Results tagged ‘ jon Heyman ’
By Craig Calcaterra @ Hardball Talk
Last week a lot of people got it totally wrong about Andy Pettitte when they said that he changed his testimony on the stand during the Roger Clemens trial. As I demonstrated with reference to Pettite’s actual 2008 testimony, Andy Pettitte did not change a thing about his testimony. He was entirely consistent.
Jon Heyman was one of the guys who got it wrong then, Tweeting that Pettitte “suddenly” changed his testimony. I guess that’s understandable as a heat of the moment reaction, especially given how it was being played up initially on Twitter and elsewhere. But now Heyman has had a week to actually, you know, look at the facts. And he either hasn’t bothered to or else he has and doesn’t care, because he’s still wrong:
Suddenly on the stand in federal court last week, Pettitte changed his story about Clemens. And remarkably, he changed it from one day to the next. It is fair to assume he wasn’t being completely truthful one of those two days.
Under questioning by government lawyers, Pettitte, who’s trying for a baseball comeback with the Yankees, said Clemens told him about Clemens’ own HGH use while the pair were working out together back in 1999 or 2000. That was a powerful point against Clemens.
Then only one day later, under questioning by Clemens’ lawyers, Pettitte said he may have misunderstood the key HGH conversation. In fact, it’s now 50-50 he misunderstood, he answered to Clemens attorney Michael Attanasio. “I’d say that’s fair,” Pettitte lamely answered to Attanasio.
He goes on to accuse Pettitte of “bending the truth” to help a friend. He calls Pettitte’s testimony a “pathetic change-up,” “sudden amnesia,” and a “lame, less-then-honest performance.” There is something lame, pathetic and less-than-honest here, and it’s Heyman’s approach to this story.
As I demonstrated last week, Pettitte’s answers at trial were entirely consistent with his 2008 testimony. He did not change it. He did not say “50/50″ in 2008 because he was not asked to put a probability on the matter then. Why? Because he wasn’t being cross examined in 2008, he was being deposed. It’s a basic legal point that Heyman would understand if he took a moment to understand basic legal procedure. Not that he has to, of course. But if you’re going to go accusing people of perjury as Heyman clearly does here, you probably should.
The point here is that there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with Pettitte’s 2008 testimony and his “50/50″ testimony last week. In 2008 he said he was uncertain. Last week he said he was uncertain. Last week, however, someone thought to ask him how uncertain. They suggested “50/50″ and Pettitte agreed. If only a government lawyer preparing the witness had thought to ask him that maybe they wouldn’t have called Pettitte to the stand in the first place.
Heyman goes on to say that this is the last straw for Pettitte’s Hall of Fame case in his eyes. That he may have voted for Pettitte despite his win total and his HGH history because the postseason performances were so money that they outweighed it. But now?
Now, though, his own sympathetic HGH story comes into serious question. If he’s willing to suddenly misremember under oath for a good buddy, it’s easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to. Maybe Pettitte isn’t quite the truthteller we gave him credit for, and maybe there is some other explanation for how his fastball velocity increased to 93/94 mph somewhere in the middle of his career. I’d say the chances are 50-50 (at best) that Pettitte misremembered his own supposedly very limited usage.
Setting the “Pettitte used more steroids than he said he did” accusation aside, this is Jon Heyman, publicly changing his Hall of Fame vote for Andy Pettitte based on something (i.e. a change in sworn testimony) that never happened.
I guess this shouldn’t surprise us coming from a guy who still thinks, evidence be damned, that Jack Morris pitched to the score and that Bert Blyleven wasn’t a very good pitcher.
I mean, at least he never accused Blyleven of committing a crime.
I love Johnny Damon and will always thank him for his 2009 heroics in Yankees pinstripes.
So much that it almost dulls the pain of his 2004 grand slam off Javier Vasquez that pretty much sealed the deal on my beloved Bombers before we’d escaped the second inning of that now infamous Game 7 in the ALCS.
Add to that the fact that he has always been willing to play hurt, been a true grinder at the plate and one who let his hustle make-up for his shortcomings (namely that wet noodle of an arm he had his whole career) and Johnny Damon quickly becomes one of my favorite players all-time.
I hope he finds a job and gets his three thousand hits. I really, really do.
If and when he ever does, I will be at the front of the line championing his cause for induction into Cooperstown.
BUT Craig Calcaterra hit this one out of the park:
My favorite all-time “Jon Heyman trying to get Johnny Damon a job” column came two years ago when Heyman noted Damon’s “matinee-idol looks and obvious love of the big stage,” and parroted previous Scott Boras comments about Damon’s love of Detroit while wondering why oh why Damon had not yet been signed by someone.
He’s got a new one out now, and it has the air of a conspiracy theory:
‘Johnny Damon doesn’t get it, doesn’t get why he’s not getting offers after the year he had. Damon didn’t get why he didn’t receive an offer from the incumbent Rays after he was a leader for them in the clubhouse and on the field, and now he doesn’t get why he seemingly is running second as a candidate to be the Yankees’ left-handed DH … It is hard to blame Damon for feeling left out. The whole thing does seem very odd, indeed.’
Heyman goes on to note the Yankees’ seeming preference for Raul Ibanez, saying that each of the reasons why the Yankees apparently prefer Ibanez is “sillier than the next.” Judge for yourself, but they don’t sound that silly to me. Ibanez can play defense a little. Damon really can’t. I’d probably still prefer Damnon myself, but it’s not “silly” for someone to disagree on that.
But you know what is silly? That there isn’t one word in the column about what Damon’s contract demands are. Because if you want to compare Damon and Ibanez, or if you want to assess whether Damon not having any contract offers is odd or not, one might want to know whether Damon is offering his services at a reasonable rate.
There was zero mention of the fact Ibanez would sign for around one million dollars (he just signed on the dotted line for $1.1 million) and Damon was asking for $5 mil and change.
That alone makes up for any difference in production, but in truth there wasn’t that much difference between the two to begin with so I don’t know where Heyman was coming from on that whole “silly” argument.
In the end a part-time, platoon DH is just that…a part-time, platoon DH.
First off, I was visiting Hardball Talk and ran across a nice piece going over the recent “Twitter spat” between one baseball pundit I admire (Buster Olney) and one whom I most certainly do NOT (Jon Heyman):
As we noted yesterday, Jon Heyman took the curious tack of accusing the Red Sox of being cheap or small market or something and suspecting that the team owners are spending money on their soccer interests or whatever. It was fairly silly, and no shortage of bloggers have weighed in on just how silly it is.
But it’s not just the bloggers. Buster Olney took to Twitter this morning to tear that line of reasoning to shreds.
He later said in reply to another person that “The Red Sox have made mistakes in the past, but they can’t be accused of being cheap.” Which is 100% correct.
I find this all rather interesting, simply because it’s so rare that you see two of the big name baseball columnists in direct disagreement like this. But it’s not just interesting for gossipy purposes.
In its’ own right this is nothing unusual. One of the bigger upsides of Twitter and the “blogosphere” is that it allows writers and pundits to interact directly with one another, often rather quickly. Ideas are tossed around, giving a thorough examination by many and often discounted or endorsed in lightning speed.
Typically this is done rather civilly. Unless it involves one Jon Heyman of CBS, a.k.a. Scott Boras’s puppet. Then it’s handled in a rather douchey kind of way. Just ask Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News.
He tweeted yesterday that Heyman had blocked him on Twitter for nothing more than his criticism of Heyman’s idiotic conclusion that the Boston Red Sox, with their record payroll (third highest in baseball) were being “cheap”. The best part of it is the reply from Hardball Talk‘s Craig Calcaterra mentioning he too is a member of that not-so-exclusive club of baseball writers that Heyman has blocked for this offense.
L. Seven. Weenie.