ptatc

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) No one and I mean NO ONE is slower than Bengie Molina and it isn't particularly close. the slowest person I've ever seen in MLB was a White sox catcher named Marc "Booter" Hill. I saw him get thrown out at first on a hit to the center fielder up the middle. He was "running" the whole time. It wasn't like he stopped because he thought the SS or 2B was going to get to the ball. I didn't think it was possible.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) i saw how pudge might have no choice but to sign a minor league deal with the marlins. so theres no possibilty of him coming here? AJ would not tolerate splitting time with another catcher. The Sox risk pissing him off if hedoes catch around 120 games. That situation would not benefit the Sox. Rodriguez would not come here to play around 40 games as a back up.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 10:06 AM) for the long-term future of the organization i think kw took the appropriate course of action this offseason. at the end of the 2007 season things really looked dire. we had no young talent on the major-league roster, nothing that could be considered impressive talent in the minors, and a roster full of older guys with ungainly contracts. today, that outlook looks decidedly different, to get there and win a division while doing it is an accomplishment that i don't think can be undersold. that is impressive. now, do i think we are legit world series contenders on paper right now? no. we have holes, particularly at those last two spots in the rotation. that worries me more than anything. at the same time, can we be counted out? look around the division. the indians are once again grabbing darling status but as of now the only sure things in their rotation are carmona, lee, and carl freaking pavano. I agree. There is nothing wrong with cutting back this year, seeing what the young players can do and kow what you have for next year. There is nothing wrong with putting in young kids and taking lumps occasionally as long as the young players are talented. Just think back to the Schuler years and how much better or at least promising the Sox have been since 2000. I think I do like KW more than some on this board but only because I remember the Himes, Harrleson, and Schuler eras and cringe.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 06:10 PM) How exactly do we know when either of them started juicing? I'll guarantee you the stuff was available if they wanted it while they were still in high school, especially ARod. Maybe he's a man among boys at 18 because his body is overloading with artificial testosterone. Sorry, Man among men was meant by performance (defense and offense) not physical stature. He was a skinny kid the whole time. There was no way he was on them at that time. Looks like he was later though. I tend to agree with the previous poster when you look at how he changed later. But with early 20's players who should be growing and filling out it's not always easy to tell. i know the they are available in high school and unfortunately it is all too prevalent. But again the physical changes tend to be fairly obvious. It's not fool proof by any means but it's there.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) The thing is, he was such a stud since he was young (still arguably the best high school player ever seen) that you wouldn't think he would need an edge to be as great as he already was. That's what I think he was stupid in that regard. Well... there's still Frank and Griffey who, so far, are clean and still the best players in our era. But we should just try and move forward on this. Baseball is a game of edges, and eventually/most of the time, folks take them. Ritalin, scuffed balls, vaseline, red juice, cutting the bases, spitting on the ball, watering the basepaths, drying out the field with gasoline, pine tar, telescopes in CF, blinking lights, foot tappers in the 3rd base box, infield decks, corked bats, holding the runners belt, stealing signs from the dugout, tilted baselines... HGH, PEDs, steroids. He was the best player in the minors in Low A when I saw him play for appleton. A man amoung men at 18. Bonds is the same thing. A great player before the abuse began. It a shame these guys aren't satisfied with being one of the best players of all time. They needed to go out and be the best HR hitters of all time. But in reality that's where the money is because that's what most fans seem to want. It's still a shame though. Hopefully, he'll get what he deserves and it helps to clean up the game. If the past couple of season are any indication, it is heaed in the right direction.

The term smart a** comes to mind first.

This is surpising to me only from that fact that if someone is taking them someone in the locker rooms starts to talk and there is some rumors. I personally did not hear any od the A-Rod ones. He must have been very discrete about it. As far as Puljols goes, there has been talk about him since he was drafted ala Mike Piazza. Again I'm not saying he is for sure but you hear the talk in the locker rooms.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 04:42 AM) He's also one of the few GM's who openly says he really doesn't care what the fans think about his moves/trades and whether they understand them or not...that he doesn't have to answer to bloggers, fanboys, SABR club stat geeks or anyone else but JR. Of course, it's a lot easier to do that with a WS championship so recently in the rearview window. I find it pretty hilarious that he now always prefaces his comments with something like "I really don't have time to answer every blog or Internet rumor" but he still inevitably will make a comment when situations reach "critical mass" in terms of speculation (like the Dye/Bailey rumors week). That's his job. He is supposed to put together a team that HE thinks will win as many games as possible with the resources he is given. The fans and everyone else do not have the information about resources, scouting reports, injury info etc. for the most part. He should ignore everything fans and bloggers say because in the end it's his job on the line. The rest of us just don't have lives and speculate on things we don't have all the info about, have no control over and whose employment do not depend on it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:33 AM) Anyone else read the comments after the linked article? Hilarious. People point out how ridiculous the trade, is, and the "reporter" who wrote the article gets defensive and calls people names. Its awesome. This is a published blog? People actually read this guy? He acts like a 12 year old. the thing is the guy is probably right. I have little doubt the talks took place. The M's probably called and KW should always listen. They probably bantered back and forth and then said, no it won't work. Meanwhile this guy's "source" overheard the names and said there were discussions. All of which was acurrate. However, if he's a responsible journalist and not just trying to scoop eveyone, he would haver sat back and thought, "this may have been discussed but it can't actually happen in this form."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) Has Clemens been charged with perjury for lying under oath? Because Bonds has, and to me thats being treated differently. The big difference here is that Bonds' tesitmony was before a grand jury. Clemens was not. As far as the people. I think you will have a difficult time finding anyone in baseball you will feel sorry for either of them. Neither one is worth anything as far as human beings go.

QUOTE (lord chas @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 01:23 AM) jerry owens is as useful as a dirty diaper They are useful to keep rabbits out of your garden. No green intended.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 08:39 PM) Oh great, the sky is falling again. It does every year at this time.

QUOTE (watchtower41 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) That what the media was told to spin. Insiders will tell you much different. I wouldn't think so. The only way to fracture the bone he did is by hitting it with his palm. So, unless he commonly punches lockers or whatever else with his palm, I would say the video of him hitting his bat with his palm is pretty accurrate.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) It's just not the same weight. There's good weight gain, lean muscle. And bad weight gain, fat. Sammy gained nearly all lean muscle. There's concern over Miguel because his gain is fat. Sammy probably never played above 10-11% body fat. Miguel is sitting in the 15-17% range. Meaning, he's carrying roughly an additional 15 lbs of fat. It's useless to Miguel for the most part, and negatively effects his mobility. Bigger does not always mean slower. 15 lbs of muscle does not necessarily negatively effect your mobility if your frame can hold it. When Sammy came up, he was so scrawny that his frame could take an additional 15 lbs of muscle without losing much in terms of mobility (he obviously went more than that though). no it's not the same weight. But increased weight does generally mean a decrease in mobility. On a scrawny guy to a matured guy, the weight is probably good. But once you've hit the early twenties any extra weight will impair the speed and mobility

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:26 PM) You are missing the most important part: So no i dont think it was 1 man taking an unfair advantage, I think it was an entire system created to make money off them taking drugs. I think honor and fairness are relative terms. I think doctoring a baseball is worse than taking steroids, other people do not. How do you rectify what is "worse" is just opinion? I have never said cheating is fine, I just said it is up to the sport itself to catch and stop the cheater. Not to implicitly allow it and cover it up. Ive never said taking an unfair advantage to the field is right, Ive asked why is it right to ban some people for cheating but not others. If we are going to ban 1, we should ban all. And if we are going to accept 1, we should accept all. How is that not fair? What your saying then is that you believe someone needs to tell not to do something wrong and not to cheat. It's fine for the players to try to cheat and it's up to the sport to catch them. I know it's your opinion. But that's similar to Blagovich sellinghthe the Senate seat and it's fine because it's up to law enforcement to catch him. Shouldn't people have enough pride and fairness to do what's right without having to be threatened with penalty? I know we have different views and it won't change. However, if you truly believe that scuffing the ball is worse than steriods read the book "Faust's Gold" by Steven Ungerleider. It's about what steriods do to you based on the East German sports teams especially the women's swim. It's the attitude of we will do whatever we can until we get caught that will have people do these things to themselves inj chase of the "glory." We need to regulate it so people don't hurt themselves. Again as far as banning them all. If you think that the player "cheated" in whatever way to defraud the game of baseball, then yes ban them. Since this isn't a court of law the crime is in the eye of the beholder. If you think scuffing a ball is worse than doing things to alter the body. Fine. Just read the book then tell me if you still feel the same.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:53 PM) I think the highest honor of baseball is to hold the most records. Being judged arbitrarily based on morality does nothing for me. In all honesty, I dont care if he cheated or not. It was up to baseball to punish him or to stop him, and they didnt. I believe that they were complicit with the whole thing and wanted the players to get bigger and better, maybe to the extent of even encouraging/covering up rampant abuse. So no I dont care if Bonds ate steroids for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I care about what he did on the field, and during his prime he may have been the best baseball player to ever live. Who cares about the rest, the man dominated. the man dominated on an unfair playing field. Not everyone has access to what he took. Not eveyone has his connections or wealth to afford these advantages. So if it's your belief that one man taking an unfair advatage is fine. Good. If you truly feel that the highest honor in sports is to hold the records regardless of fairness and even competition. Good. If you feel that cheating is fine. Good. There is no discussion that can convince you that taking an unfair advantage onto the field of sports is wrong. As far as arbitrary morality. I can see from the other responses that a discussion of morality based on these views will also be futile.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:49 PM) I think we create rules so that everyone is treated fairly and equally. Baseball and the HOF can change the rules at any time they would wish. So long as they are the rules, I believe that they should be followed. Who am I to judge Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, or any other baseball player? I am just a fan, and I enjoy the sport that they play, and even further I respect their ambition to be the best players that they could possibly be. I understand that extremely driven people will break the rules, and while I do not condone it, I do not arbitrarily decide which rules are holier than other rules. If breaking the rules of baseball does not mean you are banned from the HOF, then on what criteria can Barry Bonds not be admitted? His stats speak for themselves, and so long as the statistics are what makes the selection, it should not matter. Justice is making sure that the rules are applied equally to all, regardless of how much you may detest their actions. (I also have a strong fundamental disagreement with how the US regulates what a person can take, but thats an entirely different constitutional argument.) stats are not the only thing. There is a morality clause. If they think he cheated the game that is a valid reason for him not to be in the HOF. Remeber in regards to sports, it's really not the US government. The IOC and international sports governing bodies have much more strict standards than the US. The US is really far behind the curve in governing what a person can take in sports. If you're referring to the FDA, that is a different matter entirely. That is a different aruguement than the world of sports.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) Ok, he's eligible. Why would you want to enshrine a cheater? Is this an example of baseball's best? Should we show the kids that you can be honored if you cheat? Do you believe it is OK he cheated? He took a drug that his Doctors would not tell him what it was. You believe that is plausible He could not go to Walgreen's and have it filled, he never asked. You believe that is plausible He continued to take it for years, never asked what it was doing to him. You believe that is plausible He never insisted on knowing if it was legal or illegal. You believe that is plausible He grew much larger than he ever was, never asked if it was connected to the drugs. You believe that is plausible He just blindly kept taking the drugs and hitting homeruns. Denying until he was caught, that he took anything. I agree. Bonds stuck to the script that BALCO told Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. Tell anyone who asks it's flaxseed oil and arthritis medication. The others finally admitted this and Bonds may eventually. If people really want to stick their heads in the sand and believe it thats fine. He may not ever be convicted. That's fine too. But anyone who saw Bonds before and after he began taking them knows what he was doing and so did he. He knowingly cheated the game and he will not be in the HOF. By the way it's not just him. McGwire, Sosa and others should fall in the same category. They made thier millions because of it. Good for them. But don't let them recieve the highest honor of baseball, which does have a morality clause to get in.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 08:58 PM) I guess we just have a fundamental difference in how the HOF should be administered. I think that players should be judged based purely on how they played the game, that everything outside of the game is completely irrelevant. That if you are going to bar players who cheat during a game, that the penalty has to be consistent and fair. That it can not be arbitrary, that the rules must be in place so that they can be followed, so that the consequences are known. I dont think Ive ever disagreed that Bonds cheated, I just think that he belongs in the HOF regardless. That if Bonds is kept out, the HOF begins to become a joke. You will have the all time home run leader and the all time hits leader both not in the Hall of Fame. At least in the case of Rose he was permanently banned from Baseball, Bonds could return tomorrow as a coach or player if he was hired. Bonds and Rose should start their own Hall of Fame and just put people in strictly on the merits of their playing career. Let the rest of the world deal with gossip, and let them (Bonds and Rose) judge you by how you played. We will never know who else took steroids and will go to the hall that we just didnt catch, so why make it a charade? Is Clemens in the HOF? Ptatc, In my opinion you have not broken the law until you are convicted. The Federal Govt will never bring a case against Barry Bonds for illegally using substances, so I will consider him innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Even if you stick with the how he played the game, he cheated. If there were illegal steroids in his system, he cheated. If there were illegal steroids in his system he is gulity. Rose should not be in the HOF because he defrauded the game by betting on the game and changing the game for mhis personal gambling, not for the game itself. They gave him a chance to admit he defrauded the game by admitting he gambled on them and refused to do so. Now when it suits his purpose he admits it and wants forgiveness. He shouldn't be in. Bonds should not be in because he tried to better his performance unnaturally for his own betterment not the for the game. You defraud the game regardless of legality (that really is a separate issue) you don't get in the HOF and should be thrown out of the game.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...21----000-.html Key part: "WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE" So as long as Bonds believed it to be true, he has to be not guilty of perjury. So if I really thought that crack was aspirin, it is not perjury when I say "I thought it was aspirin" even if every other person in the world would have known the difference. The only person that matters is Bonds. How do you prove what Bonds knew or didnt know? Unless you can bring in a witness to testify that Bonds knew, the case is dead in the water. Ptatc, What law do you believe Bonds broke? And do you think that all players who break the law should be prevented from being HOF? (DUI, fake id, marijuana included) He broke federal laws regarding illegal steriods. If you think that he didn't know what he was putting in his body, Ithink you are misguided. And if didn't know what was going in his body he should have figured it out when after the age of 40 he all of a sudden got bigger and stronger. He knew what he was doing. I think in regards to not letting crminals in the HOF it would need to be case by case. If the crime was commited in an attempt to defraud the game then yes keep them out of HOF. If you think they used the fake ID to help their performance in baseball then yes, if you think the marijuana was smoked to improve there performance to cheat the game of baseball then again yes keep them out of the HOF. The HOF is for the best players if the voters think that the players did something to defraud the game, don't let them in. It's not a criminal trial, they do not hjave the right to be in the HOF. It's a privelege, if they abuse the privilege during their career, don't let tham in. Edit: Holy crap!! Sorry about the spelling. IronicallyI'm trying to help my son study for his spelling test while doing this.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 08:15 PM) Texsox, This is a horrible misconception. Ignorance can be an excuse. If the crime is "Knowingly committed" Then the first part that needs to be proved is "knowingly". If I go to a Dr and I he tells me "You have strep through, Im prescribing Penicillin." I go down to the Pharmacy and give the Pharmacist my script and he goes "Here is your Penicillin." I walk out the door and the police arrest me, when they open the container the "Penicillin" is actually X. Could I be convicted? Maybe on some charges, but not on all of them. I would have a valid defense that I did not attempt to purchase, that I did not attempt to sell, etc etc. The only thing that they could have me on is "possession". So ignorance in certain situations can be an excuse. Just like if your drunk you cant be convicted for certain crimes. They dont tell you that, but for "specific intent" crimes you need to not only commit the crime, but also have the "guilty mind". If you prove that you were drunk and didnt understand what you were doing was wrong, youd be found not guilty. Then remove the other cheaters. If cheating disqualifies you from being in the HOF, then remove them all. Otherwise your picking and choosing when it counts and when it doesnt count. If you agree that it's fine to break rules of the game, how about keeping him out of the HOF with the morality clause. He commited a few federal crimes which directly impacted the intergirty of the game. You can believe it's fine if you want, but just like anyone else who breaks the rules and damage the game of baseball, he should not be allowed in the HOF.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 04:56 PM) It's total horses*** that Pete Rose isn't in the Hall. Just wanted to take another opportunity to say that. I disagree, betting on a baseball game of which you have direct control over maybe worse cheating than Bonds. Rose should never be allowed near the game of baseball.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) You take that weight off of Sammy or Juan and they are not nearly the same type of hitters. Sammy came up a skinny ~175 lbs. Some players need the added weight to become the best player that they can be. Both of them were much more effective with that weight. Were they more effective? They were more effective HR hitters but were they really more effective as overall players? Since the gained the weight and never lost it it's hard to tell. But is the increase in HR more effective than what is lost. In the case of Cabrera. Would he be more effective if he lost the weight and could still play 3B or the OF as opposed to being at 1B? His hitting may change some but is that change enough with the position change? Interesting question.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) Um, i'm not sure either of those guys would be the best examples. They may have had other reasons to um, lose their athleticism in favor of additional muscle growth. Yes, it was the PEDs. However why did they lose their effectiveness as CFers if the PEDs was supposed to improve performance? They used it to add muscles mass and thus weight. While they were stronger not fatter , they weight gain still decreased their effectiveness to play an aspect of the game, ie defense and probably mobility on the base paths. The point being increased weight whther it's fat or not will decrease your performance in some aspects of the game. So, you cares how heavy they are?...the teams should. But as someone said earlier if they are hitting teams will look the other way regardless of how it effects other aspects of the game.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) It's like how people b**** about Miguel Cabrera getting so heavy. Who the f*** cares, as long as they hit, they can be as fast as they want. These players will get their ass in shape when they have the chance to sign a 8 yr contract. I would care if I was giving them a long term deal. Injury factor increases. It also shows a lack of discipline. If they are hitting people would look the other way. However you can't deny that he would be a more effective player with less weight. Just ask Sosa or Juan Gonzalez who were effective CFer's early in their career and lost their athletcsim later and they weren't even fat. Ask Manny how effective of an outfielder he is.