jackie hayes

Welcome back, Bungles.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 09:04 PM) I don't think Clemens is the greatest pitcher of his generation. I count Maddux, Martinez and Johnson better than him. Can anyone tell me why he's better than any of those guys? I think Martinez has a clear-cut greater peak. Maddux has, I think, a greater career with no evidence or trace of steroid use (although some argue that he doctors the ball, but I couldn't care less about that as I don't believe in throwing a fit over Gaylord Perry or anyone else). And I do believe that Maddux career is better than Clemens' career even without giving note to Clemens + steroids. Johnson? He was a beast. Just playing devil's advocate -- You could make the argument that in terms of combining performance and longevity, Clemens is the best. Maddux has about as many innings, but an era+ about 10 points lower, and many fewer strikeouts (if that matters). Johnson's era+ is lower, and he's thrown 1000 fewer innings. Martinez has the highest era+ in history, much higher than Clemens', but many, many fewer innings. So you can make an argument. Of course, now we have a better idea where the longevity came from... My vote would go to Martinez, fwiw.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) Both are off of hearsay technically. Again, if Roger steroid/hgh use isn't true, why hasn't a lawsuit even been mentioned yet? So I don't know what or who the first sentence refers to, and the second one obviously can't be directed at me, since I've told you more than once that I'm not saying that Clemens didn't use and you wouldn't be so ridiculous as to keep attaching to me a position that I renounce every single time you mention it -- right? So maybe you quoted the wrong post.

Pettitte fesses up: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-...-Admission.html

John Danks is a Boras client, right? Is there any reason to think his brother won't pick Boras, as well? If he does, why would the Sox sign him for signability reasons?

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) Who also plays third base... ...except that the Sox wanted him to play left field...

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 03:15 AM) Documents found in Grimsley's house is how the feds got a list of people of who were on the 'roids. Grimsley coughed up the names as well IIRC. Clemens' name appears on the affadavit too I believe. Along with being injected personally by Mac several times, I don't know how people go ahead and say there's not as much evidence on him as Bonds. Ok, Bonds got big. So what? If the person is on the skinny side and used roids, there's less evidence that he took them? As far as I'm concerned, Tim Kurkjan has it right. If Clemens wants to say it's not true, then to save face and get voted into the HOF on the first ballot, he should sue, but we know he won't. All I know about is the affadavit with blacked out names -- if there are other documents that name Clemens, please provide a link to back that up. There was a report that Clemens' was one of the names in the affadavit, but the next day a US attorney stated that the report had a number of errors (without stating what the errors were). Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Grimsley named Clemens, since we know Grimsley was linked to McNamee. But until we know that he is named, and how Grimsley knew he was a user, we can't say the evidence is as strong.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:33 PM) Well Radomski and McNamee are two... which would be multiple sources. So did you actually read it? So he didnt call it the cream and the clear but instead dropped hints.... I dont know what your exactly trying to prove.... Im sure Clemens was smart enough not to go running around shooting up in front of everyone, it was close circle of people. The only 2 people privy two that circie have turned on him. Who else are you going to find? What more evidence do you want? You quoted Canseco and Sheffield. You then admitted that you misread the very text that you quoted, saying that you meant only that multiple people had personal knowledge. When I point out that the quote does NOT indicate that they have personal knowledge of Clemens' use, you move on to Radomski and McNamee, two people who aren't even mentioned in the quote. And finally, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT THAT, EVEN!!!!!!! Radomski explicitly admitted that he NEVER "personally knew clemens did steroids". Holy s***, not only did Radomski not have any personal knowledge, he was even "never explicitly told" about the steroid use. (That last quote is from the text you quoted, in case you haven't read it yet.) So not only did he have no personal knowledge, he didn't even get hearsay. McNamee is the ONLY one who claims to have personal knowledge of Clemens roiding. That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth, but saying there is anyone else is a pure lie. So you've gone from multiple people claiming to have injected Clemens back to what everyone already knows from the Mitchell report, that one guy makes the claim. Hey, you shot for the big lie -- at least you tried. And wtf are you talking about with the cream and the clear? This has got nothing to do with BALCO. Winstrol is neither the cream nor the clear. Nor is Deca-Durabolin. See what interesting tidbits you pick up when you actually read what you refer to? What am I trying to "prove"? Nothing. I'm trying to clarify the FACTS in the case, and not let...people...with transparent agendas total f*** the discussion for all of us. What have you said about the Bonds debate in the past? In previous threads about Bonds, you've stated without caveat that (1) the SF Chron reporters who reported the leaked testimony had committed a felony (WRONG, and obviously wrong under standard freedom of speech ideas, as every lawyer, hell, every high school graduate, should know), (2) that there was nothing illegal about the cream and the clear (WRONG, I cited the law that made the substances illegal), (3) that federal prosecutors leaked Bonds' testimony (WRONG, as a former BALCO lawyer has already been sentenced for the leak). And that was before all the bulls*** you've spewed here. I get tired of you loudly announcing bulls*** and trying to make up enough facts to convince people. If you wonder why, it's because I think sometimes these conversations can be interesting, but not when someone hijacks a thread by swearing up and down on pure fantasy. Frankly, I'm amazed that there's not a chorus of posters shouting you down when you make these absurd claims. I'm tired of doing it. You have zero credibility left and I'm done dealing with you. I pity those who don't know any better.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 10:47 PM) Nazr Mohammed to the Bobcats for Primo Brezec, Walter Hermann. Huh. So, I don't trust my intuition about NBA trades, but that seems to be a very nice move for the Pistons. Yes? No?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 10:33 PM) Your right I misspoke. I meant to say multiple sources saying that they personally knew clemens did steroids. I for a second thought Canseco had said that he had injected Clemens, but I looked and could not find it. I stand corrected, sorry. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT. Good God... Both Canseco and Sheffield are speculating. NEITHER ONE CLAIMS ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. Which is clear if you read what they actually say. You thought it said one thing. You were wrong. So you claim it said something else. Again you're wrong. Did you ever actually READ it?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 09:19 PM) Jackie, You have no clue what my viewpoint is. I dont care that Clemens took roids, I dont care that Bonds took roids. I dont care that Gaylord Perry put vaseline on baseballs, I dont care that Sosa corked his bat. I dont care when teams steal signs, I dont care about any of it. I think its a joke, I think the law is a joke. But that is an argument for another time another day. And the evidence against Bonds is just as equal to multiple sources saying that they injected Clemen's personally. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...trainer/?page=3 Fortunately for Clemens, he was popular so the names on the Grimsely affidavit stayed sealed. But if he gets the Bonds treatment, those documents will be unsealed. Nor do I care what your viewpoint is. I'm only responding to what you post, which is typically nonsense. For example, citing "multiple sources saying that they injected Clemen's personally," then immediately linking and quoting part of an article which doesn't say anything remotely close to that. Cogent analysis there. You're at the point of just making s*** up because it sounds good for your argument, as you've done more than once when talking about steroids. Congrats, you've hit your stride.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 08:32 PM) Jackie, Bonds admitted to using the "Cream" and the "clear" not knowing they were roids. If you take the grand jury admission as fact, then you have to believe that Bonds did not knowingly take steroidsbecause there is absolutely no proof in the grand jury testimony that he did know. The only facts about whether Bonds knew are allegations made by other people (most of whom had an act to grind against Bonds). The failed steroids test, irrelevant. Bonds took a test in a private clinic, who knows the protocols, who knows what they were really doing. This is BALCO, they are a corrupt felony organization. Now we are going to believe documents and tests that they produced? What if they put in a positive for Barry to blackmail him should they ever need it? People want barry to be guilty, they want Clemens to be innocent. The sad part is, there is a very real chance that barry told the absolute truth in that grand jury room (that he did steroids but just didnt know) and due to some scumbags wanting to make money his whole career was ruined. I'm f***ing sick of this Bonds fight you keep picking. You'll say anything, no matter how absurd, to convince people that he did nothing. Your argument that I must believe every syllable of Bonds' testimony just because I accept his admission that he took these substances is absurd on its face. And no document from a corrupt organization is reliable? That's ridiculous -- you're prosecuting a group peddling stolen SSNs, and you wouldn't consider an actual record of how they got the numbers because it comes from a "corrupt felony organization"? Come on. "People want barry to be guilty, they want Clemens to be innocent." You mean me? I don't give a s*** what happens to Clemens. Who's a bigger prick than him? Where have I ever -- EVER -- said that Clemens is "innocent"? What annoys me is when people who are hellbent on proving Bonds innocent make ridiculous statements, like saying the testimony of one guy to Mitchell is just as much evidence as what there is on Bonds. There's a reason the vilification of Bonds exploded after the testimony was leaked, and not before. That doesn't mean Clemens is innocent, AT ALL. It's just a question of talking about an issue honestly.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 08:36 PM) So an allegation that there are documents against Bonds is good enough, but documents found in Jason Grimsley's house, and his personal trainer's admission to even injecting Clemens several times is not??? Wow. I can't greater double standard. What are the documents that were "found in Jason Grimsley's house"? I haven't heard about these. For f***'s sake, learn how to read. I did NOT say the evidence is "not enough". In fact, I said THAT I DO BELIEVE IT. That doesn't mean that there's just as much evidence. And when there's an allegation made by federal prosecutors about evidence that was shown to a grand jury -- I tend to believe the evidence exists, yes.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 06:39 PM) Exactly my point. People think guys like McNamee lied to protect himself. If he's told to tell the truth, he's telling the truth. All Mitchell can do is write what is said. How much clearer does it have to be seen for a guy like Clemens? I swear, I think some people on Soxtalk want video evidence of a needle going in his ass, with him showing a picture ID. Even then, I think people will say the video is digital like with R. Kelly. Bonds is guilty, but yet we have no more proof on him than we have on Clemens. Hell, I'd say you cold argue, you have more detail with Clemens. This is hyperbole. The two biggest pieces of evidence against Bonds, in my mind, are his grand jury admission that he took the stuff (unknowingly, he claims) and the allegation that there are documents stating that he failed a steroid test years before that. We have neither for Clemens. Which isn't to say he didn't do it. I think he probably did. His is kind of a middling example of the Mitchell report cases -- not as much evidence as for those who wrote large checks to Radomski, but much more than the very weak cases against Roberts and Cust.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 06:30 PM) Eh those two guys are somewhat throw-ins. I mean, they're pretty decent throw-ins, but we have no Carlos Gonzalez in our system. They're not as good as Gonzalez, but "throw-ins" is not a good description.

And the A's shift to full-blown rebuilding mode. Hey, look who's going to Oakland! rotoworld: What, no Chris Young?

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) Would Baltimore want to trade for Uribe? Now that they have a bevy of young players coming over in the Tejada trade, would they be willing to part w/ minor league SS Bob Henson? It wouldn't improve the Sox this year, but it would add to our farm system and provide a potential SS, 2b, or leadoff hitter of the future. We won't get anything of value for Uribe, if we can trade him at all. No matter how many young players a team has. (And however many young players they got for Tejada, they didn't get many good ones.)

I still don't see why using HGH before it was on MLB's banned substances list is even an issue. I know it still breaks federal law (in some cases), but it's not MLB's business to go around enforcing federal laws.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) That makes sense when you take it in the context of the early "false report". ARod wasn't on that list, either.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) I'm committing to give a fair evaluation to any statements they give or evidence they bring forth. I will say this, I will believe a denial under oath vastly more than I will believe a denial to the press. But it all depends on the quality of the denial. If you have say, Clemens, under oath, and he is asked repeatedly about the statements or documents presented in the Mitchell Report, and all he says is "they never happened", that's not doing that much, and could possibly wind up with some nice perjury charges against him. If he made an attempt to make a case, under oath, that's something I'd be more than willing to evaluate. What if a player files a suit, but because there's absolutely no hard evidence either way, it never gets considered? Would you believe the player then? Saying players should sue, sue, sue, no matter how flimsy the case, just to prove themselves to you -- sorry, but that's goddam ridiculous.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 12:20 PM) All of the players could have responded to the investigators and said, "I did not say that" or "that did not happen". This report is not some author making things up. Everybody had the opportunity to defend themself and choose not to. What is the deal with Clemens trainer? Has he been busted for something I had never heard his name before. In the slander and libel case the person making the accusations has to prove his position. If McGwire sues Canseco, Canseco has to prove McGwire did steroids. Sure much if it can be hersay but if Canseco does prove his case what happens.......McGwire is proven in court to be a user. The question I have never seen asked of Bonds, "If you were unknowingly given steroids, why did you not sue the party that gave them to you and ruined your reputation?" same thing with Sheffield. The fact that individual players did not cooperate is neither here nor there. The evidence against many of them is still incredibly weak. McNamee is under investigation in the Radomski bust. Just because the statement is presumed false doesn't mean it is easy to show malice, which is also necessary.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) Like I said, even if you sue for defamation and lose, at least you're putting your money where your mouth is. That tells me something. I feel the same way about all these guys that claim "Oh it was just a tainted supplement" or "Oh it was a vitamin b-12 shot i got from Tejada". Fine. Go to court against the guy who you say wronged you. Even if your case is weak, at least present it. At least say something. Don't just sit there and say "Oh I never did anything" and expect me to believe you if you're not even willing to risk some legal fees on proving it. So are you committing to believe anyone who files a lawsuit?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) Well, fine. Now that they've been named, I want to see someone come out with a counter-case. Not just an "I didn't do it" in the press. They've been named and had evidence presented against them. They could, if they really had solid proof that they didn't do anything, still bring a suit against Mitchell. Or, they could bring a suit against Radomski. Or, they could simply counter Mitchell's report in the court of public opinion by producing evidence that the sales weren't for steroids, like actual doctor's receipts, or products purchased with those moneys that weren't steroids, etc. If a player truly believes he is innocent, there is a lot more that he can do than issue a simple denial. Heck, even if they brought a suit for Slander and lost, that's at least saying something; that's saying that they're willing to stand up and risk the money they've made by attempting to defend themself in this case. For now, I'm going to believe every single thing presented in the Mitchell report as anything factual until someone gives me something that I could say is equally concrete as counter-proof. "Equally concrete"? Some of the "evidence" is as concrete as water. Jack Cust -- Larry Bigbie recalls that Cust told him he had tried steroids. Do I trust that? Even if I did, In the pros? In high school? Wtf kind of "evidence" is that? Read the report, Balta. Many of the accusations are based on VERY weak "evidence". And, asking people to prove something didn't happen is just asking for the impossible, as you damn well know.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) The Jamie Kotsay picture was an interesting inspired choice. Better. Wow -- for such a goofy-looking guy, Peter Crouch did really, really...really...well.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:27 PM) Everyone knows that power rests with Vishnu. And we know where power comes from. That's right, Vishnu was a roider.