leap of faith, at least as far as amphetamines.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) I f***ing HATE my computer. It froze on me. It wasn't a "long" response I had but it was a few minutes I have to lose. Urrrrgh. Anyway... ...I don't know how official that memo is. I've only ever heard that memo mentioned in the ESPN piece and by some posters, notably Balta, who love to cite it. According to MLB materials, steroids/HGH weren't banned then. That memo suggests otherwise. I am going to do some research because I want to know what it means, really. As for punishments -- the way I look at it and will is, If Major League Baseball punished someone, that's it; it'd be bogus to pile on, unless they'd be expelled. If MLB didn't punish, then it's not up to the voters to, IMO. MLB was a consenting partner. I think those "MLB materials" are a mistake. The commissioner has a good deal of latitude, and there were cocaine suspensions prior to testing. I don't believe there was any official schedule of cocaine punishments, then. I'm not saying anything about the HOF. Technically, the HOF is independent, anyway, right?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 09:56 PM) I'll call it the way I see it with all of the individual cases. Umm, what authority? There was no testing, no punishment, and according to MLB itself it was not a formal ban there. It was a memo. It was nothing more, nothing less. As for scare quotes, I don't know what you're talking about -- please explain. It's not a suggestion: "...possession, sale or use...is strictly prohibited..." It states that the commissioner CAN discipline those involved: "...players or personnel involved...are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game." It then states that individual clubs, in addition to the Commissioner, can impose punishments. There was no testing. There was no SCHEDULE of punishments, but the potential for punishment was certainly there. Edit: Scare quotes, as in "emphasis" rather than emphasis.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) I think certain people, the strictest opponents of steroid use and steroid users mainly, put too much "emphasis" on the Vincent memo. I think you put too little "emphasis" on the authority of the commissioner, and maybe too much "emphasis" on misplaced scare quotes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) HGH requires a perscription, correct? It may not be on the FDA's schedule of classified controlled substances, though. I'll take your word for it, because I do not know for sure. That's what that part I added the "I believe". Yes, but not everything that requires a prescription is a "controlled substance". Here's a release from Chuck Schumer about potentially adding HGH to the (Schedule III) controlled substances list, from March 2007: http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebs...d.cfm?id=270473 I don't know if anything happened with this.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) I cited that specifically to address your incorrect use of "ex post facto". Note that the site I went and found (lazy man that I am) specifically tells you what ex post facto covers - and it STILL DOESN'T cover what you said it did: that knowledge of penalty is required. Or did you already forget what you posted? Oh, and, here is that smoking gun about steroids you were looking for. It also covers any controlled substance without a valid perscription. That would include HGH, I believe. Just responding to the bolded part -- steroids have been a controlled substance since 1990 (iirc -- something like that), but HGH was not. There were some noises in Congress this summer or the summer before about making it a controlled substance, but as of 2005 (when MLB explicitly banned HGH) it was NOT a controlled substance.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 11:59 PM) Nicotine increases the flow of adrenaline. Doesn't that make it performance enhancing? And while hangovers suck, I bet Mickey Mantle was on his way to becoming a journeyman player without the aid of drinking. There's actually no basis for that claim, I just like to think that and make it an excuse to get hammered. That's all the basis I need.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) I wasn't saying it was MLB's... I was saying regardless of whether it was in the baseball bylaws, these players are still breaking the law, so it's still inherently wrong. I think people misunderstood my point though. I'm over the steroids thing, I think the Mitchell Report is a joke and didn't tell anyone anything that they didn't already know, and these accusations are largely based on heresay. Yeah, if it puts pressure on the MLBPA, it makes a difference, but was that worth $20 mill? If they decide to let MLB do blood tests (HIGHLY DOUBTFUL), then the bad boys will find a new way to beef up the hitters. It's an endless cycle. Badger, your point about taking the drugs out of country was a good one. I understand, I wasn't saying that you thought it was MLB's rule, I'm just saying that imo it IS important whether or not MLB itself had banned the substances. I would say it's wrong for baseball to discipline someone based on US law, and not their own rules.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) So, in terms of steroids, do you apply that as of 1991? Here's the actual memo Commissioner Vincent wrote stating baseball's policy Re: PED's. Yes.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) I don't get the whole "they weren't banned" argument either. They were illegal to use in the US, so why must MLB explicitly list these drugs in their banned substances. People tend to forget that it is illegal in the United States to acquire and use non-prescription steroids. I don't agree with that. It's not MLB's place to enforce federal law, only its own rules. Imo it's unreasonable for MLB to discipline anyone who used steroids before the MLB ban, or HGH before MLB banned that. If the feds want to pursue a case, that's their business, not baseball's.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 10:09 PM) I know that. I'm not setting the bar low at all, I'm just saying if he's calling us the worst 12-2 team in football, well IMHO there have been worse than us with that type of record. And I brought up the Bears because I remember them having Miller at QB, Anthony Thomas at RB and they got owned by Donovan McNabb scrambling in the playoffs. I think if we play at our best we can beat anybody. I've already said the key for the Cowboys if they play the Pats is to control Wes Welker as their 3rd WR, because he dominated us last time. Okay, I misunderstood you. With Dallas' secondary, I think you're still better off clamping down on Moss, not Welker, unless the weather's as bad as yesterday. Even then...I wouldn't say the Cowboys can't beat them, but they just don't match up well.

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 09:41 AM) Follow-up Question: The first mention of 'banning steroids' started in 2003 when after years of turning an eye on what was happening in baseball (by Selig, Owners, players, and even the media). So, much of what is being reported took place PRIOR to when the league was basically forced to not look the other way anymore. So, why are the fans and now the voting HOF writers so high and mighty about keeping out players who 'cheated'. For a long period of time, EVERYONE was playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" when it came to steroids, greenies, etc. So, why should players during that time be punished? The GM's didn't care (See Brian Sabian in SF). There are numerous stories about how the media that is 'close' to a team will keep certain dirty little secrets so that they can get all their other stories. I truly find all this so hypocritacal. There was an era of steroid use. There has been an even longer era of greenie usage. Don't greenies provide an advantage? Both are illegal if prescriptions are not obtained. So, are we going to go back to the 50-60's and start investigating everyone that took a greenie? My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun. Well, they were banned before testing began. Since 1990 or so.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) Yeah not really a huge shock that we dropped one. We've been walking a tightrope recently. Hopefully it's a bit of a wakeup call, especially to the offense that they can't just show up and expect things to happen. And I'll reserve judgment on Pratt's comments, but I remember a certain Bears team that won 13 games with Jim Miller as the QB. Pratt is a Pats fan. I'm a Bears fan, and even I'll say that if you're setting the bar that low for your Cowboys, you must be ready for just about any AFC playoff team to wipe the floor with your 'boys.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) I hate these Cowboys. They're the worst "good" team I've ever seen. (I'm being hyperbolic, but they aren't all that good.) Today isn't really a fair test, something has to be wrong with Romo's hand. He was ridiculously bad today. And even the Pats would look like s*** if Brady couldn't grip the ball. (Hint, hint. )

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 05:48 PM) Surely Billick will be canned now after this? Baltimore could be the worst team in the NFL right now, which is quite hilarious considering they won what 13 games last season. And Romo's doing his best to re-incarnate the Buffalo version of himself. Other teams seem to be doubling up on TO and pretty much force him to throw to Witten. This Dallas-Philly matchup is a really crappy game to watch, so far.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Hearsay is someone telling you what someone else said. It's hearsay because you cannot clarify the context and meaning with the person who originally said it. There's a difference between reporting verifiable information, such as the DJIA, and reporting what someone told you. No, there is a broader meaning of 'any information heard from someone else' (I'm not talking about a legal definition, since this has nothing to do with the courts). And if we want to be technical, the DJIA isn't verifiable to me, unless I can see the actual sales records of every individual stock, personally. Unless by "verifiable" you mean that multiple people can confirm the information, but that would be true of the Mitchell report information, as well, since multiple people were present for every interview. It's just a silly use of the word. We don't say that any quote in a newspaper is "just hearsay". It's a pointless semantic sidebar.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) Well, the evidence regarding Clemens is actually, hearsay, technically. Mitchell is writing that McNamee is saying that he injected Roger. But, yes, your point is taken. And Linnwood, responding to your post, "hearsay" is not another word for "bullsh*t." Something can be hearsay and still be the absolute truth. The negative connotation that comes with the term hearsay is because most forms of it are not admissible in court, not because it means it is by definition untrue. Official reports are usually not considered "hearsay". (And in this case, it's not just Mitchell -- most of the interviews were witnessed by a team of people.) I've never heard anyone say that everything reported in a newspaper is hearsay. I don't see myself what happened in the stock market, but I don't say that reports that the DJIA went up by X percent is "hearsay". I mean, you could widen the definition to include that, but it would make the word fairly trivial.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 06:40 AM) I guess cheating has a double standard in baseball. All the way back to the begining, pitchers have done stuff to have an advantage and its always been acceptable. To me, when you stick a needle in you, that kind of draws the line. Well, back at the beginning there was no rule against most of that. Doctoring the ball was only made illegal in 1920.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 01:37 AM) You claimed Clemens' evidence is off of hearsay. I'm saying, technically you could say Bonds' is off of hearsay too. Only difference between Clemens and Bonds is Clemens didn't say he took it by accident. And he's just speaking through his lawyer. At least Barry had the balls to speak to people on his own. Where did I say that? Show me the quote. Clearly it isn't hearsay -- McNamee claims to have injected Clemens himself, he doesn't claim that Clemens told him he used. The main evidence about Bonds is from his own testimony and a record (the failed test). Neither is hearsay.

I just care a lot more about the "peaks" than the innings, especially when it comes to pitchers. Koufax is considered a great pitcher, even though his entire reputation rests on only 5 or 6 years, those coming after a number of mediocre seasons. It's more fun watching that than seeing Blyleven churn through yet another solid season. (I'd use a Sox example, if there was one.) I'll even almost be sad if we never see the same Liriano again, if they change his delivery to trade off effectiveness for durability. Almost.