Would anything in baseball be more shocking than Clemens returning to playing?

The Rays and Marlins are in first. Milwaukee just gave out an eight-year contract. Frank Thomas has been released. The best pitcher in the game is probably Cliff Lee.

The following teams have been outscored through the first 1/4 of the season:

Yankees
Tigers
Brewers
previous year's World Series team the Rockies

That having been said, I think Clemens is somewhat more likely to pitch than is Pavano in 2008.

Would anything in baseball be more shocking than Clemens returning to playing?

Ty Cobb returning to play?

None of those things on your list have surprised me anywhere near as much as a Clemens comeback would, because that would require Clemens and his family to decide to deal with that shitstorm and a team to want to do the same.

I got a chuckle out of Repoz's intro though. If you know anything about Clemens, you know it's got to be killing him that Maddux is closing in on him while he thinks he can still pitch. Randy Johnson taking #2 in K's is probably also annoying him.

Would anything in baseball be more shocking than Clemens returning to playing?

Given the state of Yankees pitching and the fact that Kennedy got torched again today by the Rays, and given the past relationship, I would be less surprised to hear the Yankees signed Clemens than I would be by any signing of Barry Bonds. Not by much, but definitely less surprised.

He should be willing to work for the MLB minimum.

Would anything in baseball be more shocking than Clemens returning to playing?

I don't see why it would be so shocking, at least from Clemens's view; his reputation can get no worse than it is right now, and not having his Congressional testimony and then the Daily News vendetta be the last chapter of his baseball life might actually help him.

I guess the biggest question is whether a team would want to deal with the circus the media would create, and, as we've seen with Bonds (even assuming no collusion), the answer could well be no.

I don't see why it would be so shocking, at least from Clemens's view; his reputation can get no worse than it is right now, and not having his Congressional testimony and then the Daily News vendetta be the last chapter of his baseball life might actually help him.

Do you think it's likely that Daily News will back off when he's an active target? I suppose it's possible, but I'm more inclined to think that they'll use it as an excuse to ramp up their attacks. After all, as an active player, he'll be much more visible than in "retirement".

With all that being said, I agree with you (and that's a fairly rare event) that the biggest question will be whether or not a team wants to put up with the off-the-field media circus part of having Clemens, rather than whether or not Clemens wants to play.

Do you think it's likely that Daily News will back off when he's an active target?

Do you think it's likely that the Daily News will back off when he's not? Have you seen their sports page? It has a permanent "I-Team Investigation" banner, linking to their individual hit pieces on him and to a photo gallery of "the women linked to Roger Clemens."

Steibferno, Marko, and Rich working together couldn't have designed a more vengeful layout.

Yankees
Tigers
Brewers
previous year's World Series team the Rockies

Why did you feel the need to put that descriptor in there? Did you know the Rockies won seven more games than the Brewers last year, outscored the Brewers, and allowed fewer runs than the Brewers?

Even when the Rockies stink, they can't get any respect.

He said he also wants to allow events to unfold before determining whether he might bring him back for another tour with the Astros.

Events to unfold? Have there been any other 75 year old pitchers in major league baseball?

BTW,

Did we ever get the test results on those syringes in the beer can? Last we heard, they were going to show how guilty Clemens was:

"Roger Clemens has put himself in a position where his legacy as the greatest pitcher in baseball will depend less on his ERA and more on his DNA," one of McNamee's lawyers, Earl Ward, said during a news conference.

Yet here we are, 3 months later... and it's awfully quiet. I wonder what tests of those syringes found.

Even when the Rockies stink, they can't get any respect.

He still hasn't touched the plate...

:)

Did we ever get the test results on those syringes in the beer can?

I think they're going to coordinate that with the paternity testing on Mindy McCready's 27 year old son, Darren.

I think they're going to coordinate that with the paternity testing on Mindy McCready's 27 year old son, Darren.

You mean "Karren."

It has a permanent "I-Team Investigation" banner, linking to their individual hit pieces on him and to a photo gallery of "the women linked to Roger Clemens."

I agree that the Daily News is bad right now, but I still think it would be worse if he was an active player. Most likely, if he was active, they would not only be digging around in his past, but they would also have a reporter who would have the sole job of following Clemens around every step of every day for the full length of the season. They would have new a picture of him every time he passed a woman on the street, with some headline like "Clemens pitching, (woman's name) Katching?". They could even get records of who delivered food to his hotel suite, in case he was trying to some room "service'. As bad as it is now, the Daily News could raise it to an unholy level if Clemens decided to come back again.

If Clemens would have merely admitted that he did PEDs for a short time to overcome injuries, similar to the way Pettitte claims that he did, his reputation and the public perception of him would probably be very similar to the way it was prior to the release of the Mitchell Report.

Rich, while that may be true (and, to preempt Ray, assuming that Clemens did use PEDs, for which Ray is of the opinion that there is no evidence to indicate so), I think it would be worse for Clemens than Pettitte for various reasons:
1) Clemens is a much better player, and much more famous player, than Pettitte
2) Clemens has a reputation as a bit of a jerk
3) Clemens also had the reputation, which he aggresively defended throughout his career, as being a workout king, and
4) Clemens' drug use supposedly spanned multiple seasons ('98, '00, '01), which makes it harder to justify as a short term recovery thing, whereas Pettite's name only came up with respect to the 2001 season.

Rich, are you going to credit Jayson Stark for that? As Ryan points out, there's no way it would have gone anywhere near as well for Clemens as it did for Pettitte. People loved Pettitte and when he repeatedly lied and changed his story and then made excuses for why he cheated, they forgave him. They hated Clemens (and Bonds) and they would have kept hating them no matter what they did.

Granted, it probably would have been tougher for Clemens, but I think most people are forgiving if they are at least offered some measure of contrition along with a story that is plausibly true. Instead, Clemens, at least imo, has told one whopper after another.

If Clemens would have merely admitted that he did PEDs for a short time to overcome injuries, similar to the way Pettitte claims that he did, his reputation and the public perception of him would probably be very similar to the way it was prior to the release of the Mitchell Report.

But if he didn't use PEDs, then why would Clemens "admit" that?

Your comments flow from the assumption that he used PEDs. But if he didn't, then he'd be confessing to something he didn't do.

Rich, while that may be true (and, to preempt Ray, assuming that Clemens did use PEDs, for which Ray is of the opinion that there is no evidence to indicate so),

That's not my position. I agree that there's evidence to indicate Clemens used. McNamee's statements that Clemens used are certainly evidence; it's just there's evidence pointing in the opposite direction also (Clemens's statements; McNamee's confessed lies; etc). So my position is that when we add it all up, I don't find it likely that Clemens used.

4) Clemens' drug use supposedly spanned multiple seasons ('98, '00, '01), which makes it harder to justify as a short term recovery thing, whereas Pettite's name only came up with respect to the 2001 season.

No. You mean the 2002 season, but the salient point here is that it's not just one season: Honest Andy later admitted that he lied in saying initially that he had only used in 2002, and he confessed to using in 2004 also.

But if he didn't use PEDs, then why would Clemens "admit" that?

Your comments flow from the assumption that he used PEDs. But if he didn't, then he'd be confessing to something he didn't do.

It's clearly an opinion rather than a statement of fact, based on his serial (often inconsistent) public statements that severely strain credulity, especially when they are viewed in the context of Clemens having been a MLB player during the PED era.

He still hasn't touched the plate...

:)

That's just the beauty mark to the best game I've ever seen in person. I've never seen a stadium as quiet as in the top of that inning, or as loud as in the bottom.

He still hasn't touched the plate...

But Jesus did. And that's all that matters.

"He still hasn't touched the plate..."

and good thing that the catcher didn't break MLB rules by illegally blocking the plate, some say

I'm surprised that a possible Clemens return isn't being met with the same moral outcry as a possible Bonds return. Maybe the difference is that Bonds hasn't performed the media prostrations that Clemens has. Or at least he seems to be more concerned about his media image than Barry, who couldn't care less.

The Billy Wagner article today got me thinking about how player-media relations are starting to become way more of a part of the game than they ought to be.

If Clemens never announces his retirement, he never has to fulfill the personal services contract. Maybe that's his angle.

If any team signs Clemens, I'd take that as a sign that Bonds being un-signed is collusion. I can accept any team not signing a guy for PR reasons, but AFAIK, the PR hit would be roughly the same for both.

I'm surprised that a possible Clemens return isn't being met with the same moral outcry as a possible Bonds return.

Perhaps because there hasn't been a moral outcry on Bonds either. Nobody's signed him yet, nor has there been an serious indication that his signing is imminent. The two of them are in the same boat and, if either one is signed, then we can have that discussion.

Until then, you got nuthin.

Perhaps because there hasn't been a moral outcry on Bonds either.

Have you not seen the assorted articles from sportswriters saying how the team they cover should never sign Bonds because he is a bad man who used PEDs and kills kittens for fun?

No. You mean the 2002 season, but the salient point here is that it's not just one season: Honest Andy later admitted that he lied in saying initially that he had only used in 2002, and he confessed to using in 2004 also.

My mistake - I was going by a quick scan of the Mitchell report, and didn't bother to check for consistency with Pettitte's later comments.

That's not my position. I agree that there's evidence to indicate Clemens used. McNamee's statements that Clemens used are certainly evidence; it's just there's evidence pointing in the opposite direction also (Clemens's statements; McNamee's confessed lies; etc). So my position is that when we add it all up, I don't find it likely that Clemens used.

No offense, but have you read your comments in previous Clemens threads?

Have you not seen the assorted articles from sportswriters saying how the team they cover should never sign Bonds because he is a bad man who used PEDs and kills kittens for fun?

No. I have seen articles that warn against signing him because he's a surly, over-the-hill, defensively-challenged PR nightmare though.

So the point about he and Clemens being in the same boat still holds true.

My mistake - I was going by a quick scan of the Mitchell report, and didn't bother to check for consistency with Pettitte's later comments.

Well, given the way the media has sainted Pettitte, I'm not surprised people assume he has told the truth throughout.

That's not my position. I agree that there's evidence to indicate Clemens used. McNamee's statements that Clemens used are certainly evidence; it's just there's evidence pointing in the opposite direction also (Clemens's statements; McNamee's confessed lies; etc). So my position is that when we add it all up, I don't find it likely that Clemens used.

No offense, but have you read your comments in previous Clemens threads?

I think I understand my position on this better than you do, but thanks for trying to help.

If you can show me where I said there was no evidence to indicate that Clemens used, I'd love to see it. I've said over and over and over and over and over again that McNamee's statements are evidence. The problem is not that McNamee's statements aren't evidence; it's that McNamee is not credible. I guess I have some odd thought process where I don't simply swallow whole the uncorroborated accusations of a self-confessed liar.

Ray, why are you so quick to call Pettitte a liar but so slow to call Clemens one?

I'm not getting that. If you say that Clemens has been consistent in his denials, that is only true in a very limited way. He has been consistent in his denials but there are holes in his story that you could drive a Mack truck through. For instance, he is clearly lying about whether or not he was at Canseco's house. We have photographic documentation there. So his alibi has been anything but consistent.

And if he is lying about his alibi, then that makes him a liar too, in fact a bigger liar than Pettitte.

I'm surprised that a possible Clemens return isn't being met with the same moral outcry as a possible Bonds return. Maybe the difference is that Bonds hasn't performed the media prostrations that Clemens has.

Or maybe it's just that nobody really thinks it's going to happen, so why waste your breath?

Well, given the way the media has sainted Pettitte, I'm not surprised people assume he has told the truth throughout.

I never said that I thought Pettitte hasn't lied - the limited excuses that he's offered have always struck me as false. Rather, I just didn't realize/remember that his PED use may have been more extensive or occurred in a different time frame than indicated in the Mitchell Report.

If you can show me where I said there was no evidence to indicate that Clemens used, I'd love to see it. I've said over and over and over and over and over again that McNamee's statements are evidence. The problem is not that McNamee's statements aren't evidence; it's that McNamee is not credible. I guess I have some odd thought process where I don't simply swallow whole the uncorroborated accusations of a self-confessed liar.

So McNamee isn't credible, and Pettitte isn't credible. Thus, any evidence provided by either should not be considered to be credible, and should be disregarded. Canseco, who has been tagged for assorted lies and inconstancies but who supports Roger, should be considered credible. And Roger, who has just as much incentive (and possibly more) than McNamee to lie, should be considered credible, even in the face of the inconsistencies in his own statements.

("I had no idea that McNamee was into this sort of thing - wait, he said he injected my wife? Well, that's true, but apart from that, I had no idea he was into this sort of thing - wait, Pettitte said that I told him about my PED use? Well, he must have misremembered. Besides, I was never at that party - what, someone has pictures of me there? Ummm, I mean that I don't think I was at that party, and if I was I must have come later in the evening, but I still wasn't there.")

Credibility is a major factor for all participants (who all appear to be liars), and must be weighed accordingly. You, in your statements, have elected to judge anything which goes against Clemen's stated position as not being credible and, by extension, not being evidence, while simultaneously accepting any information which supports Clemens' stated position. I fail to see how what I said originally is incorrect.

So McNamee isn't credible, and Pettitte isn't credible.

Well, that's kind of what happens when you're caught lying; you lose credibility.

That said, the main problem I have with Pettitte's version of what Clemens told him is not that Pettitte isn't credible on this point, but, rather, that Pettitte isn't reliable on this point. As Pettitte himself admitted.

Credibility is a major factor for all participants (who all appear to be liars), and must be weighed accordingly. You, in your statements, have elected to judge anything which goes against Clemen's stated position as not being credible and, by extension, not being evidence, while simultaneously accepting any information which supports Clemens' stated position. I fail to see how what I said originally is incorrect.

Well, it's not surprising that you fail to see that, since you've again written something that bears no relation to my position in the matter.

Clemens undecided about future

Do I nail the chubby white trash chick, or the other chubby white trash chick?

Both.

Clemens isn't coming back unless he thinks that he'll have a chance with Miley Cyrus.