1. You have chosen to ignore posts from seabeachfred. Show seabeachfred's posts

    Dem Yanks

    No argument there Chris but it is the Santana thing that has held this all up. I would like to get that resolved as soon as possible with Santana going to New York, either the Bronx or Queens, and we get on with it by trading Crisp for a reliever or prospect of whatever he will bring, and also to resign Kielty. Someone mentioned Klesko. He would be a fine reserve first baseman with sock but who would play third unless they plan on giving Lowrie a good shot at a utility position. Frankly, I would prefer a guy who could play third in a pinch with a little power sock because Moss can spell Youkilis at first base.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seabeachfred. Show seabeachfred's posts

    Dem Yanks

    CP, any newstand that has a section on sports books should carry it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from seabeachfred. Show seabeachfred's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Make sure you get the current issue. It has some good Red Sox stuff in it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pemliza. Show pemliza's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Jeez, the head is pounding this morning.....:(

    I take it you & the rest of the boys had a good time during the game lats night? LOL!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pemliza. Show pemliza's posts

    Dem Yanks

    I'm good. It's my b-day, so i'm going to try super hard to do absolutely nothing today. I don't know what the family has planned though.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Message # 42696.792
    Posted by Sox_hater on 3:00 PM

    "The Pats should win easily next week"

    The Chargers are built to be able to beat the Patriots. On defense they have a great secondary and put a good rush on the quarteback. On offense, if LT is healthy, you won't be able to stop him, because your linebackers are old and slow, and if Rivers does again what he did today against a superior defense, the Pats could really be in trouble. I'm not saying I guarantee a Charger victory, far from it. I am however saying that you are oolish to expect an easy victory. Beter hope that Rivers and Tomlinson's injuries are more serious than they appear.

    not for nothing - but the Pats already beat the Chargers 38-14 in week two, when the Chargers were 100% healthy.................

    Rivers, LT and Gates being banged up probably doesn't help their chances any

    anything can happen, but one thing is for sure, the Pats will bill ready to play 60 minutes..................

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pemliza. Show pemliza's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Hey guys! Thanks for the birthday wishes everyone! Josh convinced me to watch the football games with him today, son in between napping, I was able to see that the games were good ones. On to next week & the Pats/Chargers game!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Happy Belate Birthday Pem !!! Hope it was a nice one.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Now there is talk about "a weather shift" and how cities like NY wont be getting cold or snow as it used to before.

    I have to admit that waking up this morning to a dry NYC was a wonderful thing. I would die a happy man if I never saw snow again outside my window. As long as it snows by the reservoirs upstate (no droughts), I am good with this weather pattern change.

    The Patriots have beaten everyone and as much as I would like to see the Giants back in it, there is a piece of me that would like to see the old man (Favre) have a crack at them.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Dem Yanks

    But another part of me is saying...this might be dangerous as we might not be ready for tropical storms or hurricanes.

    Not to worry. I am actually part of the Coastal Storm Team in NYC. Believe it or not, Mayor Mike made this a priority immediately after Katrina. The guy is more than a rich dude with words. You would be shocked how well we (NYC) will be able to handle it. It is not perfect, but it is good. So don't worry Victory; if I hear anything, I will send you a message here.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Posted by Sox_hater on 1:51 AM

    "the Pats already beat the Chargers 38-14 in week two, when the Chargers were 100% healthy"

    Yeah, they did. But the Chargers also started the season 1-3, including a 14-30 loss to KC. The Chargers were terrible at the beginning of the season, and have played much better since. So if that game is your comfort blanket, you're naive.

    are you lost?

    Usually, posts with this type of highly intellectual, complex, insightful analysis and stimulating reparte can only be found on the front burner.

    we are truly honored by your presence and contribution, and tremble in anticipation of your future musings.........................

    Of course, the 17-0 Pats, with the 4th best Defense and ALLTIME greatest offense in the history of the NFL, can only hope to be competitive against the might bolts........

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Obviously there are no guarantees in life, but the Infrastructure is actually in good shape. That doesn't mean there won't be problems. The city catch basins have some issues so there will be street flooding in some areas. Obviously there would be some wind damage, but I don't seen any of the skyscrappers coming down, if that is what you are referring to. And there are certain parts of the city which are at just above or just below sea level; so those neighborhoods will also experience severe flooding. These areas have all been identified so NYC knows where to go first. This NYC plan is for the safety of the people. New Orleans was a good example of what not to do. And thankfully we have Long Island to shelter us a bit.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    on the PEDs front..................

    not so fast...

    After saying repeatedly that Roger Clemens will answer any questions Congress wants to ask him, a source familiar with the inquiry said Saturday night that attorney Rusty Hardin is hedging over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's request to depose Clemens under oath next week because it might interfere with his defamation lawsuit against personal trainer Brian McNamee.

    The source said Hardin is also making "noises" about not turning over a taped conversation between McNamee and two investigators for Hardin's office recorded Dec. 12, the day before the Mitchell report was released.

    A segment of the tape was detailed in Clemens' complaint, describing McNamee as saying he was pressured into naming Clemens as a steroid user to federal investigators. Unlike the Jan. 5 phone conversation between Clemens and McNamee that was made public, however, Hardin has refused to release that tape and said it would come out in the discovery process of Clemens' lawsuit.

    McNamee's lawyers said the Hardin's investigators tried to get McNamee to recant his story, a charge Hardin denies.

    typicall lawyering - when Mac says he was pressured into naming Clemens, well then he is obviously telling the truth.....but when he says things that hurt Roger, then he's lying..............................

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Thanks Chris. I just got throuh reading it inbetween what I was doing at work. Yes, it was long, but worth it. It pretty much is all I have said. Reasonable people give the benefit of a doubt when nothing has been proved but inuendo. Those with closed minds and see what they think they see, will convict on nothing more then say so. This has a long way to go yet. I tell you some of those people on the FB have a right to their opinions, but they won't listen to any others then those that agree with them. It is a sad commentary on our society today.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    This would appear to be Roger telling fibshttp://soxanddawgs.com/?p=3098WALLACE Did you know ahead of time what was going be in George MitchellÆs report?CLEMENS I did not.WALLACE Did Brian McNamee tell you what he was going to say toùCLEMENS DidnÆt tell me a word.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3195721In an e-mail sent to USA Today, Mitchell said he sent letters to the players' union in the summer and in October, requesting to talk to players named in the report.In the October letter, Mitchell wrote: "During the course of any such interview, I will inform the player of the evidence of their use, including permitting him to examine and answer questions about copies of relevant checks, mailing receipts, or other documents, and give him an opportunity to respond."In the first letter sent to the union, Mitchell told the newspaper that he provided detailed information regarding players who would be named in the report."We identified the year(s) during which the alleged use had occurred and the club(s) with which the players were then affiliated," Mitchell wrote to USA Today. "Roger Clemens was one of the players listed in those letters."Last Monday, Clemens claimed he did not know that he was going to be named in the Mitchell report and that Mitchell wouldn't disclose the nature of the allegations to his agentshttp://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3193663Rusty Hardin: About eight days before the Mitchell report came out, a member of the firm of Hendricks & Co. -- the, the firm that represents à T.J. Quinn: His agents.Rusty Hardin: His agents. One of them got a call from [Brian] McNamee saying that he was trying to reach Roger and he was trying to reach Andy [Pettitte], he wanted to tell him what he had done. And he ran down to this guy -- what he said his summary of what he told the Mitchell people. This guy was very shocked by it. Passed it on to Randy. That would've been Wednesday, eight days before the report came out on the following Thursday. And I got a call from Randy Hendricks. And we all met for the first time on the Friday before the report came out, and then I met Roger on that Sunday for the first time. Mitchell says he provided a letter summarizing what was alleged against Roger - but he's probably lying.......Cause Roger told us he had no idea that he would be in the report....WALLACE Did you know ahead of time what was going be in George MitchellÆs report?CLEMENS I did not.Randy's lawyer confirms that Mac told them before the report came out what he said to the Investigators - they've got it on tape for crying out loud.............but Roger apparently flat out lies on National TV to Mike WallaceWALLACE Did Brian McNamee tell you what he was going to say toùCLEMENS DidnÆt tell me a word.I guess it's still theoretically possible that Roger is really innocent, but telling lies contradictory versions of events in public is not helpful in one's own defense....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    I'm not saying one way or another, but here are the reasons why Hardin says he's not turning that tape over....

    of course, one always should excercise caution when a lawyer is talking on his client's behalf...

    it's hard to imagine that a tape would exculpate your client and you wouldn't release it - if he had such evidence of Roger's innocence and released it, there would be no need for a trial - everyone would see the evidence and turn on Mac & Mitchell, and Roger would once again be returned to his icon status, and he could start training for next years will he won't he episode.......

    If he had and released such a tape, the upcoming Congressional hearings would become the Roger Clemens we love you and we think it's horrible what's been done to you and we're gonna make those bad people pay televised hearings......

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    He didn't know Mitchell was going to name names. So he did not know that he would be in the report. That isn't too hard to understand. He didn't get a copy of the report. So how could he know what was in it ? Even after the PI's talked to Mac they still didn't know what was going to be in the report. Mac told him he said this and that. But that doesn't mean it will be in the report. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is in the report. So Roger is telling the truth. He didn't know what was in the report.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Rusty Hardin: [overlapping] That's all work product of ours. I mean, why would I do it now? I'll tell you why I don't want to, is -- look, it'll always -- all be ultimately discovered within the civil lawsuit. The other side'll get a copy of it in due time. There's no obligation for us to give that to y'all, in all due respect, right now. And the other reason I don't want it out is because the evidence is pretty clear so far. If McNamee's lawyers are to be believed, he hasn't been telling them the truth. Because they have made some suggestions about things. If you'll recall, uh, the suggestion was, is that we tried to get, uh, him to recant. We didn't. And the evidence will show we didn't. Well, that has to be based on things that McNamee's telling them, if they're telling the truth. So I see no reason for us to provide McNamee with an ability to mold his story that he continues toà I'm much more comfortable letting him finish talking to the government, let him finish talking to his lawyers, and then both sides get under oath and then see what it says. if true, this is pretty damaging for Mac.....so why not relase it and get it over with......hard for me to believe they rather go to trial and win, and recieve nothing in return (the guy is broke) than they would just prove the guy is lying and make the fed withdraw his immunity and send him to the pokeyof course, I'm not sure who actually made the claim about encouraging Mac to recant, if his lawyer said it, it's basically meaningless...................

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Pete, I see you are one of those that thinks Roger is guilty no matter what. That's fine. You are in fine company. Most of your sox peers believe the same way. And most yankee fans are waiting to hear the "rest of the story" before convicting Roger.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    He didn't know Mitchell was going to name names. So he did not know that he would be in the report. That isn't too hard to understand. He didn't get a copy of the report. So how could he know what was in it ? Even after the PI's talked to Mac they still didn't know what was going to be in the report. Mac told him he said this and that. But that doesn't mean it will be in the report. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is in the report. So Roger is telling the truth. He didn't know what was in the report.


    In the first letter sent to the union, Mitchell told the newspaper that he provided detailed information regarding players who would be named in the report.

    "We identified the year(s) during which the alleged use had occurred and the club(s) with which the players were then affiliated," Mitchell wrote to USA Today. "Roger Clemens was one of the players listed in those letters."

    So Mitchell is lying when he says he identified Roger by name, year and club in his letter inviting him to come in and give his side of the story????

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Posted by yankee_diva on 9:36 AM
    Pete, I see you are one of those that thinks Roger is guilty no matter what. That's fine. You are in fine company. Most of your sox peers believe the same way. And most yankee fans are waiting to hear the "rest of the story" before convicting Roger.
    Diva
    do you think the two examples I posted demonstrate Roger being truthful or misleading?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    In the first letter sent to the union, Mitchell told the newspaper that he provided detailed information regarding players who would be named in the report.

    He sent the letter to the union. Not Clemens.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Misleading to you. Not to me.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankee-diva. Show yankee-diva's posts

    Dem Yanks

    No it doesn't make much sense Chris. But if the letter was sent to the union, maybe they did this in all the cases. And didn't pass it on. Or maybe they mentioned to the players that their names were mentioned in relation to the report but not specifics. After all, at this point no one still knew what was actually going to be in the report.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeflonPete. Show TeflonPete's posts

    Dem Yanks

    Posted by yankee_diva on 9:41 AM

    In the first letter sent to the union, Mitchell told the newspaper that he provided detailed information regarding players who would be named in the report.

    He sent the letter to the union. Not Clemens.

    It's hard to imagine that the Union would not provide those letters to the players, but I suppose it needs to be asked directly of Fehr - when did you receive these letters from Mitchell and what did you do with them?

    also, Mitchell stated in his report that each player named was invited to come in with his lawyer, or MLBPA lawyer, so that Mitchell could provide him with the information he had gathered regarding the player, so he could have a chance to defend himself

    so it's a stretch to say the Clemens didn't know ahead of time he was going to be in the report, especially since they went down and tape recorded an interview with MacNamee before hand...................

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share