Warning!! Danger!! Annual Off-topic Baseball Thread '07!! Beware!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media).

Could you enlighten me as to what exactly has shaped your obvious sympathy of Bonds?

[Jimgolf]

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.

Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.

I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?

I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.

The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.

The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.

ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

You need to get out more too. Maybe read Mike Lupica's column at the NY Daily News, for example. He went after Pettitte big time. And he sureasheck wasn't the only one.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...crocodile.html

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You need to get out more too. Maybe read Mike Lupica's column at the NY Daily News, for example. He went after Pettitte big time. And he sureasheck wasn't the only one.

I try to avoid Loopy since he moved to the front of the paper. Maybe I'm putting too much stock in what I hear on Sports Radio.

BTW, an interesting (or at least one that agrees with me) take on steroids not working - in the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza - http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/...03031/-1/rss03

[ChuckElias]

From ESPN. com:

Mark Prior, cut loose by the Cubs earlier this month, has agreed to terms with the San Diego Padres.

In 2003, Mark Prior went 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA, was selected to the All-Star Game and finished third in the Cy Young voting. He has won just 18 games in 57 starts since.

Prior receives a one-year major league deal with a $1 million base salary. The contract, which doesn't include an option, contains incentive clauses that could take the total value of the deal to over $3 million. Prior, however, is not anticipating his season debut with the Padres until mid-to-late May.

"Mark Prior is a competitor and is working hard to regain the form that made him one of the great young pitchers in the game," general manager Kevin Towers told The Associated Press. "We are confident he is going to help us in our rotation this season. It's exciting that Mark is coming home to San Diego to pitch for the Padres."

Prior, 27, last pitched in the big leagues in 2006, and had shoulder surgery in April of 2007.

Prior figures he still has much of his career ahead of him if he can avoid injuries.

The last sentence is, of course, the biggest problem for him.

Does this mean that JR will stop mocking the Cubbies and start in on the Pads?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

From ESPN. com:

The last sentence is, of course, the biggest problem for him.

Does this mean that JR will stop mocking the Cubbies and start in on the Pads?

Of course not - the Cubbies still have Kerry Wood.

A couple of Prior's injuries were not actually pitching-related. One time he injured his shoulder trying to leap-frog a second baseman while running the bases, and another time his elbow was hit by a line drive. Wood's injuries have all been pitching-related.

Now, if there's any way we can ship that damn goat out to San Diego....

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now, if there's any way we can ship that damn goat out to San Diego....

Hmmm, I didn't see anything about "a player to be named later....."

[mick]

The Tigers' bank seems far from broken, though. Once upon a time, they couldn't have envisioned being as financially competitive as they are now. Then again, once upon a time, $11.3 million also would have vaulted Cabrera to the top of anyone's payroll.
Not so anymore.
Instead of being the highest-paid Tiger in 2008, Cabrera will be the fifth-highest. Magglio Ordonez leads the way at $15 million. Gary Sheffield will make $14 million, Pudge Rodriguez $13 million and Carlos Guillen $12 million.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

The last sentence is, of course, the biggest problem for him.

Does this mean that JR will stop mocking the Cubbies and start in on the Pads?

No, it means Prior's career is on the up-swing.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.

Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.

I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?

I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.

The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.

The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.

ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.

I can agree with some of this. Getting stronger will allow someone to pitch more and longer. On the other hand, if someone is just a brute they will either whiff a the ball or hit 400ft popups. Bonds is very talented with or without steroids - that is probably why they still pitch around him with bad wheels and all. Bonds is probably the greatest player to ever play the game, but people will forever look at him because of what they saw in interviews.

JR, I feel the way I do about Bonds because I have actually met him and made my opinion based on how he treated me. I can't recall what, but his attitude with the media started because of something that either happened with his father or Willie Mays. I'm not going to have my opinion shaped by some interview when I met the man for myself. Also, I'm from the Charles Barkley school of thought on this one. An athlete is an athlete. I don't have to feel all warm and fuzzy about them, I'm just looking to see how they perform.

Picking one, two, ten or twenty media sources to compare to all the media out to get Bonds isn't accurate. I also don't have the time to scour so many papers, sites etc. The witch hunt has been on for some time and unfortunately one of the fan-favorites got caught with his pants down. When talking about Clemens, if you are from houston, boston or new york your opinion could be biased.

What is a good estimate of home runs Bonds would have had if he saw pitches like ARod or Pujols? 850? 900?

[Adam]

Without the juice? 600. His career was undoubtedly prolonged, just as Clemens' was.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Without the juice? 600. His career was undoubtedly prolonged, just as Clemens' was.

I would say closer to 650. But you didn't say anything about how many he would have if they pitched to him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I would say closer to 650. But you didn't say anything about how many he would have if they pitched to him.

Sorry, I was adding a caveat to your question, not taking away from it. Without juice, if they'd pitched to him, I'd say 600 (maybe as high as 650, but it's a guess).

I won't speculate on if they'd pitched to him and he was still on the juice.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I won't speculate on if they'd pitched to him and he was still on the juice.

So you can speculate on something that proves your argument, but not something that doesn't? Wow, way to have a conversation/argument. I at least looked at his numbers to give my guess, you just don't want to try. I would assume it is because you don't like him and/or you know your number would have to be about the same as mine.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by tomegun

JR, I feel the way I do about Bonds because I have actually met him and made my opinion based on how he treated me.

Yes, how Bonds treats people is an excellent source upon which to base your opinion. But perhaps you might consider that there are other people in the world in addition to you. I'm glad he treated you well. I'm confident that there are other people who have been treated well by Bonds. Bonds, like all humans, is no doubt a complex person with good and bad traits, good and bad days, etc.

If I met Phil Spector and he treated me well should I think well of him despite the large mountain of evidence that he treated many, many women incredibly poorly (even if you don't think he killed Ms. Clarkson)? If I met Curtis Granderson and he was short with me should I think ill of him despite the large mountain of evidence that he treats people with generosity, respect and dignity?

O.K., forget how Bonds treats people in the media. (Although, to be fair, if you are going to think of athletes as mere humans shouldn't you also think of journalists as humans? If someone in the media treated his father poorly, should Bonds stereotype ALL journalists and treat them all ill? Or is it an acceptable standard of decency to treat people as individuals? If Mike Winters treated me nicely when I met him at a baseball camp, should I whine at the media criticism of his out-of-line conduct? Or when he makes a mistake should I dislike all umpires? But I digress....) Yes, forget how Bonds treats the media. How does he treat his fellow players? How did he treat Gary Sheffield? What would prompt Sheffield to state: "I never wished anything bad on [Bonds]. I want him to achieve what he wants to achieve, but what I want more is that his life gets right. That he can have compassion for other people. And that's what I want the most."?