Redsox Fans and their Inferiority complex

Romanista


http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/mb?sport=mlb&id=bos&tid=2157239&lid=16


"Hank is crazy I've never seen an owner make so many public comments. I think I be aggrivated if John Henry was opening his mouth to the Herald everyday ranting about trading for baseball players. I feel bad for Yankees fans the only people Hank is good for is the media."

You probably weren't a baseball fan in the 80s/90s if you say you've never seen an owner do this, because George was just as big a loud mouth as Hank is.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but under the George Era (around 3 decades) we won 6 World Series (one less than you've won throughout your history), 10 AL Pennants (two less than you've won throughout the past century), 15 AL East titles (More than double the titles you've won), 3 Wild Card Berths, which (in our more recent history) meant that we've been to the post season 13 times consecutively (which you obviously haven't come anywhere near achieving)
Say what you want about Hank talking too much (I personally hate it, I wouldn't mind if he shut up a little) but George did the exact same thing and it proved to be far more successful than the Boston strategy.



"And our ownership team doesn't have a loudmouth that is as embarrassing as a drunk uncle at a wedding."

Yes our ownership leading us to dominating baseball over the years has been VERY embarassing.

You guys just won a World Series, and you claim that you're a dynasty now. Why do you still care so much about us?

If I had just won the WS a few months ago I wouldn't really care about any other team, I'd be happy with my own.

Or do you guys feel threatened?

Seriously I come in here to read the latest about the Red Sox because I'm a fan of baseball and I like to know about my competition. However every single time I come on here I find something bad about the Yankees.

Get over it already, you're the reigning world champions. Why do you care if we're arrogant or if our owner talks too much or if our 3rd baseman is a greedy diva?
Are those YOUR problems to deal with?
No, they're ours.
That's like us being pissed off that Papelbon fed the game-winning ball to his dog. We couldn't give less of a sh_t about it because it's an embarassment to your team, not ours.

So if our team is an embarassment (which it isn't) then why do YOU care?
If we're making mistakes then why do YOU care?
Wouldn't that mean that your team will continue winning if we start to mess up?

Get over your inferiority complex already, it's getting old.

SoSH Member
Group Icon

Posts: 10,494





QUOTE(billy ashley @ Jan 3 2008, 02:46 AM) *
It’s amazing how stacked both New York and Boston are considering both had such weak systems not so long ago. The fact that both NY and Boston can both be argued as 2 of the top 5 minor league organizations has to make other teams really uncomfortable. Especially considering Hughes, Pedroia, Melky Cabrera and Manny Del Carmen have all graduated with in the past two years. The next decade should be a lot of fun.


The big change was after the better part of a decade of ignoring the draft, the Yankees finally decided to spend money there about 3 years ago, and it has made a huge change in their success,

Chamberlain, Jackson, Horne, Brackman are all big time bonus babies who charged a real premium to sign. Even Kennedy to a lesser degree. All guys who would not have been drafted 5 years ago
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
Hello
Rating: 1
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 3 2008, 06:49 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Posts: 532





Instead of starting a new thread, I'll just post it here. In November, Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus did his Yankee top 11 list.

LINK

Five-Star Prospects
1. Joba Chamberlain, RHP
Four-Star Prospects
2. Ian Kennedy, RHP
3. Austin Jackson, OF
4. Jose Tabata, OF
5. Alan Horne, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
6. Dellin Betances, RHP
7. Jesus Montero, C
8. Andrew Brackman, RHP
9. Edwar Ramirez, RHP
10. Kelvin DeLeon, OF
Two-Star Prospects
11. Humberto Sanchez, RHP

Just Missing: Frank Cervelli, C; Jeff Marquez, RHP; Ross Ohlendorf, RHP; Brad Suttle, 3B
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 4 2008, 11:32 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Posts: 12





Chaimberlain isn't a prospect. He has already arrived. And why isn't Ohlendorf on Goldstein's list?

These lists undervalue Betances and Sanchez. Both of those guys are outstanding prospects if they can overcome their medical issues.
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
Razor Shines
Rating: 4
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 4 2008, 11:49 AM
Post #7


SoSH Member
Group Icon

Posts: 1,505
From: Winter Hill





QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Jan 4 2008, 11:32 AM) *
Chaimberlain isn't a prospect. He has already arrived. And why isn't Ohlendorf on Goldstein's list?

He's still rookie eligible, which makes him a prospect, according to the criteria of most of these published lists.


--------------------
The House That Dewey Built: http://www.deweyshouse.com
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
Munson's 'Stash
Rating: 4
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 5 2008, 03:18 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Posts: 23
From: New York City





QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Jan 4 2008, 11:32 AM) *
And why isn't Ohlendorf on Goldstein's list? These lists undervalue Betances and Sanchez. Both of those guys are outstanding prospects if they can overcome their medical issues.


These lists are taking their medical problems into account. The players will have to overcome them rather than having them discounted and wished away based on their upside.


--------------------
"And, they wonder why I don't respond." ~ Hughes2.50
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
Wingack
Rating: 3
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 5 2008, 04:54 PM
Post #9


SoSH Member
Group Icon

Posts: 1,743
From: Wirecity





QUOTE(Munson @ Jan 5 2008, 03:18 PM) *
These lists are taking their medical problems into account. The players will have to overcome them rather than having them discounted and wished away based on their upside.



Yet Brackman is still on the lists.
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
Munson's 'Stash
Rating: 4
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 5 2008, 07:36 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Posts: 23
From: New York City





Don't get me started on Brackman. I'm chalking him up as another winner of BA's "Congratulations, you were just drafted! Welcome to the Top 10!" award. I think Betances won that last year...

Although the more I think about it, the more I agree with Curmudgeon. Sanchez should have made this list.


--------------------
"And, they wonder why I don't respond." ~ Hughes2.50
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
RollingWave
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts

post Today, 09:11 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

Posts: 43





These lists are usually a crap shoot after the top part anyway. it's always a mix of guys who might be awsome but shown little (or nothing ) or guys that showed something but dont' look like he's going to be much .. and a lot of inbetweens.

I usually dont' like to rate guys with little to no performance above rookie ball anywhere high.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280106027

After Tampa Bay jumped out to the early lead, the Giants' base 4-3 defensive scheme became more aggressive with a zone pressure package to force Bucs QB Jeff Garcia into some uncharacteristic errant throws and turnovers. On offense, the Giants took control of the game with a power-zone running attack, led by the one-two punch of Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw. They simply wore down the undersized 4-3 defensive front of the Tampa Bay defense and enabled New York to dictate the tempo. It was also a very good day for QB Eli Manning. After a slow start, Manning was sharp, completing high-percentage throws, moving the chains and, most importantly, not making any game-changing mistakes or poor decisions.
-- Ken Moll, Scouts Inc.

· Complete Week 1 Scouts Buzz

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3184697&name=olney_buster

posted: Monday, January 7, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: MLB

Roger Clemens filed a defamation suit against Brian McNamee, writes Mary Flood and David Barron, just before "60 Minutes" aired in Houston.

But that won't change this fact: Roger Clemens' name is in the Mitchell report.

Clemens denied the charges on his Web site. He denied the charges in his interview with Mike Wallace. He presumably will again deny any steroid use when he meets with reporters Monday afternoon.

But that won't change this fact: His name is printed in the Mitchell report, forever.

Clemens presumably will go to Washington next week and testify before Congress, because to not accept the invitation to testify, at this point, would be tantamount, in the court of public opinion, to admitting guilt. Under oath, he presumably will testify that what McNamee said is completely false.

But that won't change this fact: His name is part of the Mitchell report, for ever and ever.

You assume that Clemens will follow up and take every opportunity to say, again and again, that he did not use steroids. The defamation suit presumably will require him to sit through depositions, to answer questions from McNamee's lawyers as part of discovery. Perhaps a jury will decide, in the end, that it believes Clemens and give him a victory in a defamation suit.

That won't change this fact: His name is part of the Mitchell report.

Clemens said something at the end of his "60 Minutes" interview that resonated: He will do everything he can to prove the charges are wrong, and that may still not be enough.

And Clemens is probably right. There is nothing that he can say or do that can change the reality that his name is in the Mitchell report, and his reputation is damaged forever. But he has chosen to fight the accusations, in a battle that he probably can never achieve complete success, and the stakes will continue to go up, day by day.

Brian McNamee's attorney thought Clemens was unbelievable in his interview, writes Wallace Matthews. Dave Krieger thought Clemens and Mike Wallace failed to deliver.

• A recurring question is why Clemens or any other player named in the report simply didn't come forward and meet with Mitchell investigators, once they were asked to do so. Part of the reason was uncertainty about what they were going to be asked, and uncertainty about what George Mitchell's version of due process was going to be.

Two days before the Mitchell report was released, a veteran agent described the concern: "Imagine if you got a summons to appear in court next Tuesday, but nobody would tell you why. Nobody would tell you what the charges are, nobody will tell you anything about the evidence being presented, and nobody will tell you who the witnesses are. When you have a case in court, there is a time of discovery so you can prepare a case. There was nothing like that, in any way, with the Mitchell people."

And Clemens indicated in the "60 Minutes" interview, in a roundabout way, that this was his experience. His agent told the Houston Chronicle, during the player's first interview with a newspaper, that Clemens was informed by Mitchell investigators only that they wanted to ask him about incidents in 1998, 2000 and 2001. Yes, he had been contacted by the Mitchell investigators, but he apparently never learned anything about Brian McNamee's cooperation with investigators until the day the report came out. For all Clemens knew, the Mitchell investigators wanted to ask him about the Los Angeles Times report that proved to be erroneous, or about what Jose Canseco wrote in his book regarding Clemens. If, in fact, Clemens was never informed along he way that Brian McNamee had alleged he had injected the pitcher with steroids, that is appalling.

Even if Clemens had met with Mitchell investigators and issued the same flat denials that he gave to Mike Wallace, there is no guarantee he would have escaped the Mitchell report. There are examples of players within the report who denied what was alleged by former Mets batboy Kirk Radomski, and yet they are still mentioned within the report.

We cannot be naïve; it may well be that everyone named within the report is guilty. But as a model for due process, the way the Mitchell investigation was conducted was horrific, something better suited for former Senator Joseph McCarthy than former Senator George Mitchell.

• Clemens now needs to tell the same story to Congress that he told to Mike Wallace, writes Mike Lupica. George Vecsey found Clemens to be unconvincing.

Richard Justice explains why Clemens is not getting the benefit of the doubt. Clemens failed to make his case, writes Phil Rogers. Dan Shaughnessy thinks Clemens looked dirty. Clemens' denials left us hanging, writes Peter Schmuck.

Within this piece, Mike Boddicker says he's seen Clemens injected with vitamin B-12.

PED Free Zone
• Brian Cashman says his job has changed, now that Hank and Hal Steinbrenner have taken over the Yankees, as Howard Ulman writes.

• Matt Capps and the Pirates are talking about a long-term deal, writes Dejan Kovacevic. Pirates pitching coach Jeff Andrews is beginning to prepare his staff.

• The Rangers finished their deal with Ben Broussard.

• The Rays are asking for ideas on how to augment their proposed ballpark. Tampa Bay signed a veteran backup catcher, writes Marc Topkin.

• Matt Clement tells Joe Strauss he's in a cool situation, in St. Louis.

• Cameron Maybin had an incredible 2007 season, as Keith Jarrett writes.

• Oakland players are wondering: OK, who's going to be the next player to be traded?

• The Marlins signed Jorge Cantu.

• The Rockies signed Josh Towers.

• Years of Hall of Fame snubs have hurt Andre Dawson, writes Dan Le Batard. Jim Rice belongs in the Hall, writes Tony Massarotti.

• Vanderbilt will open an athletics' Hall of Fame, and the first class will include 10 to 15.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5432700.html

You indignantly wondered why you haven't been given the benefit of the doubt. OK, Roger, we'll go over it one more time.

Your trainer of 10 years, a man named Brian McNamee, a man with zero incentive to lie, says he injected you with steroids and human growth hormone at least 16 times over a period of several years.

Your training partner and closest friend in baseball, Andy Pettitte, has acknowledged that McNamee injected him with human growth hormone. Even those of us who want to believe you are having a hard time getting our minds around the notion that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettitte and lie about Roger Clemens.

You allowed McNamee's side of the story to go unchallenged for far too long. You looked guilty by doing that even if you weren't guilty.

Your explanation that McNamee had injected you with lidocaine makes no sense. Where did you obtain lidocaine? It's only effective if injected directly into the joints, and it's highly unlikely a trainer would even attempt to give that kind of shot.

Then again, maybe you should have kept your mouth shut. This story is spinning out of control, to something far more serious than an aging ballplayer bending the rules to extend his career.

Next up: Novitzky
Now Congress wants you to tell your story under oath. Even worse, Newsday is reporting that IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky is interested in you.

Novitzky is the guy who investigated Barry Bonds and Marion Jones. He's a pit bull of an investigator and about the last person on earth you want looking into your business.

All that said, you did a nice job in that interview with Mike Wallace that aired Sunday night on 60 Minutes.

Considering how you followed a hit man, you had it easy. OK, bad joke.

This is the interview you should have done 15 minutes after the Mitchell Report was released. You were forceful and angry and believable.

If someone had been on the fence at the beginning of the interview, you might have persuaded them to believe you. Why did you wait so long? Your reputation was irreparably harmed by your silence.

Wallace asked the basic questions, and you stumbled only when asked about the lie-detector test. You seemed ready to agree to one, then said something about it not changing anyone's mind.

You told the Chronicle in an interview Sunday that you want to tell your story under oath before Congress.

Wallace didn't know enough to ask specifics about lidocaine. Nor did he press you on Pettitte.

That's a tough one. You and Pettitte spent hours training with one another. To think Pettitte would have taken such a significant step without you knowing is a stretch.

Those are questions you should be prepared for at this afternoon's news conference.

You and McNamee reportedly had a long telephone conversation Friday night. That chat will come up today as well.

But you did fine. Your answers didn't sound rehearsed, and considering that it might always be your word against his, you did the best you could, all things considered.

"It never happened."

"Never happened."

"I've trained hard my entire career."

"It didn't happen."

"Why didn't I keep doing it if it was so good for me? It's a quick fix. I don't believe in it."

"I was shocked. I was angry. I had a lot of emotions."

"I think the people that know me believe me and understand what I'm about."

Good name is gone
Here's hoping the people closest to you still believe in you. One of the things you told Wallace that sounded so sad is how you understand your good name is gone forever.

For 25 years, you were as respected as any player in the game. You were an amazing competitor and a good teammate. You were the best for a long list of reasons.

Maybe those teammates understand why you might have done what McNamee says you did. Baseball's owners and your union put players in a tough ethical quandary because they seemed to look the other way as steroid use soared.

Players would show up at spring training and lose their jobs to guys who had added 20 pounds of muscle. At the time McNamee says he first injected you with steroids, you looked like a guy facing the end of the road.

If McNamee is to be believed, you did what a lot of us would have done. Now you're fighting a battle you might not be able to win. During games, you were at your best when things looked hopeless. You worked hitters, umpires, crowds. You almost always found a way. You haven't shown the same kind of doggedness this time. You want the benefit of the doubt, but you haven't behaved like someone who deserves it.

"Twenty-four, 25 years, Mike," you said on television Sunday. "You'd think I'd get an inch of respect. An inch."

You'd think.

richard.justice@chron.com

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/07/Rays/Ex_Ray_Difelice_to_ba.shtml


An original Ray is coming back.

Catcher Mike Difelice, a Ray from 1998-2001, agreed to terms on a minor-league contract with an invitation to spring training and the opportunity to compete for a backup job.

"I've been with the Rays," he said Sunday. "I know where they're trying to get to. I wanted to be part of it and I still want to be."

Difelice, 38, spent most of the past three seasons with the Mets' Triple-A team, playing just 42 games in the big leagues, and only 17 the year before that with the Tigers and Cubs. His last full major-league season was 2003.

Difelice had offers with the Mets and other teams but said the opportunity for a major-league job as well as the chance to return to the Rays and play near his Palm Harbor home led him to take their offer.

"There were a lot of factors," he said. "I wanted the opportunity to compete."

The Rays have three catchers on their 40-man roster, starter Dioner Navarro and prospects Shawn Riggans and John Jaso, but little experience after letting Josh Paul and Raul Casanova go, though Paul could return.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/SPORTS0104/801060343/1004/SPORTS

BOSTON -- New York Yankees general manager Brian Cashman is focused on this season, not his job status.

With one year left on his contract and senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner leaning toward pursuing a trade for Minnesota ace Johan Santana, Cashman said Saturday he's not thinking about what he'll do when his deal runs out.

"Because of all the work that gets involved with doing the job, it kind of prevents me from really looking ahead past this year," he said. "I'm just doing everything I possibly can to assist the transition with the new manager, the new owners, with the involvement now with the Steinbrenner sons. And then the rest will take care of itself at another time."

Advertisement

New York and the Boston Red Sox talked with Minnesota during last month's winter meetings in Nashville, Tenn., about Santana, who can become a free agent after the 2008 season. The two-time Cy Young Award winner remains with the Twins and "right now, all's quiet," Cashman said.

Asked if he thought Santana would start the season with Minnesota, Boston general manager Theo Epstein said, "I have a hard enough time keeping track of our own players."

The Red Sox have made no significant player changes since winning their second World Series title in four seasons.

Epstein, Cashman, Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi, agent Scott Boras and Red Sox senior baseball operations adviser Bill James answered questions Saturday at a fundraiser for the Foundation To Be Named Later started by Epstein and his brother, Paul. About 300 fans attended the two-hour session at Fenway Park.

The Yankees won four World Series from 1996-2000, then lost in 2001 to Arizona. After that, their emphasis shifted to obtaining proven veterans, Cashman said. Some, like pitcher Kevin Brown, were past their prime.

"We got away from some of the core principles of our business operation, which is we just started going all veteran-oriented," Cashman said. "We had a chance to really go into an abyss" early in the 2005 season.

Cashman almost left the Yankees when his contract expired after that year. But when he was given full control over baseball operations, allowing him to emphasize his preference for developing young players, he signed a three-year contract.

That gave him one more year than manager Joe Torre. After last season, when Torre left for the Los Angeles Dodgers and was replaced by Joe Girardi, and owner George Steinbrenner's sons, Hank and Hal, became more involved, Cashman is headed into a season of transition.

"Things have changed here in the third year," Cashman said. "I'm learning as I go along, too. But it is different. But one thing is that I've been with this family, the Steinbrenner family, for well over 20 years. So I'm focused fully on doing everything I possibly can to assist them in their emergence now as decision makers."

Hank Steinbrenner said Friday in Tampa, Fla., that some people in the Yankees organization are leaning against trying to trade for Santana, a deal that likely would cost them right-hander Phil Hughes, center fielder Melky Cabrera and another promising youngster. Steinbrenner said the final decision will made by ownership, but Cashman's opinion is significant.

"He is the general manager, and he has the right to talk me out of it and he has talked me out of some things," Steinbrenner said.

Cashman also said Saturday that "it's difficult" to see former Yankees pitcher Roger Clemens among five people asked Friday to testify before a House panel looking into the Mitchell Report on drugs in baseball. Clemens' former trainer, Brian McNamee, said in the Mitchell Report that he injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 when Clemens was with Toronto and with steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001 while with New York. Clemens has denied the allegations.

"Hopefully, at the end of the day, everybody involved will allow us to get to a higher playing field for everybody," Cashman said. "Clearly, what this game is going through right now, and you read about it, it's obviously disheartening."

Epstein steered away from commenting on the Mitchell Report.

"That's not what I'm thinking about right now," he said. "I'm thinking about spring training, five, six weeks away, getting back out on the field where the game is played and enjoyed. And our fans have a lot to look forward to

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-sprogerside0107,0,3258803.story

Roger Clemens may have done himself one bit of good in his "60 Minutes" interview last night. A lawyer for Brian McNamee, Clemens' accuser, says it is less likely that McNamee will bring a lawsuit against Clemens for defamation.

"If what the defendant says is not believable, then in a legal sense, it is hard to show damages," Emery said. "And nothing Clemens said [last night] was believable. I can't imagine how any lawyer would allow his client to go on '60 Minutes' and lie like that. This interview is going to cause him no end of troubles."

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3184697&name=olney_buster
One thing Clemens can't change

But that won't change this fact: His name is printed in the Mitchell report, forever.


You assume that Clemens will follow up and take every opportunity to say, again and again, that he did not use steroids. The defamation suit presumably will require him to sit through depositions, to answer questions from McNamee's lawyers as part of discovery. Perhaps a jury will decide, in the end, that it believes Clemens and give him a victory in a defamation suit.

That won't change this fact: His name is part of the Mitchell report.

We cannot be naïve; it may well be that everyone named within the report is guilty. But as a model for due process, the way the Mitchell investigation was conducted was horrific, something better suited for former Senator Joseph McCarthy than former Senator George Mitchell.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

A few interesting tidbits came about via the Hot Stove, Cool Music charitable event on Saturday. The Boston Herald's Rob Bradford has the details.

* Brian Cashman admitted that he lost some power when the Hank and Hal regime took over. He no longer has full authority to run everything, a sticking point when he signed on several years ago. It would not be shocking to see Cashman move on when his term ends after the 2008 season. He's finishing up a three-year, $5.4MM deal.
* For what it's worth, Theo Epstein seemed to indicate that the dragging Johan Santana talks are not holding up other moves for the Red Sox. But really it's hard to believe that Coco Crisp's situation hasn't been delayed. Boston already lost the White Sox as a suitor, most likely.
* During Spring Training, Scott Boras plans to begin contract extension talks with the Red Sox for Jason Varitek. Here's a look at other free agent backstops the Sox could consider after the '08 season. Kenji Johjima could be an interesting signing.

A point was made on another site that Kei Igawa has entered the discussions as the 4th player in a Johan deal from the Yankees.

At first glance, this would be a throw-away news story... who in their right mind would be interested in Kei Igawa?

and we all know that Kei Igawa was horrendous in NY last year; but he could be at least a serviceable 4/5 starter for most teams around the league.

But, what got my attention, was that Minnesota would be interested in taking Igawa and his salary. Even though his posting fee was upwards of $25 million, he is only getting a base salary around $5 per season.

Cashman and Hal Steinbrenner have reportedly said they are very hesitant to take on Johan's expected contract if they can not move any salary from the current roster. But, if the Twins agreed to take on Igawa's salary, now you're starting to find a compromise between the Twins and Yankees, as well as between Cashman and Hal with Hank Steinbrenner and others in the organization.

this would signal to me that the Twins think Hughes is the prime prospect to get back, not Lester or Ellsbury or some crazy 6-for-1 package with Gomez, FMart and Mulvey. If the Twins agree to take on some salary in return, they are ultimately guaranteeing the player they want in return.

maybe looking into this too much? probably... but its at least a new thought to throw out there...

Posted by: TurnTwo | January 07, 2008 at 07:58 AM

I think Cashman would be a great GM for a smaller market team. The guy drafts amazingly well and without owners telling him what and what not to do I think he'd do well.

Posted by: Dev0 | January 07, 2008 at 08:03 AM

"The guy drafts amazingly well..."

Aaaaah the ignorance. For all you know, Cashman has nothing to do with the draft.

Baseball fans might be the dumbest group of people on earth.

Posted by: bsox21 | January 07, 2008 at 08:17 AM

It is much easier to draft well when you have the Ca$h to sign players other teams want, but alas cannot afford. That being said, I think Ca$hman has done a nice job. I can't believe you think that he has nothing to do with the players the Yankees draft bsox21. He's the GM of the team and I'm pretty sure he has a vested interest in who the Yankees take in the draft.

Posted by: grandmasterb | January 07, 2

One thing Clemens can't change
posted: Monday, January 7, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: MLB

Roger Clemens filed a defamation suit against Brian McNamee, writes Mary Flood and David Barron, just before "60 Minutes" aired in Houston.

But that won't change this fact: Roger Clemens' name is in the Mitchell report.

Clemens denied the charges on his Web site. He denied the charges in his interview with Mike Wallace. He presumably will again deny any steroid use when he meets with reporters Monday afternoon.

But that won't change this fact: His name is printed in the Mitchell report, forever.

Clemens presumably will go to Washington next week and testify before Congress, because to not accept the invitation to testify, at this point, would be tantamount, in the court of public opinion, to admitting guilt. Under oath, he presumably will testify that what McNamee said is completely false.

But that won't change this fact: His name is part of the Mitchell report, for ever and ever.

You assume that Clemens will follow up and take every opportunity to say, again and again, that he did not use steroids. The defamation suit presumably will require him to sit through depositions, to answer questions from McNamee's lawyers as part of discovery. Perhaps a jury will decide, in the end, that it believes Clemens and give him a victory in a defamation suit.

That won't change this fact: His name is part of the Mitchell report.

Clemens said something at the end of his "60 Minutes" interview that resonated: He will do everything he can to prove the charges are wrong, and that may still not be enough.

And Clemens is probably right. There is nothing that he can say or do that can change the reality that his name is in the Mitchell report, and his reputation is damaged forever. But he has chosen to fight the accusations, in a battle that he probably can never achieve complete success, and the stakes will continue to go up, day by day.

Brian McNamee's attorney thought Clemens was unbelievable in his interview, writes Wallace Matthews. Dave Krieger thought Clemens and Mike Wallace failed to deliver.

• A recurring question is why Clemens or any other player named in the report simply didn't come forward and meet with Mitchell investigators, once they were asked to do so. Part of the reason was uncertainty about what they were going to be asked, and uncertainty about what George Mitchell's version of due process was going to be.

Two days before the Mitchell report was released, a veteran agent described the concern: "Imagine if you got a summons to appear in court next Tuesday, but nobody would tell you why. Nobody would tell you what the charges are, nobody will tell you anything about the evidence being presented, and nobody will tell you who the witnesses are. When you have a case in court, there is a time of discovery so you can prepare a case. There was nothing like that, in any way, with the Mitchell people."

And Clemens indicated in the "60 Minutes" interview, in a roundabout way, that this was his experience. His agent told the Houston Chronicle, during the player's first interview with a newspaper, that Clemens was informed by Mitchell investigators only that they wanted to ask him about incidents in 1998, 2000 and 2001. Yes, he had been contacted by the Mitchell investigators, but he apparently never learned anything about Brian McNamee's cooperation with investigators until the day the report came out. For all Clemens knew, the Mitchell investigators wanted to ask him about the Los Angeles Times report that proved to be erroneous, or about what Jose Canseco wrote in his book regarding Clemens. If, in fact, Clemens was never informed along he way that Brian McNamee had alleged he had injected the pitcher with steroids, that is appalling.

Even if Clemens had met with Mitchell investigators and issued the same flat denials that he gave to Mike Wallace, there is no guarantee he would have escaped the Mitchell report. There are examples of players within the report who denied what was alleged by former Mets batboy Kirk Radomski, and yet they are still mentioned within the report.

We cannot be naïve; it may well be that everyone named within the report is guilty. But as a model for due process, the way the Mitchell investigation was conducted was horrific, something better suited for former Senator Joseph McCarthy than former Senator George Mitchell.

• Clemens now needs to tell the same story to Congress that he told to Mike Wallace, writes Mike Lupica. George Vecsey found Clemens to be unconvincing.

Richard Justice explains why Clemens is not getting the benefit of the doubt. Clemens failed to make his case, writes Phil Rogers. Dan Shaughnessy thinks Clemens looked dirty. Clemens' denials left us hanging, writes Peter Schmuck.

Within this piece, Mike Boddicker says he's seen Clemens injected with vitamin B-12.

PED Free Zone
• Brian Cashman says his job has changed, now that Hank and Hal Steinbrenner have taken over the Yankees, as Howard Ulman writes.

• Matt Capps and the Pirates are talking about a long-term deal, writes Dejan Kovacevic. Pirates pitching coach Jeff Andrews is beginning to prepare his staff.

• The Rangers finished their deal with Ben Broussard.

• The Rays are asking for ideas on how to augment their proposed ballpark. Tampa Bay signed a veteran backup catcher, writes Marc Topkin.

• Matt Clement tells Joe Strauss he's in a cool situation, in St. Louis.

• Cameron Maybin had an incredible 2007 season, as Keith Jarrett writes.

• Oakland players are wondering: OK, who's going to be the next player to be traded?

• The Marlins signed Jorge Cantu.

• The Rockies signed Josh Towers.

• Years of Hall of Fame snubs have hurt Andre Dawson, writes Dan Le Batard. Jim Rice belongs in the Hall, writes Tony Massarotti.

• Vanderbilt will open an athletics' Hall of Fame, and the first class will include 10 to 15.

Notes and observations

* The Sporting News reported that the Red Sox might hit Jacoby Ellsbury near the bottom of the order instead of the leadoff spot because they do not want to run in front of David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez and Mike Lowell. The article mentioned that Dustin Pedroia is a likely candidate to lead off. I like the idea. Ellsbury has more potential as a run producer for Pedroia, who is the ultimate tablesetter. Perhaps, if he is not traded and does not lead off, Ellsbury will hit seventh behind J.D. Drew or eighth behind Jason Varitek. The latter would give the Sox two leadoff-type hitters (Ellsbury and Julio Lugo) at the bottom of the order.
* The American League Central is undoubtedly the deepest and best division in baseball. The White Sox have acquired Nick Swisher, Orlando Cabrera and Carlos Quentin to a lineup that already features Jermaine Dye, Paul Konerko and Jim Thome. The Tigers will boast Miguel Cabrera, Gary Sheffield and Magglio Ordonez in the heart of the order. The Indians return the core of their AL Central championship team. Minnesota is formidable as long as they have Johan Santana and Francisco Liriano, and they added Delmon Young, who is a better offensive threat than Torii Hunter. Even the Kansas City Royals are better, as expected under bright general manager Dayton Moore. Kansas City could surpass Minnesota if the Twins deal Santana. The bottom line is this: every AL Central team will be competitive.
* Today marked the beginning of the Red Sox rookie development program, which involves 12 prospects converging on Boston for strength and conditioning, work on fundamentals and seminars about life in the Major Leagues off the field. Clay Buchholz, Devern Hansack, Michael Bowden, Hunter Jones, Justin Masterson, Dustin Richardson, Dusty Brown, Aaron Bates, Jed Lowrie, Bubba Bell, Chris Carter and Jonathan Van Every are the participants. Though they are unheralded, Hansack, Brown and Carter could contribute at the big league level sometime in 2008. Of course, Buchholz, Bowden, Lowrie and Masterson need no introduction. Richardson, Bates, Jones and Bell are well-respected prospects. Van Every is an outfielder who has thrived, but languished, in the Indians farm system before recently signing with the Sox as a minor league free agent.

Well, gotta go. "60 Minutes" is starting, and it's time to watch Roger Clemens and his Plan B-12. Sure, Roger, Brian McNamee has a master's degree in sports science, and he does not know the difference between B-12 and testosterone.

Posted by Jeff Louderback on January 06, 2008 at 07:52 PM in Hot Stove League | Permalink | Comments (5)

http://waswatching.com/


"I was eating Vioxx like it was Skittles" - Roger Clemens, last night, on 60 Minutes

I keep thinking back to this quote from Roger Clemens...and it makes me think about Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker and what happened in 1926. Here's the story via ESPN.com -

1926 - Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were permitted by Ban Johnson to resign from baseball near the end of the 1926 season after former pitcher Dutch Leonard charged that Cobb, Speaker and Smoky Joe Wood had joined him just before the 1919 World Series in betting on a game they all knew was fixed. Leonard presented letters and other documents to Johnson, and Johnson thought they would be so potentially damaging to baseball in the wake of the Black Sox scandal that he paid Leonard $20,000 to have them suppressed. Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis exposed the cover-up and the eventual fallout forced Johnson out his job as president of the league he had created. Cobb and Speaker vehemently denied any wrongdoing, Cobb saying that "There has never been a baseball game in my life that I played in that I knew was fixed,? and that the only games he ever bet on were two series games in 1919, when he lost $150 on games thrown by the Sox. He claimed his letters to Leonard had been misunderstood, that he was merely speaking of business investments. Landis took the case under advisement and eventually let both players remain in baseball because they had not been found guilty of fixing any game themselves. It was after this case, though, that Landis instituted the rule mandating that any player found guilty of betting on baseball would be suspended for a year and that any player found to have bet on his own team would be barred for life. Cobb later claimed that the attorneys representing him and Speaker had brokered their reinstatement by threatening to expose further scandal in baseball if the two were not cleared.

I wonder if Clemens made that "Vioxx" statement as a warming shot to baseball - in the sense of "I know just as much about your house as you claim to know about mine. And, if you're going to drag me into something, I'm taking you with me."

Do you think the guys in Washington would want to hear about how baseball teams allowed their trainers to give out pills like candy? It's possible - and, I think Clemens knows this too.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Roger is pulling a Cobb/Speaker move here to get "the man" off his case. It's possible - and, if true, not a dumb move on his part. After all, it's always about having leverage - and who has more, no?

And, if anything, in this whole thing, Clemens is showing that he's not afraid to fight back.