rician blast

I think I can accept that statistically there are likely a number of LF...Bay being one of them...who would seem to be replacements for Manny, as long as your including defense in the argument. If we're looking at just hitting, that list probably goes down some, but there'd still be some guys (not saying available guys) who'd be equal or upgrades. Couple of things on Manny from my perspective: (1) I haven't double checked what the numbers say, but my recollection is at least 2 of the last three years he got off to less than Manny-esque starts. Over all numbers are fine, but the tough starts trouble me...I wonder if there is a year in the not-too-distant future where he does not overcome the tough start, ending at something like .280, 20 hrs, 80 RBIs...still productive, but not $20m-ish....however: (2) I think theres something to be said for having been there, having had success on the playoff stage. Since its not my money, until Manny proves he's declining rapidly I think the sox ride that horse.

I'm looking for a little clarification here... Are you saying that Bay (above average) is better than Manny (average)? Not picking a fight here, as I know little about Bay, just curious. Thanks.

He did not defend him. He said he could understand how an incident like this happens. Look, Don Cherry is an idiot, however he is a former player and coach who understands how frustrations build on the ice.

Interesting topic that is certainly going to affect who gets in/doesn't get in going forward. I think there are a number of problems that HOF voters are going to run into as they assess players linked or suspected of PED use. Forgive me if I drift a bit from the exact nature of this thread... (1) Can anyone say when the 'roid era really began? If a players big years came in, say, the late 80's and early 90's, will voters assume that he was 'roid free? As I've stated before I know of a long list of amateur athletes that were using as early as the mid 80's...I'd have to assume there were some significant numbers of pro's using as well. Not sure...I can't prove it, but it would be a surprise to me if HS and college athletes were using but MLB players were not. I can see some issues with attempting to define a 'roid era. (2) Were hitters in the roid era in some ways levelling the playing field in that pitchers were using...and vice versa? A hitter that benefited from 'roid use, had he not used, could have been at a disadvantage when facing pitchers who used...and the same would apply for pitchers who did not use, but had to face hitters who did. (3) Some heavy users of PEDs will likely get away with it...meanwhile some minor users may get caught. If the criteria for HOF admission includes whether a player was caught there is opportunity for players who would have made it anyway to be omitted and players who would not have made it without PEDs to be granted entry. IMO Barry Bonds is a HOF player...talent-wise anyway (his ability would have put him in the HOF, with or without PEDs, IMO). Assuming he has used PEDs ( I believe he did...a lot) is he automatically excluded based on the evidence before the voters? And for comparison, let's say, just for sake of argument, it turned out Ryne Sandberg was a heavy 'roid user but never got caught...just go with me here. Would he have made it if he hadn't juiced? There is great opportunity for unequal treatment. Shooting from the hip here (since I have to go out in a few to a Xmas party...I'll possibly revisit this thought when I have more time)...I think a potential solution, albeit likely unpopular, would be not to dictate how voters vote...don't designate a steroid era, don't say that anyone implicated absolutely is out. Now on a prospective basis? Sure, establish rules governing PED use...any use of banned substances WILL exclude a player from HOF consideration. Just some thoughts.

Never mind, we'll not be making each other see the light that the other sees, so it's a good time to drop this particular issue. You claim to have been personally insulted. You claim I called you a liar. You refer to my illustration that you've contradicted yourself as semantic inference. Yet if you reread your own posts objectively you'd see that you said players use PEDs to help their team...then deny saying it. I've simply pointed out the inconsistency. To implies motive...not by-product. Have a good night. Edit: If you are that insecure that you can not handle feedback I suggest you develop a thicker skin...not everyone is out to get you, Bill. Lighten up.

Terrific contribution, Coco.

OK, time to wrap up and move on, but before doing so I offer the following example of your approach in this thread. You stated: (1) and you posted: (2) Yet the record shows that you did say: (3) Quote #3 directly contradicts #1 and #2. You have been exposed.

It's probably hard to see what others are doing when he has a hot dog in one hand, a bag of chips in the other and a feedbag strapped to his fat face. I know it doesn't show, but I kinda like the guy.

Yeah, you guys are loaded with quality starting pitching.

So Taint, tell me, why did you choose as your forum name a reference to Bill Buckner? Are you one of the following: - one of those fringe Sox who think HE lost that game in 1986? - a Yankee fan? I'd be interested in what led you to choose that name.

Behind the Bag...that would be the "taint", no? EDIT: I see Yaz beat me to the Taint reference...nicely done.

precisely because he is fkn nuts!

never said you mentioned Andy. I said based on your position, that PEDs are used for the benefit of the team, I suppose you believe Andy. I did not misquote you, only accurately paraphrased what you said. You are misrepresenting the facts. No s***. I never commented, though, on the games integrity...I commented on Rose's desire to win, which your own source supports. Beyond that, you're misrepresenting the discussion again. All that is true and its a great attempted misdirection....but I stated that the ARTICLE you referenced never said anything regarding Rose's integrity being a HOF factor. Reread the article if need be, but I was correct. You are misrepresenting the discussion again. I said it was my OPINION that PEDs were used by players to benefit themselves. You stated that it was your opinion that they do it for their teams. So where exactly is my presumption to know better than you? This is the most egregious example of your recent string of misrepresentations. You play fast and loose with others words, a tendency that seems to have no end. At least now its evident why you're the stat-man you are. Your inability to construct your OWN position(s), to be true to those positons and to support them without misrepresenting others is quite apparent. I find your approach disengenuous. I guess its only natural that you'd prefer to rely on information constructed by others that hopefully, for your sake, is less refutable. Now go along, come up with your next illogical, unsupported, rambling discourse in which you recast the discussion in some new light while misrepresenting my words. I'll turn the ******** filter on and we'll see if any of your next post gets through. Somehow I doubt it.

Paps told the same story, pretty much, weeks ago in an interview with one of the NESN ladies and could barely keep a straight face.

My gut says that Heyman could very well be correct here. I think the Twins believe that the Yankees know that the Sox are in better shape going into 2008, primarily pitching wise, than the Yanks are, and that the Yanks ownership will find that unacceptable. The Yankees have always reminded me of the scene in the first Indiana Jones movie where Indy is fighting a bunch of guys and this unbelievable swordsman comes outta nowhere wielding his sword and Indy realizes he's overmatched so he gets this grin on his face, pulls out a pistol and shoots the guy. The Sox are heading in that direction too, but haven't displayed the longevity of that approach that we see with the Yanks. Cashman, IMO, would be willing to go into battle with "less bullets" than an opponent if it meant preserving the future health of the team...the Yanks owners, I believe, don't share that same restraint...but we'll see.

Incorrect assumption. I do recall him being hated by many for the Fosse hit and for his never-quit style. As I stated though, that has no bearing on him being in the hall or not. In response to my saying Rose played harder than others, you stated that Rose "took out Ray Fosse hard at home plate" and "I don't consider that to be a mark of HOF caliber integrity. The hit, while over the top, doesn't represent a lack of HOF integrity...and the cite you've provided is ineffective...I don't see anywhere where the article says anything about the hit being a knock on his HOF-caliber integrity as a player. Being despised for playing hard, which is supported by the article you referred to, is much different than being viewed as short on HOF integrity. However, thanks for posting a cite that supports my position that he played to win...I owe ya one. After the fact, you're attempting to conveniently redefine the meaning of your statements. You stated "I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win." To that I replied that as a player Rose played as much, or more, to win as anyone, and IMO was more win-oriented than the 'roid boys. Now you say you simply meant that his career was filled with controversy? That doesn't fly. Your contention was that they did it to help their teams. Now you say you don't know what they were thinking. Well, which is it? Assuming it is your opinion, as you stated in your 2:18 pm post, that players use PEDs to help their teams, I suppose you believe Andy Pettitte's story that he felt an obligation to get back and help his team? I disagree with your assertion that players primarily use PEDs to help their teams...rather I believe players who use PEDs generally do so to help themselves in terms of stats, adulation, and money. We can agree to disagree on this one.

I thought the point I made was quite clear, that Rose was as fierce a competitor as there was in terms of trying to win...if the Rose-Fosse incident wasn't the quintessential effort to win I don't know what is. While I think its disgusting that a player would execute such a crushing hit on a catcher in an exhibition game, I don't think that particular example is effective at all in measuring "HOF caliber integrity." Appropriately, I'm pretty sure that it's never been even hinted that the Fosse hit plays into him not being in the HOF. I said that their PED use was more driven by their seeking to achieve personal goals, $$$$, etc. than reaching team goals. We're talking motivation here, not by-product of the PED usage. I have trouble believing that Clemens and Bonds, assuming they used PEDs, did it for the good of the team.

Love ARod's spin regarding his turnabout: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12172007/sports/yankees/a_rod__boras_not_speaking_878373.htm Forgive me for being cynical, but wasn't it reported that Warren Buffett advised him to go around Boras....and didn't a high-powered Goldman-Sachs employee contact the Yankees for him? Besides, when has ARod ever done something without the advice of his image consultants? What a piece of work.

My issue with his "admission" includes not only the "if I" statement, but also the notion that he did it to get back and help the team ("I felt an obligation to get back to my team as soon as possible. For this reason, and only this reason....). ********.

Agree Yaz...I posted elsewhere about my experience working in a gym in the mid 80's where HS athletes, college athletes, and regular Joes were constantly approaching us for juice. The s*** has been in use a long, long time.

Wonder if the Yankees, reeling from the Mitchell report, would be inclined to push hard for Santana now as a diversionary tactic... Get the attention off the fact that a number of their current/former players were implicated, that they're committed to one of them for $16m in 2008 and that at least two of these former players are now spinning ridiculous lies... and get the attention on Santana and the prospect of competing for a WS title in 2008. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if this week we hear the Yankees are back in the hunt.