February 26, 2008

Clemens hardly believable

Is it just me, or is Roger Clemens just seeming so completely unbelievable in his testimony in Washington against former trainer Brian McNamee. To believe Clemens, it would mean that I would have to disbelieve McNamee, who really has no reason to lie in the first place about this, and Andy Pettite, since apparantley, according to Clemens, they "misremember." Ya, just like I "misremember" if I was at class yesterday and who was there also. Clemens believes it is unfair that he has beened tried as guilty in the court of public opinion, but in reality, with the major scandals that have surfaced lately, we have every reason not to believe him. Marion Jones told us she never used performance-enhancing drugs, and has obviously since admitted otherwise. Rafeal Palmerio waved his finger in front of congress and told them "I have never used performance-enhancing drugs, period." That worked well for him, considering he was suspended for steriods months later, and hasn't really been seen since. Face it Roger, no one will believe you in the court of public opinion until you can change that trend, which I don't believe you can do. Roger is likely now looking at a possible indictment for perjury stemming form his testimony earlier this month. This, Roger, means that Congress really didn't buy into your claim either. And it will be quite difficult to change my mind on this topic until a court tells me otherwise, considering I never thought he was clean years before the Mitchell Report was released. When talk surfaced about Barry Bonds and BALCO many years ago, I always said that he still belonged in the Hall of Fame, because I don't believe that the pitchers that were pitching to him were clean either. And with Pettite's and likely Clemens' use, clearly I think I was right about that.

January 30, 2008

Johan is gone from Minnesota

So now that it's been 24 hours since news of Johan Santana being delt to New York (and not the Yankees), I've had some time to let the trade digest so I can try to make sense of the deal. But, sadly, I still am at the same loss of logic that I was around 4 O'clock yesterday when I first heard the deal. When I saw the story scroll across the bottomline on ESPN as breaking news, my initial reaction was, "We traded Santana for who?" And that is still where I stand today. I can't believe that the BEST pitcher in the game today was traded, in the prime of his career, for a handful of prospects that no one outside of Queens had ever heard of. I can't help but wonder what happened to the Boston and Yankees deals? I would glady take Ellsbury, Lester or Cabrera alone rather than this deal. Not one of those prospects are considered 'can't miss,' so where's the intrigue in the Mets deal? I realize that signing Santana to a deal here in the Twin Cities wasn't going to happen, considering he already shot down the $20 million per year offer. But come on, this is probably the most lopsided trade in sports since Shaq was sent to South Beach for Lamar Odom and other players no one remembers (except for Caron Butler, who has actually done well after leaving La La Land). All that happened in Miami, until this year when Shaq suddenly began playing like he's 70, was they got a Championship out of it. But, now that the deal is basically complete, and we are just waiting for the T's to get crossed and the I's to get dotted, I can't help but wonder how much money Santana will collect from the Mets. After Zito's contract with 'Frisco, how the best pitcher in baseball, let alone the best left-handed pitcher, not get the richest deal a pitcher has ever seen. I would expect A-Rod-type dollars for Johan. I just can't help not sitting here at a loss wondering how we could trade Johan for 4 players that cannot help the team at all next year, and maybe not ever. Sure the Twins have a great track record for making the right deals, but all streaks come to an end eventually (and no that was not an indication that I think New England will lose in the Super Bowl).