Santana Finally Traded

Oh, Thank God.

The saga that was, the always imminent but never actually happening trade of Johan Santana has finally been completed.  Well, almost.  The Mets traded four minor leaguers that nobody gives a rats ass about to the Twins for arguably the best pitcher in the major leagues.  All they have to do now is give him over twenty million dollars a year for as many years as he'll take and this trade is complete.

After months of speculation, countless AP stories, worthless quotes from Hankenstein, we can finally put this story to bed.  With all the speculation, the ending feels strangely anti-climactic.  The Mets?  For four B level and below prospects?  Twins GM Bill Smith has already iced his career in Minnesota, trading the most important player to ever wear a Twins uniform for a group of prospects that are nowhere near major league ready and may never be.  Probably best for Smith to start looking for other work.

For as bad as Smith did, you have to give Met GM Omar Minaya some credit.  When the Yankees and Red Sox both appeared to want Santana, Minaya crowed and said the Met would be serious contenders for Santana's services.  I laughed a did many others.  The Met farm system is thin at best, having little to compete with Phil Hughes or Jacoby Ellsbury, making a Mets deal seem unlikely. 

But Omar hung in there, reading correctly that the Yanks and BoSox would eventually push each other out of the race, leaving just the Mets to sweep in and lowball the Twins.  This move instantly heals what has been a lackluster winter for the Mets and propels them to NL East favorites, despite their September swoon to end the 2007 season.

Credit is also due to Brian Cashman and Theo Epstein.  Both GMs have adopted tremendous patience with their farm systems, clinging to their valued prospects.  In the case of pitchers, prospects can be difficult to predict, which usually leads to young throwers getting dealt rather than developed by their first teams.  But changing philosophies in managing young pitchers innings and workload have taken strides in keeping young arms protected from overuse and subsequent injury.

That's what makes Santana so appealing.  Former Twins GM Terry Ryan widely receives praise for the handling and development of Santana, who was never abused or forced to throw high pitch counts or unreasonable innings over a season.  Santana blossomed into one of the best pitchers in the majors.

And in typical small market fashion, the Twins had to trade Santana away when he wouldn't accept their final offer of five years, $100 million.  It's all about the money.

Mike and Loudmouth insisted from Arizona this afternoon that the Mets absolutely had to give Santana whatever he wanted to not disappoint their fans.  Well, within reason, I think.  No pitcher deserves a six or seven year deal.  Not for the kind of money Santana is asking.  The backend of these types of contracts very rarely work out for the club.  Santana could be the rare exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Catching Up on Things

It's been a bit of a quiet baseball week (although not at work) so I haven't posted much. Naturally, the first days I take off, Peter Abraham links to my page at my request.

Thanks a ton, Peter. If you're a Yankee fan or even just a baseball fan and you're not reading Peter's blog, you're stupid. There's a link to the left. Click it, bookmark it, and read it a few times a day.

A few minor Yankee stories this week. Looks like they're going to tie Robbie Cano up for a least four years with two club options after that. The guaranteed years would last through Cano's arbitration years, the options his first few years of free agency.

This makes a ton of sense from both parties perspectives. Cano gets a salary guarantee regardless of injury, the Yankees control his salary at a fair price and avoid Sori-itis: a player who loses arbitration and still gets $10 million. The two option years at the start of free agency is really the big victory for the Yanks. Cano figures to be one of the top second baseman in the league and having him under control for six years is a smart move.

Even smarter is not extending the same option to Wang. Six year deals for pitchers is what they call in the biz a "bad idea." Projecting that far for a pitcher is almost impossible and is rarely worth the money. Wang's KO rate still scares me, as did his post season performance. I can't hold the ALDS against him too much yet, but it does give one pause. It's better to negotiate with Wang on a year to year basis while they can and, if he makes it to free agency successful and uninjured, they'll pay him what he deserves.

All of this raises an interesting point regarding the arbitration system in baseball. What seems somewhat unfair to the players regarding the managing of their salary has different effects on position players and pitchers. Many more position players receive longer contracts during this period than pitchers simply because of injury risk and predictability. If you're 23 years old and tearing the cover off the ball, chances are that will continue. If you're 22 years old, throw 98 MPH and a splitter, you're surrounded by The Fear. I have always had my doubts that the indentured servant/arbitration system is fair, but there needs to be something to protect salaries in the majors, especially when teams have to back off of draftees for fear of high signing bonuses.

In other random news, Chuck Knoblauch has not yet been tracked down by federal authorities attempting to issue him a subpoena. This is just bizarre. In his first comments following the report, Knobby told the New York Times, "I have nothing to defend. I have nothing to hide at the same time." I do believe that hiding yourself counts as something to hide.

My favorite Knobby quote, though, was "One of my strongest characteristics is not really caring what people think." Not caring what people think? If he really didn't care what people thought of him, do you think he would have come down with the throwing yips at second base that he did? That scream psychological self consciousness to me. But I'm no doctor.

Turn yourself in, Knobby. Nobody cares what you did. You'll make a better name for yourself by standing up and doing what's right then the legacy of your last few years in the majors .

And finally, Brian Cashman and Theo Epstein are friends. Cute. Can we officially pronounce the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry watered down, if not completely meaningless? The Sox have won two World Series. The Curse is over. It doesn't mean anything anymore. The Sox are going to be in contention for a long time and, truth be told, are built to last in much better shape than the Yankees. It's a different world so we might as well get used to it.

Finally, do the Giants stand a chance against the Patriots? I'm not convinced that the Pats played all out in their last meeting at the end of the season. Tom Brady came out the second half and eliminated the Giants lead while sipping a cup of coffee. The game stayed close, but I think seeing them a second time, Belichick is going to pick apart the Giant defense.

Take this with a grain of salt. I don't know squat about football.

Congress Legalizes Steroids

Washington, DC - Congress stunned the sporting community Tuesday, announcing that steroids are now legal in the sport of baseball.

"We've been looking at baseball's problems for some time," said Congressman Thomas Delaney, R-Delaware.  "Frankly, these idiots couldn't fix a sandwich, nevermind a sport.  We have better things to do, like stopping gay marriage, immigration and some shenanigans overseas.  Besides, who doesn't love the long ball?"

Baseball has been reeling since the publication of the Mitchell report, a Major League Baseball funded investigation into steroid use in the sport.  Since it's release, steroids have been at the center of sports news.

"It's kind of like the prohibition," continued Congressman Delaney.  "Making alcohol illegal turned the people crazy.  Turns out, baseball players are kind of like alcoholics when it comes to performance enhancing drugs."

But steroids won't be legal in every sport.  Only baseball.

"Football has been dealing with steroids for years and nobody cares," said Delaney.  "They send their suspended players to the Pro Bowl.  No kids are watching the Pro Bowl."

"The NBA has it's own problems."

Sharp criticism has been levied against Congress, saying the decision is reckless and sends the wrong message to children.  Democrat Senator Judith Rumsackle disagrees.

"What we've seen over the last few years is a real shift in the country's perspective.  The post Iraq backlash against Americana now favors rock musicians selling out to commercials and tabloid stars who can't even act.  Heck, Transformers did huge business at the box office this summer.  You don't see the correlation?"

On the campaign trail, comments were mum except for Rudy Guiliani, who proclaimed he said no to steroids between 9 and 11 times.

The decision to legalize steroids came during the sixth hour of testimony from Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, sparking controversy as to whether Congress was trying to upstage baseball's cherished annual appearance  in Washington.

"The timing of the announcement was unfortunate," said Selig.  "This is baseball's biggest stage besides the World Series.  That a Congressman would attempt to upstage that is insulting to the game."

Hank, shut it!

In one of his rare appearances to the outside world, Hank Steinbrenner spoke to the press this week. The subject? No, not Jennifer Love Hewitt, although I'm sure Hankenstein wanted to rush to her aid when he saw her thighs on the cover of People magazine, the headline screaming, "I'm Not Fat!!!"

Neither am I, sweetheart. Neither am I...

No, this week The Tamperor wanted to talk out loud about, of all things, Johan Santana. It seems someone in the press thought it prudent to write about the New York Yankees without first talking to Hank. The drool had barely collected before Hank opened his mouth once again.

It was reported that the Yankees had pulled their offer for Santana, something that was threatened a few months ago at the winter meetings. Never one to skip a chance to undermine his General Manager, Hankenstein let the world know that the Yankees are still talking but have no official offer on the table.

If you're scoring at home, that's the fifteenth AP story with absolutely no news on the Santana situation.

It feels as though Hank learned his negotiating tactics from Scott Boras, the maligned and incredibly wealthy baseball agent who supposedly managed to anger even Alex Rodriguez this offseason. Boras applies a press based smoke screen to many if his negotiations, leaking false bit of information to try and artificially raise his clients pending contract.

Hankenstein may not be lying, but he is creating a difficult situation for GM Brian Cashman. Splashing your teams intentions, or lack thereof, all over the back pages on a near weekly basis doesn't leave much room for negotiation. Previous to Hank, most Yankee chatter in the off season was rumor and speculation.

Not with Hank. Hank loves and respects Yankee fans so much that he wants to keep you abreast of all the latest gossip and dispel whatever false rumors might be flying around. At some point, Hank should just cut out the middle man and start his own blog. I'm sure if Hankenstein.com isn't available he could scrounge up the cash and buy it out.

What's more disturbing about Storytime with Hankenstein is how dangerously close to tampering he has come. His comments last week regarding Santana were surprisingly blunt, stating that the Yankees were one of the few teams that could give Johan the multi year nine figure extension he wanted, but that price AND trading prospects was too much.

Santana has a no trade clause. Read between the lines: we'll pay you what you want if you just become a free agent. That cuts underneath any plans of the Twins if Johan decides he wants Steinbrenner money.

At this point, I don't care what happens. The Twins have overplayed their hand. They're sitting on the best pitcher in baseball and have showed themselves to be indecisive and inept. The could conceivably contend this year and if Santana leads them to the Promised Land,
we'll all look like fools. But come spring 2009, the Twins will be minus the best pitcher in the game and have little talent in return.

The best thing for the Yankees to do is put a muzzle on Hank and let Cashman do his job. The reason the Yankees have a surplus of young talent is because Cashman has rebuilt the farm system. He has finally had the chance to run the team his way for two seasons and along comes Hank to screw it up.

Shut your mouth, Hank. Let the baseball men do their baseball things. The horse is in the barn.

The Witch Hunt Continues

Before I even had a chance to accept or decline my invitation to question Major Leaguers with Congress on January 16th, they went ahead and moved the date on me to February 13th.  Speculation says they thought I had a scheduling conflict and shifted the date to accommodate me.  That’s just ridiculous.

The real reason Congress has pushed back the date is to gather more evidence in regards to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and everyone’s favorite criminal, Chuck “Twelfth Row” Knoblauch.  The three current and former Yankees will be deposed, under oath, around the 16th, after which members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will attempt to dig deeper into their stories and question them again, in public, on February 13th.  MLB commish Bud Selig, players union head Donald Fehr, and former Senate majority leader George Mitchell of the famed Mitchell report will all speak before Congress on January 15th, hopefully under oath.

What is Congress trying to achieve here?  Digging further into the facts surrounding Clemens and Pettitte implies some question as to the validity of the Mitchell report.  Clemens may be as responsible for that as anyone with the racket he’s made since it’s release.  As shoddy as the evidence presented in the report was, I seriously doubt that members of Congress are going to call a former Senate Majority leader to the carpet and label his report as incomplete, which means the focus of the inquiry will be on the players.

Again.

I hope Congress takes an objective look at the Mitchell report and notices not only the flimsy circumstantial evidence, but the lack of action taken by the commissioners office in the late nineties and beginning of this decade.  Its likely that Bud commissioned the Mitchell report after threats from Congress in their first inquiry, when Selig was chastised for what little headway MLB and the players union had made in stopping usage in the sport.  

Selig seemed to design this report to not only stave off Congress, but deflect criticism from the head office and drop it squarely on the players.   What was supposed to close a chapter on a dark period of the game instead threw incredibly expensive gasoline on the fire.

If Congress feels the need to intercede, why are they beating this dead horse?  The Mitchell report has already dragged these three players into the limelight and tattooed them with the steroids branding iron.  Is it necessary for Congress to investigate what has already been investigated?  It almost appears as if they want to put Clemens on trial, or give him some rope to hang (perjure) himself, since there are no criminal proceedings that will take place.  

And what will come of this testimony?  Is the hope that Pettitte will testify under oath that he had knowledge of Clemen’s steroid use?  How could Congress ever prove what Pettitte did or didn’t know?  And what action does Congress plan on taking with the information they receive?  Are they looking to bring criminal charges against Clemens?

Congress would be better served by looking beyond the report to see what other use may have occurred and how such rampant use was allowed to happen over an extended period of time.  As stated in an earlier post, MLB had plenty of notice in the summer of 2000 that steroids were in four clubhouses throughout the majors and little action was taken to look beyond the incidents themselves.

Instead of dumping all of the blame on the players, who saw their peers get arrested for possession without facing any punishment from the league, they should start from the top down.  I don’t know what Bud Selig hoped to gain from the Mitchell report except a scapegoat in the form of the players.  Maybe Congress can shed a little more light on Bud’s responsibility and call off the witch hunt.

Sorting Through the Clemens Mess

Gene Wojciechowski recently posted an article over on ESPN.com (heard of it?), breaking down the Clemens defense and how it doesn’t hold water.

I don’t want to get up on a soapbox here, even though that’s typically what blogs are used for, but I have a really hard time with journalists proclaiming guilt or innocence in the case of Roger Clemens right now.  

The only evidence we have, at this very moment, of Roger Clemens doing steroids, is the testimony of Brian McNamee.  If this were a court of law, this case would never have seen trial.  One man’s testimony is not enough.  

You would think that George Mitchell could have used a little better judgment regarding the standard of evidence he presented before unleashing dozens of names on the public, labeling players steroid users.  These are public figures who’s reputation, livelihood, and historical context will all be effected by what is printed in this report.  Mitchell treated it as if he were turning in a high school book report, pulling facts from wherever he could get them without substantiating any of them beyond two sources, a professional trainer facing federal prison time who was forced to testify and a clubhouse attendant selling PEDs on the side.

It may very well be that every single shred of testimony from McNamee and Kirk Radomski presented was one hundred percent true.  It could also be true that McNamee was pressured to provide the feds with a big fish, a name that would show definitive progress in this supposed battle against steroids.  

There is no firm evidence to suggest that McNamee was coerced into his testimony and to portray that without fact is reckless.  What we’ve been left with is a situation of conflicting stories, one of which is untrue.  The motivations of each party is that of self preservation: McNamee to keep himself out of jail, Clemens to protect a reputation and career considered by many to be the greatest of his generation.   Until we get more facts, I don’t think it’s possible to proclaim Clemens guilty or innocent.

The Bud Selig questionnaire

In what has to be considered the most unlikely of developments, I’ve been asked to be a guest question asker at the Congressional hearings on steroids on the 16th.  To say this is an unexpected honor is like saying Brady Anderson’s 50 home runs were unexpected.  I’m shocked and honored.

However, I have decided that I do not want to abuse this special privilege that has been bestowed upon me.  After all, I have no link to baseball other than my silly blog, I am not a lawyer, I have NO reason to be on Capitol Hill except sight seeing, and nobody in the US of A has the foggiest clue as to who I am.

So in the spirit of fairness, for those asking questions and those being questioned, I have decided to decline my invitation.  It would seem unfair to have a person such as myself, having never been part of a Congressional committee, asking questions that might be deemed inappropriate, or demanding that everyone be sworn in.

In my place, I have chosen to submit a small section of the Mitchell report that I would like the commissioner of Major League Baseball, Mr. Bud “the Stud” Selig, to comment on.  This section is taken from pages SR-14 through SR-15 and describe some of the earlier incidents regarding players and steroids that came to the commish’s attention.

The Mitchell report states as follows:

“With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that baseball missed the early warning  signs of a growing crisis.  Then, beginning in the summer of 2000, a number of incidents involving steroids or drug paraphernalia came to the attention of club and Commissioner’s Office officials, and the Players Association.  They included:

In June 2000, state police in Boston discovered steroids and hypodermic needles in the glove compartment of a vehicle belonging to a Boston Red Sox infielder;

Also in June 2000, a clubhouse attendant found a paper bag containing six vials of steroids and over two dozen syringes in the locker of a pitcher with the Florida Marlins;

In mid-September 2000, a clubhouse employee discovered a bottle of steroids and several hundred diet pills in a package that had been mailed to the ballpark for an Arizona Diamondbacks infielder;

In October 2001, officers with the Canadian Border Service discovered steroids, syringes, and other drugs in an unmarked bag that came from the entourage of a Cleveland Indians outfielder;

In September 2002, a bullpen catcher with the Montreal Expos was arrested for trying to send marijuana back to Florida with the Florida Marlins’ luggage.  He later told Major League Baseball security officials that he had supplied drugs to nearly two dozen major league players, including eight players for whom he said he had procured steroids.”

Further inquiries were made in the Arizona and Montreal incidents, but in some of these cases, little investigation was conducted.  Almost without exception, before this investigation began active major league players were not interviewed in investigations into their alleged use of performance enhancing substances.

Instead, players under suspicion frequently were subjected to “reasonable cause” testing for steroid use.“


I think, without a doubt, my favorite line from the report is “With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that baseball missed the early warning  signs of a growing crisis.”  Is there any stronger evidence that Mitchell was trying not to throw Selig under the bus?  “With the benefit of hindsight?”  Is it Selig’s job to use hindsight to solve problems or use FORESIGHT to predict problems?  

Three incidents involving steroids cropped up around the Major Leagues within a four month span.  THREE.  Involving three separate teams,  Does it take hindsight to realize that there might be an issue worth looking at?  Did it take a genius to see this many “accidental” discoveries of steroids among Major League players for someone to open their eyes and realize that there might be a greater issue?

Mitchell claims that this realization can only surmised with the benefit of hindsight.  Let me ask you a question: how many instances of a leaky pipe in your house do you need to see before you realize there might be a problem?  One?  Two?  Would you wait for three over a four month span before you declared a state of emergency?

So my lone question to you, Mr. Bud Selig, is what were you waiting for?  Did these three incidents not signal a problem to you?  If this were your personal business, would you run it this way?

WWBCD?

You’ve spent the last twenty years of your life with one company, a high profile family-run business lead by a maniacal patriarch.  You started as a mere intern, working your way through the ranks to management, where you find success at a relatively young age.  

But success doesn’t last forever.  As key members of the team drift off to retirement, the struggle to replace them amidst a barren farm system leads to frustration from ownership.  Your control is diminished as your skills are questions, decisions made over your head that steer the team in the wrong direction.  Sniping and doubt swirl from members of the inner circle who may not possess the knowledge but have the owners ear.

Your job becomes more and more difficult to endure as you watch the only organization you’ve ever known drift into an abyss.  As you’re on the doorstep, ready to enter the market as an executive free agent, management comes to their senses.  What will it take?  How do we get back?  What do we need to do to right the ship?

And so, you return, fully autonomous and able to make the decisions.  Your plan goes into action immediately.  The farm system grows.  Money isn’t thrown so carelessly to the hottest name on the free agent market.  Your team continues a good level of success without reaching the Promised Land, but that’s ok.  The plan isn’t just about today but being even better tomorrow.

But then a strange thing happens.  That maniacal patriarch hits a health wall, unable to be a part of the day to day operations anymore.  His voice and support of your plan fade into past as the rest of the family take over.  They honor your agreement, to a point.  They agree with your philosophy and your plan.  They want to be fiscally responsible and build from within.  But they want the final decision.  They want to decide what is worth spending, who is worth pursuing, who is expendable.  The powers your fought so hard to attain, to put the team on the right track, seem to be vanishing.

One day, a reporter asks you if you’ll return next year.  "Because of all the work that gets involved with doing the job, it kind of prevents me from really looking ahead past this year," you say. "I'm just doing everything I possibly can to assist the transition with the new manager, the new owners... And then the rest will take care of itself at another time."

It’s an eerie quote, similar in tone to something you said in 2005 when it looked like the management pressure might push you out the door.  At that time, with talk of your firing swirling, you were heard to say "I'm not thinking about next year.  I'm not thinking about my situation. Just thinking about doing the job, not worrying about what comes after that. I'm paid to do a job, and I'm doing that job."

If you’re Brian Cashman, what do you do?  Since 2006, he’s molded the New York Yankees into his ideal vehicle to move forward: a strong farm system developing young arms and high ceiling talent, combined with aggressive overseas scouting that can take advantage of the organizations financial heft, capped with an unwillingness to trade said talent or bind the team to expensive long term contracts.

He weathered the Steinbrenner storm to wrestle away the power he needed to make the Yankees not only a successful team, but a smart team that could compete through good baseball sense rather than overspending, a philosophy that has begun to permeate through Boston, Cleveland, etc.

But that philosophy may not last forever.  The Johan Santana rumblings have shown that there is a split within the organization, a willingness to sacrifice what has so carefully been pieced together in order to land the big fish and keep him out of Boston’s waters.  It’s the classic Steinbrenner panic approach, a Raul Mondesi for the next millennium, where the slightest disadvantage can be exploded into the death Nell of the team.

Cashman hasn’t subscribed to that point of view since being given the reigns and one has to wonder how easily he wants to readapt to that philosophy.  One step forward, two steps back.  At the end of the 2008 season, he’ll be faced with a similar decision he faced in 2005, whether it is worth working for an organization that won’t stand behind his decisions, that doesn’t allow him to run a team entirely the way he sees fit, but will sidestep him, overrule him, upset the balance he is trying to create to attain success.

It took a complete reversal of philosophy to bring Cashman back the first time.  If Hank Steinbrenner is more than just bluster, it may take a lot more to keep Cashman this time.

Clemens on "60 Minutes"

One of the oldest reporters on television interviewed one of the oldest players in the majors, and for all we know, both of them could be on steroids.

Clemens continued his denial of steroid and HGH use on "60 Minutes"Sunday night, telling Mike Wallace repeatedly that it "didn't happen"as anger and frustration creased his face. There wasn't much revealed in the interview, which was to be expected. What could Clemens say? How does one prove whether he has or has not done steroids? It's a nearly impossible task.

My wife sat next to me watching the interview, her psychology education spinning through the inadvertent physical tells one shows when not telling the truth. She came away believing Clemens was telling the truth based on his eye movements going up and to the right, a sign of someone being truthful. Dishonesty tends to cause random eye movements, often side to side and one looks for the words and reasoning to explain what they're thinking.

Consider than an exclusive. He's innocent.

I have no idea whether Clemens did steroids or not and the Mike Wallace interview didn't do much to clear up my uncertainty. He certainly appeared angry and upset, but I imagine he would feel those same emotions whether he were caught or wrongly accused. What doesn't make sense to me is why McNamee would lie about Clemens unless he was pressured by Federal prosecutors and the Mitchell committee to land a big fish.

When you look at the names listed in the Mitchell report, Clemens is the only name with serious impact. Pettitte is a decent name, but not on the scale of Clemens. The lack of any concrete new information on Bonds, McGwire, or Sosa left the report wanting for information on the players people have been suspecting for years. Without Clemens' name, the report would have certainly had less impact.

Is that reason enough to pressure someone like McNamee to create false testimony? Probably not. There doesn't seem to be any credible motivation for McNamee to lie about a client and supposed friend. Clemens possible motivation to use steroids seems self explanatory.

Clemens did raise an interesting point, Why would he stop taking steroids or HGH after 2003? Wouldn't he have continued? He certainly had some success in the weak NL Central, posting numbers that far exceeded his supposed steroid years with the Yankees. As he got older, wouldn't he find himself needing them more?

That argument certainly doesn't prove innocence, but if McNamee himself claims no knowledge of Clemens doing steroids over the last four years, and Clemens body type hasn't declined, one would have a hard time arguing that Clemens bulk is the result of steroid enhanced workouts. His physical appearance has always drawn scrutiny and suspicion.

The penultimate moment will be when Clemens sits in front of Congress. He claimed to Mike Wallace that his story is his story and that will not change. He will be under oath on Capitol Hill, where ball players and commissioners swear on the Bible but oil tycoons do not. If Clemens takes the Fifth, our minds will have been made up for us.

She turned me into a newt!

Congress has called Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and Chuck Knoblauch to testify on steroids. Reportedly, after Clemens testifies, he will be thrown into the Potomic to see if he floats.

Really, this is getting a bit silly. Pettitte has admitted wrong doing, your satisfaction may vary. Knoblauch can shed little light on the current game and can only incriminate himself.

The prized buck is Clemens. Congress isn't waiting for pending lawsuits between Clemens and McNamee. They're going to force his hand to either be a Canseco or a McGwire. And be sure, there isn't much middle ground for Roger. Bonds testified under oath that be never used steroids and the government spent the better part of four years trying to build a case against him. Clemens can't issue a flatout denial without risking further persecution.

How fair is this? Is baseball so important that Congress needs to waste its time? If baseball didn't have an anti-trust exemption, would this even be an issue in front of Congress? Where is the NFL in all of this? Haven't they had a difficult time with steroids? Why the double standard?

Clemens is being put in a thankless position by being forced to respond to allegations that would never have held up in a court of law. Mitchell provided no physical evidence against Clemens. All we have is McNamee's testimony and Clemens silence.

Until now. Regardless of what Clemens says, it will not reflect well on him. If he issues a denial, people will site Rafael Palmiero, who said implicitly that he never roided, only to test positive a few years later. If Clemens takes the fifth, shades of McGwire will further tarnish Clemens Hall of Fame chances. If he admits it, well, I think we all would be plenty shocked.

The other question is, why the Yankee-centric panel? As a lifelong Yankee fan, I certainly can't claim a lack of bias, but there were dozens of names in that report, and the only three called happened to play on the same team.

This just highlights how incomplete the Mitchell report really is. To limit the scope of a Congressional hearing to the clients of two New York distributors is like saying crime only exists in New York. The steroids scandal runs much deeper than the Mitchell report, the extent to which we will likely never know. All the media and Congress can do now is drive what little evidence they have into the ground.
--