Perjury, Bonds, Law, and the Court of Public Opinion

UPDATE: Alex Rodriguez was found to have tested positive for anabolic steroids in 2003, when he won the AL MVP with the Rangers. A-Rod apparently was informed about the results, along with the other 103 players who tested positive that year. The 'survey tests' of 2003 carry no punishment, as they were meant to help decide whether mandatory random testing would be necessary. Obviously they are. More on A-Rod HERE.

Big news yesterday. Court documents linking bond to steroid use have been unsealed by the federal court in San Francisco that is hearing Bonds' perjury case. To get you caught up, some years ago the government went after BALCO, the notorious steroid distributor for not only baseball but other sports as well. During the grand jury testimony, notable ballplayers were called to the stand. Among them were Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi.

Giambi seems to have told the truth during the grand jury and in the course of his public statements. Who can forget his 2007 comments, "I was wrong for doing that stuff," that set off a small firestorm in New York. But then the Mitchel report was released, and new names emerged. The likes of Andy Pettite and Roger Clemens, as well as Bonds, were squarely in focus. Meanwhile, the BALCO case continued, and it seemed more and more likely that Bonds did knowingly lie in his grand jury testimony.

Yesterday, the government's case was unsealed. There is sworn statements, recorded conversations, and most damning of all, positive drug tests. This may seem like the end for Barry, but let me propose this, physical evidence is good for both sides. Remember this is a perjury case. The government most prove byond reasonable doubt that Barry Bonds knowingly and wittingly lied under oath. Physical evidence is extremely daunting to overcome when presented in the court of public opinion, but in federal court, it can be attacked. Did Barry Bonds know that he tested positive? Maybe he never got the results of the test. Were the test compromised? Were they tainted? What was the chain of custody? All of these things can come into question.

No matter the trial, guilty or innocent, one thing is clear. Bonds definitely used steroids for his most productive years, knowingly or unknowingly. Even if the evidence is thrown out in court, it doesn't make it not true in the court of public opion. The question that interests me most is how will this effect Bonds' chances at the Hall? McGwire has had trouble and has fallen off the face of the earth. Sosa is due up soon, and we can't forget about Clemens. Will any of these people now be worthy of the Hall?

The voice I am waiting on is Bud Selig's, 18 million dollar Bud. At some point he needs to speak up. We need him to say it was wrong what happened, and that he feels personally responsible. But most importantly, there is one thing that Bud can do to make things right, fix the records. Aaron is the HR king at 755 and Marris is the single season champ at 61. Toss out Sosa's 60+ HR's seasons and McGwires as well. Get rid of bonds homers. Get rid of them all. Fix this mess, and bring closure to the worst scandal (yeah i said the worst) in baseball history. Steroids have fouled the game, cast doubt over a 20 year period, and it is time to finally put it all to rest.

It doesn't matter if Bonds is guilty by law, the public has decided. The entire baseball establishment was guilty, but now is our opportunity to make things right and move the game forward into the 21st century. All eyes are not on Bonds, they are on you, Bud Selig. It is time for you to talk, and it better be sooner rather then later.

Read Full Article!

Take me out to...the movies!

With the Hot Stove burning, the winter meetings over, and Scott Boras alienating every team in baseball, the game of inches is inching closer by the day. In a month's time, pitchers and catchers will report to their teams for some long-toss and bullpen sessions. Soon after, spring training games will attract the speculation of experts, as Peter Gammons and Co. return to prominence. That's right! Baseball will be back before you know it, and what better way is there to whet the past-time appetite than enjoying a funny, compelling or enticing baseball flick?

Among my favorite movie genres, the baseball movie is second only to the western. There are no baseball-westens, as far as I know, but there are many great baseball movies. Here are ten that are sure to entertain.

The Sandlot (1993). Where it all begins. Who can forget the countless hours, as a kid among your friends, striking-out one another, Big League Chew, calling your shots, planting the seeds of a wilderness of smack-talk—usually sunflower seeds. Sandlot baseball is one of many rites of passage, and this movie is about all of them. Scotty Smalls is the new kid in the neighborhood who makes friends and learns to play baseball. After defeating the bullies, kissing the girl, and throwing up the real tobacco, the gang lands itself in the biggest game of pickle they've ever faced. It's the peachy PG baseball movie. A good time for everyone. Special appearances by James Earl Jones and Dennis Leary. "FOR-EV-ER."

Field of Dreams (1989). For a while, if you needed an actor fit to play baseball on screen, Kevin Costner was your leading man. He made two important baseball movies in the 1980s, Bull Durham (the player to be named later) and Field of Dreams. Ray Kinsella (Costner) is the farmer who reads the signs of a cosmic coach to embark on a mystical mission of discovery to bring back the ghosts of baseball's past and learns something about his own in the process. If Henry David Thoreau had a favorite baseball movie, this would be the one. It's about baseball, yes. But it's about much more than that. "The one constant is baseball," James Earl Jones' character summarizes in the end, as he notes how the great game has "marked the time" in the lives of us all. This the most "movie" of baseball movies.

Eight Men Out (1988). Shoeless Joe Jackson is definitely the most famous of the 1919 Chicago White Sox, known as the "Black Sox" for allegedly taking gamblers' money to lose the World Series. This movie is a dramatization of those eight players accused. It is a great baseball movie. The plot twists and turns and involves a wealth of recognizable acting names. This is the "Outsiders" of baseball films, whose cast includes: John Cusack, Christopher Lloyd, Charlie Sheen, David Straitharn, John Mahoney (the dad from Frasier), D. B. Sweeney and many other familiar faces. See also 61* (directed by Billy Crystal, HBO Films 2001), and Pride of the Yankees, (staring Gary Cooper, 1942) for historically-based dramas.

Ken Burns' Baseball (1994). If hardcore baseball history is in your wheelhouse, then this boxed set featuring the 1140-minute PBS documentary series is for you. It's the 7-game series of baseball films. It's long, detailed, and full of amazing baseball footage and interviews of the most famous players and prominent historians. It fetches a Mark Texiera price tag, but unlike a certain free-agent, this set is definitely worth it.

Rookie of the Year (1993). "Gardenhoser!" the Chicago Cubs' manager yells as he calls into the game his new 12-year old phenom, Henry Rowengartner, who after a freak arm injury, has become the hardest throwing pitcher in the game. This seventh-inning stretch of a film is a great middle school comedy. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the movie is that it marks one of the last pre-total-insanity appearances of Gary Busey in a major role. The voice of The Wonder Years' Kevin Arnold and supreme Cubs' enthusiast Daniel Stern also gives a convincing performance.

Bang the Drum Slowly (1983). In a battery of buddy film and tear jerker, Robert De Niro plays Bruce Pearson, the average Joe catcher to his team's ace pitcher. The two of them are great friends, and in the off-season, Pearson learns he is terminally ill. They do their best to make the most of Bruce's last season.

A League of Their Own (1992). Another all-star roster of cast members embodies one of the most oft-quoted of baseball films of all time. "There's no crying in baseball!" reprimands manager Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks) to one of his women players, a member of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, put in place to retain revenues during the years of the U.S.'s involvement in World War II. This dramatization of true events is definitely one of the most entertaining of these selections.

Major League (1989). Ah, Charlie Sheen. He's only made a few movies that warrant recommendation, and this is one. Cheesy soundtrack aside, this is a essential on the baseball movie must-see list. If one thing is true about the 1980s, it's that teams with Native-American mascots were terrible. The Cleveland Indians was by far the worst (I'm biased), warranting the production of this comedy of errors.

The Natural (1984). If Robert Redford is in a movie, it's usually very good. This one is no exception. Roy Hobbs is that iconic mythical figure, who's legend is only superseded by his actions. A rookie past the prime of his youth, he returns to dominate the game and battle the shadowy figures of the front office. I like to think "Wonderboy" by Tenacious D is a direct derivative of this modern fable.

Bull Durham (1988). While this is not a traditional "top ten" list, I've chosen to save for last what I submit as the best baseball movie of all time. Crash Davis (Kevin Costner) is the all-knowing seasoned veteran catcher, bounced around the minor leagues until he's hired to corral and tutor his foil, the young, reckless and undeniably talented pitcher "Nuke" LaLoosh (Tim Robbins). Torn between the two of them is the local slump-buster Annie Savoy (Susan Surrandon). The great thing about this movie is the chronicled life of the minor league player, far from the spotlight and fame. The other great thing is, it's the date-movie of baseball movies, one you can convince your lady to watch. She'll enjoy it and thank you for it—hopefully in an appropriate fashion. There's baseball, and there's sex. Then there's Bull Durham, which finds the balance between both. Bull Durham also contains one of the best monologues in movie history.

So...what have we learned? Probably less than expected, which was little. You've probably seen most of these movies before, but have you seen them lately? Have you forgotten the majesty of The Beast? Do you remember how to use your "Hat-to?" (What the heck was he taking about?) Have you gone home lately and given your wife a pickle tickle? Maybe you need a reminder, or maybe you just need something to tide you over between bowl games, both super and otherwise, and spring training. Along with the Swatch, Eurythmics, greed and The Noid, these ten baseball movies are among the best things to come out of the 1980's and 1990's. They're worth extra innings.

Read Full Article!

The Great NL vs AL Debate

[also authored by Jonesin']


THE GREAT SENIOR CIRCUIT, by adam
I and most of the other posters here at Dirty South Sports are not big fans of the designated hitter. For one, we live in a National League market (even me up here in Philly), and secondly, we, with the Braves, have always had great hitting pitchers ("chicks dig the long ball"). But that doesn't stop the annoying nags that continue to crap on the NL for being weaker, and saying things like, "we aren't paying pitchers to hit, but to pitch."

To start with, the AL is not simply stronger, but AL teams are built differently. It may seem like a surprise, but you cannot consider just the interleague record. For the Braves, we have been better then most with a .526 (103-93) winning percentage in interleague play. The highest in the NL. There was a time when it was highest in the majors. In the AL, the three highest teams are the Yankees at .586, the Oakland A's at .580 and finally the Minnesota Twins at .571. Those differences seem to suggest something is up. And something is. There is a built-in bias towards the AL in interleague play. That bias is simply the fact that they have an additional hitter on their roster, even without the DH in a NL park. That's right, the DH comes off the bench as a pinch hitter with better numbers then most teams would carry for that role (mainly because if they hit like that they would start every game). NL teams are built differently, they are not designed to keep a 10th position player, so their 10th man is often weaker then the AL's and also cheaper (one of the main reason overall salaries in the AL seem to blow the NL out of the water). This bias takes place in both directions. When an NL team visits an AL team, then their top 10 players are often under-matched by the AL team's top 10. (I'd say the AL also has an advantage in home stadiums since two teams Tampa and Minnesota still play on synthetic grass while no one in the NL does).

This dichotomy has played out more prominent over the last decade for another reason. Players are playing longer. There are simply more good older players moving to the AL to DH for the simple reason of prolonging their career. It is getting to the point where certain players simply can not play in the NL at all. Take Big Papi. His skills at first base are so weak, I doubt a team in the NL could start him for a whole season at first and come out with a winning record. There would be so many errors and missed throws to counter-act those huge bombs. Also, I would be unsure of his stamina to play 162 games on the field rather then ride the bench and swing every inning or so. It makes me wonder about players like Chipper, who beat the hell out themselves diving and stooping grounders all season, that if they played in the AL and got to DH would they be as injury prone?

The same can be said about the pitching side. How often, late in the game, does a pitcher get removed to put in a hitter in a key situation? All the time. Now in the AL, there is no strategy for that. There is no worry. So pitchers can pitch later into the ballgame, which also means that you don't need to carry as many middle relief pitchers. The exposure is less. In the NL, that middle relief is often the difference between a winning season and a losing one.

Finally there is a completely different managerial strategy. In the NL you have the double switch. Mangers maneuver their lineup so that the pitcher won't have to hit in the next inning. They must constantly be aware of who's up next, and if I replace this pitcher now, will i have to use two next inning? Or, if I replace him now, I have to double switch, but who am I taking out? These kinda questions never get asked in the AL. It is more like algorithmic hitting. Start at one, add 1 until reached 9, and repeat. That is all, a monkey can manage an AL line up.

When you add all this up, it is no surprise that the AL seems on paper to be better then the NL. It is not a power thing, or a better pitching thing, but it is a design thing. Simply, AL teams are designed differently for a different kind of competition, a simpler one. It is almost like two different sports, or two different species of related animals, cousins. I do not want the NL to adopt the DH. I would love it if the AL dropped theirs, but I understand that there is a fundamental difference between the way baseball is played in both leagues. If you think they can be compared directly, you are wrong. I prefer the NL because it is baseball at its purist, and in my opinion, if the AL fans got to see more baseball without the filthy DH, I think they would agree.


REAL MEN PLAY IN THE AL, by jonesin'
Why not use the DH? You could use the argument that by not hitting, AL pitchers have higher stamina across a full season. But they are taken out for pinch hitters less often, so they throw more innings in the AL right? Lets use Santana as an example: in 2008 he threw 234.3 innings for the Mets - most in his career. For hitters the DH does allow for players to extend their careers by moving to DH. It allows younger players to make the jump to the majors earlier because they can hit (and maybe can't field worth a damn). Its good to see players like Mike Piazza and Jim Thome given a chance to continue playing at a high level after they've lost their ability to make a sizable contribution in the field. And sure we can use names like Thome and Ortiz to make the case that all AL teams have 9-10 startable hitters on their club, but lets look across the league:

• Five DH's drove in more than 70 runs: Aubrey Huff (who played 70 games in the infield), Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Jason Kubel (50 games in OF) and Milton Bradley.
• The same five were the only ones to hit 20+ home runs.
• Only two DH's hit over .300 (Huff, Bradley) while the average DH hit .263 last season
• Of these five DHs at the top, only Thome and Ortiz went to the playoffs.

Sure having the DH slot available allows for AL teams to bring in more starter-caliber talent to rotate between the DH and fielding positions. Sure that leads to higher payrolls. But its all relative. As long as you manage your roster within the style of your league, you will be successful. No team, no matter if its the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or Phillies, can put nine all-stars in a lineup. Talent is spread out too much across the league. What these teams have in common is a strong, powerful middle of the order, with table-setters before and after. Jeter and Damon set up A-Rod, Abreu and Giambi. Reyes sets up Wright, Beltran and Delgado. Rollins and Victorino ahead of Utley, Howard and Burrell. Its the same for every team in both leagues.

The American League does not have an advantage in this sense. Most DHs are players who have lost their ability to field the ball well. These are players past their prime, who can still hit the ball, sure, but not as well as they used to. Not as well as the guy who replaced them at their position (see Philadelphia trading Thome to make room for Howard, or the fading abilities of Giambi and Frank Thomas). This levels the playing field. Its not an advtange or a disadvantage to have the DH, but its there to keep these players in the league. If you can hit, you can play. In the NL if you can hit, but can't field.. then you can play maybe twice a week when the pitcher is getting rocked. What help is it when, say, the Braves they have a Frank Thomas riding the bench waiting for Hudson to get pulled? When at the same time Tampa is struggling to score runs because their DH can't hit the long ball. Swapping Thomas for their slap-hitting DH improves both clubs, keeps things competitive, and lets a star like Thomas continue playing with the dignity he deserves.

Besides, since 2001 the National League has won the World Series four times. And so has the AL.

Read Full Article!

Yankees Land Sabathia, Let the Flood Begin

Reports out of Vegas are that the Yankees and pitcher CC Sabathia have agreed to a contract worth $160M over 7 years (that's over $23M per year for those counting at home). Sabathia, the AL Cy Young Award Winner in 2007, had a rocky (read: terrible) start last season with the Indians before returning to form as a Milwaukee Brewer in the second half. Combined he went 17-10 with a 2.70ERA and 251Ks last season, with a major league leading 10 complete games.

What's this mean for the rest of the league and the Winter Meetings? Now that the market is set for pitchers, both starters and relievers (see K-Rod's 3-year $37M deal with the Mets), expect a flood of offers and signings to occur with the remaining free agent arms. Top of the list is AJ Burnett, who's being heavily courted by the Braves (and Yankees and Orioles, among others). The Braves offered Burnett a 4+ year deal worth about $16M per year. Given that Sabathia is top of the class, at $23M no one will earn more than him, or anything approaching him. A salary in the ballpark of $16-18M now seems about right for a pitcher like Burnett, given the market. The Yankees had claimed they would best any offer that the Braves made, so don't be suprised (even after signing Sabathia) if the Steinbrenner's throw more than $18M a year at AJ.

Now that agents and GM's know the market, expect a lot of names coming out of the pool in coming days. Keep it here for all the updates. Read Full Article!

Jonesin' for a GM With Balls

Its December! Two months from two weeks from this past Sunday, pitchers and catchers report! That means Brian McCann! Jair Jurrjens! Jorge Campillo! and .... aaaand....... no one else! Meanwhile the Cubs bring back the best starting rotation in baseball! The Padres still have Peavy. Mike Hampton just took a pay cut to go back to Houston! Houston!! So where's Frank Wren? Where's Franky boy, and what has he done with all of my hopes and dreams for a future where the Braves lose less than 90 games?! As of today our starting rotation is non-existent.

Right now our rotation would be what? Jurrjens, Campillo, Morton? Reyes? PARR?? Not one of these young'ns was projected to start, make the team, play any role for our team LAST SEASON. Not one of them. Now while Jurrjens is a bonified stud, he's not a number one ace! Not yet! So what's Frank Wren going to do to address any of the issues facing this desparate squad? I have ideas! I have plenty of ideas!! Like how, I don't know, maybe we should have closed the deal with Peavy. Maybe be aggressive and just get the players you want! You don't see the Yankees gripping tightly to their buckets of cash! Now I hope he proves me wrong. I hope two, three weeks from now I'm eating my words in a delicious sandwich with pickles, mayo and two types of pastrami. I hope I wake up on Christmas morn with a Peavy, Burnett, Furcal and a left-fielder under the tree! But even if I did awaken to such pleasurable news. We'd still have only four starters. I say Tommy Hanson is now under the gun to make this Spring count... and come into the season as the fifth starter. Or maybe the number three starter. He's that friggin good. Without him emerging we're stuck with getting some past-his-prime veteran or an overrated potential-filled rookie to just eat innings until Hanson is brought up! So here's what we do. First we break AJ Burnett's elbow since he'll probably hurt it anyway and this way the Braves won't sink a bunch of money into a highly talented (but highly fragile) pitcher again. Next we tell Padres GM Kevin Towers to stop making out with the Cubs because the Braves will let you get to third base on the first date. Give us Jake Peavy, give him to us now, you're screwing up our entire offseason you greedy, sneaky bastard coward. Finally, after trading for Peavy and signing Rafael Furcal and Raul Ibanez, we offer everything else we have for Derek Lowe. Boston wants him. I don't care what other teams might have interest, and, true, Boston expresses 'interest' in EVERYONE, despite having a nearly perfect roster as it is, but if Boston bids for him, we have to outbid them. Be aggressive, sign Lowe. He's an ace. He's a postseason stud. He's just like Tim Hudson. And he's just old enough so that you don't have to give him 6-8 years.. 3-4 should do just fine. So for the love of God, Mr. Wren. Help this team regain the respect John Schuerholz built up over a decade and a half, and give the Mets and Phillies to beating they so rightly deserve.



Read Full Article!