Frayed Knot

Cliff's been doing some TV work for the Marlins, mostly sideline stuff although some booth as well - I'm not sure how regularly. From what I've heard (admittedly not a lot) he's a typical ex-jock, not bad but also not someone who adds anything unique. I assume he lives in south Florida full time so I'm not sure what his commitment to NYC radio would be. He also likes to talk football a lot. He might disappear once September rolls around if he had his choice.

The Coleman decision makes sense. First of all, he's still WFAN property so WOR would have to have to hire him just to do the pre & post stuff and arrange some sort of time-sharing agreement with FAN. Plus, no matter what you think about Eddie C., it has long been awkward having the same guy being part of the broadcast crew on one hand yet also play the role of a reporter about the team on the other, and to be expected to switch between those roles from one side of a commercial break to the other. I suspect their dalliance with making a change with one or both of the others is a desire to get a "name" guy in there. Radio mgmt, particularly one that is national in scope like Clear Channel, often thinks that nationally known names trump local ones even if the subject at hand is local. WFAN made this same mistake in their early days.

For the record, I've never once desolated a smaug and anyone who tries to claim otherwise will hear from my lawyers.

Nymr83 wrote: Bosch deserves a long jail sentence, the real crime here is that the feds are giving him any kind of pass for cooperating with MLB. If he wants to talk to MLB or even sell them information thats fine, but it shouldnt lessen or delay his criminal punishment. That's what disturbed me in the BALCO case too, that the prosecutors seemed more interested in finding the end users than they were in Victor Conte. One generally sees law enforcement trying to use the addicts in order to flip the dealer, not the other way around the way they did with the BALCO case. But of course MLB isn't a law enforcement entity, they are only interested in their little corner of the world and all this, remember, came not out of a criminal investigation but rather a small local newspaper so I'm not really sure what law enforcement's attitude has been toward all this.

Sure, but all them tall, lean, fair-skinned, white boys from the pacific northwest look alike. So they probably behave alike too.

metsmarathon wrote: I still think its utter bullshit for him to get a day over 50. Did any player who was on that 2003 list ever subsequently test positive a second time? If so, would not that player only face 50 games? Why so much more for alex. If obstructing investigation was a factor, why did memo only get 50? Just about any way youslice it, the punishent is arbitrary, and should be in full violation of the CBA That's the thing though, MLB obviously thought they had a good chance to get more or they wouldn't have shot for the outrageous 211 games. I said all along that the worst thing Selig could do was get shot down over this and that any final decision short of say 100 games would have seemed like a victory for ARod's side. Plus there were numerous stories about Rodriguez's legal teams and elements of the union begging him to open talks with MLB with a view towards settling for something in between 50 & 211. And then ultimately the independent arbiter sided much closer to MLB's side then the penalty as written for supposed first-time offenders, so whatever evidence MLB has that adds up in their minds to warrant more than triple the proscribed punishment it must be pretty good. 60 MINUTES is running a piece on this tonight; maybe more info will come out then. btw, it seems that because the penalty is for 162 games rather than 183 days (the legal length of a full baseball season) the Yanx still need to pay ARod a relatively small portion (somewhat over $3 million) of his 2014 salary, an amount which will count against the salary cap figure.

He'll probably take it to Federal Court. --- He's certainly threatened to do just that And, since he never FAILED a drug test, I think he'll win. --- Highly doubtful from what I've heard. His problem is that this is a binding arbitration process agreed to by both his employer AND his union. The legal eagles who have commented on this topic say that the burden of proof falls on ARod and his team to not just show that the decision is wrong but that the arbiter conducted bad law by reaching it. IOW not only does the decision have to be wrong but the process he used to get there needs to be too. And when the evidence comes out that MLB bought their "proof", I think anything that followed will be declared "fruit of a poisoned tree"* and the case will be dismissed. Its not against the law to lie to your boss. --- Remember that this isn't a court of law, it's an employment ruling. That, and the answer to Part 2 above, represents a HUGE roadblock for him. Also consider that MLB chose to come down with an increased penalty because, they claim, he got caught plus a whole lot more, and an independent arbiter agreed (most of the way anyway).

RANKPLAYER30MATT HARVEY29DAVID WRIGHT28MARLON BYRD27DANIEL MURPHY26DILLON GEE25JONATHON NIESE24JUAN LAGARES23ERIC YOUNG JR.22ZACK WHEELER21BOBBY PARNELL20LUCAS DUDA19JEREMY HEFNER18LATROY HAWKINS17JOHN BUCK16JOSH SATIN15SCOTT RICE14IKE DAVIS13CARLOS TORRES12OMAR QUINTANILLA11JUSTIN TURNER10ANDREW BROWN9ANTHONY RECKER8SCOTT ATCHISON7GONZALEZ GERMEN6DAVID AARDSMA5RUBEN TEJADA4JENNRY MEJIA3MIKE BAXTER2DAISUKE MATSUZAKA1SHAWN MARCUM

Sure, but they still have to replace him in the lineup and at 3B this season. And as much as he's sukked lately as compared to his contract, a faded copy of ARod still projects to give them more than would most replacements. That's a lot of HRs gone without both his bat and Cano's. Looked at another way, they just had to pay him full freight for an injured season in which he got only 150 ABs, and now will be without him for a year in which he's (presumably) healthy. They also still owe him various bonuses -- they just had to pay him some $3 mil this week for stuff unrelated to salary. And of course they still own him and owe him for three seasons beyond this coming one to the tune of some $61 million (again, plus some bonuses) at which point they'll have an even older and rustier version of him, one that will have sat for the better part of two seasons. Where this helps Hal and his accountants is with the luxury tax. If they can sneak under that $189 figure this year it "re-sets" the penalty figure. The Yanx have been over the lux-tax figure for so many years now that they've long been taxed at the 50% level for every dollar they're above. But getting under the cap, even for just one season, re-sets your status so that even if they were to go on another huge spending spree and go back over the limit for 2015 they would only be taxed at the first-offender rate which I believe is more like 15%. That's why they've been so anxious to get under the goal this year because doing so will pay them back (or at least not cost them as much) down the road.

�The number of games sadly comes as no surprise, as the deck has been stacked against me from day one,� Rodriguez said in a statement. �This is one man�s decision, that was not put before a fair and impartial jury, does not involve me having failed a single drug test, is at odds with the facts and is inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Drug Agreement and the Basic Agreement, and relies on testimony and documents that would never have been allowed in any court in the United States because they are false and wholly unreliable. This injustice is MLB�s first step toward abolishing guaranteed contracts in the 2016 bargaining round, instituting lifetime bans for single violations of drug policy, and further insulating its corrupt investigative program from any variety defense by accused players, or any variety of objective review.� Wow! The only thing I can figure he leaves out here is the implication that a grassy knoll was somehow involved.

He pledged to appeal anything over about 100 games or so, and there were stories about how he kept changing legal teams if he wasn't getting the answers he wanted from the previous team - like from guys who were telling him to negotiate for a lesser sentence rather than leave it up to the arbitrator. So it sounds like it's only a matter of time until the lawsuits start flying.

Ceetar wrote: Blue Jays must still be paying him some too right? I saw someone mention that if he gets picked up he'll be getting paid by 4 teams. Original deal was signed just over 7 years ago with Toronto in December of '06. But the deal didn't take effect until 2008 and totaled 7 years for $126 million - 3 years later (Jan '11) he was dealt to Anaheim with $86 million remaining, but the Jays paid just $5 mil in that transaction so Toronto's share is certainly in the rear view at this point. - when dealt to the Yanks in March of '13 the Angels included a total of $28.1 of the remaining $42 million, most of which was paid to cover the 2014 period so, by cutting him, the Yanx are 'only' on the hook for $2.4 mil this year as compared to the $11.5 they paid for his services in 2013 So if Wells signs with another team for this season his 2014 salary would be getting paid by three different teams while four teams would have covered various portions of the lifespan of the seven-year deal Blue Jays ~ (3 seasons) $45 million Angels ~ (2 seasons) $67.1 Yanx ~ (1 season) $13.9 Team X (2014) -- probably minimum wage or something close to it Seems doubtful that he'd be able to snag a starting job although yaneverknow. If not he wouldn't be a bad guy to take a flyer on as a bench/PH. He's pretty slow these days but can still play either 1B or a corner OF spot when needed with a minimum of casualties expected.

The ARod situation should be resolved within the next week. Of course then the lawsuits will start flying so "resolved" will kind of be a fluid term.

I don't think one has anything to do with the other. It probably signals that they're not trading Brett Gardner as much as anything. Either way, the Yanx just dropped a 35 y/o and the average age of their OF just got older as Wells was the 2nd youngest guy they had out there.

Vernon Wells designated for assignment by the Yanx in order to clear roster space. Wells, 35, is due a $21 million salary in 2014 although the largest share of that is being paid by the Angels.

I suspect some of this "not speaking up" stuff is slyly being directed at Glavine on account of his being one of the top dogs within the Player's Association during a chunk of his career. It would be nice if someone is going to think that way that he'd have the guts to come out and actually say so.

I saw something on Nimmo yesterday claiming that a lot of his problems this past year were due to him playing through a wrist injury. The writer relayed these stats: Prior to April 20 (pre-injury): .392/.489/.527 April 20 through July (injured): .207/.330/.282 August through end of season (recovering): .315/.468/.398 In all it worked out to a full year at Savannah at .273/.397/.359 His K's are higher than you'd like and he hasn't shown much power for a guy who may have to wind up in a corner OF position rather than CF. On the other hand he still isn't 21 (March), knows the strike-zone (walks = approx 1.5x normal rates) which is often something that bodes well for future success, and power is usually the last thing to develop in a young player. Probably slated for High-A Port St Lucie this year so I wouldn't expect a jump in power, but I'll be following to see how the rest of the year progresses for him.

The NY Post concocts a list of the ten worst players to a receive one or more HoF votes and "shockingly" comes up with Armando Benitez as the worst ever. oe: I should [dis]credit Post writer Justin Terranova for the list

Edgy MD wrote: Suspended by the BBWAA for a year, too. And with that go his ballpark media credentials. Ka-POW! Eh, LeBatard works primarily for ESPN these days, that alone pretty much keeps him out of the baseball loop anyway.

* getting rid of the integrity clause -- yeah, because if there's one thing I don't want in my sports hall of fame it's integrity * expanding the ballot past 10 because sometimes there are more than 10 guys -- I'd be OK with this, but I don't think it matters that often or as much as folks think. The log jam now is more a product of the steroids era than anything else * having the right to vote expire, or limit it to active guys at least. -- Again I'd be OK here, although do we know it's the votes of older guys that are the source of disagreement? You know what happens when we assume ... * Finding a different group to vote, or at least a more inclusive group -- As I asked before, what makes us think that a different group would be freer of the charges of bias and/or incompetance that we're throwing at the writers? And would the more inclusive group include the likes Tim McCarver? Bet fans would be thrilled with that one. Or do we just want to be more inclusive for a group pre-approved by Deadspin? * firmly defining how to treat "PEDs" -- Now THERE'S a topic just ripe for consensus!

When Olbermann is good he's really good. That this was not only a good memory of Jerry Coleman but probably the only mention of Jerry Coleman on ESPN is another point in his favor here.

What is "abusing the privilege" Voting for any reason other than the baseball careers of the players on the ballot -- That the vote should consider a player's sportsmanship and integrity is written into the standards to be considered. To what degree a voter chooses to do so is up to that individual but that's what difference of opinion is all about. In the most recent few years as the first crew from the '90s steroid era start to come up this issue is a major part of the debate but you can't just label it abuse when someone following the instructions as written doesn't come out with the same answer as you. such as: submitting empty ballots because of Pete Rose -- which happened with what, three guys a quarter century ago? not voting for anyone who played after an arbitrary date because hte sport was not clean (as if it ever was) -- I certainly think that's stupid, I'm not sure it's abuse selling your vote, giving away your vote, not taking your vote seriously enough to do the work. -- This is my very point with LeBatard. He didn't sell his vote but he certainly did the other two ... and I'm STILL not sure what his point is. oh and Ballots MUST be made public... if you cant stand behind your vote you should be forced to give it up, because you are being given the privilege of voting on behalf of all baseball fans who deserve to know who and why. -- Fine, but then what? Or we going to decide (and who would decide?) that not liking how someone voted could then be termed "abuse"? Look, if someone wants to suggest changes to the system in order to make it better, I'm all ears. But the arguments have to be better than: 'I don't like the results therefore the system suxx', or, 'the writers are idiots so let's get someone else' as if the flaws, biases, or odd logic of some in that group are magically going to be absent from whatever gang is picked to replace them.

Ceetar wrote: if by abdicating you mean binding, sure. By abdicating I mean he's not taking the trouble to fill out a ballot himself. It's one thing to talk to others in order to get a better idea of who is more deserving. It's quite another to just say, 'I can't be bothered, here let someone else do it'. The whole point is that the "earned privilege" thing is bs. So many have abused said privilege and so many others deserve it and don't get it for whatever reason. Modernize or die out. What is "abusing the privilege" ... not voting the way you or I would? I'd like to see Tim Raines in but 50% or more of the voters have consistently disagreed with me over the last decade or more so I'm just going to have to live with that. And at least those who vote for the wrong guys or for what you and I might consider the wrong reasons are taking the trouble to actually do it. I think it's very enlightening, and something that would not have gotten nearly the attention it did if he just campaigned on his own forums. Plenty of people did that too, but to give it up to the fans, and pretty snarky ones at that, and have them actually cast a legitimate ballot and one of the better ones? What was "enlightening" about this -- that some group of fans could fill out a ballot if you gave it to them? I think I could have figured that out going in. Other than that, what was his point and what did he prove? Again, instead of working to change whatever it is he doesn't like about the current process (if that's even his complaint ... I don't know) he simply punted. Why, if I were the BBWAA, would I mail him a ballot next season after that? They're in a sticky situation now though. Even if they try to revoke his vote that sets the stage for revoking other votes and modernizing the whole process by kicking out people that don't follow the sport anymore. But it also opens the door to selling votes for real in the future for similar reasons. And there is really nothing they can do about it because if this guy didn't agree to have his name known, they'd never have known who did it. I don't understand a word of this.

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: The thing is, if LeBatard is abdicating his vote in some sort of attempt to make a point about the balloting process (assuming that's what he's doing) it's a shame that he doesn't have a national radio program, a national television program, and a newspaper column to lobby for those changes. Oh wait, he has all of those!! I'd take his ballot away if I were the BBWAA. for polling the fans, the people who are the ones that are supposed to come and celebrate the hall, to make his selections? He's not merely polling the fans, he's abdicating his vote. The vote is an earned privilege and if his idea of using that vote is to give it away to someone else in some sort of childish protest against how things are set up then, yeah, I'd take it away from him. Like I said, it's not like the guy doesn't have SEVERAL nationals forums to air views if he wants to lobby for changes.