Boomer wants selective justice

Friends, I want this great game to be played on a flat ground, just as most of you do. I don't want it to be a battle of the chemists. We've made some strides in the past few years, many coming at the expense of those outted (Bonds, Palmiero, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, Clemens, Manny, etc.). The one thing that I continue to ponder is just how pervasive the use of all kinds of PEDs were over the last two decades. Let's face it: the majority of players were doing something that's now banned (HGH, steroids, greenies, etc.). Remember, too, that the use of greenies goes waaay back, back to the grainy black-and-whites. Cheating isn't new.

This is not an assigning blame rant; I've done that plenty of times.

But what irks me are those who are calling for the stats of those outted (or presumed guilty) to be summarily stricken from the record books. This, of course, absolves those who haven't yet been outted. It also diminshes the performance of the hitters hitting against juiced up pitchers. It wasn't only the hitters juicing.

That brings us to Boomer Wells, one of my favorite players, who has the Wite-Out ready to go:

Wells also suggested that Rodriguez, who admitted that he used steroids during a three-year period while playing for the Rangers, should have his numbers scrutinized. Rodriguez hit three homers off Wells in 18 at-bats during that time period and the former hurler doesn't think those stats should count toward Rodriguez's bid for the Hall of Fame.

"Well, he claimed he was on the juice, so, no they shouldn't," Wells said.

Boomer, so we should just take his 3 HR off his ledger? What about revising your ERA? Should we do that, too? After all, it's a double book entry system; if you take something off one side, something has to come off the other side as well. What if removing one of those HR's would have resulted in a change in the result of the game? And what if that resulted in a win that got a team into the playoffs whereas otherwise they didn't make it? Talk about a slippery slope...

Of course, those who remain guilty in the shadows can sleep comfortably.

Now, Wells' primary thrust was to ban players from the HOF and to impose a zero-tolerance policy and I am choosing to focus on the stats side of it.

The hefty lefty said MLB should give harsher bans than the 50-game suspensions currently handed out to players who test positive for banned substances. He also said that players who have admitted to juicing should not be elected to the Hall of Fame.

"No 50-game suspension - ban them right away," Wells said. "That would stop (steroid use) in a heartbeat. Especially with the money they are giving out today. It would be incredible if they did that, you wouldn't have to worry about steroids or HGH."

So long as there's a reasonable appeals process, I can't say I disagree. What I'd hate to see are players getting heaved from the majors when they take something over the counter from GNC that contains substances not on the ingredients label. I would be in favor of a "one and done" policy.

Last part of this article which really made me chuckle is the tweaking of Clemens by Wells. Remember, these two were traded for one another, with Wells going to Toronto tearfully, as Clemens arrived in NY in 1999.

"I started calling [Clemens] Eli, because for years, he called me Eli, you know 'Whatever comes out of Boomer's mouth, he-lies.' Well I got payback," Wells said with a big smile. "It was great. Debbie and him on the first tee, (country singer) Toby (Keith) and I and a buddy of his were finishing up and I said, 'Toby, watch this.' I yelled 'Eli,' and Roger didn't like it very much, but he came over and said hello."

Can't you see Clemens, setting up to drive the golfball amidst a large gallery, the crowd hushes and suddenly, there's Boomer Wells yelling "Hey Eli!" and having Clemens snort fire. Not too dissimilar to the Judge Smails putting scene with Rodney Dangerfield's Al Czervik, right? With Debbie Clemens giggle at the expense of her husband just like Lacey Underall is in that picture to the right?

Clemens interview quick thoughts

Just watched/listened to the Clemens interview on Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio. Time constraints between the almighty commercials kept it brief.

From my notes:

1. Why coming out now to talk about this?
   - Feels it's "piling on"
   - Traveling with wife out of country and wanted to address this before leaving
   - Too much "garbage" in the new book
   - "Completely false"
   - "Trying to move on"
   
2. McNamee claims there is drug paraphrenalia with his DNA on it
   - "Impossible because he's never given me any"
   - Never given/injected any drugs by McNamee.
   - "No HGH or steroids"
   - Given DNA to testers "willingly"
   
3. Most of his defamation lawsuit has been thrown out of court
   - Rusty Hardin still dealing with it
   - "How do you defend a negative?"
   
4. About drug use
   - Talks about his family history of heart trouble (EDIT: including his step-father, which is as irrelevant as him talking about my family history)
   - "Would be suicidal" for him to have used
   - Drugs are "horrible"
   
5. Regarding Pettitte/Knoblauch who claim/admit McNamee gave them HGH, other stuff
   - "Andy misremembers"
   - Only chatted with Pettitte a few times since, sounds cursory
   
6. On Manny
   - Don't know Manny's details
   - "We have great testing"
   - Story: One during his playing days, he was told to submit to a test. The testing people came to Clemens' house so he could show his son about being tested.
   - "Testing is working"
   
7. On ARod
   - Glad he came out
   - Wish him the best
   
8. On the HOF
   - Would love to be elected
   - Has no control over the situation
   - Stats should speak for themselves
   
9. How should the HOF voters handle those accused?
   - "Can't speak for them"
   - Should be based upon on field performance

UPDATE: Here is the interview


From FackYouk, who clearly don't buy what Clemens is dishing

Schilling vs. Mussina

A random thought occured to me driving to work this AM: besides the big sluggers and PED-tainted players (Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Piazza, etc.) who will be either on the HOF ballot for the first time or remaining on the ballot, two well-respected pitchers will also make their debuts: Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina. Their candidacy will be well debated from here on out.

Disclaimer: While I dabble in and thoroughly support advanced statistical analysis, I won't pretend I speak the language fluently. For the sake of this discussion, I won't delve into the HOF worthiness of Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris, or any other well-discussed pitchers. All data referenced herein comes from the incredible Baseball-Reference.com.

What I thought about was how the voters will look at these two accomplished pitchers.

• How will they tell them apart?
• Will Schilling's stellar post-season efforts outweigh Moose's longer and more consistent years and greater win totals?
• Will each of their lack of milestone win totals preclude both of them, given there are pitchers with greater win totals still having to buy a ticket to enter the HOF?
• Were they truly great or just very, very good?
• Will their 'seemingly' PED-free career in a the "Steroids Era" help them or will they be caught up under the blanket of "presumed guilt until proven innocent"?

Let's compare these two horses side by side and see what the numbers begin to tell us. Remember, this is just the beginning of a discussion/debate, not the end. Just ammo in the war. {Sorry for the small data; that's the way it presents for some reason. Click on each to see a larger view!}















Some definitions about the HOF Monitoring stats:
Black Ink: Average HOFer ≈ 40

• Pitching Statistics
  Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
  Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
  Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
  One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts

Gray Ink: Average HOFer ≈ 185

• Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must be in the top 10 in the league in that category.
• Pitching Statistics
  Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
  Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
  Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
  One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts

HOF Standards: Average HOFer ≈ 50

• Pitching Statistics
  One point for each 10 wins over 100, limit 25.
  One point for each 20 games over .500, limit 10.
  For each of the following a minimum of 500 innings is required before these points are added.
  One point for each .013 of winning percentage above .500, limit 15.
  One point for each .20 of ERA below 4.00, limit 10.
  One point for each 200 strikeouts over 1000, limit 10.
  One point for each .30 of BB/9IP below 4.00, limit 10.
  One point for each .30 of H/9IP below 10.00, limit 10.
  One point for each 1000 innings above 1000, limit 5.
  One point for each 100 complete games above 200, limit 5. Changed from James's slightly
  One point for each 30 shutouts, limit 5. Changed from James's slightly

HOF Monitor: Likely HOFer > 100

• Pitching Rules
  15 points for each season of 30 or more wins, 10 for 25 wins, 8 for 23 wins, 6 for 20 wins, 4 for 18 wins, and 2 for 15 wins.
  6 points for 300 strikeouts, 3 points for 250 SO, or 2 points for 200 or more strikeouts.
  2 points for each season with 14 or more wins and a .700 winning percentage.
  4 points for a sub-2.00 ERA, 1 point if under 3.00.
  7 points for 40 or more saves, 4 points for 30 or more, and 1 point for 20 or more.
  8 points for each MVP award, 5 for a Cy Young award, 3 for each AllStar Game, and 1 point for a Rookie of the Year award.
  1 point for a gold glove.
  1 point for each no-hitter. This is not currently included.
  2 points for leading the league in ERA, 1 for leading in games, wins, innings, W-L%, SO, SV or SHO. Half point for leading in CG.
  35 points for 300 or more wins, 25 for 275, 20 for 250, 15 for 225, 10 for 200, 8 for 174 and 5 for 150 wins.
  8 points for a career W-L% over .625, 5 points for over .600, 3 points for over .575, and 1 point for over .525, min. 190 decisions.
  10 points for a career ERA under 3.00, min 190 decisions.
  20 points for 300 career saves and 10 points for 200 career saves.
  30 points for 1000 career games, 20 for 850 games and 10 for 700 games.
  20 points for more than 4,000 strikeouts, and 10 for 3,000 SO.
  2 points for each WS start, 1 point for each relief appearance, and 2 for a win.
  1 point for each LCS or LDS win.

Excerpt: The Rocket That Fell To Earth

Jeff Pearlman posted on Yahoo! an exerpt from his book that was released today. There's a lot to read there, but here's a snippet:

Before long, Roger came to lack this perspective, too. Although [older brother]Randy was no longer living at home, having graduated from high school in 1971 and accepted a basketball scholarship to Division III Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana, his influence on his brother remained profound. As he advanced from elementary school to junior high to high school, Roger turned increasingly combative. Though he was still a chunky kid through his early teens, on the courts and fields Roger carried himself like a scowling, trash-talking 20-game winner.

He even promised those around him that one day he would start the All-Star Game, win the final game of the World Series and wind up on the cover of Sports Illustrated. In football, he was a stout defensive and offensive lineman. In basketball, he was a physical power forward and center. And in baseball, he was a gap-hitting third baseman and a soft-tossing control artist.

Yes, Roger Clemens was a soft-tossing control artist. Though Roger was usually one of the better pitchers in the various leagues in which he participated, intimidation was not his game.

For my interview with Pearlman on this subject, please click here.

Pearlman on MLB on XM right now

Jeff Pearlman is on MLB on XM radio right now talking about his book. Listening now...

• I know someone from XM visited my site earlier today (thank you, StatCounter) and their first question was almost verbatim my first question! Sneaky, XM, sneaky, but I am onto you.
• Second question was essentially my "what surprised you the most" question.
• Fourth was the "famed workouts" question.
• Fifth was about Piazza and his PED usage and why Pearlman decided to "go down that road". Joel Sherman is clearly enjoying the dulcet tones of his own voice, implying that Piazza wouldn't have gotten as many HOF votes as we might have otherwise thought due to the quiet whispers that surround him.

IIATMS Exclusive: 20 Questions with Jeff Pearlman

A few weeks ago, I learned that author Jeff Pearlman was finishing a book about Roger Clemens, deftly titled "The Rocket That Fell to Earth: Roger Clemens and the Rage for Baseball Immortality". I emailed Jeff, requesting an interview via a 20 questions email. Jeff was kind enough to give it a whirl. Presented below are Jeff's answers to my questions.

[I do want to note that I do not and did not have an advance copy of the book so my questions reflect this fact. I asked questions without knowing if they were addressed in the book and without insight into any particular stories, like the Giambi story that came out last week.]

1. It's About The Money (IIATMS): Why Roger Clemens? Haven’t you had enough of mucking around in the PED pool after your Bonds book?
   
   Jeff Pearlman (JP): Good question. People always think—and understandably so—that I selected subjects because they're "bad" guys who cause controversy. That's not the case. What I see in Roger Clemens is the same thing I saw in Barry Bonds—an iconic sports figure who we know almost nothing about, beyond surface information. I know Clemens was a great pitcher who used drugs and was from Texas and never said much. But what makes him tick? How did he reach this point? What led him to make the decisions he made? That's what fascinates me, but it's hard to find icons (nobody's buying a Roberto Kelly biography) who haven't been revealed. Clemens, for the most part, is a mysterious figure.
   
   


2. IIATMS: Was Clemens’ PED usage similar in psychology to Bonds (“Yes I am already a legend, but I want more”) or was it related to him fading in Boston (with Duquette’s famed “in the twilight” comment looming)?
   
   JP: Sort of both. He was already a legend, but the spark was the Boston fade, and Dan Duquette sort of calling him out and saying publicly what everyone else was thinking: The guy is a shot pitcher.
   
   Clemens has a lot of pride and even more ego, and the idea of some pencil-necked geek ending his career never sat well. So he did what he had to do to revive a fading fastball and a fading baseball existence: He cheated.
   



3. IIATMS: Did Clemens lure Pettitte or did Pettitte seek out Clemens?
   
   JP: Really, neither. They were friends, and Pettitte, understandably, saw Clemens as a the ideal mentor—a Texan and a legend who knew how to survive in a profession that eats its middled-aged. I don't think either man was the villain or victim, when it comes to one another. They just ... were.
   
   


4. IIATMS: Was Pettitte the lapdog that the media portrayed him? Do you think Pettitte used more than he admitted to?
   
   JP: I actually think Pettitte is a lapdog—sorta simple, gosh, golly, OK, that sounds good, just try my best, love God, play to the best of my abilities. And do I think he used more than twice? Of course I do, because it doesn't make sense. Something makes you recover quickly and gives you more oomph and energy—and you only used twice? Hard to fathom. That's actually what angers me, a bit about the Pettitte thing: There was very little follow-up to his "confession." Twice? Really? Only twice, Andy?
   
   


5. IIATMS: How elaborate was Clemens’ PED usage?
   
   JP: In a sense, very elaborate, and in a sense, no very. He used myriad PED, from HGH to different steroids, and he had it set up so Brian McNamee would provide and inject in the privacy of his own home. But, on the other hand, it was pretty basic in the grand scheme of cheaters. Unless you're injecting elephant blood and road spit, steroids and steroids and HGH is HGH. There are different varieties, different potencies—but, come day's end—it's a performance enhancer.
   
   


6. IIATMS: Much has been made about Clemens’ workouts. What did you learn that surprised you? Was it the liniment on the testicles?
   
   JP: Actually, I'd say the liniment is pretty crazy. I can't imagine how he stomached that. But also, I was sorta blown away by the lie of it all, and the scheming. Toward the end of his career, Clemens worked really hard to make sure everyone knew he worked really hard. There are endless newspaper articles about Clemens' work ethic; reporters tagging along and watching. It was sort of the classic bait and switch—the more you think I'm busting ass, the less you'd think I'm cheating behind the scenes to do so. Sort of cleaver, in a pathetic way.
   
   


7. IIATMS: Who did you interview for this book?
   
   JP: Approximately 420 people, ranging from teammates to coaches to classmates from elementary school on up. My goal here, to be honest, wasn't to write "Game of Shadows: Clemens Version." As I noted earlier, I wanted a detailed, in-depth bipography of who Roger Clemens is, and how he became this person; what led him down the path.
   
   


8. IIATMS: For those of us who have never considered what goes into writing a book like this, can you tell us about the process? What goes into it? Research? Timing? Editing?
   
   JP: Hell. Pure hell. This was the hardest book I ever wrote, because the publisher wanted it faster than usual. So basically, the first thing I do is get copies of every media guide Clemens has appeared in, from college to this final seasons in the big leagues. I make files for every teammate, coach, etc—and reach out to them, one by one. I find his old yearbooks and track down classmates, coaches, administrators. I'll travel for big reasons—visit his hometown, go to Houston, etc. But much of it is over the phone. Then, on a newspaper database program, I'll go through every Roger Clemens clip from the early 1980s through today—that'd be about 10,000 articles. It's nightmarish and hard, and when you write, you can easily get lost beneath a mountain of paper. But I also enjoy the detective-ness of it all.
   
   


9. IIATMS: How does the publishing process work? Did you seek a publisher or do they seek you?
   
   JP: Well, I've had a relationship with Harper for four books now, so I pitch them my ideas first. But for my first book, "The Bad Guys Won!" I had an agent contact me, ask if I ever wanted to get into books. We talked it over, and came up with the '86 Mets as an idea. We pitched the book to different publishing houses, and Harper was interested. That's how it started ...
   
   


10. IIATMS: What surprised you the most about your research?
    
    JP: Clemens' youth. Growing up, Bonds was this stud athlete who kicked ass everywhere. Clemens was the opposite—fat, schlumpy, unimpressive. Very, very mediocre. In Little League, he split starts with Kelly Krzan—a girl. And she had better stuff. Also, the lies. If you look at Clemens' life, he has lied about major things throughout: He's not from Texas, he's from Ohio. He wasn't drafted by the Twins, wasn't offered a football scholarship from Georgia, didn't have a basketball tryout with the Sonics. Those are just a few of the things he's said over the years—none true. And the list is endless. It's odd—he has spent a lifetime writing a narrative that doesn't ring true.
    
    


11. IIATMS: How pervasive was PED usage during the ‘90’s? At its height?
    
    JP: This is a guesstimate, but I'd say 70% of major leaguers were using something more than Andro. That's pretty damn pervasive. It was part of the culture of the game. But as I always say, if 70% of my daughter's class cheats on a test, I'm still pissed beyond belief if she does, too. It's easy to go along; difficult—but righteous—to buck the trend.
    
    


12. IIATMS: How much PED usage is still going on? What %?
    
    JP: I couldn't give a % at this point; it'd be a pure guess. But I still believe it to be very high. You know HGH was widely used before the so-called crackdown, and there remains no test for it. I look at a guy like Jason Giambi, and think, "He was a pretty mediocre prospect, then he takes, presumably, roids and HGH and is great. He gets caught, supposedly stops taking ... and is still great? Hard to believe. Not impossible, I guess. But hard.
    
    


13. IIATMS: Was this part of the Yankees locker room culture? Between Giambi, ARod, Sheffield, Clemens, Pettitte, and the Mitchell Report, there’s an awful lot of pinstriped heroes who have been shamed. Not all were Yanks while they used or got caught using, but there’s a link.
    
    JP: Truthfully, it was a part of baseball culture, period. But I do think the Yankees allowed it to flower, and never, ever questioned it. I mean, this is the team that brought in Giambi, Jose Canseco and Kevin Brown. This was a don't-ask-don't-tell team. You don't think Brian Cashman or Joe Torre had any suspicions? None? That'd be very odd. It doesn't make the Yanks any different than the Padres or Mets or Cubs—but the whole blame-the-players approach of baseball is wrong.
    
    


14. IIATMS: How would you allocate the “blame” for this Era: Media, Union leadership, clean players, dirty players, ownership, Selig?
    
    JP: Ownership: 20%
    Selig: 10%
    Dirty players: 30%
    Union leadership: 30%
    Media: 5%
    Clean players: 5%
    
    


15. IIATMS: Was Clemens regarded as a good teammate, unlike Bonds?
    
    JP: For the most part, yes. He could be very selfish, and his no-show act grew very old in Toronto and Houston. But, unlike Barry, he wasn't a purely bad and selfish human being. Clemens wanted to be nice and helpful, and he would answer teammates' questions, take them out for dinner, treat rookies well. Overall, he was liked, and some guys—Oil Can, Al Nipper—swear by him.
    
    


16. IIATMS: How is Clemens’ life these days? Is he in seclusion or is he still embraced by the Houston community?
    
    JP: Well, he's not overly embraced. Still plays golf, attends his kids' events, lives an OK life. But this is a man whose goal was to become an immortalized legend; a superhero for eternity; the greatest blah, blah, blah. He desperately wanted to Hall of Fame; even demanded he be inducted as a Yankee, or not at all. So now here he is, no legacy, no hope. It's sad, in the fallen-hero-is-pathetic way. But it's largely self-induced.
    
    


17. IIATMS: Does Clemens’ much care about the Hall of Fame? It’s been noted that McGwire doesn’t care all that much.
    
    JP: Yes. More than breathing, he wanted to be alongside the all-time greats. This kills him.
    
    


18. IIATMS: Does Clemens regret:
    a. Using?
    b. His defense?
    c. Anything?
    
    JP: Roger Clemens doesn't do regret.
    
    


19. IIATMS: If you could go back 10, 15 years and become the whistleblower, would you know that it might have resulted in your being blackballed from the inside of the game? Or would you have been pressured to keep quiet (either due to editors, lack of evidence, etc.)?
    
    JP: If I had the information, and it was sound, of course I'd do it. It'd be the sports equivalent of Woodward turning down Watergate because he was worried about future White House access ...Without question.
    
    


20. IIATMS: Tell us about the Giambi/Cashman fallout that surfaced last week:
    
    JP: [This is canned as the answer comes directly from Jeff's blog and came out after I had sent him my initial list of questions.]
    I’ve never been one to shy away from difficult subjects. I try and tackle issues/people head-on, and can’t remember a time when I’ve decided to not write something because the fallout would be too difficult.
    
    I’d be lying, however, if I said I enjoy the fallout. I hate it—truly hate it. I want people to read my books, and it’s certainly the way I feed my family and afford and house. I also enjoy the PR that comes with promoting a book—it’s fun emerging from the light for a month or two to do TV and radio. But when the spotlight is negative, or confrontational, or awkward … well, it’s no fun. I don’t hide from it—but enjoyable? No.
    
    A final thought on this matter, and I’ll move on: Cashman was 100-percent right, in that I should have called him for comment, and it was mediocre journalism that I didn’t. I truly regret that. My explanation—admittedly, not a very good one—is that, in my mind, I knew he’d deny, and I could always get it during spring training, when I’d see him in person in Tampa. When the book deadline was moved up, I lost that chance—but forgot about it. Not a good excuse, obviously, and all rips are fair game.
    

A huge thanks to Jeff for making himself available in the height of his pre-launch activities. [I don't make a nickel on any referral or anything like that, but if you want to pre-order a book at Amazon, click here.] Also, Jeff has a pretty interesting "Cast Of Characters" that appear in the book. Great stuff.

The Clemens saga is tragic and I hope that these Q&A's are helpful in scratching the surface on his persona.

"Whatever you were taking in Oakland..."

For those who aren't aware, author Jeff Pearlman has a new book coming out in less than 2 weeks (3/24/09) called "The Rocket That Fell to Earth". While most of us are totally sick of Clemens' legal issues, I remain fascinated by the stories leading up to all of this, including his misguided defense strategy. The NY Times has an advance copy and asked Cashman about a reported comment he made in 2002, this about Jason Giambi:

The book said that when Giambi went through a slump in the 2002 season, his first with the Yankees, Cashman was heard yelling at a television in the Yankees’ clubhouse during a game. Citing “one New York player,” the book said that Cashman screamed, “Jason, whatever you were taking in Oakland,” get back on it.

The book said that Cashman then added, “Please!”

In a telephone interview Thursday night, Cashman said that the anecdote described in the book never happened.

“That is completely false,” Cashman said.

He added, in reference to the author: “This guy never even called me and asked me if it was true. You think he would have done some fact-checking.”

In a telephone interview on Thursday night, Pearlman stood behind his account.

“The source was a Yankee player who was an eyewitness and in whom I have 100 percent confidence,” Pearlman said.

I've got an email into Jeff to see if he's got a anything else to add. If so, I will post it. I've been in touch with Jeff lately in advance of the book's release and he's agreed to a "20 Questions" interview about it. I hope to have it for you next week. Said Pearlman:

“I wrote the book to be a biography of Clemens more than anything else,” Pearlman said. “I wrote this book because I was honestly curious about what led Clemens to the point where he finds himself and what contributed to him becoming who he is.”

UPDATE (12:20am, 3/13/09): Just heard back from Jeff Pearlman. With his permission:

"I really don't have much more to add. Read your post—appreciate it. I mean, the one thing I'll say—that you can write—is that, when it comes to performance-enhancers in baseball, Cashman's track record is brutally bad. He didn't merely employ users of performance-enhancers, but he signed three: Jose Canseco, Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi—who were known throughout the baseball world for their ways. We couldn't report it, because we, the media, didn't have proof. But all three were discussed among players ... writers ... executives; it was hardly a secret. So if Cashman wants to play the 'I had no idea, and any suggestion that I did have an idea is ludicrous!' card, well, I find it hard to fathom. That doesn't make him different than many (if any) of his GM peers, but it's odd to watch all these players go down in flames, while executives who paid huge salaried for 'enhanced' players walk away clean, with their jobs and reputations without stain."

[Addendum from Jeff: "I misused the word 'signed' ... I know Canseco and Brown weren't brought in as free-agents ... just saying Cashman added them without Qs."]

For me, I've oft wondered that very thing: how come Cashman has never come close to saying "I had my thoughts and heard rumors but without testing, my hands were tied"... or something like that.

That being said, Brown wasn't signed by NY; he came via trade. Canseco wore a bunch of uniforms before and after NY. But the list of the guilty (Mitchell Report or by other means) players who have worn the pinstripes at some time or another is much longer than I care to examine (Knoblauch, Ron-DL White, Canseco, K.Brown, ARod, Sheffield, Grimsley, D.Neagle, R.Villone, M.Stanton, Giambi, Leyritz, R.Velarde, Pudge, Clemens, Pettitte, Mitre).

Wishing Baldelli well

Hard for any fan of the game to root against Rocco Baldelli, even a staunch Yanks fan.

"It's tough," Baldelli said. "I don't know if there is a layman's way to describe it. It's almost impossible. My muscles get tired, but I prefer not to even say things like that because I don't want that to be the headline of the story. That's why I don't really get into it much. It's tough for me to explain to other people exactly what's going on."

I can't imagine what it must be like to be a world class athlete in peak condition to have trouble cranking the engine when needed. I hope he can make a full recovery and makes 80+ starts in right field.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In the same article, there's a comment about the "new" Sox clubhouse. Sox fans, your team's persona is on the same path as the Yanks: professional, corporate, vanilla. Just read this next comment and swap out "Baldelli" for "Jeter", "Sox" for "Yanks", "2004" for "1996", and "Jesus hairdos" for "former drug-addicted Mets":

Baldelli is polite, almost shy when dealing with the media. He'll deliver words and fill the sound bite for the 11 o'clock news, but strives to say as little as possible. This makes him a perfect fit for the 2009 Sox. Theo and his guys have assembled a group that is the polar opposite of the 2004 Idiots. No more wild and crazy quotes. No more Jesus hairdos or Jack Daniel's shots.

Not saying there is anything really wrong with that corporate, vanilla persona. We just have to recognize that once a team wins and eventually loses the key players of that team, the team will bring guys in who try to fit in rather than just be themselves and giving the team a new identity. It melds into something pretty santized.

The '04 Sox lost Manny, Pedro, Damon, Millar, Foulke, etc. Think of those personalities. Big personalities, lockerroom leaders. Sure, 'Tek and Papi are still there, intense as ever. Papelbon seems to be a bit of a wacko, and I mean that as a compliment. But JD Drew, Ellsbury, and Bay aren't exactly guys you think of as leaders. Pedroia seems to be a natural leader, but is he (and Lowell) the loose kinda guys in the lockerrooms like Damon, et al, were? I ask because I don't know the answer, not facetiously.

The "early dynasty" Yanks lost the same type of leaders: Wells, Cone, Paulie, Bernie, Jimmy Key. Sure, we filled them with other guys, some of which had larger than life personalities (Clemens, Giambi) while others were as vanilla as they come (Moose, Abreu, Matsui). And the team slowly conformed to Jeter's "give 'em only what they need to know/hear" personality. Santized, scrubbed, polished. And ARod and his personality is as obvious as they come. I heard someone say on XM MLB #175 today that it looks like ARod is acting like he is playing ARod in a movie about ARod. "Sincerity" is not a word I'll ever use to describe him. The truth is, if he was a pompous ass, crass and crude, people might have an easier time accepting him. At least we'd know he was honest with himself. I think this is what helped Giambi's "recovery" in the eyes of fans. [Not for nothing: I think adding Sabathia's clubhouse presence will do wonders for this team, who needs a boost of personality]

I still think the Sox are as feared an organization as there is in baseball, this year and for years to come. I think I have been more than fair in my thoughts on this team, no matter how much I want them to fail. My respect for Tito, Theo and so many of their personnel is tremendous. I think their off-season acquisitions were smart and calculated, even without Teix. But this team is no longer the Boston Dirt Dogs. They are now a corporate powerhouse. They are no longer the lovable losers; they have an image to uphold (and sell).

Congress regains their senses (for the moment)

Thankfully, the new chairman of the congressional committee that hauled in Clemens, Big Mac and Raffie Palmiero will NOT be dragging ARod in to discuss his admission of PED usage.

"The American people need leaders who will focus on stemming job losses and getting credit to flow in the marketplace before hearing from yet another person who cheated both himself and the game of baseball," said House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Edolphus Towns, a Democrat from New York.

Amen and hallelujah.

Shysterball called as expert

...or something like that:

Tests that link Roger Clemens' DNA to blood in syringes provided to investigators by Clemens' personal trainer Brian McNamee could bolster prosecutors' claim that Clemens lied about steroid use. But both legal and medical experts cautioned that the more difficult determination would be establishing the presence of performance-enhancing drugs in those syringes.
[...]
Craig Calcaterra, a Columbus, Ohio, lawyer who applies his expertise and baseball passion to a blog called "The Hardball Times," said yesterday in a telephone interview: "There needs to be a second half to [testing] for it to mean anything. Since Clemens has admitted to taking B-12 shots from McNamee, unless they also can establish those needles were used for steroids or some other performing-enhancing drug, I'm not sure this advances the story."

Nice work, Craig! For more on Craig's take on this latest Clemens/McNamee slimefest, click here.

CSI: Roger Clemens

With Grisham moving on, Warrick dead and the miniature killer off the streets, the CSI gang is now devoting it's time to testing Roger Clemens' blood.

Tests have linked Roger Clemens' DNA to blood in syringes that his former personal trainer says he used to inject the pitcher with performance-enhancing drugs, according to a report.

Of course, our favorite defense attorney, good ole boy Rusty Hardin, is already debunking the findings:

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told the Post that the DNA testing "won't matter at all."

"It will still be evidence fabricated by McNamee," Hardin was quoted as saying. "I would be dumbfounded if any responsible person ever found this to be reliable or credible evidence in any way."

Both McNamee and Clemens have had their credibility riddled with holes. Can we accept what McNamee turned over to be tested as unadulturated, test-worthy? If this evidence is accepted by the judge, will it ultimately doom Clemens? If it's not accepted, does Clemens walk free and clear? Does he drop the case? Does McNamee?

Let's get this over with already, OK?

The Bonds stuff is bubbling back to the surface with the Giambi brothers testifying. Greeeaaatttt. Couldn't be happier more sick of this stuff. Let's hope that we can put it in our rear-view mirrors as soon as possible...at least until Bonds is HOF eligible.

From Jason Giambi's previous testimony, pertinent to Bonds and his usage:

Giambi: “So I started to ask him: ‘Hey, what are the things you’re doing with Barry? He’s an incredible player. I want to still be able to work out at that age and keep playing. … [But Anderson] didn’t ever talk about who he was dealing with, or what Barry was taking. He never explained anything.

“You know I assumed because he’s Barry’s trainer – you know, Barry – but he never said one time, ‘This is what Barry’s taking, this is what Barry’s doing.’ He never gave up another name that he was dealing with or doing anything with.”

We have a "presumed innocence" mandate in this wonderful country, but after all that we've read, heard, seen, I will forever believe that Bonds was only the biggest name of a huge swath of players who had been using some form of illegal PEDs to boost their performances.

I'm less concerned with the use of greenies as that upper has been used from the 50's on thru today, by many of the players already enshrined in the HOF. That's hypocritical but I don't see that drug as a body-changing agent unlike steroids. I'm not suggesting that I am in favor of players going crazy on speed just to get up for the game, but it's less egregious of an offense to me.

So when Clemens' former trainer McNamee levied this charge (via the Dead Torre Scrolls), it came as no surprise and received little fanfare:

“I didn’t know one pitcher on Toronto’s team that wasn’t taking them when he pitched,” McNamee claims in the book. “It’s speed. Guys were ‘beaning up’ to play golf after workouts.”

There isn't one name in the game over the last two decades who, if it came out he was using PEDs (steroids, HgH, etc.) that would surprise me. Not one name. I don't think anyone is above getting sucked into the allure that these PEDs provided. I would be disappointed if some of the players who I admired turned out to be users, but no one would surprise me.

I just hope the Bonds and Clemens sagas quickly fade into the ether. I just know that won't happen.

I didn't realize that Selig was represented by Boras

I had no idea that Selig had such a lucrative contract. And he has the stones to warn teams about spending too much when he's collecting an $18.35 million salary? Good lordy.

According to tax filings obtained by the Sports Business Journal, Selig's compensation climbed past $18 million for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 2007. His $18.35 million salary in 2007 represented a 22 percent increase over the previous year, according to the trade journal.
[...]
In 2007, only four players (Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Roger Clemens, Jason Giambi) -- all members of the New York Yankees -- made more than Selig.

That's absurd. I don't even feel like making some "revenue sharing" joke. You can, though.

Clemens, liniment, where?

Yet more from the Dead Torre Scrolls:

The story comes courtesy of Yankee trainer Steve Donahue who told Verducci about what Roger Clemens did as part of his usual routine to get ready for facing the Mets in Game 2 of the 2000 World Series. Donahue said Clemens’ usual pregame preparation included taking a whirlpool bath at the hottest temperature possible.

“He’d come out looking like a lobster,” Donahue said.

But here's the money quote:

Then Donahue would rub the hottest possible liniment on his testicles.

“He’d start snorting like a bull,” the trainer said. “That’s when he was ready to pitch.”

And just when I thought I've heard it all...now I wish I had.


For a laugh, the old Revenge of the Nerds "Liquid Hot" scene

Radomski contraction helps Clemens (sort of, maybe?)

Evidently, this contradiction could be helpful to Clemens and possibly troubling to Sen. Mitchell:

During questioning behind closed doors in a Capitol building office, McNamee said that as part of his job as Clemens’s trainer, he had injected him with steroids and human growth hormone. McNamee gave the deposition under oath. He was asked several times if he had ever informed Kirk Radomski, a steroids dealer, that he was injecting Clemens with drugs. In each instance, McNamee answered no, he had not.

That assertion has been contradicted by a passage in “Bases Loaded,” a new book by Radomski, in which Radomski says that McNamee indeed told him that he was injecting Clemens. That contradiction and others have raised concerns that Radomski has hurt his credibility as a government witness in the perjury investigation against Clemens, and that he might have damaged McNamee’s credibility as well.
[...]
“In a perjury case a prosecutor’s worst nightmare is for a witness to make public statements that contradicts another witness, especially the key witness in the case,” said Mathew Rosengart, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in New York and a former federal prosecutor. “Perjury cases are almost always a he-said, she-said dispute, and there usually isn’t a smoking gun, so corroboration of witnesses is essential. The questions about Radomski are a good thing for Clemens’s defense.”

For a lawyer's perspective, check in on ShysterBall. He's got it covered.

More on Mitre; Dissecting Romero's claims

I managed to get hold of Matt Sosnick from Sosnick-Cobbe Sports, the firm that represents Sergio Mitre. Sosnick is not Mitre’s representative; Paul Cobbe is. Matt was kind enough to take a few moments to help clarify some things about Mitre’s story.

IIAMTS: Why should we believe Mitre’s story?
Sosnick: Paul and Sergio have been dealing with this issue for months, working with the MLBPA. Based on what I know about the situation, I believe there is zero chance that Sergio would be making this up.

IIATMS: It was noted in Peter Gammons’ original article that Romero claims he was offered a more lenient suspension (25 games) if he plead guilty. Was Mitre offered that same deal?
Sosnick: Mitre was not offered that deal. A lot of scenarios were bantered around as possibilities but Mitre was never offered a choice. My partner Paul Cobbe handled the entire deal with Mitre and the MLBPA hearing/appeals process. He was never offered a choice. We hoped for zero games; it came down as a 50 game [suspension] for both Romero and Mitre. We, along with the MLBPA thought that was unfair. If Romero claims he was offered 25 games to admit guilt, that comes as a surprise to us since Mitre was never made that offer.

IIATMS: Who knew about this and for how long?
Sosnick: Only myself, Paul and Sergio [and the MLBPA] were aware. We’ve been working on it for months. Paul and Sergio have been to NYC to discuss and meet with MLB officials. Once we knew that the league would release this today, the only person that I called was Yankees’ GM Brian Cashman, out of respect for him and our working relationship. We released Sergio’s statement after the Romero statement was released.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A few things that I’ve been thinking about since the news broke and it’s only now, after I have had a chance to re-read everything and digest it all, that some things are becoming clearer.

First of all, while I am fortunate to have a good relationship with Sosnick, I do not work FOR him. Just because Sosnick told me that he doesn't believe Mitre intentionally did anything wrong doesn't mean you or I have to believe him. I'm presenting his side since I have access; decide for yourself.

That said, I think Paul Cobbe’s statement on behalf of Mitre was spot on. Nothing resonates more than someone taking responsibility for their actions, even if it means certain punishment. Man-up, as they say. Mitre manned-up. Mitre’s entire statement (emphasis mine):

"Although being suspended for 50 games is tough to accept, I think that it is important to understand that I am in full support of drug testing in Baseball. I did take the supplement in question, and accept full responsibility for taking it. What has been difficult for me to understand is that I legally purchased this supplement at GNC, and had no intention nor desire to cheat or to circumvent the system in any way. As confirmed through the drug testing and grievance processes, it contained a "contaminant" amount of an illegal, performance-enhancing drug. This was not listed as an ingredient on the packaging, should not have been in the supplement and certainly should not have been available for legal purchase at a store. Despite this, I do accept my punishment because, as a professional, I have a responsibility for what I put into my body. For this I will suffer a significant financial penalty and, more importantly, it will affect my reputation. I only hope that this will help others avoid being punished for having taken a product bought legally at a retail store."

Whether you or I believe that Mitre was unknowingly taking a substance that was against the rules is almost immaterial here. What is important is that he acknowledged it and takes responsibility for his actions.

What also struck me here is how much his statement felt like the similar tactic that Andy Pettitte took last Spring in speaking out in the face of the Mitchell Report fallout. Different circumstances, to be sure, but I can tell you that more people respected Pettitte for admitting his guilt than the morbid path that Roger Clemens decided to take. Clemens, as you will never forget, blamed everyone else and never took responsibility for his actions.

I went back over some of the other things that I read about the Romero “situation”, since that clearly had greater legs than Mitre’s. Peter Gammons’ timeline shows us that this was ongoing in the Fall, through the playoffs and actually during the World Series! Pretty interesting how long this process takes to germinate.

What really sticks out is Romero’s response, how he blamed everyone he could seemingly think of, from the MLBPA (the very organization who serves as his advocate and also happens to be the most powerful union in perhaps the world), to GNC, to the manufacturer, down to his trainer on the Phillies.

Regarding the 25 game “offer” that Romero suggested that he received from MLB [EDIT: see update at end], Romero’s comments come across as Clemens-esque. The first comment is particularly insulting:

"But they are not going to make an example of me thinking that I’m just a (dumb) Puerto Rican. It’s not going to happen. It’s not the way I’m built.

"For me to keep my mouth shut? That’s not the right thing to do. If they want to bump me out of the game, so be it. What am I going to do, just sit back and take it? When I know in my heart I’m innocent? That doesn’t fly well with me and it doesn’t fly well in my house, either."

Sounds like Clemens’ initial reaction, too, but I’m willing to give Romero a break here since we don’t know all the facts and we don’t have the benefit of the Mitchell Report to rely upon.

So let’s dig deeper since some things begin to look very sketchy when laid out on a kitchen table:

What did the MLBPA know and when did they know it?

According to the Gammons’ article, Romero claims that “he spoke to Michael Weiner at the MLBPA and told him he did not know the cause of the positive test. On Oct. 1, Weiner told Romero that the specific supplement was indeed the cause of the failed test and that because it was purchased over the counter in the U.S., he believed the case would be dropped.”

Why, then, would Michael Weiner, MLBPA’s General Counsel, issue a tersely written “Statement Statement In Response to Media Reports on the Suspension of J.C. Romero” emailed to all MLBPA personnel? “Press stories” here has to only refer to that Gammons’ source article, essentially coming from Romero’s mouth. So what did Weiner have to say about one of his dues-paying Union members’ claims?

“Some press stories have stated that the Association advised players that the particular supplement J.C. took was safe. Others have suggested that the Association knew, in advance of the positive tests, that this supplement contained a banned substance. Neither is accurate. The Association knew nothing about the particular supplements involved here prior to learning of these positive results.

"There also has been a suggestion in some reports that the MLBPA misled its members about the potential dangers of nutritional supplements. That suggestion, too, is not accurate. We have and will continue to do our utmost to counsel players with regard to compliance with our Program.”

Friends, that is the general counsel of the world’s most powerful union effectively calling “bullsh*t” on one of its members. Do not take this lightly. Weiner is essentially calling Romero (and his claims) a liar. I cannot believe, for a second, that the senior attorney for the union would publish a comment like this without it being a bulletproof statement.

It makes me wonder if there really was a firm offer to accept a lesser penalty for pleading guilty. Maybe it was a trial balloon. Who knows? But no matter what, Weiner’s calling him out on it.

Weiner goes on to then say that he thinks the punishment is too harsh and unfair but the statement abruptly ends there. That’s Weiner doing his job after slamming the door. Weiner issued a joint release for Mitre and Romero that also criticized the ruling.

The Union respects the arbitration process and treats the decision as final. In our view, though, the resulting discipline imposed upon Mitre and Romero is unfair. These players should not be suspended. Their unknowing actions plainly are distinguishable from those of a person who intentionally used an illegal performance-enhancing substance.

He's sticking up for his Union members, as you'd expect, but it's the MLBPA email with the time stamp of 01/06/2009 01:05 PM To: All MLBPA Personnel that is particularly scathing.

What’s certainly possible: Romero, like Mitre, unknowingly took something from GNC that contained elements that are against the MLB drug policy. However, attacking the MLBPA is not the way to go about defending yourself.


The GNC Supplement in question:
Will Carroll from Baseball Prospectus had an interesting little piece on what Romero was supposedly taking: Ergopharm 6-OXO Extreme. Notes Carroll:

According to multiple sources (and also reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer), Romero tested positive for 6-OXO Extreme, a product that enhances testosterone production in ways very similar to anabolic steroids. While legal and still available at your local GNC, 6-OXO Extreme has always carried a warning that it could result in positive tests. If you look at the above link, you’ll be able to find the same warning in the online information.

But it gets better, or worse, if you’re Romero. 6-OXO is a product of Ergopharm. Ergopharm is owned and operated by a guy you might remember: Patrick Arnold. Yes, that one. Arnold was the source for the THG used by BALCO. Arnold served several months in jail due to his involvement and is now back in business.

If Romero didn’t know what he was taking, he sure got unlucky in picking the product marked “for hardcore users only” and with a connection that baseball fans would rather forget.

Whoops. Rob Neyer had the logical comment worth repeating:

Here's a crazy idea: Read the label, and if the label says the product may be banned by an athletic association and you're a professional athlete subject to drug testing … don't take that drug.

The Inquirer article did secure a comment from Arnold, which puts Romero in a further negative light, if you ask me:

In an e-mail exchange, Arnold said there was nothing in his supplement that should have created a positive drug test.

"We have funded two independent clinical studies (one done at Baylor University) that have been peer reviewed," Arnold wrote. "These studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the product. We also have funded studies that have demonstrated the compound’s compliance with FDA regulation. Furthermore, we funded another study at (the University of Illinois) in Chicago using classical protocols that demonstrated that 6-OXO is absolutely not an anabolic steroid."

Why didn’t MLB alert its players about this OTC product?
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer article referenced by Carroll:

In July, Romero showed the new supplement to Phillies strength coach Dong Lien, who recommended that Romero get a second opinion before using it. Romero then showed it to his personal nutritionist, "the guy I’ve been working with since I’ve been in major-league baseball," Romero said.

That nutritionist checked the product’s label and saw nothing on MLB’s banned list. Romero began taking the supplement at that point.

Meanwhile, according to the arbitrator’s report, Lien sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing. The tests showed the supplement contained a substance that could result in a positive drug test. A copy of those results was sent to commissioner Bud Selig’s office in July.

Considering it was the first time a banned substance was found in an FDA-regulated, over-the-counter supplement — one available to every major-leaguer and millions of youths — that should have sounded alarms. But no one from MLB, the players’ association or the Phillies told Romero that there was a problem with the supplement.

Note the timing: In July. Unfortunately, the MLBPA memo citing certain OTC supplements may trigger positive tests came in November. Again from the Inquirer:

The Major League Baseball Players’ Association has told players that supplements purchased in U.S. retail stores should be safe and within the guidelines of baseball’s drug-testing program. The union acknowledged giving that advice in a letter it sent out to players and their advisers in November. That letter, which arrived too late to help Romero, informed players that three over-the-counter supplements were found to create positive tests under baseball’s drug program.

The Phillies response:
From GM Ruben Amaro:

"I feel very confident with how our staff handles -- and has handled -- these situations, both [trainer] Scott Sheridan and Dong Lien. I have absolutely no problem with the way they handled their roles," Amaro said. "It's unfortunate that J.C. and the Phillies have to deal with this situation, but that's how it is."

Standing by his staff.


Conclusion:
Right now, regarding Mitre, we have a player who admits to taking something that triggered a positive test. He’s taken responsibility for his actions. He might be lying to us and we will never know, but this is all we have right now. I commend him for his statement.

Honestly, I think that Romero might be as unwittingly guilty as Mitre at the core of it all. But his plan of attack on his Union, his team/trainers, plus the supplement in question and his not taking any responsibility for his actions is disturbing. What I have presented above is purely conjecture based upon various reports issued. I am not claiming that Romero is lying about the circumstances or the MLBPA’s actions. What really is bugging me is Weiner’s statement flatly calling Romero’s claims false. That’s a big red flag to me.

We've seen a lot written how Romero's not getting a fair shake because it seems that everyone is believing Romero's story that the MLBPA was aware of this supplement's potential for causing positive tests yet they did nothing to help him. I'm not sold that's the truth.

I don't know what the truth really is --and doubt I will ever know-- but there are just some very curious things that Romero's comments and their reaction brought to the surface.

UPDATE (1/7/09, 10:55am): Reader Larry Selzer was good enough to provide this link with Rob Manfred's admission that a 25 game suspension was indeed offered to Romero. Seems that MLB didn't want a player who has tested positive in the World Series. Thanks, Larry!

"We generally do not negotiate discipline in the drug area," MLB's executive vice president for labor and human resources Rob Manfred said. "If he appealed it would go beyond the World Series. We offered to reduce the suspension to avoid him being in the World Series. ... I think a scientist will tell you that the [banned] substance was no longer in [Romero's] system, but the appearance of it - you prefer to avoid. With any drug program, the goal is to remove the athlete as quickly as possible."

Again, all this does is tell us there is so much more we don't know. It still does not change the fact that Romero's attack on everyone else rather than taking any responsiblity is a bad PR move. I'm OK with a player protesting the claims and professing his innocence, but I would not have recommended Romero's tactics.

UPDATE (1/9/09, 11:15am): An update from USA Today's Bob Nightengale, with an interesting tidbit on the company certifying supplements:

NSF International, a not-for-profit organization based in Ann Arbor, Mich., certifies supplements for Major League Baseball, the NFL and the PGA Tour. EgroPharm, the manufacturer of 6-OXO Extreme, is not one of NSF's approved companies and any product that purported to be a testosterone booster, like 6-OXO Extreme, should be avoided by professional athletes who are tested, according to Ed Wyszumiala, NSF's general manager of dietary supplement programs.

"There is a certain segment of the market where we're not convinced isn't adulterating their products," Wyszumiala said. "Maybe this is a case where a company would spike a product in order to gain market share.
[...]
"Oftentimes, what's on the label is not in the bottle," said Lori Bestervelt, senior vice president and chief technical officer at NSF. "The only way you know is through testing the product and having a certification process."

This is just sad

Sure it makes the headlines due to the Clemens angle, but it's just sad:

Roger Clemens' longtime mistress was hospitalized - after an apparent suicide attempt, Nashville police said.
......
A source told the Daily News McCready severed a tendon in her left arm that required immediate surgery.

I really hope she gets the proper counselling to get herself back together.

No arb-eligible Yanks

I saw this post from Pete Abraham last night, but I wanted to wait to post something because I wasn't sure how I felt.

It came down to economics. The Yankees did not want to risk going to arbitration with any of their players given the salaries they made last season. To refresh your memories:

Bobby Abreu made $16 million, Andy Pettitte made $16 million and Pudge Rodriguez made $13 million. All three would have been in a position to get at least as much via arbitration and likely some sort of raise.

Meanwhile, if Mike Mussina suddenly decides to play for somebody else, the Yankees get nothing in return. Sure, that’s extremely unlikely. But that was supposedly the case for Roger Clemens, too.

Regarding Andy Pettitte: I agree, not offering arbitration was a good move. Pettitte is not worth risking a salary INCREASE and the (I believe, though I am researching this; correct me if I am wrong) biggest decrease the Yanks could offer is 20%. I like Andy, but a raise over $16M is silly given his performance and risk. I'd rather negotiate directly than be forced into binding arbitration. If Pettitte demands are on par with his 2008 salary, I'd wish him the best in finding it elsewhere.

Regarding Pudge: Obvious move.

Regarding Moose: There is no harm in offering Moose arbitration. Just in case.

Regarding Abreu: I have been wavering on Abreu which is why I decided to sleep on it. And I awoke still in conflict. On one hand, he's a solid ballplayer, quiet and steady. On the other, he's clearly a poor outfielder and would worsen an already clogged OF situation. He's also not worth a raise over his $16M last year.

The Yanks are preaching fiscal sanity out of one side of their mouth while offering Ft. Knox to Sabathia and others. Hypocrisy? Maybe. Maybe Cashman & Co. have decided it's time to go a new direction from some of these older guys.

The kneejerk reaction was to bash Cashman for not getting the arbitration draft picks (assuming those offered arbitration did not accept and signed elsewhere). Every team needs more draft picks; it's the new currency. Cashman decided that they could forego those picks in order to keep "other" salaries down so they could spend that money on areas they need more help.

Vitamin V

We've all heard of alternative medicines and all sorts of things like that. Homeopathics. Acupuncture. Mexican drug runners. Vitamin V? Well, guess again.

Seems that old buddy Clemens and a ton of others have been using Viagra as a performance enhancer, and not for the bedroom.

Clemens stashed the clearly marked, diamond-shaped pills in a GNC vitamin bottle in his locker at Yankee Stadium, according to a source familiar with the clubhouse, perhaps keeping the drug undercover to avoid the inevitable wisecracks about all the girlfriends he needed to please.

Clemens wasn't alone. The pitcher, who is believed to have scored the drug from a teammate, joined the burgeoning number of athletes who have turned Vitamin V and its over-the-counter substitutes into one of the hottest drugs in locker rooms.

The drug is so widely used for off-label purposes that it has drawn the attention of anti-doping officials and law-enforcement agencies in the United States and beyond.

"All my athletes took it," BALCO founder Victor Conte, whose acolytes included Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds and Marion Jones, said of an over-the-counter supplement he claimed mimicked the effects of Viagra.

"It's bigger than creatine. It's the biggest product in nutritional supplements."

Among the off-label uses for Viagra, which first went on the market in 1998, it:

• Helps build endurance, especially for athletes who compete at high altitudes
• Delivers oxygen, nutrients and performance-enhancing drugs to muscles more efficiently
• Counteracts the impotence that can be a side-effect of testosterone injections

......

Don Catlin, the founder of the independent organization Anti-Doping Research in Southern California, said he has been raising questions about Viagra's use in sports for years.

Catlin said he even wrote a letter several years ago to then-WADA chairman Dick Pound, notifying him that Viagra might be a doping agent.

The e-mail got bounced back by Pound's offensive-content filter, which thought it was spam.

Let the jokes begin, now.

Congrats to Unit

Now, I was no fan of his before he joined the Yanks, during his thankfully brief tenure with the Yanks, and now that he's back in Arizona... but a big old hat tip is due to the Big Unit as he passes Roger Clemens on the all time strikeout list. He's now #2 behind Nolan Ryan. Quite the impressive feat.

Almost as impressive as his re-grown mullet, thumbing his nose at anyone who thinks mullets are strictly an 80's phenomenon. Guess what? The mullet lives, baby.