White Sox, 670 The Score add Steve Stone to radio broadcast

It's a start.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 19, 2007 2:14 PM CST reply actions

great

now they can just ease one of them out after next season.

by larry on Dec 19, 2007 2:15 PM CST reply actions

I loved farmer

as an analyst. Adding stone doesn't really help in that regard, but he should be able to more easily transistion between analyst and PBP man than Singleton, which would be a quick upgrade.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 19, 2007 2:18 PM CST up reply actions

farmer is a good analyst - and definitely had a good thing going with rooney, which made them both (or at least farmer) better. singleton is the sort of guy who just brings down whoever is unlucky enough to be in the booth with him. farmer, i think, needs a "stronger" personality in the booth with him. stone should provide that.

when i was watching the rebroadcast of the sox 8/8 game on sunday, one of the reasons i kept watching was because stone was the analyst. he's so good - and he made even hawk seem okay.

by larry on Dec 19, 2007 2:23 PM CST up reply actions

why was that on?

I caught ten minutes of it, saw Garland vs. the Orioles, and my only thought was of the 5/12/05 game. Nothing about Garland vs. the O's last year seemed noteworthy -- He had that game in '06 where he was sick and gave up a ton of hits (the day after the Gload GS?)

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 19, 2007 2:30 PM CST up reply actions

they've been replaying

"memorable" games from the 07 cubs or sox season for the whole month and i think they'll do it a few more times - the cubs are on again this weekend, seems to be an every other thing. i know the no-hitter is going to be shown eventually.

i'm not sure what you mean by garland v. the orioles; maybe that was a prior sunday or there was something else on that i missed. the game i was watching was that 13 inning game again the tribe that uribe won with a walk-off after he made a couple errors in the game.

by larry on Dec 19, 2007 2:34 PM CST up reply actions

It was sometime over the weekend

could have even been friday, I guess. They were playing Garland vs. Orioles, which has to be this game, which is only notable for Bobby Jenks getting a save while the Sox entered the 9th with a 7 run lead, which I'm sure lead to a post by me about the Sox inability to win by 5 or more runs.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 19, 2007 2:39 PM CST up reply actions

well

maybe they had to come up with ten memorable games or something. it's tough to fill out such a list.

i didn't see the orioles on the schedule when i looked quickly. however, you can watch the 9/16 game agains the angels on christmas.

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/tv-listings.asp?date=12/19/2007&listdate=12/25/2007

you can watch bukvich do what he does best: let all three inherited runners score without recording an out. and then the sox scoring 8 unanswered runs in the 7th-9th, while mike macdougal put away the gas can for one game oh yeah, some guy named thome hit a pretty important home run in this one, too.

by larry on Dec 19, 2007 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

i guess there are only three games

with the no-hitter also on x-mas. no mention of any garland-orioles game. i guess you were just having a nightmare, cheat. a visit from the ghost of white sox past maybe.

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/view_content_0p.asp?ID=59465

by larry on Dec 19, 2007 2:58 PM CST up reply actions

cool!

by The Wizard on Dec 19, 2007 2:18 PM CST reply actions

Better than nothing at all.

Still, they need to dump pot-smokin' DeeJay and go with Hawk & Stone on T.V.

by SSH2005 on Dec 19, 2007 2:22 PM CST reply actions

I can't imagine...

a Stone and Hawk homerun call...

I think Hawk and DJ both need to go, and Hawk needs to only be a special guest in the booth.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 19, 2007 2:30 PM CST up reply actions

As Larry mentioned above...

The games Stone and Hawk broadcast together last season when DJ was gone (for something, daughter born?) were some of the best broadcasts I've heard since Rooney/Farmer.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 19, 2007 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

Yep.

by SSH2005 on Dec 19, 2007 2:45 PM CST up reply actions

Better than...

Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? Or Joe Morgan and Jon Miller?

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 19, 2007 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

A monkey and a wounded water buffalo...

would be better than Buck/McCarver.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 19, 2007 3:45 PM CST up reply actions

Carlos Silva to the Mariners...

"Silva signing could be announced by Thursday"

by SSH2005 on Dec 19, 2007 2:44 PM CST reply actions

Farmer as a play-by-play guy

is getting better, but when he started he was beyond horrible. I mean the years when he was Rooney's color guy, but would get those solo innings when Rooney would take a break.

The reason I think he sucked was because he had this way of describing a play BEFORE telling us the outcomes of what had happened. As if he were a TV guy, and the audience could see that a runner was safe or out, or a catch was made or trapped.

For example, he'd say, "There's a drive to right center, Maggs goes back, and wow, well, he lost his cap on the way, and that's the second time today thats happened..."

yeah, but did he catch the ball??!!?

Then, "So Maggs picks it up off the track, and fires in to Durham, who relays it to the plate, and its going to be close. <PAUSE> <MORE PAUSE> I tell you, Ray was in the perfect position to receive the cutoff, which is good because it short-hopped him, and his throw was up the line... <MORE PAUSE> Karko barely got the tag on him."

yeah, but was he OUT???!?

Then, "Runner's out, and that's two down"

yeah, but did the batter make third???!

And so on....

Bears eat beets.

by Nordhagen on Dec 19, 2007 3:14 PM CST reply actions

Exactly!

I listen to games on the web since I'm now living in Hawaii, and you've perfectly captured my frustration with Farmer as play-by-play guy.

by egardne on Dec 19, 2007 3:58 PM CST up reply actions

I still remember Singleton doing a Tampa-Sox game

And the pitcher pitches <pause>
The hitter, uh, hit one, yeah its a line drive <pause>
And its over the fielders head <pause>
yeah its over the fence, yeah thats a home run, over the fence <pause>

by southsideirish71 on Dec 19, 2007 10:01 PM CST up reply actions

My personal favorite...

...comes in the ninth inning in save opportunities.

Just get the first out, that's the hardest one. Then comes the second, then the third.

Brilliant.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 20, 2007 11:48 PM CST up reply actions

Will someone address

whether or not offering Prior 2M for 5 years would be a good idea and what the odds he'd take it would be. I'm operating under the assumption that he's receiving 4M for 2 years sorts of deals. I don't really know shit about contract negotiations, but I'm interested in how certain players would view the certainty of a comparatively long contract and such details. Like would Hunter have taken 7 years at 12 per were it offered?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 19, 2007 11:04 PM CST reply actions

no

he wouldn't take anything other than a 1-year deal from the Cubs. I suppose if you guarantee him money, he'd be down for that, but he's not interested in any option years where the signing club can get a (presumably) healthy Prior for a below-market contract.

I predict that he takes a 1/$6-8M deal and hits the market again in a year.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 19, 2007 11:15 PM CST up reply actions

And a 1-year deal wouldn't work for the Sox

I wonder, though. Maybe 2 years at $6-$8M per? I might do it if I were the Sox. They should have money to spend. Prior can step in for Floyd after he blows up this year, pitch well, and then the Sox can flip him for decent prospects for 2009. Obviously, it's a large risk -- he could be done & then that's $16M down the drain. But the Sox have some money and no farm system. They need to take some risks if they want to compete again in the next several years. I think I'd do it...

by hitlesswonder on Dec 20, 2007 12:02 AM CST up reply actions

Prior will probably be rehabbing...

half the season away, if not more. This is why most teams interested in him want at least a two year deal, if not a one year deal with a team option like the Cubs.

Prior is a prick who wants to rehab on some team's dime and then sign a better deal in a year.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 12:12 AM CST up reply actions

Phillies sign Geoff Jenkins to 2-year, $13 million

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3162819&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

The Phillies are now committing to Shane Victorino as their regular center fielder and are no longer interested in Mike Cameron.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 8:22 AM CST reply actions

It seems like Mike Cameron is now down to...

the Rangers and the White Sox. The Cardinals were supposedly interested but they will likely stick with Rick Ankiel or Colby Rasmus in CF. The Rangers could also simply stick with an outfield of Frank Catalanotto in LF, Marlon Byrd in CF, and Milton Bradley in RF. Kenny might be able to sign Cameron to a cheapish two year deal with so little suitors for Cameron's services.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 8:55 AM CST up reply actions

no

KW will do something to miss out on him too, whether its stay with owens or lowball him to where its insulting.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 20, 2007 8:57 AM CST up reply actions

There is no excuse not to sign Cameron...

He could be a .800 OPS gold glove CF'er for the next two seasons. He is worth the money.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 9:19 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed.

If we're going to compete next year like Kenny seemingly wants to, Cameron needs to be in the mix unless some other spectactular trade can occur.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 10:20 AM CST up reply actions

I will say...

that I would not be opposed to a Cameron signing unless it was for more than three years. Preferably two years, but I'd live with three.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 20, 2007 10:22 AM CST up reply actions

Yep, 3 years is the max I would go...

and the only reason that is, is because Cameron is in great shape for a 35 year old. Worst case scenario is that if his CF defensive skills decline, move Cameron to LF and move Quentin to RF once Dye is gone.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 10:55 AM CST up reply actions

By the way...

why are you fine with the White Sox signing a 35 year old CF'er now? You seemed dead-set against signing anyone since we are definitely not contenders.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 10:56 AM CST up reply actions

I was against...

giving out any four- or five-year contracts to over-30 players. If Rowand or Hunter had been willing to sign a shorter-term deal, I'd have been fine with that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 20, 2007 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

I'm more concerned...

about 2011 and beyond, which is when I think the White Sox can be contenders again. I don't want any dead-weight contracts on the roster at that point.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 20, 2007 11:02 AM CST up reply actions

Although I will add...

that I'd rather the White Sox spend any potential Cameron money on scouting, development, drafting, and finding foreign free agents, but I could live with a short-term Cameron deal.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 20, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions

so

is the reason we havent heard the sox directly connected to cameron because kenny is being secretive or is he just not pursuing him at all?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 20, 2007 11:18 AM CST up reply actions

Kenny is being secretive...

He blames the media for missing out on Torii Hunter and Miguel Cabrera so now he is not talking about any player that he may be interested in to the media.

But it sounds like we truly are interested in Mike Cameron...

On 12/16/2007, MLB.com's Ken Mandel wrote:

St. Louis, Texas and the White Sox are also believed to be in pursuit of Cameron.

MLB.com's Ken Mandel and Andy Jasner wrote:

Two players who had been options -- center fielder Mike Cameron and pitcher Kyle Lohse -- are no longer candidates for red pinstripes, according to Gillick. Both had been linked to Philadelphia in the past week.

Gillick said that the team had "no interest" in Cameron and are "out of the running" for Lohse, who is seeking a four-year deal similar to the four-year, $44 million pact received by Carlos Silva from the Mariners on Wednesday.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

i like our chances

if we are going up against st. louis. they seem like they want either ankiel or rasmus to play CF, while we just have a lot of flexibility in CF......

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 20, 2007 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

I don't see the Cardinals having any interest...

in Mike Cameron. They are definitely rebuilding.

It seems to be down to the Rangers and White Sox.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 11:53 AM CST up reply actions

no one is rebulding in the NL central

;) everybody's got a chance there.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 11:54 AM CST up reply actions

I'm

not so sure about that anymore. If the Cubs land Roberts without giving up Hill or better out of the pitching, and if they're somehow able to then land another #2-4 caliber starter, as much as I hate to say it, they are a very good team and the hands down favorite in that division.

by dantesox on Dec 20, 2007 1:15 PM CST up reply actions

oh yeah

missed the rangers part up there. they might overpay since their only options are just as bad as ours.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 20, 2007 11:57 AM CST up reply actions

Not quite...

They could stick Marlon Byrd or Milton Bradley in CF, although Bradley will likely start in RF.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 12:11 PM CST up reply actions

Schilling Speaks Out Re: Clemens!

Big Frank has company:

BOSTON (AP) - Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling called on Roger Clemens to give up the four Cy Young Awards he's won since 1997 if he can't clear his name from allegations that he used steroids to prolong and enhance his career.

"If he doesn't do that then there aren't many options as a fan for me other than to believe his career 192 wins and three Cy Youngs he won prior to 1997 were the end," Schilling wrote Wednesday in his blog, 38pitches.com. "From that point on the numbers were attained through using (performance-enhancing drugs). Just like I stated about Jose (Canseco), if that is the case with Roger, the four Cy Youngs should go to the rightful winners, and the numbers should go away if he cannot refute the accusations."

And, no, he would not be the immediate beneficiary - no additional hardware would go to him. In this case, I have to support the Schill, who IMO is usually self-serving and egotistical, but I think he's right on here.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 20, 2007 8:44 AM CST reply actions

Schill can be a jerk...

but I think he is overstepping his bounds here. What about World Series' won during that time span? You going to take those away too? Or just the individual achievements like MVP, Cy Young, etc? How can you take away numbers like Wins, K's, etc, when it's not certain that the performance enhancers accounted for ALL of those numbers? So Roger maybe would've won a few less games and struck out a few batters, but the steroids can't account for all of those numbers he put up during that span. It's not really a good argument to try and make.

I can see giving up the Cy Young and MVP's etc... but nothing else.

Plus, how can one prove he didn't take steroids? There weren't tests then for the substances so he can't fall back on those. There's truly a libel/slander issue here. The only way he can try to refute these claims is if he can get this trainer to deny these allegations he made or destroy his credibility.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 10:14 AM CST up reply actions

no, there truly isn't a libel/slander issue here

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 10:28 AM CST up reply actions

Based on everything Schilling has said

Specifically the interview he did for "Costas Now" over the summer, Schilling believes the only way to prove that you are clean, if you are accused, is to sue somebody.

Schilling is an ass but he is at least a consistent-with-his-argument ass.

Caulk the wagon.

by rebstock on Dec 20, 2007 10:37 AM CST up reply actions

there seems to be this

"assume everyone is guilty until proven otherwise" thing out there with steroids. i guess that's fine, if you want to think that, but it seems a bit of an odd way to deal with it. if you are found as a cheat, you should be out and so should your individual accomplishments after that point. sure, maybe this allows certain individuals who were cheating but were clever/lucky enough to not get caught but welcome to america.

now, the better questions are what cheating means (ever taking steroids? taking them after they were banned by baseball?) and what standard of evidence for such cheating you want to use. as much as i'd like clemens to give up his cy youngs if he was indeed using steroids etc. i'm not sure of the propriety of affirmatively taking them away for using before they it was banned by baseball.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 10:45 AM CST up reply actions

Just the meanderings of

a self-righteous ass. I get the gist of what Schill (pun intended) is saying, but here's the thing: you can't be the voice or morality and fairness only when it's convenient to do so. Meaning, if Schilling is so against steroids, he should have manned up and spoke out about it years and years ago, when it was unpopular to do so. Here's a guy who only takes a stand when others have already done so and taken much of the flak. It's like being a secret service agent and diving behind another agent when a shot's fired. If this is a cause Schill wants to carry on his back, he should have cooperated with Mitchell in the investigations. But no, he didn't. Instead he lets everyone else do the heavy lifting then comes in on his high horse, telling everyone what's what.

And by the way, what about some due process? Clemens needn't prove his innocence when no one has proven his guilt.

by HulkSmash on Dec 20, 2007 10:42 AM CST up reply actions

due process is nice

but i'm not sure how much or if at all it applies to what schilling is talking about. the cy young is an award granted by the baseball writers. i would assume they can take it away from whomever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want.

now, if we're talking about taking away wins and so on, i would imagine the union is going to get involved and there are probably rules on that. but how high is the standard? i tend to doubt it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something similar.

and, at any rate, schilling predicated all this on him not clearing his name. you can take whatever stand you want on whether he should have to clear his name but this isn't really a court of law we're dealing with, it's the court of public opinion. baseball can't just be seen to stand by idly on this one.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 10:51 AM CST up reply actions

I thought something similar

But doing a quick Google search (I thought Schilling had been accused a while back) I found that he actually was at the Congress hearing back in 2005 and gave testimony denouncing steroid use.

Schilling First to Testify

Caulk the wagon.

by rebstock on Dec 20, 2007 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

yeah

this isn't anything new. schilling has been outspoken about this issue for a while. one of the reasons for the tension in the phillies clubhouse on those early 90s teams, in my opinion (and from some comments i've seen by schilling and others on that team), had to do with the steroid use by guys like dykstra (not to mention some of the other "hard living" stuff that was going on).

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 11:10 AM CST up reply actions

But that's exactly my issue

He was opposed to it since the 90s, but did nothing. So he testified before congress...so what? So did Palmero.

My wish is that someone with such apparent moral conviction would have been the man to stand up and say something, like I said, when it was very unpopular to do so. Maybe if he did so, this whole fiasco could have been avoided, or at least lessened and baseball wouldn't be in such a dubious state. Even when Canseco published his book, and scores of people were calling him a quak. Schilling could have come out then and said 'maybe this Canseco guy is on to something...'

Why worry about redactions when he had the opportunity (possibly) for prevention?

by HulkSmash on Dec 20, 2007 12:12 PM CST up reply actions

he did talk about it

that's why he was subpoenaed by congress, just like frank thomas was. what is it that you wanted him to do? surreptiously take blood or urine samples of players and have them tested? there's not much one player can do other than attempt to shine a light on the issue.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:21 PM CST up reply actions

Yes!

A fake nose and glasses, Larry. It's called 'clandestine.'

In all seriousness, I'd like to see some public comments Schilling made on steroids prior to 2005. You're a lawyer, go dig something up.

by HulkSmash on Dec 20, 2007 12:27 PM CST up reply actions

do your own work

it's not that hard to use google. you'll find a trove.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:30 PM CST up reply actions

Troves?

Before the Congress hearing and the Canseco book? I doubt it, but I will check later on. Right now, time for lunch.

by HulkSmash on Dec 20, 2007 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

your memory to last week

was shown to be not all that good. i'm not counting on your memory being better for years ago. for example, he was oft quoted about caminitti's revelation and that was long before jose's book.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:45 PM CST up reply actions

No?

Well, Larry, you are the lawyer, so I expect you're right. How come it's not then, when all they have to go on is this guy's word, right? They don't have evidence of a paid check or a failed drug test, correct?

Is it because the trainer actually didn't come out to the press and make these statements public?

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 10:46 AM CST up reply actions

who are you saying is slandering/libeling?

i thought you were talking about schilling.

the trainer? well, read the report, they're pretty clear on what his role is. the standard for libel/slander of a public figure is really, really high. the law varies from state to state and at the federal level but this is an investigation. i would imagine that the trainer would be protected by privilege considering 1) it was an investigation and 2) he was compelled to talk. you can maybe argue that publication of this report by baseball causes some sort of problem but this is MLB. there's public interest in the report and Congress wanted an investigation and so on.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 10:58 AM CST up reply actions

I see.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if there were a slander/libel issue with both the trainer and MLB.

In the court of public opinion, as you said, there is probably irreparable damage. I would feel sorry for these players if they are indeed innocent. Due process seems to hold little water with the court of public opinion and the sports writers.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 11:31 AM CST up reply actions

Well, that's good.

Since only the government is required to give it to you, the system appears to be working!

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 11:34 AM CST up reply actions

i would imagine

that MLB is required to give due process, or something similar, to their players under the CBA and so on.

i imagine MLB vetted this one pretty well, legally and factually, but if it comes out that one of the players named is indeed totally innocent and evidence/testimony put in the report was concocted or lies, they're in some hot water. obviously the risk/reward equation weighed heavily in favor of releasing such a report to public and not worrying about potential liability on the fringes.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

i don't think

contractual "due process" is what SC was talking about.

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

gave him the benefit of the doubt

considering i'd posted earlier in this thread about the due process rights the players enjoy under the CBA.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 11:52 AM CST up reply actions

what's the difference?

I was saying that the public and the sports writers don't wait for these types of matters, as in this case the steroid allegations, to be contested by the defendants before they make their judgments.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

welcome to the

21st century of 24-hour news coverage and zero attention apans. as larry said, the report was clearly vetted before it was released. and this isn't a criminal matter or an entitlement issue...roger clemens isn't going to be imprisoned or have his welfare benefits taken away without notice and a hearing (although he did have notice and chose not to be apprised of what the report held in store and/or respond to mitchell prior to the report's release).

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

not really a 21st century phenonmenon

lynch mobs certainly weren't all that concerned with due process. people probably have always made up their minds before "due process" does its work. i'd say people are probably in a better position to make up their minds about these issues now that we do have 24 hour news coverage that is (largely) objective, or close to it. certainly better the the "string him up" culture that thrived on person to person rumor and shameless yellow dog "journalism." things aren't perfect, and people theoretically should wait until all the facts are in, but it's better than it was. not sure that better means much, though.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:08 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, I know...

but sometimes the court of public opinion is more damning than any federal or state court. After these players die all we have left of them will be videos of them playing, their stats, and latent opinions of their career. The latter will likely be influenced by these steroid allegations.

What do we think about when we hear the name Babe Ruth? An unhealthy slob who could hit a lot of home runs and wasn't too bad a pitcher, either. Ty Cobb? One of the greatest players ever who happened to be quite an asshole. Pete Rose? Another great player that gambled on baseball.

In a few decades... Clemens? One of the greatest pitchers of all time that used steroids.

See, it gets tarnished a little bit.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 12:17 PM CST up reply actions

Influenced?

Sure, as of right now the opinion of Clemens' career(s) will be influenced by the allegations. If he actually fights the allegations with something more than a stock press release from his lawyers and agents, the opinion of his career(s) will be influenced by the allegations and the rebuttal. And if McNamee recants and is indicted and/or imprisoned for lying about Clemens' involvement, the opinion will be influenced by that as well.

If Clemens NEVER EVER had any involvement, purchase, injection, etc., then he shouldn't have been named. But again, I suspect that Mitchell, the investigators, and MLB would be most careful about tossing about the names of all-time greats without some trust in the veracity of the source.

SC, are you a betting man? Knowing what you know now, having seen the detailed allegations in the Mitchell Report, having heard Pettitte and others admit to allegations involving the same sources (which only bolster the sources' credibility), what would you be willing to wager on Rockin' Roger's 100% lack of PED use?

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 12:33 PM CST up reply actions

I believe that

he is guilty since as you said, other people in the report are admitting their usage and his profile seems to fit.

However, what I believe isn't really what I am saying here though. I am trying to provoke thought into the matter of whether or not this is a fair way to bring these kinds of matters up. I ask, is it fair to the players that these allegations were made public before they knew about it? Therefore not having a chance to dispute them prior to them being made public? Is it also fair that it's going to be really difficult to clear one's name of these allegations?

I'm not sure that it's really fair for the players to have to get a lawyer and try to dispute these findings, knock this trainer's credibility, and try to prove their own innocence.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 1:11 PM CST up reply actions

what you say is food for thought

but, as pointed out, the players had the opportunity to find out about the allegations and respond to or dispute them long before the report was released. and all of them chose to not speak with mitchell. that was a tactical decision by the players, and not without some merit - however, i think, from my perspective, there certainly would have been some rather large benefits, in terms of public perception, of having a statement in the report that x met with mitchell and denied the allegations. especially considering no other accused player did that. were the players put into a difficult position? of course. but a lot of it was their own making, too.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 1:20 PM CST up reply actions

well, one qualification...

something was wrong with david justice's cell phone. otherwise, he surely would have cleared all of this up before the report was issued. ;-)

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

i am totally using that excuse in the future.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 1:29 PM CST up reply actions

They did have a chance to dispute them

before the report was released.

See page 175 of the report re: Clemens: "In order to provide Clemens with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined."

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 1:24 PM CST up reply actions

also we need to keep in mind

that pretty much all the information contained in this report came from witnesses/indicted or charged individuals/evidence that would have come out in court eventually. and the players wouldn't have had an opportunity to respond to that before it was unsealed or filed with a court. it is arguably better that it came out all at once (especially for some of the less famous players) because a lot of these guys will just get lost in the noise surrounding the big boys in the report.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 1:28 PM CST up reply actions

Just Clemens or other players as well?

If Clemens didn't meet with him to discuss the allegations prior then he shouldn't complain about the tarnish on his name now.

Justice, I know, complained vehemently about the allegations. I'm not sure if he knew to meet with the investigators or not. I'm kinda lazy to bring up the report again.

If they all had the chance to meet with him (meaning, the investigators told all of them they would be in the report prior to it being released) then I can reasonably ease off my reasons for bringing this up.

However, isn't it entirely likely that they would go ahead with releasing the information regardless of what the players and their agents disputed?

Regardless, it's still a cruddy position to be put in.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 1:39 PM CST up reply actions

Doubtful.

Think of it this way...for every player named who could factually dispute the allegations, the veracity of the entire report would be compromised. I have to believe then that if Clemens (or others) met with Mitchell and took a hard stand, things may have been different. At the very least, the dispute would have been noted and the tone set for the court of public opinion.

And yes, all of them had a chance.

SB: "Dog shit tastes awful. I thought so the first two times I ate it; the third time was the worst. I can't believe I wasted so much time eating dog shit."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 1:43 PM CST up reply actions

Ah, I see

my opinion on these matters is slowly, but surely, moving away from support of the players through these discussions.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 2:02 PM CST up reply actions

yup

while i understand anyone's reticence (and a lawyer's reasoning) to not speak to investigators on anything unless compelled to do so, the practical effect of not speaking to them is that you're viewed as guilty.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 2:02 PM CST up reply actions

Mitchell clearly said in the report

He reached out to every player named in the report (alive) and they all declined. Not just Clemens.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Dec 20, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

SC, THIS is what you do when you

are smeared in public and (probably) have nothing to hide, or it can't be corroborated with any certainty:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7586306

If I were married to Eva Longoria, I'd sue, too.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 20, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions

good point

if it were just your current wife, you'd probably let it slide, huh? :)

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

Nah, she trusts me

And who the hell cares what I do besides her, anyway? But if I had a client of mine float something in public about me partaking in unauthorized trading, trading on non-public information, etc. you bet I'd sue.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 20, 2007 1:49 PM CST up reply actions

Tigers looking to sign Dontrelle Willis long-term

http://freepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/SPORTS02/712200375/1050

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 9:30 AM CST reply actions

Hey Larry

Quick law question for you (or anyone else who may know): if a defendant (e.g. Bonds) commits perjury, is his lawyer in anyway culpable?

by BustedFlush on Dec 20, 2007 11:06 AM CST reply actions

not unless she participated in it

by, say, telling the client to lie. there can be some tricky ethical and legal things that come up when you absolutely know your client is lying, or plans to lie, but the lawyer usually doesn't find themselves in trouble unless they do something more. and rarely does (or should) a lawyer put themselves in a position where they absolutely know.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 11:14 AM CST up reply actions

Good to know

Thanks.

by BustedFlush on Dec 20, 2007 11:21 AM CST up reply actions

That was my thought.

And any lawyer advising his/her client to lie under oath is a Darwinian experiment, anyway - needs to be thinned from the gene pool.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 20, 2007 11:24 AM CST up reply actions

Golly gee, that was nice!

I was expecting you to see that all of us (lawyers) need to be thinned from the gene pool.

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 11:29 AM CST up reply actions

You are in a profession reviled and necessary

We were having a discussion in our men's study group yesterday morning (you know, the one where all the 50 y/o+ blowhards are facing their mortality by reading and dissecting Ecclesiastes, trying to make sense of the meaninglessness of life) about our judicial system. No one present would consent to represent defendants accused of certain criminal activities (murder/rape/etc.) and I was the only one that piped up that it was imperative they also receive competent (not government) representation. How egalitarian of me, eh, Toonder?

It's like cops - you always diss them until you need them.

Man, we need some trade or FA activity.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 20, 2007 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

Tigers extend Dontrelle Willis for 3 years...

"Source: Willis agrees to 3-year extension worth $29 million with Tigers"

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 12:16 PM CST reply actions

That's relatively cheap in this market

still probably going to be league average at best.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 12:24 PM CST up reply actions

not sure it's all that cheap

two of those three years are buying out arbitration years. probably can estimate those at $15 million give or take (probably give). pretty generous for a guy who some/many have questions about.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:26 PM CST up reply actions

I concur

Good deal for Willis though, makes more money than he would in arbitration and still will be a free agent at age 28.

Caulk the wagon.

by rebstock on Dec 20, 2007 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

Coco Crisp to the White Sox rumors...

From WSI...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95960

The trade would supposedly be 3 White Sox prospects (one would be John Shelby) to the Red Sox for Coco Crisp and Michael Bowden. Johan Santana would have to be traded to Boston first, without the inclusion of Jacoby Ellsbury, for this rumored White Sox / Red Sox trade to happen.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 1:10 PM CST reply actions

shelby

dont know anything about him, can anyone help?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 20, 2007 1:18 PM CST up reply actions

He's a middle infielder/middle OF

with some pop

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions

it was sometime in july/august

he switched to CF and went nuts

he had like a HR and an OF assist every 2 games afterwards...

by The Wizard on Dec 21, 2007 6:11 PM CST up reply actions

Bowden is interesting...

but Crisp is crap. Any way we can just get Bowden? How about Shelby for Bowden?

:)

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM CST up reply actions

Bowden?

What's he going to be that the 5 pitchers to fill out the last 3 starter spots aren't? His AA line is pretty underwhelming, though he is young. All it confirms is that he should go back to AA and see if he can't re-find his K rate. Having not seen him pitch

Shelby is probably half a year behind him and is an actual position prospect.

BP's Kevin Goldstein:

"The Good: While Bowden has the command of a control specialist, his stuff is far from pedestrian. His fastball sits in the low-90s, and his curveball is a plus offering. He thrives on competition, and seems to find an extra gear in tight situations. While his numbers at Double-A weren't overly impressive, he was among the youngest pitchers in the league at the time of his promotion.

The Bad: The biggest knock scouts have with Bowden is his funky mechanics. A term normally reserved for batters, Bowden's delivery almost has a hitch in it and comes in a lot of parts, so it's easy for him to get out of synch, costing him velocity, command, and movement. His changeup still needs work to become a usable big league pitch.

Perfect World Projection: A third or fourth starter in the major leagues."

The PWP is the most telling. We don't have that big a need for such a thing, really. At least not one that isn't ready right now.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 20, 2007 2:13 PM CST up reply actions

One half-season in AA

drops a guy from a potential ace to 3rd, 4th starter? I'm not sure I believe it.

Mechanics can be straightened out. Right Coop?

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 20, 2007 2:31 PM CST up reply actions

goldstein's opinion is the same as last year

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 2:35 PM CST up reply actions

The difference between a #1 and everyone else

is pure stuff. The sort of thing that's dominant, period. Ridiculous K rates that are easy to spot and stuff everyone agrees on. Goldstein reports on what he feels is his scout sample's consensus. In any case, the most impressive thing he's done so far is pitch well in Lancaster, but he only made 8 starts there. He made twice that in Portland and doesn't appear to have the stuff to get AA hitters out, either via K or groundball, at an elite rate anymore.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 20, 2007 11:08 PM CST up reply actions

And there's no way

Crisp, a legitimate major league centerfielder, is a less valuable acquisition for this team than would be Michael Bowden, who's odds of making the majors aren't yet over 50%.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 20, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions

How much are we going to chase our collective

tails on this one? This is like an alkie drinking Listerine because all the Budweiser's gone. Sex with my wife after 10 years holds more surprises than these rumors.

Fer Chrissakes.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 20, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

not too much

the Twins want a CFer in their deal. (that means Ellsbury or Crisp) So the way I read this third hand report on a message board, the Sox would only trade for crisp if Johan stay in Minnesota.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 20, 2007 1:36 PM CST up reply actions

Yep, that's what makes no sense...

about this rumor.

The Twins are going to get either Coco Crisp or Jacoby Ellsbury. The Red Sox will need to keep whichever CF'er they don't trade to the Twins because they need at least one starting CF'er.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 1:41 PM CST up reply actions

Or goes somewhere other than Boston.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 20, 2007 1:53 PM CST up reply actions

Ugh.

No trading prospects, please! Especially Shelby.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 20, 2007 2:25 PM CST up reply actions

Aren't Gio and DLS the other 2 prospects?

The Sox would give up? They would have to be, wouldn't they, to get Bowden in the deal?

by hitlesswonder on Dec 20, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions

If that's the case...

that would be the worst Sox trade of my lifetime. It would probably doom the Sox to suckage for a decade.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 20, 2007 2:30 PM CST up reply actions

well considering

that DLS and Gio are both better prospects than Bowden I doubt that would be the case.

by bhoov on Dec 20, 2007 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

Crisp has the most "value" in the trade

At least to Kenny Williams. In order to make up the differential between Shelby and Crisp, the Sox add Gio. But they want a AA or above pitcher to replace Gio in the system and so get Bowden. But Bowden and Gio are close to the same value, right? So the Sox have to add in a A ball pitcher in DLS.

The White Sox have all of 2 prospects in their system. Any trade of talent that involves prospects has to be talking about Gio and DLS.

I suppose it's possible the deal is Sweeney, Shelby and DLS or Gio. But I doubt it.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 20, 2007 3:34 PM CST up reply actions

That would be ridiculous

Gio is a notch above Bowden as a prospect. So just negate both out from the deal and favor Boston slightly to begin.

So then it becomes DLS and Shelby for Crisp plus however you want to count the notch up in value from Bowden to Gio.

by 3E8 on Dec 20, 2007 3:47 PM CST up reply actions

Maybe...

...but are sure it won't happen? I have lost faith that a move like this won't happen with Williams as GM.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 20, 2007 4:00 PM CST up reply actions

because

he's usually given away our prospects for nothing, right? this distrust of KW is a little odd, considering most of the consternation with him is the result of inaction in the free agent arena or throwing too much money/years at players. KW has probably made one really dumb trade in his career and has come out ahead in far, far more of them.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 4:04 PM CST up reply actions

Please Kenny

Do not deal anything for Coco. Go get the damn checkbook and spend it on Cameron for two years. You'll have Owens play 40 or so games next year for added "flexibility" and the "talent" can stay in our farm system. Don't do it.

www.fratdaddy.blogspot.com

by Raf on Dec 20, 2007 4:39 PM CST up reply actions

What kind of contract do people think...

that Cameron will get? Just curious...

2-years, $18 million
3-years, $24 million

???

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 4:53 PM CST up reply actions

2/$18 M

sounds right to me... Though I suppose it would fall if there were only one legit suitor.. (I don't believe the Sox are interested)

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 20, 2007 5:47 PM CST up reply actions

Why don't you think that the Sox are interested?

Because of the OBP/strikeouts comment that Kenny made? I hope Kenny realizes that Mike Cameron's career OBP is .017 points higher than Torii Hunter's.

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 5:55 PM CST up reply actions

The sox are incredibly predictable

18 months ago, I could have told you that Hunter and Linebrink would be Kenny's top targets this off-season, not that they should be, but that they would end up as his main targets.

I thought Rowand would be a much closer second, but thankfully seeing Rowand up close for the better part of 6 years led KW to place a proper value on him.

There were rumors around Linebrink in '06... I was campaigning for Fields to be traded while he still had value.

We would know already if Cameron was "grindy."

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 20, 2007 8:12 PM CST up reply actions

Or the 25 game suspension?

by SSH2005 on Dec 20, 2007 5:55 PM CST up reply actions

hALLELUHAH!

by dantesox on Dec 20, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions

can you point to an instance where kenny

...has done something like this?

man, you scare the hell out of me!

by The Wizard on Dec 20, 2007 6:38 PM CST up reply actions

Well...maybe not...

He traded several good prospects for 4 months Garcia. It turned out none of those guys were good big leaguers. My current fears are founded on:

Williams is willing to trade the Sox best prospects
He apparently doesn't think Crisp is crap.
The Red Sox are rumored to want a lot for Crisp
Kenny may be feeling pressure to make a "big" move.

Thinking it about it some, I'm guessing the package would probably be something more like Shelby, Sweeney, and Gio/DLS but not both. I am sure that to get Bowden one of DLS or Gio has to go back to Boston.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 20, 2007 8:10 PM CST up reply actions

i think you mischaracterize the garcia trade

a tad. i suppose it may not mean much to you, but the sox had worked out the outline of an extension with freddy prior to the trade. so while it was sort of for only four months, the sox also acquired exclusive bargaining rights to freddy - and acted upon them.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 8:18 PM CST up reply actions

That outline of which you speak

is called tampering

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 20, 2007 8:44 PM CST up reply actions

now cheat

it's not tampering unless you get caught.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 8:47 PM CST up reply actions

That's fair

I didn't know they were sure they would get him signed & I don't know how to properly value the negotiating window. You are right -- it's worth something, it was more than 4 months of Garcia.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 20, 2007 9:04 PM CST up reply actions

i don't know how to value the window either

as you say, it's worth something. and freddy would have been a pretty sought after free agent should he have hit the market. of course, as oft pointed out, players like him usually don't hit the free agent market - i imagine that's where the value of the negotiating window comes in. whoever traded for freddy (and he was going to get traded) probably was going to sign him.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 9:07 PM CST up reply actions

Silva - $48 Million!

Unreal. This guy really is not that good...he's seriously about as good as Floyd.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bba-mariners-silva,1,3165785. story?coll=sns-ap-sports-headlines

by BobbySouthSide on Dec 20, 2007 4:18 PM CST reply actions

kind of seems like a poor man's

jon garland to me.

by larry on Dec 20, 2007 4:25 PM CST up reply actions

not even a very poor man.

then again, isn't bobby south side kenny's coffee runner? makes sense then to trumpet up floyd's abilities (belied by his numbers, of course) and criticize a free agent pitcher's new contract.

SB: "Dog shit tastes awful. I thought so the first two times I ate it; the third time was the worst. I can't believe I wasted so much time eating dog shit."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions

not even a very poor man.

then again, isn't bobby south side kenny's coffee runner? makes sense then to trumpet up floyd's abilities (belied by his numbers, of course) and criticize a free agent pitcher's new contract.

SB: "Dog shit tastes awful. I thought so the first two times I ate it; the third time was the worst. I can't believe I wasted so much time eating dog shit."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 20, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions