Roger Clemens is a Yankee again, and for those like myself who predicted he’d sign elsewhere, it took a day to fully digest the crow. (Despite the rumors, it doesn’t taste like chicken. Ketchup helps the taste, but not much. They’re scavengers, you know.)

As a writer, I’m glad this happened, because it saved me from another rant on Carl Pavano being the worst signing in Yankees history. As a former YES employee, I have a hunch Clemens’ 300^th victory and his near no-hitter from 2003 will find their way into the “Yankees Classics” lineup again within the next three to five days.

Back from the tangent … The Post was the first outlet to publish the story, doing so online at roughly 3 p.m. Sunday. We know this because George King and Mike Puma told us so in their initial story.

In typical Steinbrenner-era Yankee fashion, the deal was handled surreptitiously and quickly, and with a lot of money. (So much for fiscal responsibility, as many scribes mentioned.)

To be sure, the hints were there starting in November with the re-signing of Andy Pettitte, but there was not a sense that a Clemens-Yankees sequel was a sure thing until Sunday afternoon when the Rocket ignited two hours of Yankee Stadium pomp and presidential-level media attention with his announcement during the 7^th inning stretch.

You know the numbers — one year, $28 million, prorated salary starting from the day he makes his first start in pinstripes. So now the projections and questions have begun. How will he affect the rotation? Is this really a "distress signing," as some suggest? How many games will he win? Can he or will he be as dominant as he was in the National League over the past three seasons? Will his body hold up? And perhaps the most intriguing question: should his name surface in the Mitchell Investigation, how will he and the Yankees handle the reports? (The New York Times was the only major outlet to note the steroid suspicion in all its Monday stories.)

I want to focus on how this information was presented to us as fans and consumers, because there was plenty to absorb and interpret. YES extended the postgame show to nearly 90 minutes, airing Clemens’ press conference uninterrupted, and smartly played the subtle card, letting the story tell itself. The press conference reminded me of the night of his 300^th victory. The auxiliary press room was packed, an emotional Clemens sat on the dais with company on either side of him and held court for nearly a half hour. There was a palpable sense of history.

Sunday’s return presser had a number of stories: 1) There was the revelation that when Cashman was in Texas trying to sync up with the Hendricks Brothers, Randy Hendricks was in Boston pitching Clemens to the Red Sox. 2) The admission from Hendricks that the Yankees won the derby due to their immediate need coinciding with Clemens ramping up his workouts. That they ponied up the most cash had nothing to do with it, apparently. Clemens reiterated that stance Monday, telling the Associated Press, “If you think it’s about money, you’re greatly mistaken. I’m not going to put my body through the paces I put my body through to earn a few more dollars.” (B.S. or no? Neither thesis does much to shed Clemens’ mercenary reputation.) 3) The number of times Cashman, Clemens, and Hendricks said, “this man to my left,” or “this man to my right” (you could create a nice drinking game from that if you recorded the presser). 4) Reading between the lines, Cashman alerting the public to Hal and Hank Steinbrenner’s presence in the courting process provides a huge hint as to who will assume the brunt of operations duties upon Steve Swindal’s official dismissal.  5) Clemens taking umbrage to the media snipes at the carte blanche element of his “personal service” clause, urging the broadcasters (read: ESPN), to “get their facts right” before commenting on that part of his contract, because it hurts his family. I applaud his stance, but if the reality didn’t match the perception, why make a big deal of it three years later? It was just as big of a story in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Why not clear things up then and note any modifications that took place in the margins of the current deal?

All of it makes for fun times in the Bronx now. At least there’s something else to talk about besides hamstring injuries, scapegoat trainers, anything pertaining to Carl Pavano, and bullpen woes.

More from the local papers…

• Alan Schwarz polled Clemens’ new teammates about the return of the aged power pitcher. Leave it to Mike Mussina to be the cold voice of honesty.  With regards to Rocket’s impact, he said, “Roger is very good, but somewhere between a No. 2 and No. 3 starter is more likely what he’s capable of being. Everyone has to remember that he’s 44 going on 45. He’s not what he was the last time he was here.” And regarding the stabilizing factor he’ll have, Mussina offered this gem: “It removes the questions about whoever was going to be out there instead of him.”
• Slick note from Star-Ledger beat man Ed Price, that clubhouse manager Rob Cucuzza kept the nameplate for Clemens’ locker, just in case.

From the radio waves …

•  Confession: I did not catch any review from the Yankees radio team, but I’m sure there was enough praise heaped upon Clemens to fill a few hours of air-time.  [Editor’s note, check out S. Waldman’s gushing call if you’ve got the stomach for it.]
• Confession No. 2: The snippet of Mike and the Mad Dog that I caught was spent trying to get to the bottom of Josh Phelps’ collision with Kenji Johjima. Russo’s voice was nearly gone, so I’m guessing he was in full Yankee-hating mode.
•  Michael Kay Inconsistency Alert: In Sunday’s postgame, when Kay mentioned the personal services contract, he noted Cashman’s quote of how last year, that clause eliminated the Yankees, but how this year they were willing to make the exception. On his ESPN Radio show Monday, he railed the Yankees for caving on that point of the contract. Which one is it? I believe his radio rants are more in line to what his opinions are, yet he continues to toe the company line on TV.

 From the blogosphere…

• Curt Schilling rationalized the Yankees getting Clemens by playing the chemistry card and lauding the job Julian Tavarez has done as the fifth starter. Buster Olney had a swift and critical reaction to Schilling’s post in his own blog. Schilling also misspelled Torii Hunter’s first name repeatedly. Schill posted an update Monday, saying how much he and his Red Sox teammates would have loved to have Clemens back in Boston. A little late.

• A great note from LoHud’s Peter Abraham, who said that Clemens wouldn’t have signed with the Yankees if Joe Torre had been fired. What a difference a week makes, huh?

• CNBC’s Darren Rovell’s take that the deal makes no financial sense for the Yankees comes from a much more business-like perspective than the Lip. Another note from Rovell: “I think the Hall of Fame can now officially think of Clemens with a Yankees cap on him.”

Clips from Houston …

• Richard Justice believes Houston was just too boring for Clemens. I’m more impressed that he acknowledged sycophantic behavior of his hometown media brethren in the three years they covered Clemens.
• Brian McTaggart reminds us that Clemens isn’t really done as an Astro yet.

Clips from Boston …

• The Globe’s Gordon Edes provides the hard-news roundup of the Red Sox’ offer.

• Boston.com has complete roundup of Sox blogs and the vitriol coming from Tea Party Central.

The breadth and depth of analysis of the Clemens story over the past day and a half has been enough to cause information overload. Credit Roger Clemens for being such a polarizing figure, but also the people who tracked and presented the story, and offered provocative angles from which to view it.