haggis Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Am I reading this right? Did he really cost them $24.5M this year?????? http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3168051 "Of all the dramatic things I have ever seen!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kidhuman Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Who cares what he cost them, he gave a lot to a young pitching staff. That will pay for itself on down the line(assuming we keep Joba and Hughes for at least 10 years). Knowledge has no cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Who cares what he cost them, he gave a lot to a young pitching staff. That will pay for itself on down the line(assuming we keep Joba and Hughes for at least 10 years). Knowledge has no cost. Wow. You are saying he passed along doping tricks? That knowledge certainly does come with a cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonEJet Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Wow. You are saying he passed along doping tricks? That knowledge certainly does come with a cost. Wow, that was pretty pathetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Wow, that was pretty pathetic Really. It's like Dierk's not even trying, anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anskyruben Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Some of you people are just idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 I am sure that Roger passed along a lot of knowledge to the kids, both when he was with the Yankees, and also when he spent some time in Tampa in May getting into shape. Several prospects were injured and were down there with him. However, 24.4 million for 6 wins is a bit much, no?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Wow. You are saying he passed along doping tricks? That knowledge certainly does come with a cost. coming from a METS fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 What was the worst move: The Sox signing Gagne or the Yanks signing Clemens? I think its a wash. Both proved they were washed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBrick Wall Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 What was the worst move: The Sox signing Gagne or the Yanks signing Clemens? I think its a wash. Both proved they were washed up. I'm saying Clemens. $4 million...$FOUR MILLION!!!...per win?! That's far from what they expected. Not to mention the playoff game. At least Gagne didn't pitch in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anskyruben Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Gum flapping from the team that brought you Dice Gay. How much did he charge you guys just to be able to sip tea with him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 What was the worst move: The Sox signing Gagne or the Yanks signing Clemens? I think its a wash. Both proved they were washed up. Gag-ne was the worse signing. Crap-ne pratically handed the division to the Yankees. Gas-ne cost the Sox a deccent young prospect in Gabbard. BSx3-ne was ambi-sucktrious. He sucked in the regular and post season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Really. It's like Dierk's not even trying, anymore. Like it or not Yankee fans, Roger Clemens was brought in, and paid 24 million $$ for one sole reason. It was not to serve as a mentor for young pitchers. It was not to have Suzan Waldman make gravy in her pants. It was not to have disgraced headlines at the end of a steroid report. It WAS to win a World Series. And to that effect, it was an abject failure. Spin it any other way you would like, but it does not change the fact that the Yankees did not get the end result of what they wanted out of Roger Clemens. And the way it ultimately worked out was a farce and a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Like it or not Yankee fans, Roger Clemens was brought in, and paid 24 million $$ for one sole reason. It was not to serve as a mentor for young pitchers. It was not to have Suzan Waldman make gravy in her pants. It was not to have disgraced headlines at the end of a steroid report. It WAS to win a World Series. And to that effect, it was an abject failure. Spin it any other way you would like, but it does not change the fact that the Yankees did not get the end result of what they wanted out of Roger Clemens. And the way it ultimately worked out was a farce and a disgrace. so what'd the Mets do to make the world series last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 so what'd the Mets do to make the world series last year? Roger Clemens did not play for the Mets. This thread was about RC. If you want to change subjects just so you can wag your tingue in some fashion, so be it. The Mets sucked last year, and won as many playoffs series as the Yankees. They just managed to do it with less money spent. How that relates to Roger, I have no idea though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Roger Clemens did not play for the Mets. This thread was about RC. If you want to change subjects just so you can wag your tingue in some fashion, so be it. The Mets sucked last year, and won as many playoffs series as the Yankees. They just managed to do it with less money spent. How that relates to Roger, I have no idea though your the one who thinks Roger gave them "doping tips", whats that have to do with what Clemens taught our young pitchers? your a horse's ass with nothing better to do than try to stir up trouble with Yankee fans on here. you must have one hell of a life. im goin shoppin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 your the one who thinks Roger gave them "doping tips", whats that have to do with what Clemens taught our young pitchers? your a horse's ass with nothing better to do than try to stir up trouble with Yankee fans on here. you must have one hell of a life. im goin shoppin Just as long as I can't get a rise out of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 well as long as you admit to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Like it or not Yankee fans, Roger Clemens was brought in, and paid 24 million $$ for one sole reason. It was not to serve as a mentor for young pitchers. It was not to have Suzan Waldman make gravy in her pants. It was not to have disgraced headlines at the end of a steroid report. It WAS to win a World Series. And to that effect, it was an abject failure. Spin it any other way you would like, but it does not change the fact that the Yankees did not get the end result of what they wanted out of Roger Clemens. And the way it ultimately worked out was a farce and a disgrace. No argument. Clemens was a failure. My comment was on your lame "doping tricks" remark. It's pretty funny that a Mess fan would want to talk about a farce and a disgrace. That's exactly what the Mess' non-run to the playoffs was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 No argument. Clemens was a failure. My comment was on your lame "doping tricks" remark. It's pretty funny that a Mess fan would want to talk about a farce and a disgrace. That's exactly what the Mess' non-run to the playoffs was. Yeah, Bob. You are so above baiting and needling a little. Who is kidding whom here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Gag-ne was the worse signing. Crap-ne pratically handed the division to the Yankees. Gas-ne cost the Sox a deccent young prospect in Gabbard. BSx3-ne was ambi-sucktrious. He sucked in the regular and post season. I still think Clemens was the far bigger disappointment. Gagne went to a team that still had a solid pen, even without him. He would have been icing on the cake. But Roger was hired, at a far greater cost, to bring home the bacon, as they say. He failed. Big time. I do find it amusing that the only post-season win was in a game he started. No thanks to Mr. Clemens though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor99 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I still think Clemens was the far bigger disappointment. Gagne went to a team that still had a solid pen, even without him. He would have been icing on the cake. But Roger was hired, at a far greater cost, to bring home the bacon, as they say. He failed. Big time. I do find it amusing that the only post-season win was in a game he started. No thanks to Mr. Clemens though. Roger's failure was not surprising. He's come up small in big spots many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Roger's failure was not surprising. He's come up small in big spots many times. I remember the '86 World Series, and worrying about Clemens, but knowing after he threw 100 pitches, his pitching effectiveness decreased appreciably. I remember literally counting each pitch, trying to look for that magical 100 mark. Sure enough, the Mets worked some counts, fouled some balls off of him and then were able to scratch some runs off him after he hit 100 in Game 6. I think he hit 130 pitches or so total, and was "only" able to work 7 innings. I remember it being somewhat odd, that a pitcher that young had a dramatic drop off after 100 pitches. I know this is not totally unusual, but with him the drop off was dramatic. It made all the more interesting after he had such a resurgence late in his career. Typical arms don't rebound like that. Nolan Ryan did it THROUGHOUT his career, and never had a true resurgence like Clemens. Same thing with Carlton. Now we most likely know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.