Balta1701

Thank you MLB for at least making this effort.

Reynolds says 39 of the 75 players on that list we saw earlier are not true.

Hey, MLB.com has Harold Reynolds on video.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:49 AM) What do you think was going on with the White Sox when they signed Canseco? Clearly they has to know what he was on. Schoenweiss had stuff delivered to the clubhouse too. Are JR and KW just as guilty as everyone else? I think the Canseco one was clearly a mistake. Schoenweis, I don't know. But we really should make sure to insert a question about that at Soxfest. An answer to that question is something we should get...what did they know about that.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) Again, how confident would you have to be? If some guy with no evidence made a claim that could be neither confirmed nor refuted, should a voter support the candidacy or not (assuming he would on the strength of the player's career)? If some guy with no evidence made a claim and no one refuted it, I'd probably be inclined to believe him just on the grounds that no one spoke up about it. But that would depend on a deeper evaluation; who is the guy making the claim, how credible is he, can he be believed, how would he have come by any information he is giving (i.e. might he actually know something or is he just guessing.) what do my eyes say about the numbers of the person in question, etc. Without an exact scenario it's hard to give you a perfect answer because when you get close to whatever dividing line I'd draw, the answer can become muddled, and you do the best you can with the evidence you have. I'll give you an example. If Canseco said Giambi used but didn't back it up at all (and that was the only information I had), I might believe him because they were teammates. If Canseco said Sosa used, and that was all the info I had (and I didn't see Sosa's body type change, etc.), I might not believe him, because Canseco isn't the most credible source and he wasn't a teammate of Sosa so all he'd have would be hearsay and the same logic I had.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) No, that's just a way of avoiding the real issues involved. You said that YOU hoped the voters would exclude everyone but those they strongly believed did not use steroids. You did not say that you hoped the voters would do whatever they wanted to do. So I'm asking, what standard do YOU believe they should use? Probability is SUBJECTIVE -- no need for computers in this. I believe they should follow whatever standard they believe in. The standard I would personally follow? If a guy had been linked to steroids in some fashion, whether it be a criminal case, the Mitchell Report, a book, whatever, I would take that as evidence and expect the player to have some sort of counter-point to it otherwise I'd believe it. Not sure if I'd trust it if the only book linking a player was the Canseco book, but that would be my thought process. If there's an accusation out there, I want to know about it, what evidence they presented, and what counterpoint the player had made. If the player did like Palmeiro, fluttered around and eventually blamed Tejada, I wouldn't buy it one bit. If the player was accused by a newspaper that presented no evidence and the player fired back hard and that's the only thing we ever heard of it, that's a situation where I might be inclined to believe the player, but I would usually side with anyone who gives a shred of actual evidence.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) According to SI Tejada, Clemens and Pettitte will all be named along with Brian Roberts, Mike Stanton, Jason Grimsley and Chuck Knoblauch. And David Justice. Man, I always liked him. F***er.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) But then more data emerges saying that player X, who was voted in already, used steroids. Can't take him out, and now how do you justify the rest not being in? What is the threshold level of belief to justify excluding someone, anyway? Do you not vote for someone because you believe there is a 75% chance he used? 50%? 25%? 5%? I think there's some benefit in the way the HOF system is constructed here...because they're humans. Humans have the ability to judge things based on the information they have, which is not always complete. If you're trying to construct an algorithm to feed to a computer to determine who goes in and who doesn't, then you can't do it; you need all these arbitrary dividing lines that you're trying to draw. But since the voters are humans, let them decide what they'll use to allow people in and out. People have a habit of being pretty smart sometimes if you let them be.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:00 AM) Anyone know what his back problem was or what type of surgery he had? I'm not familiar with what happened. Link

QUOTE(SpringfieldFan @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) You know, as I think about the potential fallout from all this, I wonder if the owners could legally revoke the contracts of some of their players on the grounds the players misreprented themselves and their value, especially given how it will drop in the wake of these events. Also, can we fans sue for ticket reimbursement because we were never getting the product we thought we were getting. Thoughts? SFF If any owner was smart enough after 2002-2003 to start writing a clause into a contract that would allow termination for steroid use, perhaps. But think about Giambi...the Yankees had him with his body falling apart and they still never made a move to get out of that contract. If the Yankees didn't move on that, then I'm pretty sure there's a legal reason why they didn't.

QUOTE(chiguy79 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) what amazes me is that MLB gets stuck with the rap. Does anyone believe that 90% of NFL players aren't on HGH..or does no one care? Until they all start dropping dead or there's a test that actually works for HGH, no one seems to care. I think part of that is that it's more accepted in football, and part of it is that the records in baseball, in particular the ones that tetrahydrogestrinone, andro, and Sosa smashed are vastly more hallowed than any record in the NFL I can think of aside from the undefeated season number.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) Most people have to do this to make minimum wage. BTW, the Score had on a law professor from Northwestern who was already questioning the sources and "evidence." I don't know if he was being totally serious, but it made me think about what these players are going to say when questioned. That's what they'll say, but it doesn't matter. The Commish has, if he's desperate, his "best interests of baseball" dictatorial power. He can suspend these guys all he wants and even an arbitrator will have to rule in favor of that. And just putting their names out there as a McCarthy-like list will do more to fix the future than anything. These guys suddenly will have their values go through the floor and have their HOF candidacies ruined. Would you pay Clemens $1 million a start if his name is on that list?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era. Hopefully, 30% or so of the HOF voters will be angry enough that this will be exactly what they do with anyone accused. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. May wind up as the only 2 big bats going into the HOF from this entire era. And I for one wouldn't complain at all. Just think what their numbers might have been had they not been facing juiced up pitching while they were clean.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) I see no reason why you don't do it, especially for a team who could be out of things by June/July (I know Kenny doesn't want to think that but it is a possibility) and at that point they'd likely be selling vets anyway and that alone would open up a spot for McPherson. The one possible hangup is that there are teams out there who could give him a shot as at least a platoon or as even a full time starting 3b. For him, the Sox might offer more money, but another team offering him a starting spot right away, or even a platoon spot right away, would be a lot more appealing, as he'd get the chance to restart his career right away and try to build up the numbers that would make him a pile of money as a FA.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:39 AM) Eh... What kind of damages could someone claim would result from releasing names a mere two hours before they're set to be released, anyway? This sounds like legitimate confusion. It's the MLB Commish's office. It doesn't have to be legal action as much as the commish being able to come down hard on a leaker. I think the list is probably legit. The Commish's office had the report yesterday, which means all the teams probably had copies yesterday, which means we went from a group of probably 20 people to a group of hundreds to maybe thousands of people who had the list overnight. It's not surprising at all that one of them leaked it.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) I hope more big names are added. Nothing besides Pujols makes me go awe. I mean, Pettite kind of surprises me, but the rest is a list that a casual fan wouldn't care about. Just because you may not be surprised by guys like Tejada or Vaughn or Clemens or Damon or Gagne showing up doesn't mean that they're not important. There are some major MVP's and record holders in that list, and other key guys for big time teams like Captain Varitek.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:22 AM) He's not good defensively but if he gets healthy he can slug 30-40 HR's (I still believe that). I'd be all over signing him and having him as a backup plan for if Fields goes (plus you could ocassionally DH him and play him at 1st). If the team though his back could recover from the surgery, I'd certainly be happy with him taking that last spot on our 40 man. But I can imagine he'll probably want a place where he has a chance to start, and he might well get it. Let's say he has a 10% chance of a full recovery to where he was his last year in the minors...that gives us a 10% chance of having a replacement for Thome next year. That's the kind of gamble the Sox should be taking to get out of this hole quickly.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) Nah, not a fan of Donnelly. Just think of how many balls would wind up plunking AJ during the year.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) Not so fast. A previous report by WNBC naming many prominent MLB players, including Albert Pujols and Roger Clemens, has been disputed by an MLB official who has seen the Mitchell Report. Rumors have been flying all morning about the potential names that will be released, though nothing has been verified. While WNBC's reported list seems plausible, it is likely we won't know the true identities until the report is officially released I'm sure that there was some legal action threatened if that statement wasn't put out.

And somehow Kobe Bryant is the only male pictured...

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) Again, if a player's name does not show up, it doesn't mean he hasn't used steroids. It just means he hasn't used Radomski to get steroids. I really wouldn't be surprised if the Mitchell report, if it's producing these kinds of names, doesn't go well beyond Radomski.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 11:55 PM) If we can land Roberts and than someone like Hamilton/Patterson I will actually be kind of optimistic going into next year. But right now, I still think our offense is lacking. Our offense will be lacking even more if we trade Richar for Robers and have to play Ozuna or Uribe at 2nd base while Roberts serves his steroid suspension and deflates.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:16 AM) There is an argument that well, they were hall of famers before before staroids, so they still deserve to go in. Well, Pete Rose isnt in the hall. While they are different situations, as a PLAYER Pete Rose is a LOCK for the hall of fame. The problem with that line of thinking is, how exactly do we know when a person started juicing? Palmeiro may well have started in the early 90's when Canseco joined the Rangers and his numbers exploded. IRoid may have done the same thing. Yeah, it's possible Bonds didn't start until late in his career, but how do you know when a person started juicing? I'll give you an example, say by some miracle Jason Giambi came back and hit 600 home runs for his career, started hitting 40 again this season and won another MVP award or two. When do you say he started juicing? He's been playing baseball for 15 years now. Do you count the first 300 of his home runs? The last 300? I say, if they are accused and named somehow, then if they want in the HOF, then the burden of proof is on them to provide documentation or tests to prove exactly what they did. And it wouldn't hurt if they named other names.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:14 AM) Looking good, maybe. Doesn't mean we're clean, though. I really did have a feeling the Sox would come out of this looking ok, if for no other reason than the fact that even a juicer would be scared to shoot up around Frank. It'd have been really nice if our WS team had been 100% clean though.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:03 AM) How good is his defense at 3rd? It's bad enough that if he doesn't hit his 35+ home runs he's pretty useless. He is a poor defender. Not Ryan Braun bad, but bad enough.