jackie hayes

Nobody's complaining about NE playing here. They've complained about NE going for it on 4th down up by 38 in the 4th quarter. So, Al and John, stop b****ing and defending NE against phantom attacks. I can't hate those two any more than I do now.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 09:23 PM) Did you seriously say this year. The Ravens offense hasn't been good EVER. Take it as understatement. They were adequate last year, they're bad this year. Although today they looked okay, at least after Boller settled in. The Baltimore o has worked with what it had, although it's never had any phenom talent like Moss. They used Jamal Lewis and Todd Heap well. Ogden's a HOFer, the line has usually been good (and Grubbs looks like a good pick, so far). Like the Bears, they've always emphasized the defense, so you can't expect too much. Unlike the Bears, they've at least hit on most of their first round offensive picks (Travis Taylor being the obvious exception -- may be joined by Mark Clayton soon, we'll see). Edit: And Boller, of course. So obvious, you just forget.

QUOTE(PAUL KONERKO 14 @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) Yea? Most metrics pegged him as an awful 3b this year. Not the worst, not as bad as Braun, but around the bottom of the list. His defense has never been praised. So to say there's "no doubt" he'll be above average and win GG awards -- is a stretch, at least.

QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) Baseball-reference.com has his full career statline. Check it out. They have UZR? Where?

Fassel was the oc in Baltimore (iirc, he wasn't initially, but when he couldn't find a hc job the next offseason, he was named oc). He was fired, he didn't really quit. Apparently he and Billick had a 'discussion' about who was really running the offense, and Billick decided to take control. Billick's an ego, yeah, but you didn't hear complaints from the Ravens players about the move. The Ravens offense isn't very good this year, but I think you can blame that more on the fact that McNair's past his expiration date.

Mostly I'm going by what I've seen. Checking the stats, the defensive stats that are 'better' aren't available back to Ventura's prime. But errors is a bad way to measure defense. Ventura had more errors, but he also typically had a lot more total chances than Crede. That's not luck. Better defenders get to more balls. TC/Inning over career at 3b: Ventura, .3281; Crede, .3142; Rolen, .3386. (Listing Rolen as a 'gold standard' of defensive 3b.) So Ventura got to about 4% more balls than Crede has, and committed an error about 1% more frequently than Crede on balls he gets to. Moreover, if you compare Ventura to his contemporaries, he had a much larger advantage than Crede. I don't have the data to look at this per inning, but using RF on a per game basis, Ventura had a 2.66 vs 2.29 for the league, Crede has a 2.59 vs 2.42 for the league, Rolen has a 2.84 vs 2.29 for the league. Crede's a great defender, and he did have an absolute monster of a year in 2006. But I wouldn't hesitate for a second in picking Ventura over Crede, just based on defense.

QUOTE(rockren @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) Didn't see Robin rob RBI-Double after RBI-Double in the World Series, no. Yeah, just like Jeter is the best defensive ss ever because he's sometimes made good plays in the WS. It's hardly disrespecting Crede to say he's no Ventura. Crede's been one of my favorite players because he can make some of the plays Robin regularly made. But between the two, it's no contest.

QUOTE(rockren @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) People should be happy about this. Look, I love Joe Crede as much as the next guy. I STILL believe he was our best player pre-September in '06. I'll go one further and say he's the best defensive 3rd Baseman I've ever seen. However, it doesn't make sense to keep Crede with one year on his deal coming off of back-surgery. If it were possible for us to re-sign him, fine. But it isn't with Boras negotiating any potential deal. Add in the fact that we have a young cheap prospect like Fields to cover the hot-corner and this move is a no-brainer. Why should we be happy with this news? Look at those teams- BoSox, Halos and Dodgers!?!?! Their 2nd Tier Prospects would become valued prospects in our farm system. Please tell me you didn't see much of Robin.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Curt Schilling's contract gets him an extra $2 million if he meats 6 different weigh-in goals during the year. Best diet plan in the country. I think I read that he asked for that clause, not the Sawks. Whatever else he is, he's interesting.

Really? Nobody has anything to say about Aubrey Huff's radio appearance? Warning: NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, really. But if you're still determined, go to deadspin.com, search for "huff", and click on the "Aubrey Huff Admires 'Works Of Art'" link. It's more or less porn. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad. Suit yrself.

I know it's not exactly the same. I just find it kinda funny that 'More homers!' has always been the panacea. And I agree with you, Balta -- as little as possible. I don't think the steroids scandal has really affected baseball in any way it cares about. The fans showed up after like they did before, whatever they say on the call-in shows.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 10:05 PM) The Commish can do whatever the hell he wants under the best interest of baseball clause. Doesn't mean that I consider it "cheating" or that it should be if it's not against baseball's rules. I wouldn't have banned the Black Sox; they probably would have been punished. But the game back then, and society, were so different. I dunno. Fans upset about cheating/strike? Well, let's give 'em a bunch of home runs! Just that now we've had so many homers for so long, it took something special to wow us again. What the hell will baseball do now, when home runs are the problem?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 10:02 PM) I think the remarkable thing about this is, at least based on my understanding, MLB has precedent for this as well. Before the 1919 World Series, firm rules for how gambling in baseball was to be treated were not established. But, when Landis was named commissioner, he took the job with the singular goal of cleaning up MLB. And he did so, most notably by banning the guys, despite the fact that as far as I understand it, there was no written rule outlawing their behavior, and on top of that, they were found innocent after a couple of their confessions disappeared. The Black Sox scandal to my eyes clearly sets precedent that a commish can punish people for actions against the law but not against the rules of baseball, because as far as I can tell, that was what was done. There is some grey area, sure. But I'd say one of the most basic rules of the game is that you have to be attempting to win. Wasn't that at least part of the on-the-field rules, something like, 'The objective of the game is to score more runs &c'? I wouldn't say the rules have to be "firm" -- something like that would be enough. And as GP said, you can always have some 'good of the game' clause. Dictatorship is a rule.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) But...as I keep pointing out...this question is moot. Because the game in fact did spell that out. ONe might be able to argue in some abstract sense that he wasn't breaking a rule of the game if Vincent had not sent around that policy memo, but he did, and so it was clearly in MLB's rules that you could not take an illegal substance, including anabolic steroids. I don't think GP is really arguing with you. He asked the question and got his answer. But I agree with him that it's a fair question. The issue is whether baseball has any right to punish a player for doing something that violates the law but not the rules of MLB. I'd say that would be an unfair punishment. Obviously the legal system can still punish him.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 05:48 PM) Wcsox, I disagree, the owners are responsible. The owners knew, and they should be held accountable. First Bonds has not been convicted of lying. I dont believe that he lied per the definition of perjury, but that is my opinion. The fact is the only reason you are compelled to testify at the Grand jury level is the secrecy of the proceeding. The fed gave Barry a big middle finger by compelling him to testify and then leaking the transcripts. Bonds could not use the 5th, that is why the whole process is a sham. They brought him in knowing only 2 things could happen: A) Bonds admits to using steroids, they leak it and destroy his career. B ) Bonds denies using steroids, they leak it, and destroy his career by going after him for perjury. He didnt have the Big mac option of going "I dont want to talk about the past". So lets call a spade a spade, it was a set up to destroy him. Bonds did the only thing he possibly could have done to try and save his baseball career, denying using steroids. If he admits, he never breaks the record, he never gets to play the last few years. Bonds never used steroids illegally. Ive already dispelled this myth, but according to the statute you need to "knowingly" possess or use. Bonds defense is he did not know what they were. Hence why the govt is not prosecuting him for using illegal drugs. It would be like prosecuting me for using a drug my Dr. proscribed and then it turned out to be LSD. I cant be convicted for unknowingly doing something. (Thats different than ignorance of the law by the way, ive already had do argue against that.) So at the end of the day Bonds had a catch-22. Perhaps tell the truth and never play baseball again. Deny the truth and live to fight another day. I guess I dont blame him for choosing the one he had a fighting chance. AGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP, STOP, STOP passing off stuff as truth IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE. Jesus f'n Christ... The Feds DID NOT leak the testimony. DID NOT. STOP SPREADING THIS BULLs***. It was a lawyer for BALCO, who pleaded guilty to doing so. And you don't know AT ALL if he knowingly used steroids. If you want to say there's no evidence, fine. But don't say, "Bonds never used steroids illegally." as if it were some fact that you actually know. "So lets call a spade a spade..." Now THAT'S some f***ing irony.

Astros trade for Oscar Villareal; rotoworld's take: Tee hee.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) What part of "I am not referring to the BALCO bunch" are you not understanding? I've said it several times now, and you have repeated it for me. It is what it is and nothing more. I replied to your post in general because you asked what should others be charged with. My mistake. It will not happen again. And no you did not say anything otherwise, and I did not say you did. I am pointing out that, if that's what you meant, your original post (replying to mine) was very misleading. You did not exclude the BALCO testifiers (you said you were "not even specifically referring to" those, which means something different than "not even referring to"), and my post was very specific about the group I was talking about (I even listed them). If you're just saying someone else should do something else -- fine. It's got nothing to do with my post, that's all.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) He's being gone after because he lied. Not because he used.. but because he lied about it. As I said a few minutes ago, I would love to see those who have tested positive outside of BALCO gone after. And by not going after them I do believe it will open the door to the race card being played - which I do NOT agree with, BTW. Did I say otherwise?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) I'm not quite sure what everyone expects the rest to be charged with. The SF Chron story stated that the following players were questioned: Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Armando Rios, Benito Santiago, Bobby Estalella, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Sheffield and Bonds were the only ones who denied knowingly using steroids. Bonds was charged because there are BALCO records that contradict his testimony. Sheffield probably did perjure himself, but his relationship to Bonds & Anderson seems to have been more informal and fleeting, so there probably isn't much documentation that can be used to charge him. So what should the others be charged with? QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Use of an illegal substance? And I'm not even specifically referring to the BALCO bunch. Raffy wasn't part of that crew. And neither are any of the others that have tested positive in the past 4 years. QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) Umm.. yes. I understand that. Which is why I am directing my comments, specifically stating so, of going after those NOT involved with BALCO. Umm...no. You said you weren't "specifically referring to the BALCO bunch" -- that doesn't exclude them, it just means, not restricted to those. If you meant to exclude them entirely, then I don't see why you were replying to my post, which very clearly dealt with ONLY those testifying in the BALCO case.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:26 PM) Read my post, number 69 in this thread. Should they just go after the BIG NAMES? No, but it still sends a message that reverberates through the sports community when they can catch a big fish. I'm not arguing whether they should or not. I'm only talking about what they actually are doing. And I've seen nothing to suggest that Bonds is being targeted because he's visible. They're going after someone nobody remembers (Thomas) and a well-liked Olympic star (Jones). It looks like they're going after anyone who gives them a good case.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) As i said, my apologies are extended. However, I do believe that his visibility is part of the equation. Then why go after Tammy Thomas? Do you know of anyone they are not charging, who said he/she didn't take steroids, against whom they seem to have good evidence?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) They most likely didn't go after Palmeiro because they don't have a positive sample obtained BEFORE he testified under oath. And McGwire stonewalled them, so he didn't even have an opportunity to commit perjury. That's apparently right. He testified on March 17, tested positive on May 4. Congress did look into charging him, but decided against it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) I ceratinly don't think she implied she was seeing some conspiracy. She was saying that the race card would be played, as it always seems to be. Steff said nothing that could be considered silly. If I am misreading you, I apologize. I never said I was referring to something Steff said. But there are multiple posts within the thread that make it sound like the feds 'are out to get Bonds', or that he's being charged just because of visibility. Those are what I am referring to.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Use of an illegal substance? And I'm not even specifically referring to the BALCO bunch. Raffy wasn't part of that crew. And neither are any of the others that have tested positive in the past 4 years. Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt. They've gone after Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, and Barry Bonds. Seeing some grand conspiracy in all this is pretty silly.

I'm not quite sure what everyone expects the rest to be charged with. The SF Chron story stated that the following players were questioned: Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Armando Rios, Benito Santiago, Bobby Estalella, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Sheffield and Bonds were the only ones who denied knowingly using steroids. Bonds was charged because there are BALCO records that contradict his testimony. Sheffield probably did perjure himself, but his relationship to Bonds & Anderson seems to have been more informal and fleeting, so there probably isn't much documentation that can be used to charge him. So what should the others be charged with?