2007 Baseball Season is about to start--talk about anything you want

[freedom78]

It wouldn't surprise me at all about Gagne. Do we really think he was that good to have gone that long without a blown save? He is no Rivera and even he didn't go that long without a blown save combined regular season/playoffs.

In the career sense, no, he's no Mariano Rivera (who is?).  But there were a few years, there, where he was every bit as good and, in a season or two, considerably better (was Rivera on the DL for a while in 2002?).  Of course if he was juicing, that's one way to explain it.  But during 2002, 2003 (especially), and 2004, he was completely dominant. 

[pilferk]

I have a hard time taking the report real seriously.

First off, looking at the sources, it should be no surprise a good portion of them are Yanks and Mets.  Their "main sources" of information were a Yanks and a Mets staffer.

Second, that being the case,  I think "naming names" is irrelevant, salacious, and unfair.  It paint a picture that isn't really indicative of the problem AS A WHOLE, because the sources are from only 2 teams...and their credibility is suspect.

Third, you notice ONLY a couple of players previously affiliated with the Red Sox on that list, and they left under pretty lousy terms (Mo Vaughn, for example).  Sorry, but given Mitchells relationship with the Sox...whether there is actually any bias there or not....it just smacks of impropriety.

To me, the entire report seems like a sensationalized way to give the press something to slather over and a reason for the government to turn their heads to the next issue.  It's not really a solution, or an accurate documentation of everything that went on.  It's a lot of "he said, she said"....worse, actually, because you're only getting one side of the story....and very little substance.

Good article on the report:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3154051&sportCat=mlb

[faldor]

I have a hard time taking the report real seriously.

First off, looking at the sources, it should be no surprise a good portion of them are Yanks and Mets.? Their "main sources" of information were a Yanks and a Mets staffer.

Second, that being the case,? I think "naming names" is irrelevant, salacious, and unfair.? It paint a picture that isn't really indicative of the problem AS A WHOLE, because the sources are from only 2 teams...and their credibility is suspect.

Third, you notice ONLY a couple of players previously affiliated with the Red Sox on that list, and they left under pretty lousy terms (Mo Vaughn, for example).? Sorry, but given Mitchells relationship with the Sox...whether there is actually any bias there or not....it just smacks of impropriety.

To me, the entire report seems like a sensationalized way to give the press something to slather over and a reason for the government to turn their heads to the next issue.? It's not really a solution, or an accurate documentation of everything that went on.? It's a lot of "he said, she said"....worse, actually, because you're only getting one side of the story....and very little substance.

Good article on the report:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3154051&sportCat=mlb

Former members of the Red Sox linked to performance-enhancing drugs in the report include Roger Clemens, Mo Vaughn, Eric Gagne, Brendan Donnelly, Steve Woodard, Jose Canseco, Manny Alexander, Paxton Crawford, Jeremy Giambi, Josias Manzanillo, Chris Donnels, Mike Lansing, Kent Mercker, and Mike Stanton.

Granted those aren't HUGE names, but they did pass through the Sox system at one time or another.  And Mitchell was questioned about his affiliation with the Sox and if that would pose any bias.  He responded that they got the information from staffers from the Yankees and Mets so obviously there were going to be lots of players from those teams.  Obviously the list isn't complete, I'm sure a lot of players slipped by the wayside and had a big sigh of relief yesterday.  But I don't doubt any of the information given in the report.

[pilferk]

Former members of the Red Sox linked to performance-enhancing drugs in the report include Roger Clemens, Mo Vaughn, Eric Gagne, Brendan Donnelly, Steve Woodard, Jose Canseco, Manny Alexander, Paxton Crawford, Jeremy Giambi, Josias Manzanillo, Chris Donnels, Mike Lansing, Kent Mercker, and Mike Stanton.

Granted those aren't HUGE names, but they did pass through the Sox system at one time or another.  And Mitchell was questioned about his affiliation with the Sox and if that would pose any bias.  He responded that they got the information from staffers from the Yankees and Mets so obviously there were going to be lots of players from those teams.  Obviously the list isn't complete, I'm sure a lot of players slipped by the wayside and had a big sigh of relief yesterday.  But I don't doubt any of the information given in the report.

Clemens use postdates his affiliation with the sox.  He's not been the most popular person in Boston, of late, either....especially after choosing the Yanks this past year over the Sox.

Gagne's predates his time wtih the Sox (and the Sox even talk about it in a leaked memo when discussing trading for him).

Vaughn was run out of town on a rail, practically.  Some ill will in that parting, at best.

Most of the rest are minor names, or their use was not "related" to their time with the Sox.

As for Mitchell being asked...what's he gonna say?  "Yes, I'm biased?".  There's no way he'd be that honest.  He's an "honorary director" with the team.  He was on their payroll PRIOR to being asked to conduct the report, and has stated his plans are to return to it now that the report is over.  Hell, he had his GRANDKIDS in the Sox dugout this past season.  Whether there IS bias or not, nobody but he can say.  But that relationship certainly smacks of impropriety and brings up the question of objectivity....a question re-enforced by the names reported, and their emphasis on long time Sox rival teams, and the lack of any Red Sox of any real note being on it.

As for not doubting the information in the report: I've little doubt the information accurately reflects the information passed to them.  I don't find either of their two "main" sources very credible.  One had axes to grind, one is reportedly not the most honest person, and both had something to gain in cooperation and in passing on information the investigators REALLY wanted to hear (ie: big names).  NONE of their information has been corroborated by independant, unbiased, sources or test results (granted, HGH can't be tested for).  I'd say, if you're going to "name names", you should have a bit more than that.  If you don't...then maybe you say nothing.

Combine that with the fact that it paints an unfair picture...because the sources used really only relate to 3 or 4 teams...but while Mitchell has TALKED about that fact in to the press, it's certainly not an emphasis of the report.  Given Mitchell doesn't have the authority to actually prevent disipline (suggestion or not) it's pretty irresponsible to point fingers at only a SMALL group (presumably) of players and make accusations.   Either get the ability to comprehensively name everyone (or a lot closer than what they achieved) or name no one, definitively.

Again, given it's lack of comprehensiveness, the reported issues surrounding the report, at least a niggling doubt about Mitchell's objectivity, and a whole host of other factors......it's hard to take the report seriously.  It is what it is, ultimately...which isn't much more than a salacious piece of press bait with no real teeth to it. I suppose it's better than ignoring the problem, hiding it in a closet, and hoping nobody talks about the elephant in the room.  But not much better.  What, exactly, is it's worth?  Other than to give the press something sensational and salacious to report?  What changes will it enact?  I mean....did it bring anything new to light?  Other than leveling questionable accusations at a handful of players, most of them aging stars? 

[D]

I ve been thinking about this and I don't really think its fair having ONE GUYS word, who may have an axe to grind, over Roger Clemens.

Sure I believe Rocket juiced, but still, one guy without any evidence can ruin his reputation?

To me that really isn't fair.

[sandman]

this report is BS.

i've heard a few newspaper reporters say that they would not even be able to put this in print if it was their story. too much second hand information.

not valid at all. and if all these players did use steroids....some of them should get their money back. 

[pilferk]

this report is BS.

i've heard a few newspaper reporters say that they would not even be able to put this in print if it was their story. too much second hand information.

not valid at all. and if all these players did use steroids....some of them should get their money back. 

Listen to David Justice's denial on The Herd (the link is on espn.com, now).  It pretty much sums up the issues in a microcosm.

Again, personally, I don' t find the word of drug dealers looking to get out of trouble to be overwhelming evidence of anything......

[faldor]

this report is BS.

i've heard a few newspaper reporters say that they would not even be able to put this in print if it was their story. too much second hand information.

not valid at all. and if all these players did use steroids....some of them should get their money back.?

Listen to David Justice's denial on The Herd (the link is on espn.com, now).? It pretty much sums up the issues in a microcosm.

Again, personally, I don' t find the word of drug dealers looking to get out of trouble to be overwhelming evidence of anything......

I'm sure most of the guys listed in the report are going to vehemently deny they did anything wrong.  That doesn't necessarily mean we should trust them.  I just don't see the point in these guys lying about who was doing steroids or HGH.  Who really cares of David Justice was juicing?  He's long since retired.  As are other guys on that list.  And there are plenty of current players on the list as well.  Call me naive, but I don't see how it would benefit anyone to just randomly throw guys names out there.  Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

[Allman]

Innocent until proven guilty, that sums it up for me. this wouldn't hold up in court.

Just make sure you clean up the mess right now for the future. There's no need to name names from the past.

[faldor]

Innocent until proven guilty, that sums it up for me. this wouldn't hold up in court.

Just make sure you clean up the mess right now for the future. There's no need to name names from the past.

I partially agree.  What's done is done.  You can't change what happened in the past.  Just because there were a good number of Yankees on the list from their dynasty days, I'm not one to say those titles are tainted or they don't deserve them (and I'm a Sox fan).  They won when the playing field wasn't level for any team, every team was cheating to an extent.  But I think it's important to show some sort of records that this cheating actually took place instead of just speculating and looking for players who's head size has increased over the years.  Now if they're throwing out false reports just to vindicate the fact that there was cheating going on, then that's just as bad as juicing.  But I just don't buy that.

[GeorgeSteele]

Funny observation by Bill Simmons:

The greatest hitter and pitcher of the past 50 years both cheated to get where they were ... and if that's not enough, our all-time hits leader was a convicted felon who bet against his own team. Ladies and gentleman, America's pastime!

 

[tim_m]

Ok so the opinion of the integrity of the report seems to be pretty consistant here. What does everyone think about the recommendations though? Should the owners work with the players to implement Mitchell's recommendations? I think they should and they have to fund research to find a test for HGH.

[tim_m]

It wouldn't surprise me at all about Gagne. Do we really think he was that good to have gone that long without a blown save? He is no Rivera and even he didn't go that long without a blown save combined regular season/playoffs.

In the career sense, no, he's no Mariano Rivera (who is?).? But there were a few years, there, where he was every bit as good and, in a season or two, considerably better (was Rivera on the DL for a while in 2002?).? Of course if he was juicing, that's one way to explain it.? But during 2002, 2003 (especially), and 2004, he was completely dominant.?

Yeah and he was probably jucing during those years. I honestly don't believe Rivera has or will ever go near that stuff.

[freedom78]

I think the primary problem with the report is its incompleteness.  Because of the sources, it affects some teams more than others, and perhaps that's why Mitchell called for a blank slate on this, rather than punishment.  Of course, if you remember back to when this started, people thought it would go absolutely nowhere.  Clearly, that was a mistake.

Innocent until proven guilty, that sums it up for me. this wouldn't hold up in court.

True, but this is a baseball investigation, and not a legal one. 

Or, in other words, the word "innocent" doesn't make me ok with it if my kids idolize OJ.

[cotis]

No matter what evidence is shown or not shown, IMO, Clemens' reputation is pretty much crud now. Like they've said on ESPN, he'll be comparable to Bonds. Same with Pettite, although some may think thats better because of it being used for quicker rehabbing.

If evidence is shown it'll just get even worse for them, but if not, it'll still be pretty bad.

[The Dog]

The report doesn't make it 100% true that all of those guys did all of those roids - but I believe it 100%.  having someone confirm it, no matter who they are, and having it published just put a stamp of approval one what many have thought was the case for a while - that these guys are juiced.


IF

the report is true - the yanks legacy for their recent championships in the last decade or so is a total joke now.  Total joke. 

Its been VERY quiet in nyc....


To Pilferks point about how of course yanks/mets are going to be named - i agree.  this report is just scratching the surface.  a huge, league wide, thorough investigation needs to take place.  if people think there were a lot of names in the Mitchell report - you ain't seen nothing yet!

[cotis]

Notice how the reports, all of them were from a NY METS clubhouse attendant. You can't tell me the Yankees were the only team. This was based around the Yankees/Mets IMO. There are so many other clubhouse attendants and people liek that, that know so much more for many other teams. Not everyone in the game is clean, it'll just take time for word to 'leak'.

But until I'm shown checks or receipts or something that prove that Roger and Andy bought it or injected it, I'm still skeptical.

A member on the Red Sox board doing this whole investigation and no current Red Sox get caught? Give me a break.

Yankees aren't the only 'cheaters' there are tons. It'll just take time.

[pilferk]

this report is BS.

i've heard a few newspaper reporters say that they would not even be able to put this in print if it was their story. too much second hand information.

not valid at all. and if all these players did use steroids....some of them should get their money back.?

Listen to David Justice's denial on The Herd (the link is on espn.com, now).? It pretty much sums up the issues in a microcosm.

Again, personally, I don' t find the word of drug dealers looking to get out of trouble to be overwhelming evidence of anything......

I'm sure most of the guys listed in the report are going to vehemently deny they did anything wrong.? That doesn't necessarily mean we should trust them.? I just don't see the point in these guys lying about who was doing steroids or HGH.? Who really cares of David Justice was juicing?? He's long since retired.? As are other guys on that list.? And there are plenty of current players on the list as well.? Call me naive, but I don't see how it would benefit anyone to just randomly throw guys names out there.? Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

I'm taking it you didn't listen to his denial.

Give it a listen.

His point (and it's a good one) is that if he was using HGH during the time frame discussed, he should be getting his money back.

His numbers went WAy down in '01 and '02 AND his groin injury was chronic and reoccurring...the things HGH are supposed to help with.

There's other points in there, too.

Again, all this is now is a game of "he said, she said".   Both have reasons to lie.  Exactly why the report isn't compelling.

[pilferk]

Notice how the reports, all of them were from a NY METS clubhouse attendant. You can't tell me the Yankees were the only team. This was based around the Yankees/Mets IMO. There are so many other clubhouse attendants and people liek that, that know so much more for many other teams. Not everyone in the game is clean, it'll just take time for word to 'leak'.

But until I'm shown checks or receipts or something that prove that Roger and Andy bought it or injected it, I'm still skeptical.

A member on the Red Sox board doing this whole investigation and no current Red Sox get caught? Give me a break.

Yankees aren't the only 'cheaters' there are tons. It'll just take time.

The two sources were:

Radomski, a Mets employee (club house attendant)

McNamee, a Yanks assistant strength coach.

Neither reputable, and only using THEM paint an unfair picture that implicates players related to THOSE two teams.  Not really fair.

[freedom78]

The two sources were:

Radomski, a Mets employee (club house attendant)

McNamee, a Yanks assistant strength coach.

Neither reputable, and only using THEM paint an unfair picture that implicates players related to THOSE two teams.  Not really fair.

Why aren't they reputable?  I haven't been reading too much of the commentary in the media, so what's been established about these two that makes them lack credibility.