iamshack

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 04:15 PM) I would expect the comment about Cabrera going to Detroit either not be said, or if it were a joke, made sure its interpreted like that. I also wouldn't popping off on how 3/4 of his offseason makeover is complete, just missing out on a CF. Obviously there will still be some moves made unless he's changed his name to Noah and needs 2 of everything, but I think its only in KW and iamshack's fantasy world that adding a CF to the current roster and nothing else is enough to make the team a contender. If Torii Hunter is the difference between the White Sox being a serious title contender and where they are at right now, he would have been a bargain at 5/$90 million. They would have made more than enough to cover that investment. DA, I understand your logic in regards to fielding a team that can compete with Detroit, and Cleveland, and the other AL powers. And I don't think that as things stand now, we can. However, everyone needs to reset their compasses a bit here. I choose to believe that the team we have assembled now is not one where the bar is set to 72 wins and we need to add pieces to build up from there. You an choose to go off the assumption that where we fell to last season was where we stand now, but I don't. For all the teams we had on paper that were better than other teams in our division and we did not win. And for the team we had on paper that didn't look like much at all that ended up winning the whole thing...well, crazy things happen in baseball, and I'm not one to write off a team before the season even begins... Some moves need to be made, for sure. And they hopefully will be. But harping and harping and harping on everything the man says...it gets really old, really fast. And that's a lot of what you're coming with lately.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 07:37 PM) This wasn't for us, remember. It was a privatly financed report. We are lucky to even got what we got. Anyways, what may be the biggest thing to come from this(For Bud at least) is the pressure that will be put upon the MLBPA, and in turn, if they lose some of their power. If that happens, I believe Selig will think he has his money worth. This wasn't for us? Who do you think it was for? Do you honestly believe this would have ever been released to the public (or even commissioned in the first place) if not for the pressure put on MLB by Congress? And the only reason Congress put that pressure on MLB was because constituents were breathing down the neck of their Congressperson. This was indeed for us.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 06:29 PM) There are actual rules in regards to hearsay: DJIA falls under: Therefore an exception. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803 Mitchell report is not (6) regularly record activity, it could be (8) public record and report, but my guess is that would not fly as Mitchell was commissioned by a private entity. Badger, I think from your previous posts you are an attorney, and I am one myself. I'm fairly certain the report would be inadmissible as hearsay, as you seem to be saying. However, this is not my area of expertise and thus I cannot be sure. Regardless, any attorney who has read the Report would probably admit that any facts gained from it would have to be established separately from the Report. As for the $20 million, I was thinking the exact same thing....seems like it could have been done for a few hundred k...

I actually think what Cowley wrote had quite a bit of merit. And I agree with GP about the Gaylord Perry/PED comparison. Baseball allowed it. Those players achieved those benchmarks. Many of the players and accomplishments that are Hall-worthy are tainted. Why start making a distinction now?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 07:40 AM) I understand you think Garland is overpaid at $12 million. I agree with you. But removing him from the rotation and counting on the other 2 mentioned to pick up the slack isn't a move a team "going for it" in 2008 makes. While it makes sense for the Sox to deal Garland, a 33 year old SS who supposedly isn't interested in signing a contract extension, doesn't seem to me to be the play. I don't like Floyd, I think Danks will eventually be decent, and it really wouldn't bother me if they were in the rotation and even wouldn't bother me if Jerry Owens played everyday if the White Sox would just admit they are short and at least attempted a partial rebuild. But since the GM thinks they still are the team to beat, I think putting these guys in these positions isn't going to win you many games. Damn, you piss me off some days. Why must you have this habit of changing everything around so that it appears to suit your argument? And additionally, try criticizing the guy from a standpoint which shows a little more realism. Honestly. The way you expect him to comment publicly only happens in Dick Allen Fantasy World.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) Where did I say that? Show me the quote. Clearly it isn't hearsay -- McNamee claims to have injected Clemens himself, he doesn't claim that Clemens told him he used. The main evidence about Bonds is from his own testimony and a record (the failed test). Neither is hearsay. Well, the evidence regarding Clemens is actually, hearsay, technically. Mitchell is writing that McNamee is saying that he injected Roger. But, yes, your point is taken. And Linnwood, responding to your post, "hearsay" is not another word for "bullsh*t." Something can be hearsay and still be the absolute truth. The negative connotation that comes with the term hearsay is because most forms of it are not admissible in court, not because it means it is by definition untrue.

I don't really care one way or the other who was doing what. I just want the baseball industry AS A WHOLE to take the appropriate condemnation for this. I think Bud Selig and the others who commissioned this report, as well as George Mitchell and his team who authored the report should all be hung out to dry, honestly. I agree with the players on a lot of issues, but I also think the Players' Association has failed them entirely. The entire thing is a mess and the media is making it worse by being so darn incompetent.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 07:29 PM) Btw, does it seem to anyone else like the A's got a bigger haul for Haren than they did for Hudson + Mulder combined? Well, that's hard to say. In the Mulder trade, they got back Haren, whom they just got 6 players for...so they basically got a few good seasons out of Haren from the Mulder trade, plus 6 additional players...

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) Except Clemens is now in the same boat as Bonds. At least in my book. Aside from the schadenfreude, the best part of this is that Bond and his apologists can now shut the hell up about this being a racial thing. You can't play the race card if Clemens is equally reviled. Yeah, now he is. But what about the past 4-6 years? What affect on Bonds' career the last several years has this had? Imagine that this had come out 5 years ago about Clemens. You think he's still getting paid $20 million a season? Clemens has probably made close to $200 million in salary by using performance-enhancing drugs since 1997.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) What reason would he have to lie? Mitchell said it himself, everyone who was interviewed was asked to tell the whole truth and one of the conditions for him is to tell nothing but the truth. If none of his clients used steroids, then don't say they did. He had to be 100% truthful or he could get thrown in jail. I don't think they were going, "hmm, that Roger Clemens fellow, I don't like. Let's speak to his trainer and get him to implicate Roger". Mitchell also asked that no one exagerate the truth and make a hyperbole out of it. He also didn't want anyone to tell only half of what they knew. McNamee getting into detail about shooting up Clemens himself is pretty good evidence if you ask me. McNamee was caught distributing illegal substances, which is a felony. In exchange for his cooperation, he was told he would not be charged at all. I'm not claiming that he made the story up, or that he even exaggerated anything. All I said was that his comments or anecdotes are colored by the fact that he was making them to avoid prosecution of a felony charge. And who knows if what he said was exactly the truth. Previously, he was quoted as stating that he never, ever administered or obtained performance-enhancing drugs for Roger Clemens or Andy Petitte. Secondly, if you think for one minute that federal authorities don't 1) seek out known criminals with the intention of charging them with a crime for the purpose of getting valuable information out of that criminal in exchange for a favorable plea; and 2) specifically target information about people currently targeted in other investigations, especially what is considered a "big fish," well, I'm sorry, you're just way too naive about the way our criminal justice system operates.

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) I think Kenny shot himself in the foot on outfielder opportunities by being so public about wanting Hunter and then not getting it done. All of a sudden we were in a jam and everybody else (including Fukudome and Rowand) had to be looking at it like they're the consolation prize not the guy we really wanted. Meanwhile, the Cubs targeted Fukudome as their first choice and ponied up to get him. Ditto for the Giants and Rowand. Another thing I don't understand is that we were willing to offer 32-year old Hunter 5 years but only willing to offer 30-year old Rowand 4 years. But Kenny said he couldn't offer Aaron 5-years because "we didn't have the resources"??? What am I missing here? Well, to be fair, I don't believe Aaron was the Giants' first choice. They were supposedly interested in a number of other CF candidates. And in terms of KW claiming that the organization did not have the resources, I think he is implying they don't have the resources to layout money they aren't absolutely comfortable laying out, and that was the case with Aaron. I don't think he meant they literally did not have the resources to sign Aaron to a 5-year deal.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) I follow you, but I still think there is a difference. What McNamee is quoted as saying is the equivalent of him on the witness stand saying all of those things. He is not contesting them. This isn't Mitchell saying "I heard McNamee say all this stuff about Clemens," and McNamee saying, "I never said that." Mitchell being the one who wrote the report is the equivalent of Mitchell being the lawyer in the courtroom asking the questions. No, I understand the distinction you are making. Clearly, McNamee claiming he shot up Clemens himself is different than Bigbie stating he heard Roberts and Cust claim they once tried steroids. That being said, I still don't think it's the strongest of evidence. And it further colors his comments that he agreed to a plea agreement which exonerates him from any charges as long as he is "truthful." Do we not think that the Federal Government knew he was involved with Clemens and Petitte? They clearly agreed to not charge him with the goal of getting him to implicate Clemens and Petitte in performance-enhancing drug usage.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) i've been under the impression that he wants to get the flock out of chicago. Yeah, and he reportedly takes "long walks" with Kevin Towers, so what does that say about where he wants to be?

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 12:24 PM) Ok, but when you say "hearsay," I think that applies to Bigbie saying, "Cust told me he did steroids." I don't think that applies to "I personally shot Clemens' ass full of steroids on multiple occasions." I'm just looking forward to the trial, where McNamee is able to describe Clemens' ass in detail from memory and it matches the photographs. Well, it is hearsay in the sense that the report is authored by Mitchell and his team, and they are saying "this guy said he shot Clemens in the ass with steroids." It's not a report authored by McNamee claming he did this. Therefore, it's hearsay because Mitchell is essentially stating "this guy said this." Mitchell stating that Bigbie said he heard Cust or Roberts admit to doing steroids is actually double hearsay.

The reason they refused to be part of the process, or to cooperate with Mitchell's investigation, is because there was a "code of silence" amongst the players. And seriously, what would any of them have to gain by doing so? The only thing they could do is deny the allegations. But honestly, I don't think much of the evidence in the Report was inaccurate. I think some of it should have been excluded, such as the evidence regarding Brian Roberts and Jack Cust. And McNamee really didn't provide any proof...just anecdotes about his contacts with Clemens and Petitte. But most of the clients of Radomski, well, it's pretty clear what was going on, and I don't really dispute that. But the point is that this Report was built up as some sort of authoritative and all-encompassing document, and it simply isn't even close to such. And the implications made, the opinions formed and gathered, etc, are so far from accurate right now and that is the fault of MLB and those who authored and released the Report.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:25 AM) Which one are you referring to here? I was referring to both of them. One being Kirk Radomski- he was the one who supplied the cancelled checks, and the other was this McNamee character who trained Clemens and Petitte. He did not provide any physical proof of the allegations he was making. Rather, just his own word- his own word after he had been charged with a felony. He then offered up what he did in exchange for the charges being dropped.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) How are checks written for a few thousand dollars not proof? So because their supplier was busted but others were not they should be freed. When I was referring to proof about accusations, I was not referring to the Mitchell Report information. I was referring to Balta stating that if Tejada or another player is upset that someone is claiming they are using steroids, and that the vitamin B-12 injections (or something similar) are really steroids, that those accusations do not provide any proof of anything. If some of these players sued everyone everytime someone decided to speculate that the player was using performance-enhancing illegal substance, or some other illegal or unethical activity, these players would be constantly dealing with legal issues and spending substantial sums of money to pay for legal services. I'm just not sure it's even worth trying to combat the speculation, because there are so many sources and so many instances. As to your second question, read what I posted earlier a little more thoroughly. I'm not saying that the players named should face no consequences whatsoever, I just think that it's irresponsible by MLB as well as those who authored the Mitchell Report to release this Report publicly without premising it more accurately. The media was commenting all afternoon and evening yesterday as if the Mitchell Report was some sort of authoritative document on who is using performance-enhancing drugs in MLB, when in fact, that couldn't be farther from the truth. What the Mitchell Report is is a report on the contacts and customers of two men who were discovered in the Federal Government's Balco investigations. I just think the way the report was released, the way the press conferences were scheduled, the way the media was expected to comment on it without being allowed to see it previously, the lack of an explanation previously as to what this document really was....it really is unfair, irresponsible, and basically, a profiling of players who did business with Radomski and McNamee instead of the several other distributers who have yet to be fingered by any other government investigation.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) Like I said, even if you sue for defamation and lose, at least you're putting your money where your mouth is. That tells me something. I feel the same way about all these guys that claim "Oh it was just a tainted supplement" or "Oh it was a vitamin b-12 shot i got from Tejada". Fine. Go to court against the guy who you say wronged you. Even if your case is weak, at least present it. At least say something. Don't just sit there and say "Oh I never did anything" and expect me to believe you if you're not even willing to risk some legal fees on proving it. Well, the other side of the coin is that people who are going to make these claims should be a little more responsible in doing so. Find some proof before you attempt to tarnish someone's reputation. Simply because these players are in the public view doesn't mean their reputations should be tarnished or even shattered based simply on blind speculation or the word of convicted felons. Also, I have to say I am a bit disappointed in the Mitchell Report. The evidence presented against the players is primarily the word of two men- two charged with felonies, no less- and one of those men only offers up hearsay evidence. I think it's unfair to name these players without a more encompassing report released simulataneously. What this has done has managed to ruin (or severly damage) the reputations of some players, but not others, simply because those named in the report happened to be contacts of the distributer that happened to be caught. This Report basically slays the players who happened to work with the guys they caught, and I think it's implications are far too reaching to release it publicly, while the players who work with the guys they haven't caught are implicated in very little or nothing.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 10:44 AM) Well, fine. Now that they've been named, I want to see someone come out with a counter-case. Not just an "I didn't do it" in the press. They've been named and had evidence presented against them. They could, if they really had solid proof that they didn't do anything, still bring a suit against Mitchell. Or, they could bring a suit against Radomski. Or, they could simply counter Mitchell's report in the court of public opinion by producing evidence that the sales weren't for steroids, like actual doctor's receipts, or products purchased with those moneys that weren't steroids, etc. If a player truly believes he is innocent, there is a lot more that he can do than issue a simple denial. Heck, even if they brought a suit for Slander and lost, that's at least saying something; that's saying that they're willing to stand up and risk the money they've made by attempting to defend themself in this case. For now, I'm going to believe every single thing presented in the Mitchell report as anything factual until someone gives me something that I could say is equally concrete as counter-proof. And Mitchell is indemnified, which means if they want to sue him, they have to sue Major League Baseball. Which means you are suing a corporation with an unlimited amount of funds. Roger Cossack was on Mike & Mike this morning, and said that if Clemens really is innocent, as he proclaims he is, that he should be the one to take on Major League Baseball. He has the money to fight them and the HOF and "top 5 pitcher ever" reputation to protect. The person who named him gave up information regarding Roger as part of a plea agreement to not face any charges. He did not offer any physical evidence, such as cancelled checks, Fed-Ex airbills, or any other physical proof that Radomski was able to produce against players he named. I don't doubt that Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. But he does have the most to lose from the Mitchell Report, and very little evidence was presented against him other than hearsay evidence.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 09:44 AM) Im kind of sick of the media now talking about if everyone owes Barry Bonds some kind of apology. It doesnt matter that anyone else was doing it, the fact that he cheated and lied about it is why he got the criticism he did. Well, to me, Barry Bonds comes out of this as a somewhat sympathetic figure. Barry has been stating over and over in the media that it is ridiculous that there is a relentless witch hunt into his activities, as well as a media crucification of his character and accomplishments. He's also implied that the reason for this is because he is African-American. Bonds has basically been dragged through mud for the past 4-5 years, while Clemens has been celebrated by the public, worshipped in the mainstream media, and paraded around by public opinion as some sort of mythical hero. I am not going to sit here and claim we should all feel sorry for Bonds, but at the same time, he's been the recipient of the majority of the fallout from the steroid scandal unil now. It's about time some of the blame, anger, disappointment, and hatred fell on other shoulders.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 06:01 AM) Can they actually suspend him from the Mitchell report? I dont see how that makes much sense because from atleast Roberts standpoint its his word against another. Yeah, Roberts I think will not be penalized for his actions. I can't even believe he was included in the report, to be honest. Basically, the evidence against him was that Larry Bigby claims Roberts once admitted he tried steroids once or twice in 2003. He can't be suspended for that...

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 08:16 AM) I just love how they have so many people thinking like them- The words cost and cheap are used in many posts to justify them making personell moves. How about get whoever it takes to win while being smart? Cheap doesnt necessarily mean smart. And I would not trade Konerko out of a home run park like ours. While being "smart"? Does being smart allow you to prevent injuries, or forsee their occurrence? If we were doing "whatever it takes" then we would have Torii Hunter signed to a 5/$95 million deal, we'd have MCabrera and Dontrelle Willis (and their combined $20 million in salaries this year), Gio, Fields, Danks, DLS, Sweeney and Egbert would be gone, and we would have no reliable rotation.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 01:04 AM) Is this your personal speculation? WTF, man? You make it hard for people like myself to read through these here threads without cringing. Please, please stay the hell out of these threads. Umm, connect the dots. The names I posted were players that were on the first list that CNBC populated (or was given). I did not post the entire list because I did not want the entire thread to run with that list. I apologize that list apparently ended up being faulty, but put 2 + 2 together man...

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) Much easier to find someone capable of player 1B with above average offensive production. Is it? When you consider the "average" production of the first base position, can you think of one player who may be available that would be above that average? Why else would the Giants be interested in such a trade if that was the case? Secondly, I'm not sure Fields is ever going to be the 3b he needs to be. And if that is the case, why not use our in-house resources most efficiently?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 09:26 PM) How exactly can they stand by that being the mitchell report list when we have the mitchell report list and it's different? CNBC is claiming the list they have is the original Mitchell Report list, but that those 39 names were eventually excluded because there was no "direct" evidence to inculpate those players. Meaning, these players were highly suspected or commonly known to use performance-enhancing drugs but there either was no one who came forward claiming they sold them the drugs, saw them use the drugs, or had a record of payments for the drugs.