Re: Huston Street's available?

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:26 am

Giants confident with new wrinkles for Cowboys

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/giants/ny-spgiants135535519jan13,0,187543.story

BY ARTHUR STAPLE | arthur.staple@newsday.com
January 13, 2008

IRVING, Texas - The Giants have carried the underdog banner for as long as this season has gone, even though today's playoff game against the Cowboys suddenly has become a toss-up.

Where Eli Manning was the whipping boy, now Tony Romo is the one being second-guessed for everything from his poor play down the stretch to his choice of bye-week vacation spots and his taste in women.

Where Tom Coughlin was the dead man walking when the season began, now Wade Phillips is drawing questions about his fate after a 13-3 season.

And where a Giants trip to Texas Stadium once was cause for ridicule, especially in the wake of the season-opening 45-35 loss to the Cowboys, now the Giants, who won their subsequent eight road games, are the ones with nothing to lose.

"To be honest with you, a lot of people think we have a chance, for some reason," Michael Strahan said. "But that doesn't matter. We believe we can win ... We all do believe and we all expect to win the game."

The Cowboys have their own reasons to be confident after beating the Giants twice this season, even though the most recent one was two months ago. Romo set a franchise record with 36 touchdown passes; Terrell Owens caught 15 of them and is raring to go today despite a sprained left ankle. The offense has added a piece, with Terry Glenn available after missing almost the whole season with a knee injury.

They are healthier on defense, too. Cornerback Terence Newman missed that opening game, as did linebacker Greg Ellis, and tackle Tank Johnson still was suspended by the NFL. Newman was one of 11 Cowboys to make the Pro Bowl and Ellis should easily win the comeback player of the year award.

Manning had a superb game a week ago in Tampa, when he was sacked only once and didn't throw an interception. The Bucs don't like to blitz much, but the Cowboys love to blitz out of their 3-4 scheme and bring Ellis and DeMarcus Ware (14 sacks) off the edges.

"Things aren't always going to be perfect, but the thing we've been able to do as a line and as an offense is come to the sideline and make the necessary adjustments," said David Diehl, who didn't allow a sack by Ware in either game. "They have the perfect guys for their system, linebackers who generate speed and big defensive linemen. As a group, we've had a whole season together, though, and that means we've only gotten better."

Few may remember that Manning was injured in that opener here, when Anthony Spencer hit him on a late two-point conversion try. Manning suffered a slightly separated throwing shoulder and sat out the final drive of that game.

The Giants have a few new wrinkles to throw at the Cowboys, but not because they're healthier; on the contrary, the Giants have had to adjust on the fly, with the exception of running back Ahmad Bradshaw, who has given the running game a fleet-footed presence who is especially hard to tackle.

But Jeremy Shockey is out, replaced by rookie Kevin Boss. On defense, Mathias Kiwanuka is gone, replaced by Reggie Torbor. Sam Madison is unlikely to play with an abdominal strain, meaning Corey Webster, who started the last game the teams played here, is back and likely to draw Owens in coverage.

But maybe all that means is that the Giants, who couldn't beat the Cowboys twice at full strength, have some element of surprise. They waved that underdog banner even when it wasn't appropriate during a 10-6 season. Now they might really need it.

"We know that we can go out and compete with these guys," Plaxico Burress said. "We lost two tough games to them, but we can give ourselves a chance to win by not hurting ourselves."

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:30 am

Do you really think the Mets are getting Santana?

For those who believe the Mets will eventually land Johan Santana without giving up Jose Reyes, consider this:

The Mets proposed offer is as follows: OF Carlos Gomez, RHP Kevin Mulvey, RHP Philip Humber and RHP Deolis Guerra...

Gomez is very fast, but in 4 pro seasons he has a horrific on-base % and LITERALLY strikes out 25% of the time. Mulvey and Humber are projected to be #4 starters AT BEST, and the most valuable piece is Guerra, who is in A BALL and very raw... Who knows how far away he is, IF he makes it at all?

Now, lets pretend they go ahead and throw their top prospect, outfielder Fernando Martinez, into the deal...

So the Mets offer is OF Martinez, OF Gomez, P Mulvey, P Humber, P Guerra...

One question: What would your reaction be if later today the Yankees traded Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera, Jeff Marquez and another mid-level prospect to the Mets for those five guys?

The Mets have the worst offer of the 3 teams, unless they include reyes. the mets top 10 prospects are no where near as good as the yankees or red sox top 10 prospects. I think you ask more of the Yankees and Red Sox because the Yankees and Red Sox have the highest payrolls, they reach the playoffs every year and they are in your league. Sending Santana their way can mean the twins won't see the world series for the remainder of Santanas contract. But if you send Santana to the mets, you don't strengthen your opponent and you also get a higher quanitity of prospects, even though none are as highly touted as Hughes or Ellsbury or Lester.
Personally I hope the Mets get Santana, and I think theres a real chance they are the front runners right now, because they are the most desperate. The Red Sox could easily send Lester Ellsbury and boom deal over, Yankees can send Hughes Marquez and Melky and boom deal over(both of these trades going on the reports of the twins asking prices), but the Mets have to send about 5 of their top 10 prospects just to get the twins to listen. The Mets are the most willing to give up their farm right now.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:35 am

Motown Rally Leads To Yankees Thoughts

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=9af3970b-6ddc-4f5f-9e3e-eec6c72af6da&k=65065

There's some interesting comments, related to the Yankees, coming out of "TigerFest" (held at Comerica Park) today.

First, on the pressure in New York. From the Windsor Star:

Since the blockbuster deal that brought two all-stars -- third baseman Miguel Cabrera and pitcher Dontrelle Willis -- to Detroit from the Florida Marlins, the Tigers have been the talk of the town.

Considering they'd already added all-star shortstop Edgar Renteria and outfielder Jacque Jones prior to the big deal, you can put the Tigers in the same sentence with the Yankees and Red Sox and list the most flattering adjectives in front of Detroit, which will enter the season as World Series favourites.

"You look at the Yankees and every year, they have these expectations and the weight of the world on their shoulders, because they're supposed to win," Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander said.

This year, that load will be carried by the Tigers.

I think that's great," Verlander said.

Secondly, an interesting observation from Donnie Baseball. From MLive.com -

http://www.mlive.com/sportsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/sports-26/1200173046218910.xml&storylist=michigansports

Cabrera and Willis came from the Florida Marlins in a deal for six prospects, including outfielder Cameron Maybin and left-hander Andrew Miller; Renteria in a trade from the Atlanta Braves; and Jones in a deal with the Chicago Cubs.

The team also exercised its option on catcher Ivan Rodriguez, and re-signed Todd Jones and starter Kenny Rogers.

Detroit's lineup already included A.L. batting champ Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Guillen — who moves permanently to first base from shortstop with the addition of Renteria — Placido Polanco, Rodriguez and Curtis Granderson, who last season had at least 20 home runs, doubles, triples and steals. He's one of only four players to accomplish that.

But as potent as the lineup is on paper, manager Jim Leyland was warned by former New York Yankees batting coach Don Mattingly to be aware of one thing.

"Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it," Leyland said. "And I'm going to stay on top of that right from the start of spring training."

After the 2006 ALDS, I wrote:

http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2006/10/no_joking.html

The Yankees need a shift of position with respect to their mental modus operandi. They need to get away from a prevailing false sense of entitlement and placid demeanor and adopt a greater sense of urgency and aggressive nature.

I find Mattingly's warning that "Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it" right in line with what I said back in 2006.

And, it's actually something that I've felt about the Yankees for a while now - going back to May 2, 2005, when I wrote:

http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2005/05/head_counting.html

In some ways, I think that winning three rings in a row is part of the problem that the Yankees are living with now. After that happened, I believe that many of the "stars" that joined the team thought it was some sort of birthright that you would win the World Series once you were on the Yankees. And, "just showing up" was all they had to do. Yet, most of these players that have come here have flopped entirely or failed in a big spot where they could have helped towards getting a ring.

Hopefully, General Joe is plugged into this as well, and he can set a new tempo for the troops in Yankeeland this season.

HT: Steve Lombardi of Waswatching.com

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:38 am

Motown Rally Leads To Yankees Thoughts

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=9af3970b-6ddc-4f5f-9e3e-eec6c72af6da&k=65065

There's some interesting comments, related to the Yankees, coming out of "TigerFest" (held at Comerica Park) today.

First, on the pressure in New York. From the Windsor Star:

Since the blockbuster deal that brought two all-stars -- third baseman Miguel Cabrera and pitcher Dontrelle Willis -- to Detroit from the Florida Marlins, the Tigers have been the talk of the town.

Considering they'd already added all-star shortstop Edgar Renteria and outfielder Jacque Jones prior to the big deal, you can put the Tigers in the same sentence with the Yankees and Red Sox and list the most flattering adjectives in front of Detroit, which will enter the season as World Series favourites.

"You look at the Yankees and every year, they have these expectations and the weight of the world on their shoulders, because they're supposed to win," Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander said.

This year, that load will be carried by the Tigers.

I think that's great," Verlander said.

Secondly, an interesting observation from Donnie Baseball. From MLive.com -

http://www.mlive.com/sportsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/sports-26/1200173046218910.xml&storylist=michigansports

Cabrera and Willis came from the Florida Marlins in a deal for six prospects, including outfielder Cameron Maybin and left-hander Andrew Miller; Renteria in a trade from the Atlanta Braves; and Jones in a deal with the Chicago Cubs.

The team also exercised its option on catcher Ivan Rodriguez, and re-signed Todd Jones and starter Kenny Rogers.

Detroit's lineup already included A.L. batting champ Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Guillen — who moves permanently to first base from shortstop with the addition of Renteria — Placido Polanco, Rodriguez and Curtis Granderson, who last season had at least 20 home runs, doubles, triples and steals. He's one of only four players to accomplish that.

But as potent as the lineup is on paper, manager Jim Leyland was warned by former New York Yankees batting coach Don Mattingly to be aware of one thing.

"Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it," Leyland said. "And I'm going to stay on top of that right from the start of spring training."

After the 2006 ALDS, I wrote:

http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2006/10/no_joking.html

The Yankees need a shift of position with respect to their mental modus operandi. They need to get away from a prevailing false sense of entitlement and placid demeanor and adopt a greater sense of urgency and aggressive nature.

I find Mattingly's warning that "Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it" right in line with what I said back in 2006.

And, it's actually something that I've felt about the Yankees for a while now - going back to May 2, 2005, when I wrote:

http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2005/05/head_counting.html

In some ways, I think that winning three rings in a row is part of the problem that the Yankees are living with now. After that happened, I believe that many of the "stars" that joined the team thought it was some sort of birthright that you would win the World Series once you were on the Yankees. And, "just showing up" was all they had to do. Yet, most of these players that have come here have flopped entirely or failed in a big spot where they could have helped towards getting a ring.

Hopefully, General Joe is plugged into this as well, and he can set a new tempo for the troops in Yankeeland this season.

HT: Steve Lombardi of Waswatching.com

Maybe that's true, but on the other hand, it took a series of bad luck and bad bounces for them to lose the 2004 ALCS despite being up three games to none. If they won that series, they probably would have beaten the Cardinals in the WS.

So another was to look at what has transpired over the last several years is that the Yankees have played tight in the postseason as a result of the way they lost the 2004 playoffs

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:41 am

Motown Rally Leads To Yankees Thoughts

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=9af3970b-6ddc-4f5f-9e3e-eec6c72af6da&k=65065

There's some interesting comments, related to the Yankees, coming out of "TigerFest" (held at Comerica Park) today.

First, on the pressure in New York. From the Windsor Star:

Since the blockbuster deal that brought two all-stars -- third baseman Miguel Cabrera and pitcher Dontrelle Willis -- to Detroit from the Florida Marlins, the Tigers have been the talk of the town.

Considering they'd already added all-star shortstop Edgar Renteria and outfielder Jacque Jones prior to the big deal, you can put the Tigers in the same sentence with the Yankees and Red Sox and list the most flattering adjectives in front of Detroit, which will enter the season as World Series favourites.

"You look at the Yankees and every year, they have these expectations and the weight of the world on their shoulders, because they're supposed to win," Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander said.

This year, that load will be carried by the Tigers.

I think that's great," Verlander said.

Secondly, an interesting observation from Donnie Baseball. From MLive.com -

http://www.mlive.com/sportsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/sports-26/1200173046218910.xml&storylist=michigansports

Cabrera and Willis came from the Florida Marlins in a deal for six prospects, including outfielder Cameron Maybin and left-hander Andrew Miller; Renteria in a trade from the Atlanta Braves; and Jones in a deal with the Chicago Cubs.

The team also exercised its option on catcher Ivan Rodriguez, and re-signed Todd Jones and starter Kenny Rogers.

Detroit's lineup already included A.L. batting champ Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Guillen — who moves permanently to first base from shortstop with the addition of Renteria — Placido Polanco, Rodriguez and Curtis Granderson, who last season had at least 20 home runs, doubles, triples and steals. He's one of only four players to accomplish that.

But as potent as the lineup is on paper, manager Jim Leyland was warned by former New York Yankees batting coach Don Mattingly to be aware of one thing.

"Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it," Leyland said. "And I'm going to stay on top of that right from the start of spring training."

After the 2006 ALDS, I wrote:

http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2006/10/no_joking.html

The Yankees need a shift of position with respect to their mental modus operandi. They need to get away from a prevailing false sense of entitlement and placid demeanor and adopt a greater sense of urgency and aggressive nature.

I find Mattingly's warning that "Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it" right in line with what I said back in 2006.

And, it's actually something that I've felt about the Yankees for a while now - going back to May 2, 2005, when I wrote:

http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2005/05/head_counting.html

In some ways, I think that winning three rings in a row is part of the problem that the Yankees are living with now. After that happened, I believe that many of the "stars" that joined the team thought it was some sort of birthright that you would win the World Series once you were on the Yankees. And, "just showing up" was all they had to do. Yet, most of these players that have come here have flopped entirely or failed in a big spot where they could have helped towards getting a ring.

Hopefully, General Joe is plugged into this as well, and he can set a new tempo for the troops in Yankeeland this season.

HT: Steve Lombardi of Waswatching.com

Maybe that's true, but on the other hand, it took a series of bad luck and bad bounces for them to lose the 2004 ALCS despite being up three games to none. If they won that series, they probably would have beaten the Cardinals in the WS.

So another was to look at what has transpired over the last several years is that the Yankees have played tight in the postseason as a result of the way they lost the 2004 playoffs

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:42 am

Todd Jones excited to be part of 2008 Detroit Tigers

http://www.mlive.com/sportsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/sports-26/1200173046218910.xml&storylist=michigansports&thispage=1

1/12/2008, 4:17 p.m. EST
The Associated Press

DETROIT (AP) — Reliever Todd Jones summed up the feelings of his teammates about the 2008 edition of the Detroit Tigers.

"On paper, this is the best team I've ever been a part of," he said at TigerFest, which was held at Comerica Park on Saturday.

Baseball's busiest team during the offseason added All-Star third baseman Miguel Cabrera and left-handed starter Dontrelle Willis, shortstop Edgar Renteria and outfielder Jacque Jones to a team that contended for a spot in the playoffs until late last season.

Advertisement

Detroit went to the World Series in 2006 and last won the title in 1984.

Cabrera and Willis came from the Florida Marlins in a deal for six prospects, including outfielder Cameron Maybin and left-hander Andrew Miller; Renteria in a trade from the Atlanta Braves; and Jones in a deal with the Chicago Cubs.

The team also exercised its option on catcher Ivan Rodriguez, and re-signed Todd Jones and starter Kenny Rogers.

Detroit's lineup already included A.L. batting champ Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Guillen — who moves permanently to first base from shortstop with the addition of Renteria — Placido Polanco, Rodriguez and Curtis Granderson, who last season had at least 20 home runs, doubles, triples and steals. He's one of only four players to accomplish that.

But as potent as the lineup is on paper, manager Jim Leyland was warned by former New York Yankees batting coach Don Mattingly to be aware of one thing.

"Guys can fall into thinking the next guy's going to do it," Leyland said. "And I'm going to stay on top of that right from the start of spring training."

The addition of Cabrera has created the most buzz.

The 24-year-old, who will play third base, hit .320 in 2007 with 34 home runs and 119 RBI. It was his fourth consecutive season he drove in over 100 runs. Cabrera's lifetime batting average is .313.

"I'm excited," said Cabrera, who helped the Marlins win the World Series as a 20-year-old rookie in 2003. "I'm going to be part of a good team with good players and a good lineup."

He and Rodriguez were teammates in 2003, and he is good friends with Guillen.

The only concern about Cabrera was his weight. He reportedly played at about 260 pounds last season, but appeared much lighter than that on Saturday. He's been working out with a trainer and said he didn't know how much weight he has lost, but did say "I feel more comfortable."

"He doesn't look heavy at all," said general manager Dave Dombrowski.

Cabrera replaces Brandon Inge at third. Inge has asked for a trade because he wants to play everyday. Dombrowski said he told Inge that he would do his best to work out a deal, but if not he said Inge — a former catcher who has also played the outfield — would be a super-sub type of player.

The Tigers also have an impressive starting rotation featuring Justin Verlander, whose 18 wins included a no-hitter last season, Jeremy Bonderman, Willis, Rogers and Nate Robertson.

And despite an off-season shoulder injury to setup man Joel Zumaya, which has caused concerns about the bullpen, Leyland said the starters will be the key.

"(Starting pitchers) have got to get one more out or another two-thirds of an inning," he said, adding that Zumaya could be back by midseason.

Willis was only 10-15 with a 5.17 ERA with Florida, which finished last in the NL East last year. But Dombrowski said one of the team's scouts, who watched Willis pitch several times late last season, said he was throwing as hard as he ever has.

The fans are also excited about the team's prospects. People were lined up outside Comerica down Montcalm Street and around the corner onto Woodward Avenue before TigerFest began at 11 a.m.

"I'm excited," said 21-year-old Allison Banning of Monroe." ... They have good players this year."

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:53 am

Gomez is an elite prospect according to Mets Fans?

I can't speak for others about Fernando, but for me it's not as much that Fernando is untouchable, but that trading him with the other guys mentioned is insanity.

In terms of talent, upside and potential, the Mets have 3 elite prospects IMO: Fernando, Guerra and Gomez. Just about any Santana trade where only 1 goes is a deal I do. As much as I hate the idea of trading two, I probably pull the trigger if 1.) Fernando stays and 2.) there are restrictions on who else goes as the "3rd and 4th" pieces of the deal. Trading all three is not an option.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:59 am

QUOTE(GriffinDoerr @ Jan 11 2008, 04:19 PM) *
Consequently, a lot of people don't think it's nonsense to compare "want" vs. "need" when you look at a frustrated post-season team (especially one that thinks it always should be contending for the title) vs. a World Series champion that didn't lose any players of consequence.

From Sosh - Redsox Fans thoughts on Santana

glennhoffmania

I think this conversation is getting a little ridiculous so I'll make this my last comment. NY does not need Santana. You could argue they need more pitching and I doubt many people would dispute that. But they don't need the best pitcher on the planet at the cost of 4 solid prospects and $140m. They may want to make that deal, but they absolutely do not need to do it. They'll win 90+ games without him and Wang/Pettitte/Hughes can pitch well enough in the playoffs to get to the WS. Just because Wang didn't do it against Cleveland doesn't mean they're doomed in 2008 if he starts game 1. Of course any team with Santana improves their chances but that isn't in dispute here.

This need/want argument sounds to me like some Sox fans who want to believe that NY is so desperate to catch up to Boston that they will be forced to mortgage their future so that they can compete for the next couple of years. That is far from true. I have yet to hear a NY fan say that NY needs Santana.

NY, right now, appears to need more pitching. But what if Schilling hurts his shoulder again, Wake throws out his back, and Lester and/or Buchholz struggle in their first full year? Will Boston need Santana as much as NY then?

Pandemonium67

The need vs. want thing is semantics. The Sox are in a much better position than the MFY in terms of starting pitching. I don't think is even debatable. If both teams stand pat (and injuries aren't a factor), the Sox have an advantage that looks like it will continue for the next half decade, unless the young wanks turn out to be tons better than the young Sox. That's not likely.

The Sox rotation is much better than the MFY's. Santana to the Sox widens the gap; Santana to the yanks narrows or eliminates it; Santana to the Mets keeps the status quo. There's your want vs. need in a nutshell.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:01 am

QUOTE(Pandemonium67 @ Jan 11 2008, 05:11 PM) *
The need vs. want thing is semantics. The Sox are in a much better position than the MFY in terms of starting pitching. I don't think is even debatable.

For 2008.

It is open for debate and specualtion which team's pitching will be better beyond that since both teams have untested, yet exciting youth.

geoduck's post said:

QUOTE
I hate to add noise to this thread, but one thing has never changed: the Yankees need (not want) Santana. The Yankees will get Santana.

All the bluster has been about one thing...get the Red Sox (or others) to make a deal, and then swoop in to trump it at the final hour. Unless that NYC team has completely altered its M.O., how can one think otherwise?

and I think the answer is that Cashman and those who back him do, indeed, want to completely alter the M.O. That's not a secret. The question is, can he win the argument. So far he has been winning, it seems.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am

Glaus the Red Sox killer is finally out of the division. Yes!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3193566

--------------------
www.soxprospects.com
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
monkE0044
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 06:10 PM
Post #2

Group Icon

Posts: 23

Two injury prone 3rd basemen with issues (Rolen w/ La Russa, Glaus w/ steroids) traded for each other. I'm interested to see who wins this trade.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
YTF
Rating: 4
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 06:36 PM
Post #3

Group Icon

Posts: 327

QUOTE(jsinger121 @ Jan 12 2008, 05:59 PM) *
Glaus the Red Sox killer is finally out of the division. Yes!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3193566

Maybe not just yet. They've agreed to terms and I think the money approval by Bud is just a formality, but these guys haven't taken physicals yet. Most of the time that's a formality too, but look at who we're talking about here. I wouldn't be totally surprised if one or the other (namely Rolen) flunks.

--------------------
Shit franchises will always be shit franchises until they decide not to be shit franchises.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
RedOctober3829
Rating: 3
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 06:42 PM
Post #4

SoSH Member
Group Icon

Posts: 2,373
From: Long Island via Vermont and Boulder, CO

QUOTE(YTF @ Jan 12 2008, 06:36 PM) *
Maybe not just yet. They've agreed to terms and I think the money approval by Bud is just a formality, but these guys haven't taken physicals yet. Most of the time that's a formality too, but look at who we're talking about here. I wouldn't be totally surprised if one or the other (namely Rolen) flunks.

Both of the players have no-trade clauses as well so it's not official yet.

MLB.com link

This post has been edited by RedOctober3829: Yesterday, 06:43 PM

--------------------
"We are the town with Manny Ramírez, Tom Brady, Kevin Garnett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Randy Moss, Ray Allen, Curt Schilling, Bill Belichick, Paul Pierce, David Ortiz, Adalius Thomas, Jonathan Papelbon, Tedy Bruschi, Josh Beckett, Rodney Harrison, Jason Varitek, Richard Seymour, and Eric Gagne. We have reasonable expectations of a World Series, a Super Bowl, and the NBA Finals. There never has been a better time to be a sports fan in Boston."
--CHB

"Asked after the game to describe Brady's most notable attributes, Moss, who finished with seven catches for 135 yards, said: "Poise. Patience. And the determination to go out and kill you at any given time."
--Randy Moss 12/9/07
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
sfip
Rating: 3
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 08:40 PM
Post #5

Wants to sex Dlew
Group Icon

Posts: 3,905
From: Philadelphia suburb

QUOTE(RedOctober3829 @ Jan 12 2008, 06:42 PM) *
Both of the players have no-trade clauses as well so it's not official yet.

foxsports.com
QUOTE
While both players have agreed to waive their no-trade clauses, the differences in their contracts also might need to be resolved, most likely through a cash payment from the Cardinals to the Blue Jays.

--------------------
"The tough part was four years with other teams/three years with the Red Sox. But I can't say that I'm upset with the situation. How can I be upset with the money I'm going to be making and the chance to compete for a world title?"--Mike Lowell
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
JohntheBaptist
Rating: 4
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 08:53 PM
Post #6

SoSH Member
Group Icon

Posts: 3,479
From: Yoknapatawpha County

Glaus wasn't on the field consistently, but he had a pretty solid year last year. His defense- especially on that surface- was getting pretty poor, so it's conceivably an upgrade in that sense for the Blue Jays, although I'm not totally clear on the repercussions of his injury.

I think this is a solid move for St Louis. Glaus seems a lot older than 30, though.

--------------------
"Is this something you'd like to share with the rest of us, Amazing Larry?!?"
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
That K Dilf
Rating: 2
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 10:28 PM
Post #7

Group Icon

Posts: 39

This move is sure as hell going to make Toronto pitchers look good. That is if Rolen can stay healthy for a full season. Personally I like the move a whole lot better for ST. Louis. and we get Glaus out of the AL east.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
bosockboy
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 11:12 PM
Post #8

Group Icon

Posts: 10

This has the potential to be a huge win for St. Louis. Glaus could stay healthy playing on grass, and Rolen could easily be DONE. Glaus' slugging has been higher for 4 seasons, and his defense will be eased by having a vaccum like Izturis at SS.

I'm pretty stunned that Ricciardi would do this; waiting to see the cash exchange before final judgment.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
Dick Pole Upside
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 11:22 PM
Post #9

Group Icon

Posts: 400
From: Indiana: tornado alley

I'm surprised by the Blue Jays on this one. Rolen has come off as a world-class jerk in both Philly and St. Louis. Granted, LaRussa and Bowa aren't all warm and fuzzy, but Gibbons is a no-nonsense manager as well (Shea Hillenbrand says Hello!), so I foresee Rolen's declining play and consistent unhappiness dragging down the Jays. Trading a Needle in the Ass for a Pain in the Ass, I guess, but I wouldn't have done this deal...
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
Gator's Insi...
Gator's Inside the Parker
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Yesterday, 11:25 PM
Post #10

Group Icon

Posts: 76
From: Rhode Island

I'm surprised that St. Louis was able to get Glaus in a deal for Rolen. Given the issues between Rolen & LaRussa and the fact that LaRussa resigned earlier this year, I would think that teams would have been slow to deal with the Cards. There is no way that they could have returned Rolen to this team. Knowing this, why did Toronto pay what I perceive to be fair market value for a player that St. Louis HAD to dump?

With that note, I don't know if I see this as being a big move for either team. Both players appear to be on the back nine and have struggled to stay on the field. In the very least, I don't see an increased threat from the Jay's thanks to this acquisition.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
941827
Rating: 3
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Today, 02:51 AM
Post #11

SoSH Member
Group Icon

Posts: 3,065
From: Silicon Valley, CA

According to Cot's, Glaus has two years left on his contract ($12.75 in 2008 and player option for $11.25 in '09), while Rolen's got 3 years at $12mm per left on his deal.

This strikes me as an idiotic deal for the Jays. They got the older player. They got the player with a lot more money left on his deal. And the player they got has just as bad a medical history as the one they're trading away.

Does the defensive improvement from Rolen to Glaus outweigh these other issues?
Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post
TheGoldenGreek33
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Today, 03:13 AM
Post #12

Group Icon

Posts: 36
From: Indiana

QUOTE(941827 @ Jan 13 2008, 01:51 AM) *
Does the defensive improvement from Rolen to Glaus outweigh these other issues?

I assume you meant from Glaus to Rolen, but in any case no. The Cards desperately needed a big bat to put behind Pujols and Glaus won't be facing AL pitching anymore. I think the upgrade at SS with Izturis over Eckstein will make up for the defense Glaus will (or won't depending how you look at it) provide. UZR was actually the only metric not to like Glaus (minus 5 runs), and somehow the fielding bible did (plus 9 runs). The Cards saved $11M while getting the better player. They got the better end of the stick, but I just don't think it's the right move for the Cardinals at this time...They're not going to contend in 08, maybe not 09...I'd rather have seen them try to get a decent prospect with some upside.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:04 am

I don't get why the RSN branch of the media thinks the Sox are going to move a high priced SoSo Crisp, (just because they need to open up a slot for Ellsbury) to the penny pinching teams like the A's or Twins.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:20 am

Rusty Hardin Q&A transcript

Outside The Lines, this sunday morning at 9:30 AM, EST with Rusty Hardin. Keep in mind that because of the length of the interview, come was edited, but, here is the complete transcript.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3193663

The following is from a transcript of an interview between ESPN investigative reporter T.J. Quinn and Rusty Hardin, the attorney for Roger Clemens, conducted on Friday.

The interview will appear on "Outside The Lines" at 9:30 a.m. ET Sunday on ESPN.

T.J. Quinn: Just to actually start off kind of from the beginning. You know, a lot from my own curiosity. How did you first come into contact with Roger Clemens?

Rusty Hardin: About eight days before the Mitchell report came out, a member of the firm of Hendricks & Co. -- the, the firm that represents …

T.J. Quinn: His agents.

Rusty Hardin: His agents. One of them got a call from [Brian] McNamee saying that he was trying to reach Roger and he was trying to reach Andy [Pettitte], he wanted to tell him what he had done. And he ran down to this guy -- what he said his summary of what he told the Mitchell people. This guy was very shocked by it. Passed it on to Randy. That would've been Wednesday, eight days before the report came out on the following Thursday. And I got a call from Randy Hendricks. And we all met for the first time on the Friday before the report came out, and then I met Roger on that Sunday for the first time.

T.J. Quinn: On the Sunday …

Rusty Hardin: So I'd known him for days when the report came out.

T.J. Quinn: OK. When was the first time you guys discussed the Mitchell report? Was it just in that initial conversation -- had they ever said to you, Randy or Alan [Hendricks] or anybody, ahead of time, "We may want to be in touch with you … ?

Rusty Hardin: I wasn't representing Roger at that time; I wasn't representing anybody in baseball. I had no awareness one way or the other, other than a fan reading about the Mitchell report.

T.J. Quinn: Gotcha.

Rusty Hardin: So I had no contact with either the Mitchell people or the union or Randy or anyone about that.

T.J. Quinn: Had you met Roger before?

Rusty Hardin: No. Well, I may have shaken hands with him at some party, but no, I'd -- practically speaking, I'd never met him.

T.J. Quinn: What did you think when you met him? This guy is big in this town.

Rusty Hardin: I liked him. He always looks you straight in the eye. You know, a lot -- a lot of people that you meet that are either a celebrity or something, they talk over your head, they look for the next person to talk to. Roger looks you right in the eye and talks to you. I liked him from the very beginning, but I didn't know him. So we spent the next few days, next few weeks really trying to get to know each other, so …

T.J. Quinn: What was that first conversation like?

Rusty Hardin: Well, obviously no attorney's going to tell you what a client said in an attorney-client conversation. But it was us primarily relaying what McNamee contended he had told the Mitchell Commission. And Roger was shocked. He strongly denied it; was really surprised, and -- just as he's been. I mean, from the first moment I have met him, he has never said anything differently privately than he's said publicly. His reaction's always been the same.

T.J. Quinn: Right. At that point, the report still hasn't come out yet. What did you expect from it?

Rusty Hardin: Well, I didn't know. I, quite frankly, to this day -- look, here's part of the problem. How do you question the wisdom of what an icon did? I've admired George Mitchell from afar. I have no reason not to continue to admire him. He's had a wonderful career. He's a man of impeccable integrity according to everybody that knows him. And so my first question was -- is, are they really going to put people's names in this report? People that haven't had any kind of public hearing, haven't had a chance for people to be cross-examined about what they're saying?

So we told Roger that all we knew at this stage was -- is that this is what McNamee has said happened. But we had no idea whether, first of all, the Mitchell people believed him; we had no idea whether what he said would be included in the report; and just as importantly, we had no idea whether actual names were going to be used. I naively thought that what the Mitchell Commission might very well do is do their investigation, come up with people they thought may or may not have used it, and referred that information to baseball for baseball to investigate. I didn't know for sure until that Thursday morning that they were actually going to name names.

T.J. Quinn: Before that -- before you even met with Roger, what did you do as far as figuring out a strategy, trying to find out what McNamee knew or what he had told Mitchell?

Rusty Hardin: We contacted -- we had somebody contact McNamee to see if he'd be willing to meet with represents of, of us. And we had a couple people -- I think it's been in the media accurately that a couple of investigators that work for us went up and interviewed him on the Wednesday before the report came out. It was an interview solely for information gathering. It was an interview solely to try to find out what was McNamee saying happened? There wasn't any attempt to get McNamee to change his story or take it back. It was 'What basically is it that you say happened?' And he relayed his version of what happened. At least his version of what he had told the commission.

T.J. Quinn: And did he have any sense of whether or not Mitchell was going to publish Roger's name and his allegation?

Rusty Hardin: He seemed to think they would. But we still -- and this is one reason that Roger has been quoted as saying he didn't know till the report came out whether he would be in it. And that's -- that's a literally true statement. Because that Wednesday night before it came out, we told him "OK, this is what we understand McNamee is saying happened, but we don't know whether the Mitchell Commission is putting it in their report or whether or not they're going to name names. So we won't know until tomorrow whether it's really going to be in there."

T.J. Quinn: OK, but as you're formulating a strategy for this, how are you proceeding?

Rusty Hardin: Well, I didn't know Roger, OK? And Roger appeared to me to be telling the truth. And he certainly showed all the indicia of somebody who thought he was being falsely accused. But I didn't have any long-term relationship with Roger, and I didn't have a background with him like others who knew him well. And so I wanted to make sure that no matter what came out in the report that we had enough time and took enough time to try to find out what had happened here and how this kind of mistake could be made before we started having him go out and just say a bunch of things.

We always knew that once this report came out, if it was going to name names, there would one day be congressional hearings at the end, there would be a big scream and yell for Roger's scalp. And we wanted to make sure at each stage that we were talking accurately. So we were just trying to find out as much information as we could. I watched it right here in this office just like everybody else did.

T.J. Quinn: When they did release the report, what did you think of it?

Rusty Hardin: How do you say this? I think it leaves a lot to be desired from an investigator's standpoint. I've said many times that I don't think the information about Roger would've made it past Ben Bradlee during Watergate days. I was working in Washington before I went to law school during Watergate, and followed it very closely, and Woodward and Bernstein's experiences. And then you later look at the movie, and there are all these conferences in the editor's office where Bradlee would say periodically "Guys, we can't go with it yet. You don't have it."

I was tremendously disappointed that they issued that report that blasted these people, particularly Roger, the only one I knew anything about, with what on the surface appeared nothing more than McNamee's version. Now, did they have more? I didn't know then; I don't know now. But I was disappointed. Again, though, I didn't know anything. Look, all we ever wanted anybody to do in this thing is start out, give the person being accused the benefit of the doubt and say, 'OK, this sounds really bad. Uh, so let's -- let's see if Roger did or didn't do it.' And go try to find out.

I didn't feel that the Mitchell report and its people had made a good enough effort to vet McNamee's version. And so before they issued a report that would ruin Roger's reputation with a large segment of the public forever -- and that's what we started doing. Once it came out, OK, now, we know George Mitchell is a really good man with -- full of integrity. So how could he sponsor a report that is so at odds with what Roger, who we also know whose reputation is, and who seems so believable to us -- how could they be so at odds?

So that's when we started … It wasn't this massive investigative effort. I mean, there's one investigator -- this is a 10-lawyer firm -- we have one investigator that's a full-time member of the firm, and we've got another friend of ours that just retired from the Houston Police Department, and the two of them along with one of the lawyers started going to logical people. T.J., here's what we do. The same thing as a reporter. And this is my frustration with you guys -- and I use it in a great big, general sense. I don't find so far that sportswriters are willing to investigate. They're simply, apparently just reporting. And the frustration with that is, is that all along we've been trying to get people -- OK, don't take my word, don't take Roger's word. Assume for a moment that McNamee tells you these things. Now how do you go to decide whether maybe he's telling the truth? And so much so that you ought to rely on him enough to blast somebody?

Well, who would be logical people to talk to? So, let's go down to St. Petersburg and talk to the police officers that investigated him in 2001 for the sexual assault. And the focus is not, for us, whether he committed the sexual assault or not -- 'cause he ultimately wasn't charged in that, but what was those officers' experience with them as to whether he was a truth teller. And what did they say? 'He lied to us throughout the investigation.' Does that mean he lied to the Mitchell Commission? No. It's just a factor to consider.

So who else should we talk to? How about the head trainer at Toronto, who's not there anymore but was there for like 25 years? What does he say? 'Roger was big when he arrived, he was big when he left, his body never changed. And the Mitchell people -- and I don't believe he used steroids -- we didn't see any indication of it. And, furthermore, what, did the Mitchell people talk to you?' No. Well, now, if you're preparing a report saying this guy was taking steroids during 1998, why wouldn't you talk to the other trainers? And we've since talked to a couple other -- they didn't talk to them at all. Does that mean Roger didn't take steroids? No. But is it a factor to consider? So then we get on a plane and go out to talk to you know, [Jose] Canseco.

T.J. Quinn: Did you go on that trip?

Rusty Hardin: I didn't. One of the lawyers and a couple investigators went. So they go out to talk to Canseco, who hadn't read the report, and say, 'OK, let me read you this portion of the report where McNamee says that around a pool, you guys -- you and Roger sat and talked about steroids.' And they read it to him. He says, 'That's a lie, that didn't happen.' 'How do you know it didn't happen? We're talking about a pool party years ago.' He says, 'Because I only had one and Roger didn't come. And I remember he didn't come because I was upset about it. So it never happened -- that conversation never happened.'

T.J. Quinn: When you first met with Roger …

Rusty Hardin: And wait a minute. 'Did the Mitchell people ever call you to verify what McNamee was saying?' Answer: no. Now that's just the first three interviews we conducted.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: Go ahead.

T.J. Quinn: Well, when Roger -- when you first met with Roger, what did he want to do at the time? What was his reaction?

Rusty Hardin: You know, it's a real good question because there has always been a side of him that almost wanted to say 'The hell with all of y'all who believe I would do that to my body, contrary to what I've done and practiced all my career.' He had to come to grips at first with the -- that's why originally it was a denial by me. Well, everybody hammered him. He authorizes a denial through me, and he and his sons go on a prearranged hunting trip for four or five days and he's gone. They're not watching TV; he has no idea the firestorm that's happening back at the mainland.

T.J. Quinn: Yeah, what was happening back at the mainland?

Rusty Hardin: Everybody was going crazy. Everybody in the media. First of all, how dare him not come out? We have a constitutional right if you're accused to have you come out and talk to the media. It's hogwash. And -- but, but in his situation everybody's going crazy. He comes back, and then he -- he settles into the fact -- he says, 'Look, this is my reputation and my future. And so I guess I'm going to have to tell people what happened.' And we say that it didn't happen. And we say, well, let's wait a minute, let us keep investigating so we know what we're doing when we start doing it. And what happened? For 30 days, the most vicious [unintelligible] about him personally and professionally I've ever read. I don't understand the meanness of people's comments about this. I understand people not believing it. We've had other athletes denying then turn out to have used it. I understand that. But I don't understand if a guy has the kind of record he does or history for 25 years, why is everybody so willing to be so incredibly mean in their comments about him? I mean, the e-mails I get, the sports articles I get, the headlines I get, not a single person I would suggest who is written like that would be able to stand up under the kind of criticism he's gotten without just wanting to lash out at the world.

T.J. Quinn: Where do you think that came from?

Rusty Hardin: Well, first of all, I've decided -- perhaps naively, but I've decided that the sports world writing is different than the -- than the regular world writing. Apparently, we have moved the First Amendment to the level that says you have a constitutional right to be as vicious about somebody that you disapprove of as you want, and you have the right to attack them on an incredible personal level.

Now, Roger's not the one saying anything about it, that's just my observation. There may be something about baseball that makes people think that if you somehow are believed to have betrayed the sport, that it is worse than treason to the country. But I will guarantee you in 33 years in public life, I've never seen any individual as across the board vilified on a personal level as this. So there's something kicking around there -- I don't know what it is.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:21 am

T.J. Quinn: What sort of things did you hear? I mean, it's -- you've got a broad spectrum. You've got -- a lot of these are columnists who are just sharing their opinions. What did you see?

Rusty Hardin: Well, you know, actually if I'd have thought that you were going to ask that question or I was going to volunteer to answer, I'd have probably gotten together sort of an anthology of the articles. I mean, I just remember going through each day the headlines, and …

T.J. Quinn: Does anything jump out from what you remember?

Rusty Hardin: Not words or phrases. I mean, it's just across the board. You know, when something like this happens, you start preparing -- or getting, trying to get as many media stories as you can.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: At the end of the day, it's not that Roger really is entitled to be treated differently than anyone else. I'm really applying this kind of attack to anyone. It seemed to be this theory that he was supposed to respond, on the schedule of those who wanted to hear from him rather than those who were advising him and trying to prepare a response. And the fact that people weren't getting what they wanted right away seemed to send him into orbit.

T.J. Quinn: But did you find that even supporters wanted that same reaction from him?

Rusty Hardin: Well, the difference -- sure. I think it's natural to want it. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. But the point was … supporters weren't demanding it. They understood that he was being advised by people who wanted to take a deliberate approach, for instance -- and make sure they knew what they were talking about before they started talking.

Well, let's just assume you're the client and all these things are being said by you, and you tell me you didn't do it. Do I walk out there and let you tell the world all these things that you will later be living with the rest of your life before we look into it and try to get an explanation? The Mitchell report had 20 months. I still don't understand why this instant response had to be made. The Mitchell people had 20 months to look into this thing. If they make allegations about somebody, what's so unreasonable about taking several weeks before everybody starts coming out with a detailed response?

T.J. Quinn: What do you think people are -- what conclusions are they drawing, though, in that -- in that absence of a statement from Roger?

Rusty Hardin: Well, it isn't in the absence of a statement. That's a straw man. Judged on the way people reacted, it wouldn't have made any difference. If he'd come out and said he did it -- the feeling was so strong about the allegation, it wouldn't have changed anything. Has the Mitchell people now offered to withdraw it now that he said he didn't do it? They haven't, all right? I'll give an example. In the Mitchell report, they cite as one of the pieces of evidences in there the Los Angeles Times article of Nov. 1, 2006, which -- wrongly, it turns out -- reported that Roger and Andy had been named in a particular search warrant.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: And that article ran, and that article was included in the Mitchell report. Well, then what happens? Well, a few weeks ago, as you know, a federal magistrate released -- unsealed it, and it turned out the story was totally false. They weren't in there. L.A. Times, you know, prints an apology and that's it. And yet the Mitchell people haven't taken that out. Nobody's come back and said, 'Oops, we shouldn't have had that in the report.' I think that people made up their mind about Roger and they -- it wouldn't have mattered what he said. So, all we're going to do is finish up making these last sets of presentations to Congress if they want, whenever that works out, and then we're going to be through and history will just have to be the judge. But we are going to continue to look into things that we think should've been considered by the Mitchell people that apparently were not.

T.J. Quinn: Well, let's look at McNamee again. When you heard his name at one point, this guy had made accusations about Roger. What were you told about him, and what did Roger … ?

Rusty Hardin: Oh, I don't have -- well, I can tell you what Roger thought of him, but I don't want to get into anything about him. I don't think this is the proper forum for that. Basically, Roger had thought he was a very good trainer, he would've considered that they were friends and he was shocked by it. But he didn't have bad things to say about McNamee. And I don't think it moves the ball any for me to do that now. That'll work its way out in other forums.

T.J. Quinn: Well, you've talked about him a great deal, actually. Even just now you brought up he was investigated for possible rape in St. Petersburg, you've talked about his veracity in other places.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:21 am

Rusty Hardin: About his what?

T.J. Quinn: About his veracity in how he's dealt with a lot of things.

Rusty Hardin: I think all I've said is that McNamee -- several of the things that McNamee said in the report by Canseco, OK, weren't true, according to Canseco. Here's the point is I don't know what's true. I never met Brian McNamee, I've never talked to Brian McNamee. And neither has anybody that has been writing and convicting Roger of all these things. They were willing to do it based on what was said in a report. I don't have any idea what Brian McNamee is like. And what I've said is, is everything that's already in the public forum. There had been public articles about the investigation down there. The police officer that investigated him has made public comments. That's what I'm saying. I don't know anything about Brian McNamee other than what is in the public domain so far.

T.J. Quinn: When you sent the two investigators -- Jim Yarbrough and Billy Belk?

Rusty Hardin: Yes.

T.J. Quinn: When they went down, what was their goal … ?

Rusty Hardin: To find out what he said. At that time, find out what he said had happened. We had no idea. We had a short conversation he'd made the week before, and obviously if there is a possibility that there's about to be a report by an American icon that Roger used steroids, we'd like to know as much about that as we can. It was a total informational, gathering information.

T.J. Quinn: When they went down there, was it … ?

Rusty Hardin: Up there.

T.J. Quinn: Of course, sorry. We can't get much down from where we are. When they went there to see him, you had said that you'd already talked to Roger, you had -- or at least to the Hendricks brothers. Had you decided then that you believe Roger, that there was no way McNamee was telling the truth?

Rusty Hardin: No. I think it'd be irresponsible for me to do that. I didn't have a relationship with Roger. Roger appeared to be telling me the truth, and he's always told me the same thing. And now if you asked me, I would say, yes, I do believe him. But at that time, I didn't have enough of a basis. And we were trying to find out what had happened. I think it would've been tremendously irresponsible for me as a lawyer to make up my mind within 24 hours and then act on it from there. I think anybody ought to -- and that's my complaint that's happened in general. Everybody made up their mind the day that George Mitchell stood before the cameras and made the announcement. That's my complaint. Everybody should have, in my view, given that the same credence as -- now there's a statement coming from a very respected public official. Now what's the other side? What can we find out and so? And what was the hurry of finding out from the other side in 24 hours?

T.J. Quinn: Did Roger say at that point why he hadn't gone to Mitchell and … ?

Rusty Hardin: He's said since. You have to remember …

T.J. Quinn: No, right at the time I'm saying.

Rusty Hardin: Did he say when?

T.J. Quinn: When you first talked to him. Had he been approached at that point by Mitchell … ?

Rusty Hardin: He personally was never approached, OK? The dealings went back and forth between his agents and, and the union, and the Mitchell people. Roger and his agents always thought when the Mitchell people gave him an opportunity to come down that they were being asked about -- they were going to be asked about the thing that was a year old in the L.A. Times that they already addressed. And so they just declined and said no. As did most baseball players, almost all of them. Roger made very clear, as has Randy Hendricks, if they had known that Brian McNamee was making the kind of allegations he was to the Mitchell Commission, they'd have been there in a heartbeat.

T.J. Quinn: Did they ask what he wanted to talk about?

Rusty Hardin: Yeah, that was the issue. That was what was happening with all these players. Tell us what the basis -- what are the allegations against us? Who's making it, etc., so we can really understand whether we want to come down and talk. That was never told. The Clemens people never had any idea that what the Mitchell people wanted to them about were allegations being made by Brian McNamee. If they had, they'd have been there.

T.J. Quinn: Right. In hindsight, what decision would you have made about having Roger speak out?

Rusty Hardin: I would've never have done it differently. And I also think that it would not have changed anything. I understand everybody saying it would. And I'll be glad to assume the blame if people think it was the wrong thing to do. But it doesn't make sense to me now and didn't then that you would take your client out and have him respond -- no offense -- to the media pound. And everybody [unintelligible] until you've had an opportunity to look into it yourself. And he wouldn't even know what McNamee was saying, so he'd have been out there naked. He'd have gone out and said, 'I didn't do it.' And then everybody had all these questions and he wouldn't have any answer 'cause he wouldn't even know they were issues -- he wouldn't even know when that was. When was that supposed to be?

Keep in mind these allegations are about what he did in '98, in '99 -- I guess '98, 2000, 2001. If he'd have walked out there that first day to answer questions from anybody about things back that far before he even knew what was being said he did, it'd have been crazy. I've said many times -- anytime -- and next time the only way I'd ever consider it is if a client insisted on it so much that you paid my malpractice insurance. Because it would be malpractice for a lawyer to allow him to do that.

T.J. Quinn: What do you think people are looking for? Someone whose mind truly is not made up. When you have accusation like this, what signs are they looking for as they try to make up their mind?

Rusty Hardin: Well, does the accusation make sense in light of the person's history and career? When he looks you in the face, he says he doesn't -- didn't do it, does he appear to be telling the truth? Uh, does what he say make sense? What's the history of the person making the allegation? What motive do they have? Uh, what is their background? What have they said before? Do they have a history of being a truth teller or do they have a history of not being a truth teller? Uh, if the person the allegation's being made about has very strong feelings about why he or she wouldn't do it, does it make sense?

I don't think it's fair to expect anybody on either side of the issue to make up their mind instantly based on what one side or the other does. I have said simply this should've been a reasoning process in which people in the media allowed it to play out in a reasoned way to make an overall assessment. And that's not what's happened.

T.J. Quinn: Well, when someone sat and looked at just the numbers for Roger's career, what conclusions do you think they drew?

Rusty Hardin: Oh, I think, I think they drew incredibly stupid inclusions -- uh, conclusions, if they concluded that somehow you can look at his performance and it fits in. For instance, everybody talks about his, uh, doing it in order to extend his career. Think about it, T.J. The guy is supposed to have taken steroids in '98. In '97, he won the Cy Young. '98, he won the Cy Young. … And he won the Cy Young in 2004. Three years -- well, why isn't -- look, these statistics are not conclusive. One of the things we've been looking at is, is his win-loss record. What was his win-loss record that last year with Houston? It wasn't good, right?

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: What was his earned run average?

T.J. Quinn: It was -- well, he was… [overlapping] I don't remember the number.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:21 am

Rusty Hardin: It was the best in the league.

T.J. Quinn: [overlapping] I know he also had the worst run support…

Rusty Hardin: Right. And it was the best in the league. And so if somebody goes to look at -- at 44 years old or 43 years of age or whatever it was -- 43, I guess, had the best earned run average in the league when nobody is suggesting you're using steroids. And, in fact, when the accuser says "It's been four years since you did" or since he knew anything about it, and he's still training you -- and was Roger supposed to still be using them those last six years when McNamee was training him? All I'm saying is none of these things are definitive.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: But they don't make sense. And when you look back at his career, long before anybody could've suggested steroids, uh, he had -- any pitcher, he has up and downs. The other thing is -- we've now, since, in the last few days, talked to masseuses and trainers who saw him, to put it indelicately, in his barest form on a regular basis. No issue of steroid use, no issue either in the change of his body or anything else. Is that determinative? No. But is it something people ought to have looked at? And shouldn't the Mitchell investigators have talked to those people in reaching their conclusion? That's all I'm saying. I'm not expecting anybody, as I said before, to believe me at face value about any of this. But why isn't everybody checking out all these other things to see if what McNamee is saying makes sense?

T.J. Quinn: Who else did -- was Mitchell relying on…?

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] I don't know.

T.J. Quinn: Well, he wasn't alone in that room. I mean, he was sitting there -- there were also several prosecutors, investigator for the IRS.

Rusty Hardin: Right.

T.J. Quinn: How do you think they influenced how Mitchell…?

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] See, I've never -- and I'm not now -- I'm not making any allegation of any improper conduct by either law enforcement in this matter or the Mitchell people. We can only go so far, since we haven't had discovery in a civil case, on what McNamee has told us. I have no idea whether that's the truth. That's why, in our petition, you know, we mentioned the way McNamee described to us the interviews by government. I don't know whether he's accurately stating them or not. I'm not about to say he is or he isn't. If he is to be believed in what he says, his contention was that the government -- when they first started talking to him -- wanted Roger and believed Roger had used him, and that's the way the government defined the truth. And according to him, the first day of his meetings with him, he denied that Roger or these other guys did anything. And then the next day he said he did.

I don't know whether his interpretation is true or not. But look, if the government comes to you -- and I can say this as a prosecutor over 15 years -- if the government believes X is the truth and then tells you that you've got to tell the truth, it doesn't take a rocket science [sic] to figure out how the truth is being defined. Is there anything improper in that? No. There's not. I'm not suggesting that. But if McNamee is trying to stay out of trouble with the federal government and he knows that this particular prosecutor or investigator believes X, and decides to save himself, maybe he gives him X. I don't know that. I don't know whether his version of what happened between the government and the Mitchell people is true. He has Mitchell giving him a hug afterwards. At some of his press interviews, he has said that in that interview what happens is, is that the government simply reads what he had told them in the previous interviews, asks him if that's true. And he has the Mitchell Commission taking a very inactive role in the meeting with him. I don't know what's true. I just simply say those are all things to take into consideration.
T.J. Quinn: Do you have…?

Rusty Hardin: Part of the deal is, is this rush to judgment is incredibly unhealthy for the whole system. I watched this with Arthur Andersen when I represented them, uh, and there was this firestorm just like this. And there were congressional hearings and people sitting in the klieg lights looking like they've just been run over or about to be run over. And at the end of the day, a company of 85,000 will run out of business worldwide, uh, because of this clamber and presumption that what looked bad at first blush had to be, therefore, bad. And so, I, I really -- all I have been saying through this whole thing is why doesn't everybody back up, take a deep breath? There is not this schedule where this has to be decided on a 24-hour basis. We've gotten to demand such immediate answers, T.J., that what everybody says is -- if somebody said you did X, and I demand an answer, response within 24 hours, I don't see why that has to be. Why can't we just calm down, let this play out, both sides be listened to and then make up our mind?

T.J. Quinn: Right. Well, let's go back to McNamee for a second. In your defamation complaint against him, you refer to a conversation where he talked about being in a room with Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Parrella, Jeff Novitzky, who's the lead investigator from the IRS in the BALCO case. Uh, where did that conversation come from?

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] It came from what he told us.

T.J. Quinn: That was from meeting with those two guys?

Rusty Hardin: Yes, on that Wednesday.

T.J. Quinn: Was that conversation recorded?

Rusty Hardin: Yes.

T.J. Quinn: Why haven't you released that tape?

Rusty Hardin: Why would I do that?

T.J. Quinn: Well, you released the other…

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] That's all work product of ours. I mean, why would I do it now? I'll tell you why I don't want to, is -- look, it'll always -- all be ultimately discovered within the civil lawsuit. The other side'll get a copy of it in due time. There's no obligation for us to give that to y'all, in all due respect, right now. And the other reason I don't want it out is because the evidence is pretty clear so far. If McNamee's lawyers are to be believed, he hasn't been telling them the truth. Because they have made some suggestions about things. If you'll recall, uh, the suggestion was, is that we tried to get, uh, him to recant. We didn't. And the evidence will show we didn't. Well, that has to be based on things that McNamee's telling them, if they're telling the truth. So I see no reason for us to provide McNamee with an ability to mold his story that he continues to… I'm much more comfortable letting him finish talking to the government, let him finish talking to his lawyers, and then both sides get under oath and then see what it says.

T.J. Quinn: OK, but there was a previous conversation that you did. Well, first, after the Mitchell report came out…

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] Wait, you want to know why we did the previous conversation? Don't pass it off like that, T.J.

T.J. Quinn: No, no, no, I'm going back to it.

Rusty Hardin: But let me tell you why it was. You're talking about the press conference that was done?

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: Yeah. Well, the reason it was -- the papers -- the paper you used to work for was saying that, uh, we had, uh, tried to cajole, and bribe, and corruptly influence a federal witness. That's the reason it's played.

T.J. Quinn: Who said bribe? Did someone write…?

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] Bribe may be a strong word. You're right. And I don't even remember the exact words. What the suggestion to go back and look at the articles is, is that they felt that in that conversation we had tried to improperly influence a federal witness.

T.J. Quinn: They being McNamee and his lawyers?

Rusty Hardin: McNamee's lawyers, OK. [overlapping] …everybody listen to it and decide.

T.J. Quinn: Once the Mitchell report came out, what were the odds that Brian McNamee was going to try to call Roger?

Rusty Hardin: Oh, we were shocked. Yeah. I mean, I -- that was pretty -- you could've won some money in Vegas on that.

T.J. Quinn: Yeah. What was your first reaction? What'd you say?

Rusty Hardin: You know, there were two different reactions. Roger's reaction was, because he still had feelings -- favorable feelings toward McNamee at that time, or some -- or certainly a [reservoir?] -- was that maybe McNamee was ready to tell him it didn't really happen. All of us's feelings were McNamee was trying to set him up. And so that's the reason the conversation was taped -- exactly so nobody could ever suggest that -- you know, that Roger in that conversation was trying to get McNamee to do anything improper. That was -- that was the reason it was taped.

T.J. Quinn: Why decide to do what you did? Why have him talk at all?

Rusty Hardin: Because the guy who was making the allegations was reaching out. That in itself was so unusual that we had to find out why he was reaching out. Was he reaching out because he changed his mind, he wanted to come clean? Or was he reaching out trying to set Roger up?

T.J. Quinn: Right. What were your concerns about Roger talking to him at all?

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:22 am

Rusty Hardin: Saying anything that could later be construed as Roger trying to improperly influence him. That again is the reason for the tape. And in real -- reality, that's why the tape is so inconclusive in the terms of no fine bright lines. Though Roger more than -- either eight or more times -- says "I just want the truth" and McNamee never says to him "I told the truth." And Roger says several times "I didn't take steroids and I didn't do this." And McNamee never says, "Yes, you did." The fact is, people are right, there is no absolute clear line on there. And the reason is Roger that whole time is sitting there trying to make sure he doesn't say anything that tries to encourage McNamee in an improper way. McNamee's indicating he'll do anything. "Roger, I'll do anything. What do you want me to do?" And that just scares Roger to death, 'cause after -- 'cause he didn't know what he can say and what he can't say. He just keeps saying, "I want you to tell the truth."

T.J. Quinn: What was the scene? Where were you guys when you got that call?

Rusty Hardin: It was in a, uh, it was in a sort of rec room, a small room or exercise room of Roger's at his house.

T.J. Quinn: In Roger's house, OK. And who was there?

Rusty Hardin: Uh, several lawyers from my office and Roger, uh, and Roger's agent.

T.J. Quinn: OK. And when -- what's going -- was there interaction between all of you while, uh -- while this is happening?

Rusty Hardin: No, we were all listening, because we can't hear what McNamee is saying. We can only hear Roger's end of the conversation. So, you know, we don't know what he's saying. And you notice there's some dead times while McNamee is talking and, and Roger's not saying anything. Well, during that time, we don't know what's happening.

T.J. Quinn: How is Roger reacting during that?

Rusty Hardin: Roger is acting like somebody who wants him to come down and tell the truth, doesn't know how he can suggest it definitively. And yet the whole conversation is really, really weird. He's sitting there; he's been asked to call, uh, from his standpoint, McNamee has raised the specter of McNamee's son who Roger cared a great deal about. And he doesn't really know. It's a very uncertain call. I mean, how do you -- what do you do in that situation?

T.J. Quinn: Right. When you listen to that tape, I mean, Roger said to him, like you said, a number of times "I didn't do this." Or "I want someone to tell the truth" or "Just tell the truth." And he says at another point "Why did you tell them I use steroids?" Why didn't he just say, "Why did you lie to them?" or "Why did you lie and say I used steroids?"

Rusty Hardin: I don't know what difference would it have made? He said -- he said, "I didn't use steroids" and "I just want somebody to tell the truth," and McNamee never contradicted him on either one of those. So, I mean, that is something that I as a lawyer or you as a journalist might like more definitively to be done, but that wasn't the dynamics of the conversation. Roger keeps saying it, waiting -- now, there's no question, once McNamee said he's willing to come down, wants to come down and meet with Roger, if Roger thinks the guy's about to come down and come clean, he doesn't want to do anything that gets the guy all upset where he changes his mind and doesn't do -- if that's what he's going to do.

You've got to remember, Roger, uh, is an incredible baseball player. But he doesn't have any kind of graduate degree on how to do a taped conversation for the first time in his life in such a way that it pleases everybody.

T.J. Quinn: Had you prepped him?

Rusty Hardin: No. What we prepped him on -- not what to say -- what we prepped him on was "You have got to be incredibly careful that you are not trying to offer him anything or make it sound like you're willing to do anything in return for him changing his testimony."

T.J. Quinn: Did you talk at all about somehow getting McNamee to say on that tape "You're right, I lied. That's not the truth"?

Rusty Hardin: No, no. I think any time you try to coach a witness like that -- on a taped conversation with a layperson -- the biggest danger is them doing all the talking and not letting the other person talk. So we explained that to Roger. But, no, we didn't do that.

T.J. Quinn: Right. How do you think -- what do you think of the reaction to that tape after you played it?

Rusty Hardin: It was mixed. And at least -- anything mixed is, is, you know, is an improvement. Because it hadn't been mixed before. You know, part of the deal -- when Roger was in the press conference, he was looking out and he was seeing facially people that had just written some vicious things about him on a regular basis.

T.J. Quinn: Some local people especially.

Rusty Hardin: Yeah, some local people especially. And every time he looked out to take a question, he'd see one of them and it would, you know, sort of inflame him a little bit. And, uh, that explained part of his anger at the press conference. But the real explanation with the anger at his press conference was, is he's had it. He believes that he has said everything he can now and if people don't believe him there's nothing he can do about it. And he doesn't feel like he's just going to keep going around the world talking about it.

T.J. Quinn: Right. When you -- when you first met him, actually, what was -- were you talking to Andy Pettitte as well at the time?

Rusty Hardin: No. We talked to Andy -- we did talk to Andy, but separate from Roger.

T.J. Quinn: OK.

Rusty Hardin: Never talked to him…

T.J. Quinn: [overlapping] OK, did you have any thought of representing Andy at that point?Rusty Hardin: Uh, Andy originally, uh, it might've been possible. But once we understood what Andy's position was, the same lawyer couldn't represent both.

T.J. Quinn: When did you hear Andy's position?

Rusty Hardin: That Sunday.

T.J. Quinn: OK. Had you, had you known Andy at all before that?

Rusty Hardin: No, I didn't know either one of them.

T.J. Quinn: What do you think of Andy's character?

Rusty Hardin: Oh, I think he's a great guy. I think he's very honest, uh, he's a very religious person, he's a refreshingly disarming, uh, totally honest person. I mean, I think, uh -- that's the same way Roger feels. I mean, they're like big brother, little brother is the way Andy has described it to others. He was like Roger's little brother, and Roger felt like his big brother. They're 10 years apart. Uh, Andy is just a superior human being.

T.J. Quinn: That was actually -- when Roger came back here to pitch, part of his thinking was to…

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] Absolutely. He has said that he probably wouldn't have come back here if Andy wasn't here. Yeah. This isn't about between Roger and Andy. They're still very close friends.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:22 am

T.J. Quinn: What did you think when you heard Andy say, "Yes, this is true"?

Rusty Hardin: You know, I -- obviously, as soon as you hear that, you know that that is going to be something focused on -- people focus on in terms of whether to be Roger. How could it be true that McNamee is lying about Roger but telling the truth about Andy? And I guess the only answer I've always had for that -- come on, isn't it possible for a person to be lying about one thing and telling the truth about the other, and vice versa? One doesn't dispose of the other. Andy and Roger have always said they weren't around each other when any of that was going on. So it's just two different issues.

T.J. Quinn: How do you think -- you say that, and we've heard what Roger's said about the subject, but we haven't heard from Andy. Why do you think that's the case?

Rusty Hardin: That's up to Andy and his lawyers. I mean, they'll do whatever they think is appropriate and best for Andy, and, and we wish him all the luck in the world. I'm sure that if, uh -- I think -- I know this. Andy is always going to tell the truth about whatever he says. Now whether he speaks or whether his lawyers or others think it's better for him to do -- you know, to stay out of this, that's up to them. Um, but I've got to tell you, I think it was tremendously unfair to put Andy in that report. Stop and think about what he has -- what McNamee said he did and what he has conceded publicly he did. He took a substance two out of three days that was neither illegal nor banned.

T.J. Quinn: HGH?

Rusty Hardin: Five days, yeah. If you go on Continental airplane right now, you'll see HGH, you know, advertised in the magazines. My point being is, is that if a guy takes a shot of something two times in a three-day period, five years before, do you really put his name out there in a report that's going to be running across the bottom of ESPN every day for the next two days?

T.J. Quinn: Well, we're talking about a drug that's -- again, it might not be illegal and it's not a banned substance like steroids, but it is very strictly controlled by the FDA. And doctors and people within the FDA will say there's no reason a healthy man of Andy's age would need growth hormone.

Rusty Hardin: OK. OK. So? He did it two out of three days and quit. I mean, where is the sense of balance to that, T.J.? You want me to do that with your life?

T.J. Quinn: [overlapping] Well, what's…

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] No, no, no, stop and think about it. That's incredible. You said it's a heavily controlled substance. You guys have been tremendously unfair to him. That's not something that his career and life should've been judged on. You can draw whatever conclusion… You know, people get a penicillin shot and a doctor didn't prescribe it. OK, he shouldn't have gotten it. Is that something that you judge the guy's career for?

T.J. Quinn: Are those the same thing -- penicillin and HGH?

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] Well, well, no. But is it a controlled substance? Human growth hormone is something that Andy has said that he did. I'm not here to defend Andy. But I've got to tell you, I think the report -- putting him out there in that report was tremendously unfair to him. I don't represent him, I'm not his lawyer or anything. But how y'all think -- "y'all" being anybody that justifies putting that out there -- five years before he got two shots while he was on the disabled list, not to improve his performance. And, in fact, when you go look at the Mitchell report, you'll see that they appropriately point out that human growth hormone is not a performance-enhancing substance.

T.J. Quinn: Who says that?

Rusty Hardin: It's in the Mitchell report.

T.J. Quinn: That is, not defined as one by baseball.

Rusty Hardin: No, period. Not about baseball.

T.J. Quinn: Where does it say that in the report?

Rusty Hardin: Do you have doctors, T.J., that will tell you that what Andy did would have helped his performance? Andy has said that what he did was take a substance that he read and heard might help him heal quick -- more quickly. The Mitchell report itself addresses and says that. So if that is the case, if the guy's motive is not to enhance his performance, not to unnaturally perform, but to speed up the healing process, which the literature says a lot of people contended they did -- I don't know whether it does or not. And he did it two out of three days, five years before. Do you really think it's fair to put him out there in a report that's going to ruin his reputation?

T.J. Quinn: What has the public response been…?

Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] What was your answer? Don't I get to ask any questions?

T.J. Quinn: I didn't -- no. Come interview me at my office. [chuckles]

Rusty Hardin: That's fine, that's fine.

T.J. Quinn: You can ask whatever you like. What was the public reaction to Andy, though?

Rusty Hardin: Well, because Andy conceded it, I think, you know, that he did it. Uh, that it's been a lot more charitable and understandable. Nobody was asking the question I thought. What did he admit to? Was what he did anything that should have been treated the way it was in the public domain? People didn't ask that. And I would say this. That one reason people have piled on Roger here so much is, is he's denied it.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: He might've had a whole different reaction if he'd lied and admitted it. But people wanted him to admit it, and when he didn't, then everybody goes crazy.

T.J. Quinn: Again, one of the things that keeps coming up is these guys spent so much time together. They shared a trainer; they worked out together all the time. And it seems implausible to people that they never would've discussed what one or the other did.

Rusty Hardin: Why? Why would -- why would it be implausible that Andy would never mention to Roger what he did on two out of three days, when he wasn't even with the team -- he's down in Tampa and Roger's off with the team? Why would that be implausible? What in the world…? Are you going to say to me that because two people are -- think about what y'all are doing, T.J. You're melding everybody together and saying because two people are friends, they had to discuss it. There's not two friends in the world that can survive that kind of assumption. This is not a fair standard you're applying. When I say "you," I'm not talking about you personally -- I'm talking about this whole thing. It's the collective you.

So let's see what we've got here. Roger and Andy are good friends, so they must have talked about it. Why must they have talked about it? You're assuming. What if Roger never used them -- what if he's telling the truth? And Andy did in this isolated incident when Roger wasn't even there? So, they're supposed to have talked about that to each other?

Now, the other thing is this thing about people talking about steroids. Think what the Mitchell report talks about. It, it raises conversation to a new level of significance. You and I are talking about steroids right now -- does that mean either one of us used them? I mean, but that's what the Mitchell report says, that these guys were talking about steroids.

T.J. Quinn: Why do you think Mitchell was comfortable enough going with what he did?

Rusty Hardin: I don't know. Again, you know, maybe they -- maybe they have more than we know about, OK? Maybe they have -- I respectfully suggest to you that at the end of the day they don't have credible evidence that Roger used them. But they may have evidence that made them think so. I think what -- the only thing I've been asking people to do is why not reserve the possibility that an icon can be wrong just like you and me? And, and, uh, McNamee is brought to the Mitchell Commission, sponsored by federal agents who obviously believe McNamee. I'm not criticizing them for believing him. Just like I would hope they don't criticize me for believing Roger. But, but the point being is, is that when he comes to Mitchell, he is sponsored by -- obviously credible people. You said an agent, an assistant U.S. Attorney. So, uh, you know, you'd have to ask -- you'd have to ask George Mitchell that question. I know when they gave their press conference, they talked about -- they debated long and hard about what level of proof they would require.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: But I don't know what level of proof that was. I just think that it'd be a sad day in this country if good people couldn't be wrong.

T.J. Quinn: Well, I don't know if anyone's argued that, that good people can't be wrong. But what they're looking at -- well, I don't want to say what people are looking at, I don't know what they're looking at. But you've got a situation where -- well, let me ask you. How did -- when McNamee talked to your guys, how did he describe his interviews with Matt Parrella and Jeff Novitzky?

Rusty Hardin: The way our petition describes them, that's what I'm saying.

T.J. Quinn: Which is how? What does that say?

Rusty Hardin: Well, what he said -- what he said to them was, is that, uh, that Novitzky got furious with him the second day of the interviews because he would not admit that Clemens used steroids. That he was -- he was told that he had -- there were two strikes against him already. One strike was that he was a former cop -- he'd been a police officer for three years -- going to the pen. He could go to the pen as somebody doing drugs. And now he was lying to -- lying to him. And that, that, uh, federal agents got mad and slammed down paper -- threw paper at him. I have no reason to believe one way or the other that's true. I'm just saying that is what McNamee said happened.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: I don't know that that's what happened.

T.J. Quinn: But he said he was pressed. Did he ever tell those two guys "I didn't tell them the truth"?

Rusty Hardin: No. No, he -- he does not tell our investigators a different story than he says he told the government.

T.J. Quinn: Right. Were you aware of any time when Brian McNamee was trying to tell someone before he met with Parrella and Novitzky that Roger Clemens was a steroid user?

Rusty Hardin: No.

T.J. Quinn: Why do you think they were so convinced that Roger was?

Rusty Hardin: I have no idea. You'd have to ask them. And you say so convinced. All I know is, is what McNamee has said.

T.J. Quinn: Right.

Rusty Hardin: I don't know that they were. And part of the problem here, remember, is we know no more than -- in fact, you guys probably know more than we do. We know no more than what's in the Mitchell report. I only know the following: That Roger is, is adamant and totally believable to me that he did not use them; that he never used them, as he has said both publicly on "60 Minutes" and in the press conference; that he would never use them because of what he believed they did to your body; and, and that it was totally contrary to his whole career. Past that, that's all I know.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:27 am

The media and the things people say are cruel in todays world; I don't know why people act this way; its very clear that more negative is being said by the media than the truth against Roger, on the other hand, they could be supporting Roger and really when you look at the credibility of McNamee, you have to give the doubt to Roger. As an example, the girl who lost her legs this summer on the drop ride had her fellow classmates make fun of her. I can't believe some people can be so cruel, I really feel sorry for her and would at least offer encouragement that there are better days ahead. So it seems in todays world, people will do or say anything to get ahead and become famous at the cost of someone else; we are all living in junior high still as adults!

andro, insteresting name by the way, your last statement says it all "people will DO or say anything to get ahead" thats just what clemens did by taking roids and hgh. for some reason you dont want to think mcnamee is credible , but petite said that what he said regarding him was the truth, why would he tell the truth about andy but not about roger? look at how many times clemens has changed his story, first he never got injected, then it was " oh yeah i was injected but only with b12 and lidocaine" hmm lido is a local anesthetic used mostly by dentists, so unless roger had a sore butt cheek, there is no reason at all for using that. then lets look at rogers 60 mins interview, he said he wasnt sure he would take a lie detector test. if you are innocent why wouldnt you do anything you could to prove your telling the truth. then roger says , sure he will testify before congress. now the story has changed that he cant because of the pending lawsuit. and lastly why would both roger and petite hire private investigators to speak to macnamee before

because lie detector tests simply aren't 100% accurate. it will be interesting if it turns out roger is telling the truth. will sports media ever start acting like true journalists after having failed so badly with the duke lacrosse story and then again here? and then there is mitchell... i want to know who was pulling his strings because he has not acted as one would have expected someone of his reputation to act in such an important case. he completely dropped the ball and stepped across lines a man of his integrity never would unless pressured. so, who really is behind the mitchell report? same people who shot jfk and covered up roswell? no, but this mitchell report is seriously fishy for they have contrived their report.

obfuscation, twisting, and avoiding 191. Why not give us the other tape? Well, it will ocme out in discovery. But you played the other one, which proved nothing. Well, it's mixed. And we can't testify now because it will affect the lawsuit. Wow, what a surprise.

Who cares anymore? The guy is done pitching. It's clear, steroids or no steroids, he was an amazing pitcher for a good amount of years. Remember him how you want. Cheater or not. He'll never sway 100% of the general public to his side. It seems McNamee is not the most credible person in the world, either. You could argue all day for either side. It's irresponsible and uninformed for people to post about his "definite" guilt or innocence. I hate ESPN for allowing these comments. Not speaking directly about this article, but I have a hard time controlling myself from responding to the typical "Red Sox Rule!!!111!!!!" ESPN-type fan.

Clemens is lying and he is disgusting, he is destroying a little guy just so his reputation stays clean. Well, Clemens that little guy is just like the other 99% of the world who are not celebrities. Clemens only cares about himself and will dispose of anyone who gets in his way. My hope is that the truth does come out (Marion Jones) and he has to do his time.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:29 am

it's so much easier to root for the patriots
trotdaubach Post #1: Jan 12, 4:00 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 7010
than it is to root for the sox. just a much more likeable bunch.
dana_jacobson Post #2: Jan 12, 4:00 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 526
clutch
BIGPAPIisCLUTCH Post #3: Jan 12, 5:32 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 36

wierd post. I trying to find the humor in it. Then again, is it serious? Cant be, the Redsox have pro's galore on the team.

This post has me baffled...

Explain it please!!!!!!
StStephenWillRemain Post #4: Jan 12, 5:49 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3655
because the entire Patriots roster came up through their farm system???
trotdaubach Post #5: Jan 12, 6:00 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 7010

wierd post. I trying to find the humor in it. Then again, is it serious? Cant be, the Redsox have pro's galore on the team.

This post has me baffled...

Explain it please!!!!!!

it's difficult sometimes to root for a bunch of bought overpaid guys although my allegiance to the sox runs too deep and i cant shake it.

the pats are just a fun good group of guys.
hoopreigns Post #6: Jan 12, 6:04 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 23

it's difficult sometimes to root for a bunch of bought overpaid guys although my allegiance to the sox runs too deep and i cant shake it.

the pats are just a fun good group of guys.

Like you know them personally.

dabrushe Post #7: Jan 12, 6:05 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2391

it's difficult sometimes to root for a bunch of bought overpaid guys although my allegiance to the sox runs too deep and i cant shake it.

the pats are just a fun good group of guys.

Like you know them personally.

hoop, long time no see
BIGPAPIisCLUTCH Post #8: Jan 12, 6:06 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 36

wierd post. I trying to find the humor in it. Then again, is it serious? Cant be, the Redsox have pro's galore on the team.

This post has me baffled...

Explain it please!!!!!!

it's difficult sometimes to root for a bunch of bought overpaid guys although my allegiance to the sox runs too deep and i cant shake it.

the pats are just a fun good group of guys.

Oh...phew! I thought you were maybe dissing the Pats or somesht. I hear ya with the money part, but you have to agree they are a good clubhouse, and great mix of youth/veteran leadership.

The only thing I have against the Redsox, is Ortiz dressing like a 13 year old wanna-be thug. I so wish he would dapper it up a tad. Enough with the basketball jerseys David, please.
trotdaubach Post #9: Jan 12, 6:10 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 7010

wierd post. I trying to find the humor in it. Then again, is it serious? Cant be, the Redsox have pro's galore on the team.

This post has me baffled...

Explain it please!!!!!!

it's difficult sometimes to root for a bunch of bought overpaid guys although my allegiance to the sox runs too deep and i cant shake it.

the pats are just a fun good group of guys.

Oh...phew! I thought you were maybe dissing the Pats or somesht. I hear ya with the money part, but you have to agree they are a good clubhouse, and great mix of youth/veteran leadership.

The only thing I have against the Redsox, is Ortiz dressing like a 13 year old wanna-be thug. I so wish he would dapper it up a tad. Enough with the basketball jerseys David, please.

i want to injure lugo everytime i see that idiot.
hoopreigns Post #10: Jan 12, 6:14 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 23

it's difficult sometimes to root for a bunch of bought overpaid guys although my allegiance to the sox runs too deep and i cant shake it.

the pats are just a fun good group of guys.

Like you know them personally.

hoop, long time no see

Hi, Dabrushe! I figured we'd reconnect in the Spring. I haven't been on the board as much during the holidays. You know the drill. Still I am going to try to log on once in awhile as the Patriots go for their 4th bowl this century. I think they will despite the enormous pressure.

ebl050680 Post #11: Jan 12, 11:32 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 12
It's easier rooting for a cheating, dirty team? Good grief. How many late hits and uneccessary roughness get called tonight? They were much better when they did it the right way, not this way
kletendre826 Post #12: 1:00 am Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 100
i'm a pats fan but i don't see how its easy to root for them if you aren't a pats fan. the whole cheating thing didn't win any friends, theres a lot of late hits from usually rodney harrison, and belicheick can appear like a jerk when he runs up the score. with that said a lot of pats are good respectable player who at leas tappear to be very nice people. the red sox are a lot more likable to me despite some outrageous contracts. how can you dislike players like ortiz, varitek, lowell, pedroia, youkilis, ellsbury, papelbon, lester etc. to me sox are way more likeable so i disagree entirely but can see whyd you say that. i just think the sox have a great group of people

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:31 am

Spring training schedules

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/13/Rays/Spring_training_sched.shtml

Published January 13, 2008

ADVERTISEMENT
Sports News Video

Tampa Bay Rays
Where: Progress Energy Park, St. Petersburg
Tickets: Field box ($20), Loge box ($17), Grandstand ($15), General admission berm ($7).
Contact: (727) 898-7297 or (813) 282-7297 or www.tampabay.rays.mlb.com
All games start at 1:05 p.m. unless noted.
February
29 — at Reds
March
1 — Blue Jays
2 — at Pirates
3 — at Tigers
4 — Twins
5 — Astros
6 — at Phillies
7 — Phillies
8 — at Yankees, 1:15
9 — Reds
10 — Indians
11 — at Twins
12 — Yankees
13 — at Red Sox
14 — Blue Jays
15 — at Braves (ss)
15 — at Yankees (ss), 1:15
16 — Tigers
18 — at Phillies
19 — Phillies
20 — Indians
21 — at Yankees, 7:15
22 — Pirates
23 — at Reds
24 — Pirates
25 — at Blue Jays
26 — at Twins
27 — at Indians
28 — Reds
29 — at Reds

Toronto Blue Jays
Where: Knology Park, Dunedin
Tickets: On-line sale begins Tuesday. Tickets may be purchased by phone or at the box office on Jan. 21. Lower club ($24 for premium games, $18 for regular), upper club and lower outfield ($20, $15), upper outfield ($17, $13).
Contact: (727) 733-0429 or www.bluejays.com.
All games start at 1:05 p.m. unless noted.
February
28 — at Tigers
29 — Tigers
March
1 — at Rays
2 — Reds
3 — Indians
4 — Yankees
5 — Phillies
6 — at Pirates
7 — Twins (ss)
8 — Tigers
9 — at Phillies
10 — at Astros
11 — at Yankees, 1:15
12 — Pirates
13 — at Indians
14 — at Rays
15 — Pirates
16 — at Twins
17 — at Pirates
19 — at Red Sox
20 — Yankees
21 — at Tigers
22 — at Yankees, 1:15
23 — Phillies
24 — at Reds, 7:05
25 — Rays
26 — Reds
27 — Astros
28 — at Phillies (Philadelphia), 7:05
29 — at Phillies (Philadelphia)

Philadelphia Phillies
Where: Bright House Networks Field, Clearwater
Tickets: Club level ($27), Premium box ($22), Field box ($20), Picnic Terrace ($16), Berm ($10). Tickets are $5 extra on March 1 and 26.
Contact: (727) 467-4457 or www.phillies.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
26 — Florida State, 7:05
27 — Reds
28 — Pirates
29 — at Pirates
March
1 — Yankees
2 — at Yankees, 1:15
3 — Pirates
4 — at Braves
5 — at Blue Jays (ss)
5 — at Tigers (ss)
6 — Rays
7 — at Rays
8 — at Indians
9 — Blue Jays
10 — at Pirates
12 — Reds, 7:05
13 — at Reds, 7:05
14 — Braves
15 — Twins
16 — at Reds
17 — Indians
18 — Rays
19 — at Rays
20 — Pirates
21 — at Twins
22 — Tigers
23 — at Blue Jays
24 — at Yankees, 7:15
25 — Reds
26 — Yankees
27 — at Tigers
28 — vs. Blue Jays (Philadelphia), 7:05
29 — vs. Blue Jays (Philadelphia), 1:05

New York Yankees
Where: Legends Field, Tampa
Tickets: Counter top seating-deck area ($30), Picnic table seating-deck area ($25), Reserved upper level ($27), Reserved upper level outfield ($17).
Contact: (813) 879-2244 or http://new york. yankees.mlb.com
All home games 1:15, away games 1:05 unless noted.
February
29 — USF
March
1 — at Phillies
2 — Phillies
3 — at Astros
4 — at Blue Jays
5 — Twins
6 — at Reds
7 — Astros
8 — Rays
9 — at Twins
10 — Reds, 7:15
11 — Blue Jays
12 — at Rays
13 — Pirates
14 — at Reds
15 — Rays (ss)
15 — at Tigers (ss)
16 — Indians
17 — Red Sox
18 — at Virginia Tech, 3 p.m.
19 — at Pirates, 7:05
20 — at Blue Jays
21 — Rays, 7:15
22 — Blue Jays
23 — at Pirates
24 — Phillies, 7:15
25 — at Indians
26 — at Phillies
27 — Pirates
28 — at Marlins, 7:10
29 — at Marlins, 6:10

Minnesota Twins
Where: Hammond Stadium, Fort Myers.
Tickets: Box seats ($22), Reserved seats ($20), Drink rail ($20), Lawn seats ($12).
Contact: (612) 338-9467. www.twinsbaseball.com.
February
28 — at Reds, 7:05 p.m.
29 — Red Sox, 7:05 p.m.
March
1 — Red Sox
2 — at Red Sox
3 — Reds
4 — at Rays
5 — at Yankees, 1:15
6 — Orioles
7 — at Red Sox (ss)
7 — at Blue Jays (ss)
8 — at Pirates
9 — Yankees
10 — at Marlins
11 — Rays
12 — Red Sox
13 — at Orioles
14 — Pirates
15 — at Phillies
16 — Blue Jays
17 — Marlins
18 — at Orioles
20 — Reds, 7:05 p.m.
21 — Phillies
22 — at Cardinals
23 — Orioles
24 — Cardinals
25 — Orioles
26 — at Pirates
27 — at Reds
28 — Pirates
29 — at Pirates

Boston Red Sox
Where: City of Palms Park, Fort Myers
Tickets: Home plate box ($46), dugout box front row ($40), Dugout box row 2 ($36), Other box seats ($26), Right field ($26), Reserved seats ($23), Bleachers ($15), Standing room ($12).
Contact: (239) 334-4700
All games at 1:05 unless noted
February
28 — Boston College (ss)
28 — Northeastern (ss), 6:05
29 — at Twins, 7:05
March
1 — at Twins
2 — Twins
3 — at Marlins
4 — Pirates
5 — Reds
6 — Dodgers
7 — Twins (ss)
7 — at Orioles (ss)
8 — Marlins
9 — at Dodgers
10 — at Mets
11 — Mets
12 — at Twins
13 — Rays
14 — Orioles
15 — Reds
16 — at Pirates
17 — at Yankees, 1:15
19 — Blue Jays
22 — at Toyko, Japan
23 — at Tokyo, Japan
25 — vs. A’s (Tokyo)
26 — vs. A’s (Tokyo)
28 — at Dodgers (L.A.)
29 — at Dodgers (L.A.)
30 — at Dodgers (L.A.)

Cleveland Indians
Where: Chain O’ Lakes Park, Winter Haven
Tickets: VIP seats $23, Lower box $16, Upper box $14, Bleacher reserved $11, Outfield bleacher $8, Berm $7.
Contact: (863) 293-3900 or www.indians.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 p.m. unless noted.
February
28 — Astros
29 — at Astros
March
1 — at Tigers
2 — Tigers
3 — at Blue Jays
4 — at Reds
5 — Braves
6 — at Astros
7 — Mets
8 — Phillies
9 — Nationals (ss)
9 — at Nationals (ss)
10 — at Rays
11 — Tigers
12 — at Braves, 7:05
13 — Blue Jays
14 — at Nationals (ss)
14 — Nationals (ss), 7:05
15 — Astros
16 — at Yankees
17 — at Phillies
19 — at Mets, 7:10
20 — Rays
21 — at Braves
22 — Mets
23 — at Tigers
24 — Braves
25 — Yankees
26 — at Astros
27 — Rays
28 — at Braves
29 — at Braves

Pittsburgh Pirates
Where: McKechnie Field, Bradenton
Tickets: Box seats ($16), Reserved ($15), Grandstand ($9).
Contact: (941) 748-4610 or www.pirates.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
27 — Manatee CC, 12:05
28 — at Phillies
29 — Phillies
March
1 — at Reds
2 — Rays
3 — at Phillies
4 — at Red Sox
5 — Tigers
6 — Blue Jays
7 — at Reds (ss)
7 — Reds (ss), 7:05
8 — Twins
9 — at Tigers
10 — Phillies
12 — at Blue Jays
13 — at Yankees, 1:15
14 — Reds (ss)
14 — at Twins (ss)
15 — at Blue Jays
16 — Red Sox
17 — Blue Jays
18 — at Reds
19 — Yankees, 7:05
20 — at Phillies
21 — Reds
22 — at Rays
23 — Yankees
24 — at Rays
25 — Twins
26 — Tigers
27 — at Yankees, 1:15
28 — at Twins
29 — Twins

Cincinnati Reds
Where: Ed White Stadium, Sarasota
Tickets: Box seats ($14), Reserved ($12), General admission ($7).
Contact: (941) 954-4464 or www.reds.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
27 — at Phillies
28 — Twins
29 — Rays
March
1 — Pirates
2 — at Blue Jays
3 — at Twins
4 — Indians
5 — at Red Sox
6 — Yankees
7 — Pirates (ss)
7 — at Pirates (ss), 7:05
8 — Braves
9 — at Rays
10 — at Yankees, 7:15
11 — Astros (ss)
11 — at Tigers (ss)
12 — at Phillies, 7:05
13 — Phillies, 7:05
14 — Yankees (ss)
14 — at Pirates (ss)
15 — at Red Sox
16 — Phillies
17 — Tigers
18 — Pirates
20 — at Twins, 7:05
21 — at Pirates
22 — at Astros
23 — Rays
24 — Blue Jays, 7:05
25 — at Phillies
26 — at Blue Jays
27 — Twins
28 — at Rays
29 — Rays

Houston Astros
Where: Osceola County Stadium, Kissimmee
Tickets: Box seats ($20), Reserved seats ($17), Add $3 to prices on March 3, 14 and 16.
Contact: (407) 839-3900 or www.astros.mlb.com
February
28 — at Indians
29 — Indians
March
1 — Braves
2 — at Braves
3 — Yankees
4 — Tigers
5 — at Rays
6 — Indians
7 — at Yankees, 1:15
8 — at Braves (ss)
8 — Nationals (ss)
9 — at Mets
10 — Blue Jays
11 — at Reds
12 — at Tigers
13 — Dodgers
14 — Tigers, 7:05
15 — Braves (ss)
15 — at Indians (ss)
16 — Mets
17 — at Dodgers
19 — Braves, 7:05
20 — at Nationals
21 — Marlins
22 — Reds
23 — at Braves
24 — at Marlins
25 — at Tigers, 6:05
26 — Indians
27 — at Blue Jays
28 — Tigers (Houston), 7:05
29 — Tigers (Houston), 1:05

Detroit Tigers
Where: Joker Marchant Stadium, Lakeland
Tickets: (All games against Braves, Indians, Mets, Yankees and games on Friday Saturday and Sunday are the higher prices). Field box ($21/$19), Regular box ($20/$18), Reserved ($18/$16), Left field reserved ($13/$12), General admission ($10), Berm ($ Cool

.
Contact: (863) 686-8075 or www.tigers.mlb.com
February
26 — Fla. Southern
27 — Mets
28 — Blue Jays
29 — at Blue Jays
March
1 — Indians
2 — at Indians
3 — Rays
4 — at Astros
5 — Phillies (ss)
5 — at Pirates (ss)
6 — Braves
7 — at Braves
8 — at Blue Jays
9 — Pirates
10 — at Nationals
11 — Reds (ss)
11 — at Indians (ss)
12 — Astros
13 — Braves
14 — at Astros, 7:05
15 — Yankees
16 — at Rays (ss)
16 — at Mets (ss)
17 — at Reds
18 — Nationals
20 — at Braves, 7:05
21 — Blue Jays
22 — at Phillies
23 — Indians
24 — at Nationals
25 — Astros, 6:05
26 — at Pirates
27 — Phillies
28 — at Astros (Houston), 7:05
29 — at Astros (Houston), 1:05

Florida Marlins
Where: Roger Dean Stadium, Jupiter.
Tickets: Field box ($26), Loge box ($24), Bleacher ($12), Grass berm (day of game only, $12).
Contact: (561) 775-1818 or www.marlins.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted
February
26 — Intrasquad game, 3:05
27 — Nationals, 7:05
29 — Orioles
March
1 — Cardinals
2 — vs. Cardinals
3 — Red Sox
4 — Mets
5 — at Orioles (ss)
5 — Cardinals (ss), 7:05
6 — vs. Cardinals
7 — Nationals
8 — at Red Sox (ss)
8 — at Mets (ss)
9 — Orioles
10 — Twins
11 — at Dodgers
12 — Cardinals
13 — at Nationals, 7:05
14 — Mets
15 — Orioles
16 — at Dodgers
17 — at Twins
18 — Dodgers
20 — vs. Cardinals
21 — at Astros
22 — at Orioles
23 — Nationals
24 — Astros
25 — at Orioles
26 — at Mets
27 — Cardinals
28 — Yankees (Miami), 7:10
29 — Yankees (Miami), 6:10

St. Louis Cardinals
Where: Roger Dean Stadium, Jupiter
Tickets: Field box ($26), Loge box ($24), Bleacher ($12), Grass berm (day of game only, $12).
Contact: (561) 775-1818
All games at 1:05 unless noted
February
27 — Saint Louis University
28 — Mets
29 — at Mets
March
1 — vs. Marlins
2 — vs. Marlins
3 — at Nationals
4 — at Orioles
5 — Nationals (ss)
5 — vs. Marlins (ss), 6:05
6 — vs. Marlins
7 — at Dodgers
8 — Dodgers
9 — at Braves
10 — at Braves
11 — Orioles
12 — vs. Marlins
13 — Mets
14 — at Dodgers
15 — at Mets
16 — Braves
17 — Braves
19 — at Orioles
20 — vs. Marlins
21 — Orioles
22 — Twins
23 — at Orioles
24 — at Twins
25 — Nationals
26 — Orioles
27 — vs. Marlins
28 — at Springfield Cardinals, 7:10
29 — at Springfield Cardinals

New York Mets
Where: Tradition Field, Port St. Lucie
Tickets: Information not yet available.
Contact: (772) 871-2115 or www.mets.mlb.com
All home games at 1:10, away games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
26 — University of Michigan, noon
27 — at Tigers
28 — at Cardinals
29 — Cardinals
March
1 — Dodgers
2 — at Dodgers
3 — Braves
4 — at Marlins
5 — Dodgers
6 — at Nationals
7 — at Indians
8 — at Orioles (ss)
8 — Marlins (ss)
9 — Astros
10 — Red Sox
11 — at Red Sox
12 — Orioles
13 — at Cardinals
14 — at Marlins
15 — Cardinals
16 — Tigers (ss)
16 — at Astros (ss)
17 — at Nationals
19 — Indians, 7:10
20 — Orioles, 7:10
21 — Nationals
22 — at Indians
23 — Cardinals
24 — at Orioles
25 — Braves
26 — Marlins
27 — at Braves
28 — at Orioles
29 — at White Sox (Chicago), 7:05

Los Angeles Dodgers
Where: Holman Stadium, Vero Beach
Tickets: Weekday games are $16, Weekend games are $18. Berm tickets are $8 when there is standing room only.
Contact: (772) 569-6858 or www.dodgers.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
28 — Braves
29 — at Braves
March
1 — at Mets
2 — Mets
3 — Orioles
4 — at Nationals
5 — at Mets
6 — at Red Sox
7 — Cardinals
8 — at Cardinals
9 — Red Sox
10 — at Orioles
11 — Marlins
12 — Nationals
13 — at Astros
14 — Cardinals
15 — at Nationals
16 — Marlins
17 — Astros
18 — at Marlins
20 — at White Sox (Phoenix)
21 — at Diamondbacks (Tucson)
22 — at Angels (Phoenix)
23 — at Rockies (Arizona)
24 — at Royals (Arizona), 6:05
25 — at Brewers (Arizona)
27 — at Anaheim Angels, 7:05
28 — Red Sox (Los Angeles)
29 — Red Sox (Los Angeles)
30 — Red Sox (Los Angeles)

Atlanta Braves
Where: Disney’s Wild World of Sports Complex, Kissimmee
Tickets: Lower reserved ($23.50), Upper reserved and bleacher reserved ($20.50), Lawn seats ($14.50).
Contact: (407) 839-3900 (ticketmaster) or on game day at the complex box office. www.braves.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
27 — University of Georgia
28 — at Dodgers
29 — Dodgers
March
1 — at Astros
2 — Astros
3 — at Mets
4 — Phillies
5 — at Indians
6 — at Tigers
7 — Tigers
8 — Astros (ss)
8 — at Reds (ss)
9 — Cardinals
10 — Cardinals
11 — Nationals, 7:05
12 — Indians, 7:05
13 — at Tigers
14 — at Phillies
15 — Rays (ss)
15 — at Astros (ss)
16 — at Cardinals
17 — at Cardinals
19 — at Astros, 7:05
20 — Tigers, 7:05
21 — Indians
22 — at Nationals
23 — Astros
24 — at Indians
25 — at Mets
26 — Nationals
27 — Mets
28 — Indians (Atlanta)
29 — Indians (Atlanta)

Baltimore Orioles
Where: Fort Lauderdale Stadium
Tickets: Not on sale until Jan. 19.
Contact: (954) 776-1921 or www.theorioles.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
28 — Marlins
29 — at Marlins
March
1 — at Nationals
2 — Nationals
3 — at Dodgers
4 — Cardinals
5 — Marlins
6 — at Twins
7 — Red Sox
8 — Mets
9 — at Marlins
10 — Dodgers
11 — at Cardinals
12 — at Mets
13 — Twins
14 — Red Sox
15 — at Marlins
16 — Nationals
18 — Twins
19 — Cardinals
20 — at Mets, 7:10
21 — at Cardinals
22 — Marlins
23 — at Twins
24 — Mets
25 — Marlins
26 — at Cardinals
27 — at Nationals
28 — Mets
29 — at Nationals (Washington, D.C.), 6:05

Washington Nationals
Where: Space Coast Stadium, Melbourne
Tickets: Batter’s Box ($24), Box seats ($20), Reserved seats upper deck ($17), Reserved bleacher ($10), Berm ($ Cool

.
Contact: (321) 633-9200 or www.nationals.mlb.com
All games at 1:05 unless noted.
February
27 — at Marlins
29 — Marlins
March
1 — Orioles
2 — at Orioles
3 — Cardinals
4 — Dodgers
5 — at Cardinals
6 — Mets, 7:05
7 — at Marlins
8 — at Astros
9 — Indians (ss)
9 — at Indians (ss)
10 — Tigers
11 — at Braves, 7:05
12 — at Dodgers
13 — Marlins, 7:05
14 — at Indians (ss)
14 — Indians (ss), 7:05
15 — Dodgers
16 — at Orioles
17 — Mets
18 — at Tigers
20 — Astros, 7:05
21 — at Mets
22 — Braves
23 — at Marlins
24 — Tigers
25 — at Cardinals
26 — at Braves
27 — Orioles
29 — Orioles (Washington, D.C.), 6:05

[Last modified January 11, 2008, 11:21:02]

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:32 am

Yankees Spring training schedules for 2008

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/13/Rays/Spring_training_sched.shtml

New York Yankees
Where: Legends Field, Tampa
Tickets: Counter top seating-deck area ($30), Picnic table seating-deck area ($25), Reserved upper level ($27), Reserved upper level outfield ($17).
Contact: (813) 879-2244 or http://new york. yankees.mlb.com
All home games 1:15, away games 1:05 unless noted.
February
29 — USF
March
1 — at Phillies
2 — Phillies
3 — at Astros
4 — at Blue Jays
5 — Twins
6 — at Reds
7 — Astros
8 — Rays
9 — at Twins
10 — Reds, 7:15
11 — Blue Jays
12 — at Rays
13 — Pirates
14 — at Reds
15 — Rays (ss)
15 — at Tigers (ss)
16 — Indians
17 — Red Sox
18 — at Virginia Tech, 3 p.m.
19 — at Pirates, 7:05
20 — at Blue Jays
21 — Rays, 7:15
22 — Blue Jays
23 — at Pirates
24 — Phillies, 7:15
25 — at Indians
26 — at Phillies
27 — Pirates
28 — at Marlins, 7:10
29 — at Marlins, 6:10

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:36 am

Chamberlain will spend spring training preparing for starting role

http://www.nj.com/yankees/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/1200202573269900.xml&coll=1

Sunday, January 13, 2008
BY LISA KENNELLY
Star-Ledger Staff

Where Joba Chamberlain begins the 2008 season will have a lot to do with his new manager.

Yankees senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner has spent most of the off-season insisting that the 22-year-old right-hander, who finished the last two months of last season as a reliever, begin the season in the starting rotation. But Steinbrenner said yesterday that new Yankees skipper Joe Girardi will have the final say.
Advertisement

"It's ultimately up to Joe Girardi," Steinbrenner said in a phone interview. "Joe knows how to handle pitchers better than any of us."

General manager Brian Cashman, however, said he would be involved in the decision as well.

"Joe and I will work it out," Cashman said. "We'll see how it all shakes out." Cashman said Chamberlain will spend spring training preparing for a starting role, but that could change once the season begins.

"We want him as a starter, we will prepare him as a starter, but we have to respect that there's an innings limit," Cashman said. Steinbrenner confirmed that there are several options on the table for handling Chamberlain. He could start the season in the starting rotation and switch over to the bullpen later, or begin the season in the starting rotation. He could be part of a six-man rotation to keep his innings under his limit. But keeping Chamberlain in the bullpen the entire season is not part of the plan, Steinbrenner said. The Yankees plan to stick with newly-signed free-agent reliever LaTroy Hawkins and the hard-throwing, if unreliable, Kyle Farnsworth as setup men for closer Mariano Rivera.

Long term, Steinbrenner said, "we're not going to use (Chamberlain) as a setup guy. That would not be the ideal situation. He needs to be a starting pitcher or a closer, and we have a closer."

Given Chamberlain's success in his debut last season, when he had a 0.38 ERA and 34 strikeouts in 24 innings pitched, the Yankees have the pleasant conundrum of figuring out where to slot one of the most dominant young arms in baseball.

"If Joe decides to have him start the year as a setup man," Steinbrenner said, "certainly that won't hurt us in the bullpen."

Meanwhile, Roger Clemens talked about pitching and conditioning but not steroids in a session before about 1,000 Texas high school baseball coaches in Waco, Texas. The seven-time Cy Young Award winner stuck to baseball and cracked jokes, making no mention of the allegations in the Mitchell Report that he used performance enhancing drugs.

"He talked like nothing ever happened. It was a nonissue in there," Waco Midway High assistant coach Coby Meinzer said.

Clemens spoke for more than an hour at the closing session of the annual convention of the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association, the nation's largest such group. He shared tips on techniques and took questions, all pertaining to the game itself.

The speech was closed to the media, and Clemens was driven in and out of the convention center through a private garage.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:43 am

I've been worried about the CF position as well if Melky goes. But, someone on this board told me who they'd replace him with. Of course, now I've forgotten who. So, I'm back to being nervous again. Santana is becoming a bit too expensive if the deal includes Cabrerra. LOL, it was too expensive when it included Hughes. I say Hank just remains Hank and puts out a ridiculous offer to Santana: "You stay with the Twins and sign with us as an FA in 2009 and we'll give you 6 years $130M to $140M!. You'll be coming to a new stadium and all the hoopla that goes with it". LMAO, maybe not in so many words. But, definitely a message sent. That way, it's only money and we keep our kids. I know the purists here won't like the money. But, I like the prospect of Santana, Hughes, Chamberlain, Kennedy, etc., etc. a lot more.

completely illegal

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:45 am

a few good reasons for Yanks to acquire Santana
blg4167 Post #1: 11:34 am Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 337

Yanks 2007 ERA - 4.49 +++

Starters averaged less than 6 innings per start last year.+++

Lefty batters hit .280 vs Yanks and Petitte who will be retired within a year or two is the only good lefthander on the staff. They don't even have anything close to being a good lefty reliever. +++

Wang,Joba,Hughes,Kennedy,Horne,Marquez,Sanchez- all righthanders.+++

Yanks will soon be deducting alot of money from payroll after the contracts of Giambi, Moose,Damon,Matsui,Abreu,Farnsworth and Pettite expire.+++

other less important factors - Redsox may get him for a lesser price due to Yanks' lack of interest. Do we have to explain the ramifications of that? Same thing goes for the Mets- and if you think that won't have repercussions ask Murray Chase of the N.Y.Times: "The Yankees, after all, compete with the Mets as well as the Red Sox and have to guard their flank as carefully as they do their front." +++

RedMagma Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:58 am

OK, can anybody explain to me why the post that started THIS thread was deleted????

Comments on the players offered in the Mets package and a simple question of what Yankees fans would think if the Bombers traded Hughes, Cabrera + to the Mets for those players.

No links, no mentions, not even a HINT of a suggestion about any other sites.

And it's gone.

WHY?

Sponsored content