Roger Clemens pitches Saturday
 

For the Sugarland Skeeters.

Anyone know if this would move off his "retirement" such that it changes his 1st year of HOF eligibility?

I saw that on the Skeeter's FB Page. Got to love indepedent baseball.

Baseballhall.org says "Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball."

I'm pretty sure the Skeeters are not considered to be in the Major Leagues.

Apparently they don't have a PED testing policy, either... :)

Obviously not. But there is speculation that Clemens is using this as a first step into getting back on the mound, perhaps with the Houston Astros, for a MLB game this year. That would push his HOF eligibility another five years down the road so that maybe, just maybe, sentiments on players suspected of using PEDs during their careers will have changed amongst sportswriters.

Can't blame him for trying. And as bad as the Astros are this year, they really have nothing to lose. The real question is whether or not they would welcome Clemens to the team if it's obvious why he wants to pitch again. And if they agree, I can already hear Bud Selig and company...

Is Geritol considered a PED these days?

How sad. The Brett Favre of MLB.

He would obviously be welcome to the team - they supported him throughout the entire legal process.

Good for Clemens. If he still wants to play baseball, and he's useful to someone, let him do it. Life is a verb. Time doesn't go backwards. He might regret not trying.

Clemens should be like Palmeiro. Innocent or guilty, he didn't whine. He told his story which is believeable considering the morals of Tejada. He lives locally where I do, and walks with his head held high. He has always been active in the local baseball community. He just simply tailored his swing to the home run porches in Texas and Baltimore. He wasn't blasting them over 400 ft. like the others.

The beauty about umpiring is getting to talk to the old scouts that pop up around from time to time. They know the real thing when they see it.

Lovely sentiment. They guy's 50, and he's no Jamie Moyer. Sad.
http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/1670985_G.jpg

I think the Astros would do it in a heartbeat just for the ticket sales alone. And it seems to me that Selig can't do anything about it if he tried.

I agree with this...if he wants to play and someone is willing to have him on their team, then good for him and he shouldn't stop playing unless it's on his terms or no one wants to take him anymore.

Gimme a break. He hasn't thrown a pitch in professional ball at any level since the ALDS in 2007. If he really still wanted to play, he would've joined an independent league well before five years after his last appearance.

The timing of it all just doesn't give me the impression that he's doing this for love of the game. Sounds like it's more for love of Roger.

Exactly. He is trying to get the public sentiment vote out. Plus in the end, Andy Pettite showed he lacked the balls to tell the truth also. Their whole case was against Brian McNamee's credibility.

I hope the liars get kept out of the HOF for many years to come.

This might be the dumbest thing I've read in weeks. You are aware that he's been a little busy these past 4 years?

Pfft... maybe his highly paid shysters have been busy...

His acquittal is all the proof anyone needs that there is a difference between a legal verdict of "not guilty" and actual condition of being "innocent".

I think the theory that he is angling to reset the clock on his HOF eligibility so as to not appear for the first time along side Bonds, Sosa, and Piazza, plus push his final ballot appearance out to 20 years into the future is likely the actual motive here.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I suspect that's part of the motive too.

Results......
 

I gather this translates to your "assumption of guilt" on his part?

If you should perchance end up as a defendant some day I hope your jury doesn't go on that premise.

Doing what exactly? Sitting in jail? Tied up in courtrooms every day? C'mon, Mike. If he really wanted to play baseball so badly, why couldn't he sign up with an independent team way before now. Heck, his trial ended on June 18, and it took him over two months to get back out there?

I'm sure he had plenty of time between 2007 and now to take a shot or two on the mound to see if he could still compete.

So you have to be in court everyday to be a little preoccupied to play professional baseball? Two trials and your life on the line, I doubt that playing baseball was the focus.

Peace

There are plenty of examples of athletes continuing to participate in their respective sports with preoccupations much more critical than what Roger has faced, such as dealing with terminally-ill loved ones, their own battles with life-threatening disease, etc. etc.

Sorry, but I'm not going to be convinced that Roger's decision was purely made just because he loves the game.

I am honestly not trying to convince you either way. And what others do is what others do. That does not mean he does not have other family issues or financial issues to deal with to deal with his case. All I am saying is I can see how the man had other things going on. That does not mean others would not have different priorities and do what they wanted to do. Maybe he was just so engulfed in the situation playing anything was not a priority. You cannot say what others have done as a gauge for this person. People react and deal with adversity very differently.

Peace

Neither am I... but the assertion that since he didn't play in the past 4 years means anything at all is ridiculous.

As to his past few months, YES, he's been trying to get back into shape for exactly this - it's been on the news repeatedly in Houston.

How could you possibly "gather" that?

There most certainly IS a big difference between actually being innocent and not being proved guilty. When his whole case rested on the credibility of McNamee, making 12 people have "reasonable doubt" in McNamee's truthfulness is not even close to those same people actually believing Clemens was innocent.

But, apart from the rules of criminal court, the preponderance of evidence (the standard in civil court) would certainly point toward Clemen's guilt, IMO.