TheKilo

I love that the apology starts off ""If what I did was an error in judgment...."

Read the whole sentence though. Duquette wanted Clemens to stay in Boston for the entirety of his career. Eventually, a career ends....hence "twilight of his career."

Frank Thomas's name is in the report, though.

It appears that Pettitte used them in a similar way that Rodney Harrison did in the NFL...but the important thing is this makes it seem like McNamee was telling the truth. Tough sailing for Clemens ahead.

Pettitte's admitting he did the stuff is pretty damning.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/12/15/pettitte.hgh.ap/index.html

Jim Edmonds sucks.

Intelligent discourse at its finest.

I completely agree. The price for Santana does not go up as a result of this deal, because there aren't as many bidders for Santana. It's simple supply and demand. The demand for starting pitching is very high right now, but in short supply. Simple economics tells us that the price will then be very high. Only a few teams can afford the high price. The Sox and Yankees compete for Santana, not anyone else. They don't compete against anyone else, so they just offer packages to try to beat each other. But what if the price was decreased a bit? (Say, from the price of Santana to Haren) - then the number of potential bidders goes up. There are now more potential bidders for the pitcher, the more competition there is, and the higher the package has to be to win.

Duquette never said Clemens was in the twilight of his career.

So basically you're speculating, and have no evidence. Gotcha.

You do realize the evidence against Gagne is from 2002, right?

I actually like this thread...keeps noise to a minimum and would save time digging through posts for news and sources.

Not to nitpick, E1, but the article I linked said Santana's agent wants 7/140 for Santana. Why give up Buchholz and Ellsbury for him? If the Twins are content to hold onto him for '08, try to sign him when he hits the market.

I always had my doubts about Bush because his biggest advantage in the college game was speed, something that was going to be taken away from him in the pros.

I hear the forecast is being changed to rain and wind for the game...which is probably worse for the Pats than snow. Think the Baltimore game in a downpour.

Based off my link in the other thread...it appears Minnesota is now interested in Buchholz (I know they've been from the start, but this was explicitly said). Seems like a bad negotiation idea to me. Buchholz has been off the table from the get-go, and it seems the Sox are perfectly willing to hold pat with their offer of Lester and Ellsbury. They don't feel the need to replace one of the two with Buchholz, and are saying "we are content with our offer." So Minnesota asks for a better one? I dunno....seems foolish on their part to alienate the only team really in the bidding right now...

I understand that a lot of Yankee fans are hurt by yesterday's reports. Let me preface this post by saying that I do not feel that the Mitchell Report is information aimed at pointing at those who have done steroids or HGH and to persecute them in a formal, legal sense. While I do feel the names on the list are accurate, I do not envision any substantial punishments for any of those involved. The place where these people will be hurt is in the court of public opinion, but then again there have always been rumblings about certain players' potential steroid use (specifically with Clemens and Tejada). It is unfortunate that many of these athletes have been put in this position, but then again part of me says they put themselves in this position. The argument I really cannot stand one iota is the claim of any potential bias on the part of George Mitchell. Were his ties to the Red Sox questionable? Absolutely. In my opinion, his hiring was not the mistake, the fact that Bud did not order the ties between the Sox and Mitchell to be severed were. Was there the potential for conflict of interest? Absolutely. My questions to all those who think Mitchell protected the Sox (HHM in particular): 1. You claim there isn't enough evidence in this report to convict people. Thing is, it is awfully difficult to try to get current players to talk about their own brotherhood in such a manner that people could be incriminated. He didn't have the authority to make them talk. Knowing this, where should he have gotten his information from? 2. If someone were to undertake this investigation again, what qualities would you look for in the person leading it? What characteristics would you want the person in charge to have? I can tell you right now, most of the characteristics you'd name are what George Mitchell offers. ORS said it earlier in the thread, but it's a shame that Yankee fans insist on dragging Mitchell's name through the mud for the sake of the rivalry. Like the man said at the end of his PC yesterday, judge him by his work, and not by anything else. 3. HHM, you said you wanted to know where he got his information from: Did you read the report? It's incredibly well-detailed and very thorough. I feel with the resistance he met from all the players involved (save Giambi) and the player's union, he did a damn good job with this report. Look, I can understand the hurt many Yankee fans must be feeling today. It's a rough day after a rough end to the season. No excuse to drag Senator Mitchell through the mud over it. I mean, LOL @ Andy PEDitte.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/12493231.html lol gg Minnesota

So what you're telling me, is, that Mitchell undertook this twenty month project, knowing full well he was not going to implicate any Red Sox but at the same time name a boatload of Yankees. He was going to run this operation out of spite for the Yankees in the rivalry, and completely disregard any integrity he has. And you actually believe this? That's sad, sorry, and pathetic.