December 10, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
More on Romero and MitreThere is a lot of he-said-she-said about the Romero and Mitre suspensions. To help clear up things -- or muddy things, depending on your point of view -- Jason at IIATMS spoke with agent Matt Sosnick about L'affaire (L'affaires?) Mite and Romero. Check it out.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 7:19am
Nice work Jason - very informative and insightful. Agree with conclusion that Mitre is taking the better approach as the blame game approach Romero utilized gives the appearance of covering up. Without tangible evidence to support ones claims our judgement on whether to believe either is based largely on how they respond to the matter and it appears that Mitre may be more believable. The old adage ‘less is more’ certainly applies here.
Posted 01/07 at 10:15 AM
Jason @ IIATMS said...
Thanks Moose. The problem is we don’t know what we don’t know…
But if we’ve learned anything from the Clemens Debacle (as Shyster has gone thru to the very end) is that the more you bark and scream and yell, the more people are going to look at the things you are saying and wonder why you are saying them.
To me, the smoking gun was the email from the MLBPA General Counsel effectively calling BS on Romero’s claims.
Posted 01/07 at 10:35 AM
Posted 01/07 at 12:18 PM
It seems that only Carroll (and perhaps the Inquirer) reported the warning had always been on the label. Other sources claim that Romero showed MLB a bottle that did not contain the warning. Once again, we don’t know for sure who to believe.
I think people handle accusations of guilt in different ways. Some accept their punishment and some protest. I’m not sure one way indicates guilt more than another. I don’t think Clemens was guilty as sin because of how he responded to the Mitchell Report; I think he was guilty because of the evidence contained in the Mitchell Report.
Posted 01/07 at 01:18 PM
Joe Sixpack said...
So any commentary on what it means that a guy who won 50% of his teams wins in the WS was a cheater? I assume that goes as an asterick somewhere in the record book, right?
Posted 01/07 at 05:20 PM