I guess your reply is somewhat based on the topic, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did read through the thread.

First, let's start at the beginning, the 'stupidity of the idea of a true Yankee.' I assume you're familiar with the concept of the literary canon? Yes?

If not, it's the idea that there are a few books that, among the great ones, are considered the greatest. It comes from the concept of the religious canon, which are the books that were judged to be worthy enough to be included in the Bible. In case you aren't familiar with the concept, there's a whole slew of 'gnostic' Gospels by the other disciples that never made the cut. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John made the pantheon; the other dudes did not. Stupid, perhaps, but sooner or later, you've got to wade through everybody's contribution.  

In terms of the literary canon, there's a whole slew of august literary types who, in between deconstructing Literature (capital L), debate the merits of whether Catcher in the Rye deserves to be placed alongside The Scarlet Letter or For Whom The Bell Tolls. This is, I'm sure, a stupid exercise to you, but I've got to wonder if that is because Garp has yet to be acccepted into the canon. Maybe it'll get in via the Veterans Committee? Dunno.

Anyway, let's just say, for argument's sake, that you've got the picture. The idea of a canon, while stupid (your eloquence, not mine), is something that people have been engaging in for centuries. Millenia, in fact.

Now let's look at the concept in light of the Yankees. Whether you believe it or not, the YES motto is on the money: it's the most storied franchise in all of sports. I won't bore you with the list of all the greats, but there are so many, that you've got to cut some pretty compelling figures to get the Yankee canon. If clutch moments were all that counted, then we'd have plaques of Scott Brosius, Jim Leyritz, Aaron Boone, etc.

(Stop me if I'm going to fast for you.)

Now, let's look at the issue at hand here: There are 26 plaques in Monument Park, including Jackie Robinson, whose breaking of the color barrier was deemed great enough to merit the placement of a Dodger alongside Mantle, Ruth, Gehrig et al.  

The question--and I hate to keep harping on the original question, but it is what is--was basically, does Clemens belong in the pantheon alongside those guys? Without a doubt, he belongs in the baseball pantheon alongside Walter Johnson, Cy Young and the rest. But, again, that wasn't really what the issue was. Does he belong there with the boys in Monument Park?

Okay, you say he had "something to do" with those two rings he won as a Yankee. And had it not been for Pettitte and Mo screwing him, he'd have won a third.

Let's start with the first one:

1.) He had "something to do" with the first two rings. Yes, well, there are 25 guys on each post-season roster, so I guess you're right there. But I think you'll need to dig a little deeper to use that rationale for Clemens' spot on the 'true Yankee' roster.

2.) His effort in 2001 'almost got him a third.' Who's the fella around here with the tag "Losers always whine about their best; winners go home and fuck the prom queen"? That's what I think of that particular argument.

I have no beef with Clemens. I think he is a true master, a true pitching great, a true king of the hill. Just not a true Yankee, which was--and I hate to be so repetitive about this--the topic.

Whether I am a true douchebag or just somebody who didn't miss their Ritalin dose this morning is not for me to say. Hopefully, though, this helps further spell out the actual topic.