|
May 18, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
May, 2012
November, 2009 October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (10)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22) Teixeira’s Options (18) Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23) Appropos of nothing (4) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Wednesday, January 07, 2009More 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 Comments
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
Rob said...
Les affaires. Posted 01/07 at 12:18 PM
matt said...
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
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: The gum must be AWFUL by now>> <<Previous Post: What are the Reds doing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.