Clemons signs with the Yankees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

Yeah, there's not much doubt in my mind that Roger was hitting the juice

---

Nor mine, but there's a difference between Clemens using steroids and Bonds' use: Clemens is white, so it's okay and I don't care.

Seriously, though, I have less of a problem with pitchers using steroids because I feel the use is closer to being legitimate medical treatment. Pitching is incredibly hard on the throwing arm, obviously; if Jason Grimsley is using HGH then I'm inclined to think it's to get him through the season, and not to make him something he wasn't otherwise (the way Bonds started juicing in order to become a 60+ home run masher). It's obviously a very difficult line to draw, and I don't think Clemens is necessarily a good counter-example to Bonds, but there is such a thing as responsible steroid use- that which is done to maintain performance, rather than enhance it. Making the distinction between maintaining and enhancing, though, is where it gets tricky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

I can't argue against the Yankees "spend at will" philosophy. However, take a look at the talent that the Yankees HAVE developed that's on their current team.... Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Cano, Wang, Hughes (when he comes back). That's a lot of home-grown talent, I don't care what anyone says. There's not many top teams in baseball that can claim that, and certainly not the Sox. Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia, that's it right?

---

exactly.


for the record. in the Series, Sox 6-4 for a winning percentage of .600 Yanks 26-13 for a winning percentage of .667 so yes win every year for a decade, double it and you still dont have the AL titles or history of doing it every major era in baseball.

Jezuz, it's simple. Roger doesn't treat the press like a bunch of scumbags. You don't do that and expect, well, good press.

Well said, SSD, although I think your first point is probably more relevant than most people would admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

exactly.


for the record. in the Series, Sox 6-4 for a winning percentage of .600 Yanks 26-13 for a winning percentage of .667 so yes win every year for a decade, double it and you still dont have the AL titles or history of doing it every major era in baseball.

---

Hold on a sec...not to get technical, but...world series titles NYY 26 Bos 6. 6+10 = 16. 16 x 2 is 32. 32 is more than 26.

Totally agree with Benny too- dont be an asshole to the press (or people in general) and people will look the other way. Thats why Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Giambi and anyone else arent mentioned as much as Bonds (The BALCO thing didnt help though). I mean, McGwire is still known as an abuser, but its because he was at the forefront of captivating a nation during the summer of 98. Giambi pretty much owned up to it, and hes a steakhead and everything, but seems like a decent guy (to the press) and he is "rewarded" with less bad pub.

the point being that the redsox dont hold a candle to the pinstripes.

I don't think Steinbrenner is concerned with tix sales or revenues. the Yanks are always on tv and every game is full or sold out - there are 30 million fans within driving distance of yankee staduim. plus he's already got his new stadium. I was just there and it is going up quick - turning some of the only parkland in that area into a parking lot.

Steiny wants to win the WS every year, and that's why he brought clemens in. having said that, clemens is a tool and baseball should have a retirement cap just for him.

having said that, steiny has reverted back to his ways of the 80s, just buy off the best players from the year previous. when he started developing talent in house, the yankees went on a five year tear. then he wanted to keep it up, and he can't this way.

but we'll still be in the playoffs, bitches.

some pinstripes are so awesome they get cheered for in Boston!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...efieldfool.jpg

:D

Clemons
http://www.valuerichonline.com/mag/0...clarence01.jpg

Clemens
http://i.cnn.net/si/pr/subs/swimsuit...clemens_01.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ.Brk

The guy supposedly gave up all the names to the DA's. Should be really interesting what names come out in that.

---

Well, considering the grand jury names shouldn't have come out in the first place, there's a pretty small chance we'll hear much for a while. I'm sure it will get out at some point though.

i like the contrast with the NFL, where a steroids user (Merriman) still gets All-Pro and is celebrated like he never did anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

Seriously, though, I have less of a problem with pitchers using steroids because I feel the use is closer to being legitimate medical treatment. Pitching is incredibly hard on the throwing arm, obviously; if Jason Grimsley is using HGH then I'm inclined to think it's to get him through the season, and not to make him something he wasn't otherwise (the way Bonds started juicing in order to become a 60+ home run masher). It's obviously a very difficult line to draw, and I don't think Clemens is necessarily a good counter-example to Bonds, but there is such a thing as responsible steroid use- that which is done to maintain performance, rather than enhance it. Making the distinction between maintaining and enhancing, though, is where it gets tricky.

---

Are you SERIOUS? As a baseball fan, I'd expect you to take a hard line of absolute NO USE throughout baseball. There are treatments and conditioning that get a pitcher through a season, most pitchers do it all the time. "Responsible steroid use" sounds like an oxymoron. Clemens is (among other things obviously) known for having the most regimented, intense work out sessions. The man has worked very hard to keep himself conditioned at an age where injury and fatique set in much faster. He has also changed his game up a bit and has become much more precise and more of a Maddux-esque precision pitcher.

As a fan of the game, I do have a problem with him only playing for the post season and not becoming a true member of his team. But heh, if people are paying and you are winning...I guess you can do what you want. Schilling said the same thing today...who wouldn't jump on that? He'll be a stopper for the Yanks, and that might be all they need to pick up the momentum...those young guns are going to raise their game just being near the man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

i like the contrast with the NFL, where a steroids user (Merriman) still gets All-Pro and is celebrated like he never did anything.

---

Well...in the playoffs...he didnt do anything. Total fraud.

I'm pissed about the whole affair! We had an agreement in principal to have Clemons pitch for our co-ed softball team.

If you're accusing Clemens of steroid use, might as well go the distance and accuse everyone in the 70s and 80s for coke and most of the old-timers for popping greenies. Drugs have been involved with baseball for as long as baseball has been a sport. Stating that certain kinds of drugs are acceptable versus others is just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ECbum

Are you SERIOUS? As a baseball fan, I'd expect you to take a hard line of absolute NO USE throughout baseball. There are treatments and conditioning that get a pitcher through a season, most pitchers do it all the time. "Responsible steroid use" sounds like an oxymoron.

---

As a baseball fan, I want to see pennant races decided by who plays better baseball, not whose starting pitching stays healthiest. Steroids have a real medical application, which is why they were developed in the first place; I have no problem with someone using them to correct a medical condition. Like I said, however, it's a really hard line to draw- all steroid use is rehabilitative, but at what point does rehabilitation become cheating?

My basic position is this: it's okay to do what you can to stay healthy and make it through the rigors of 162 games, 35 starts, whatever. It's not okay to use drugs to somehow make yourself a different player- to go from a judy-hitting centerfielder into a 50+ home run slugger (see Anderson, Brady). I fully admit that it's a precarious position, and I haven't thought through all its potential implications. And I don't know that it presents any kind of workable solution to steroid use, because it's so subjective. I mean, where do you put a certain player's baseline level of performance, above which level you say "that's cheating"? Or maybe you say, well, going from a 25-start guy to a 35-start guy, isn't that making yourself a different player?

It's just a starting point for discussion, really, but it intuitively makes sense to me. The fun is in breaking it down and making sure it really does make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia, that's it right

---

Sorry, missed this before: Youkilis. Also, Varitek was drafted by the Mariners in 1994, but never played a game for them. He did spend time in the Sox' system.

steroids=bad
162 games=too many

Crap, I thought Youkilis was drafted by the A's... then I remembered that Beene just had a hard-on for him.

My point is there though- that despite all the $$$ the Yankees spend on FA's, they do a better job than most of raising their own talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

they do a better job than most of raising their own talent.

---

They can also afford to pay high signing bonuses and to keep the guys they draft once they can become a free agent. Every star in MLB came up with some organization; the Yankees can keep everyone they develop (and rarely have to rush a guy to the big leagues before he's ready).

I never thought I'd say this, but there are far too many baseball threads going right now.

http://www.biglines.com/photosv2/200...ines_75954.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InspectorGadget

I'm pissed about the whole affair! We had an agreement in principal to have Clemons pitch for our co-ed softball team.

---

Clarence is still available. I'm not sure his arm is as good as Roger's, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

I mean, where do you put a certain player's baseline level of performance, above which level you say "that's cheating"? Or maybe you say, well, going from a 25-start guy to a 35-start guy, isn't that making yourself a different player? It's just a starting point for discussion, really, but it intuitively makes sense to me. The fun is in breaking it down and making sure it really does make sense.

---

I understand raising a point for the sake of raising it, but I'm sorry: what you are asking is impossible. All major league players are the top in their profession. Any one player can string together some great years, some great players string together horrible years. I agree that steroids were developed for medical treatment, but trying to come to some sort of level of acceptance of use would be horrible for baseball and send a very mixed message to younger players/future stars.

I say if you're found using them, you're out. Bonds should crawl in a hole in die (only because of his mouth... and I assume many other talented and record breaking players were juiced at some point or using greenies).

If the rigors of pitching are too much on an arm, then why have we seen more use of steriods at relatively the same time as the development of the bullpen and shorter outings? Because baseball did nothing about it...time for that to really change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ECbum

I understand raising a point for the sake of raising it, but I'm sorry: what you are asking is impossible.

---

I don't recall asking for anything; I'm just saying that, in my moral judgment, some steroid use is okay. But that being said, I don't think steroid use and "fairness" are mutually exclusive- if team physicians were allowed to administer steroids, and their application of steroids was in turn closely monitored by WADA, well, I think that could work. There would have to be way more off-season testing, and the penalties for going outside the MLB-approved system would have to be really, really tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

They can also afford to pay high signing bonuses and to keep the guys they draft once they can become a free agent.

---

Agreed with the free agent aspect, but I don't think the other argument holds true. There's slotting (to a point) in the draft with the big money rounds, and you don't see the Yankees going over that slot money often. I think the bigger example you see these days is in the first 10 picks, sadly a lot of them are dependent on the player's agent and how much money they expect. I've read about quite a few teams who won't touch Boras clients in the draft- so you'll see a kid fall from say, #3 overall to #10 just because of that. The Yankees and Sox have picked so far down in the draft for the last several years that this doesn't really apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

I've read about quite a few teams who won't touch Boras clients in the draft- so you'll see a kid fall from say, #3 overall to #10 just because of that.

---

Jeter was one of those guys- he got a bigger signing bonus than three of the five guys picked ahead of him, and the same as the #1 pick overall (Phil Nevin).

Reputation and options have a lot to do with that too... watch a guy like Andrew Brackman this year. He doesn't have good numbers for NC State this spring, but he's 6'10" and has the UPSIDE to throw really hard- so some team is going to take him in the middle of the first round and pay him top-10 money.

+++++++vibes+++++++ for roid rages