December 12, 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
Friday, July 17, 2009
My Morning in ExileHappy to be back today, I have to say. Court yesterday was kind of difficult in that both the judge and my opposing counsel kept asking me questions for which I didn't have any answers. Well, good ones anyway. I hate it when that happens. I think I still have a pretty good chance of winning that case, however, and I got me some Taco Bell on the drive back up to Columbus, so the day ended on a positive note. In other news:
Dissed Dodgers fans.
I should mention, that while the Taco Bell helped yesterday end well, it really, really, didn't make today begin all that well. Just thought you'd like to know.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 11:43am
Jason B said...
“I got me some Taco Bell on the drive back up to Columbus, so the day ended on a positive note.”
Group “A”, consisting of all experiences of anyone ever eating anything at Taco Bell, and group “B”, consisting of all positive experiences that mankind has ever collectively experienced, are mutually exclusive.
Not even in the same zip code. You’re talking gorgonzola when it’s clearly brie time, baby.
Posted 07/17 at 11:53 AM
It’s amazing that Ryan Howard didn’t get his first sniff at the Show until he was 25.
The reason is that, according to the Phillies, he struck out too much, or some other porous reason not to call up an apparent destroyer of baseballs. How many HRs could he have had, had Ryan Howard received a “standard” superstar call-up, i.e. at 21, 22, 23 yrs old?
That said, it seems the Phillies are bad at this - Chutley didn’t get called up until he was 24, I believe, also not getting regular starting time until 26, like Howard. Drabek is still down on the farm, with Carrasco, Marson, Donald, and others who are whittling away their prime years as the Phillies “mature” their prospects into a fine wine(?) - but until they almost become vinegar . . .
Craig, do you know of or have heard of any other organization refusing to bring up their young guys, to this extent? And, more for a topic of discussion, what players today or in history, have been negatively impacted by this. I don’t mean someone like Minnie Minoso, but someone who, because of perhaps having a flaw or two (i.e. Howard’s Ks), were kept down on the farm for several years more than they should have been? And became a superstar after - and that refusal by the organization to call up said player cost him a lucrative K, some All-Star games, or a HoF career?
I’ll lead with the obvious/standard setter - Edgar Martinez . . .
Posted 07/17 at 12:06 PM
“The feds knew that, but realized all along that they really don’t have a case at all and simply don’t want the grand jury to feel like it was convened for nothing.”
Clemens testimony to Congress was clear and unambiguous, nevermind whatever he said to prosecutors - which was also under threat of perjury.
What evidence do they have?
1) An eyewitness - McNamee - who had zero incentive to lie and was proven right about accusations against every single other player.
2) A wife who used HGH at the same time he was accused.
3) Potential DNA traces on a syringe with HGH.
4) Pettitte’s statements that Clemens admitted to it.
5) ....And I’m sure a ton of other stuff that the prosecutors and McNamee’s attorneys’ P.I.‘s have dug up.
The case against Bonds was complete garbage - in every way, shape, and form. The case against Clemens is rock solid.
There’s one reason, and one reason only while they’re pursuing obvious dead-ends in the case against Clemens, where charges should have been filed a year ago. They’re willfully muddying the waters as an excuse to not prosecute a rich, famous, white, Republican, public war-supporting, “Christian”. Conversely, they bent over backwards and robbed the taxpayers blind in a failed, miserable attempt to nail Bonds.
We don’t need to guess why.
Please, don’t pretend like the cases of Bonds and Clemens are comparable. You know damn well that they’re not. The only reason they should ever be cited together is to illustrate contrasts. They’re as different as, well, black and white.
Bonds was not guilty. Clemens is.
Bonds was viciously, savagely prosecuted. Clemens has not been, nor will he ever be, charged with anything.
Let’s not lie about it. The next time these creepy, racist, power-tripping Republicans want to bankrupt and slander a black man, it might be Albert Pujols.
Posted 07/17 at 12:13 PM
Alex K said...
bigcatasroma- Utley and Howard both went to college. They were both 21 turning 22 in the years that they were drafted. In Howard’s case he was blocked by Thome as well.
Posted 07/17 at 12:17 PM
michael standish said...
You swiped that Clemens stuff from OnionSports, right?
Posted 07/17 at 12:31 PM
Posted 07/17 at 01:08 PM
That is almost certainly the only allusion I’ve ever seen to “The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest.” Very nice.
Posted 07/17 at 01:19 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
I’m actually pretty damn pleased with myself over that one too.
Posted 07/17 at 01:26 PM
Alex K: yeah, but many go to the majors within the same year they’re drafted, or a year or two later - i.e. Roger Clemens or Mark Prior. Granted, they tend to be pitchers, but still. Chutley, with his skills, couldn’t have been up within 1-2 years of being drafted instead of 3 or 4 (I forget). Same for Howard - Thome was an excuse - they could have not signed Thome and rolled the dice with Howard.
I guess I’m saying that it seems that the Phillies organization keeps guys down too long; I was just wondering if any other organization does the same, or maybe the opposite (brings guys up too early) . . .
Posted 07/17 at 01:41 PM
Jason B said...
“creepy, racist, power-tripping Republicans”
*snicker* Not at all like those angelic, blameless, faultless Dems. *chortle*
(This coming from an avowed independent who thinks that one politician is more full of sh*t than the next.)
Posted 07/17 at 02:15 PM
Thanks for reading my post.
As you can see, I succumb to hyperbolic outbursts once in a while. While that line might have been over the top, the primary point I was trying to make stands.
And, although I actually consider myself conservative (in the classical, literal sense; not the pop political, neo-con sense) I obviously have no love for modern Republicans. More to the point, it is a fact that the government’s massive prosecution of Barry Bonds was done with the stated blessings of John Ashcroft and, later, Alberto Gonzalez. It was Ashcroft who signed off on the initial BALCO case and Gonzalez who gave the A-OK to spend $100m+ on their ridiculous, failed attempt to put Bonds in chains and a cage.
Posted 07/17 at 02:47 PM
Jason B said...
The main thrust of your point (I think) - that the Feds wasted massive, massive amounts of time, manpower, and resources to go after Bonds - is spot on. I was just using your post as a jumping off point to rail about all politics and politicians in general.
I’ve got no love for the modern day Republican party either. It doesn’t even somewhat resemble the party that I grew up identifying with. I’m fiscally conservative, socially laissez-faire, and that leaves me as a man (man-child?) without a party.
“Fiscally conservative” is not a mantra that anyone follows these days, it’s all a matter of which ill-advised policies and programs we choose to wrecklessly saddle our kids and grandkids with a crushing burden of debt that they didn’t incur or ask for.
If you wanna saddle them by providing cradle-to-grave supersitter services for every man, woman, child, and goat in America, you’re likely to identify with the Dems. If you wanna saddle them by providing generous corporate handouts, bailouts, and tax breaks, then you may be a GOP’er.
If you want our populace and our government to cut out the excess and live within their means…then you don’t really get to join in the discussion.
**climbs down off the ol’ soapbox**
Which leaves me eschewing politics and watching a lot of baseball…
Which does *wonders* for the blood pressure…
Even if the Blue Jays don’t win but once a week. Damn them.
Posted 07/17 at 03:39 PM
Jason B said...
URRR…*recklessly*, not *wrecklessly*.
Posted 07/17 at 03:40 PM
Craig: as someone who has spent too much of the past few years reading about food in the US, it is not a coincidence that makes your Taco Bell experience unpleasant later, so very often.
Posted 07/17 at 04:15 PM
Well, you caught me at a bad time to discuss politics! First off, I’m a bit worn down because I’ve been discussing the most heated topic of all at another thread. Secondly, the powers that be just (politely) ordered that that topic be brought to a conclusion.
I will say that, in the broadest sense, I concur with your worldview, but I also belief that every problem, every issue, and every situation is unique, and so I try to avoid sweeping political philosophies because it might apply to one circumstance but not another (actually, read Craig’s post with a quote from the movie ‘Zero Effect’ for a good mindset about issues). But, like yours, my default opinions usually rest with a smaller government (usually).
At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t matter what the motive or politics of the Bonds prosecutors was. The case was just plain ol’ bad, in every imaginable way. It’s a true shame.
Conversely, Clemens did commit a very real and very serious crime, and he did so on national TV in front of Congress. And yet he’ll get away with it, I have no doubt whatsoever.
Posted 07/17 at 05:05 PM