6 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Mariotti Edition

I have a great problem right now and that problem is that I have a lot of articles bookmarked that I want to delve into. The bad news is I am going to get them all out of my system today and have nothing to deliver tomorrow, so Bill Simmons better not take this Friday off again. I realized that not only did Bill deliver a self proclaimed bad column about Kobe this week for ESPN the Magazine, he hadn't even written anything for ESPN since last Monday and he only writes a maximum of four columns every three weeks, so there was doubly no excuse for it being bad. He has his trade column value column up, so I am hoping maybe we will get three columns this week. Let me dive in to it because I have three Mariotti columns to comment upon...and no I have no vendetta against him, I just disagree with him a lot.

1. Jay Mariotti thinks A-Rod is scum. No word on whether Mariotti has used steroids at any point in his life and is being a hypocrite.

Still, A-Rod's colossal admission, to whatever extent of the truth he is telling, does nothing to make America feel better about his legacy or the enormity of baseball's disease the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? The steroid era actually began maybe 15 years ago...and that is a big maybe. 20 years appears to be an exaggeration. Not a shocking development that Mariotti would exaggerate something.

"When I arrived in Texas, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day," Rodriguez said.

I wonder why A-Rod felt an incredible need to perform? Could it be the enormous contract offer he signed, which was reportedly almost double what any other team was offering him? Could it be that he brought the pressure completely upon himself and cheated in order to meet the demands of the self inflicted pressure?

It can be debated whether we believe his timeline. If he used steroids for three years in Texas, how do we know he hasn't used steroids throughout his career in New York, where the pressure to excel has been astronomical amid his postseason failures and Page Six lifestyle?

Excellent question actually but a little research shows circumstantial evidence that he is probably not on the juice anymore...and the fact MLB now tests for steroids should appease some minds. Three of A-Rod's highest HR hitting years were between 2001-2003, 3 of his 4 best RBI years were during that time, and basically many of his numbers were at their peak during those three years. This may mean nothing but it is at least circumstantial that he is not on steroids anymore.

I could be wrong though.

But what got me was how easily he was sucked into the steroids culture, providing a rare lens into the mentalty of baseball players and PEDs.

That is really what shocks me, that A-Rod was clearly one of baseball's best players and felt the need to take PEDs. I wonder who else on that list of 104 is a big time slugger and I also wonder how much pressure there was for those who did not use steroids to start using?

Did the commissioner actually say A-Rod would be an admirable successor to Bonds and his tainted home run record -- and did he say it while knowing Rodriguez had tested positive? And what do we make of Orza, the chief operating officer of the Major League Baseball Players Association? As it is, there are suspicions that he tipped off Rodriguez to a drug test. If Rodriguez is to be believed, Orza was less than forthright when he originally informed A-Rod about a possible positive test. "Gene was very specific. He said, 'There's a list with 104 players on it. You might or might not have tested positive,'" Rodriguez said of a supposed 2004 conversation.

The entire culture of baseball and baseball's management was in on this con. They were essentially colluding with the players to put a false product on the field. There are always rumors that baseball knew something about the positive tests but I don't think they did. I think they intentionally turned a blind eye so they could act like they had no previous knowledge and keep their hands clean.

Rodriguez does have an opportunity to salvage the latter stages of his career and -- who knows? -- maybe even garner Hall of Fame consideration.

Mariotti should not act like this is a maybe. A-Rod confessed as soon as he was discovered and played at a HoF level before and after he used steroids. America is a forgiving society and country and A-Rod will make the Hall of Fame, rightly or wrongly.

But mostly, he needs to put together a conclusive nine seasons that prove that he is a wonderful ballplayer without the juice.

I can't accept this argument. A-Rod has proven to me that he is a wonderful ballplayer without the juice. His record before and after he admits to using steroids proves that to me sufficiently. I just need him to prove he is still clean and that he will bounce back from a sub-par (for him) year last year.

We're still waiting for the lords of baseball to do the same. They are the ones who let the steroids culture fester while counting the money, making them the biggest villains of all in the scandal that never will go away.

I never do this, but I agree with Mariotti. While everyone is so busy kicking all the great players from this era out of the Hall of Fame, those truly responsible for the Steroid Era, those who could have had knowledge are not being held responsible.

2. Now Mariotti seems to think that Obama doesn't have enough to do and should get involved with this steroid problem.

extolling the virtues of a Sox guy -- not a Cubs fan -- occupying the world's most powerful political seat. Reinsdorf, a close confidante of commissioner Bud Selig, also has played a significant role in running baseball during 16 years of unmitigated chaos.

Or, the Steroids Era.

Mariotti wrote this column the day after his A-Rod column from above. It went from 20 years of the Steroid Era to 16 years of the Steroid Era...in one day. It's hard to keep these things straight from day to day I guess.

So might this hometown connection be one reason why Obama, facing questions about Alex Rodriguez's confession and Major League Baseball's never-ending steroids crisis, is expressing no interest in confronting lingering mysteries about the sport's sleazy past?

No. The reason Obama is not involved is because this issue is way below his concern level right now. Mariotti wants Obama to focus less on the recession (potential depression?) problem, the war in Iraq, the Stimulus Package, passing a healthcare plan, and many of the other issues that have cropped up lately, and focus more on making sure Major League Baseball, which is a recreational sport, does not have cheaters.

Priorities. It's a good thing Mariotti was not voted President.

But sometimes, the presidency also involves voicing harsh, aggressive statements about secondary problems.

Absolutely. After he has either begun work or has fixed the primary problems. This is like a doctor going in and giving a woman breast implants when she still needs a liver transplant.

Does Obama really care more about the BCS than a steroids mess that has eroded our trust in baseball? That's how he came off when asked about A-Rod and the game at his first prime-time news conference.

Obama talked about the BCS before he was actually the President of the United States. After January 20, his priorities changed dramatically. He is no longer talking about the BCS problem in college football either, so this argument doesn't necessarily apply.

And as the devastating hits keep coming for baseball -- such as Miguel Tejada's expected guilty plea for lying to Congress about an ex-teammate's steroids use -- doesn't Obama realize that Selig and Fehr are STILL in place?

I believe those guys should be held responsible for the Steroid Era, but I don't believe the President should get involved with this. I want to make sure that Obama realizes the current health care system stinks and many of the same terrorist organizations that hate us are STILL in place.

And why isn't Obama outraged?

Because he literally has more important things to do. Like make sure his Cabinet choices are approved by Congress and other Presidential things.

It worked well for his maligned and mocked predecessor, George W. Bush, whose attack on performance-enhancing drugs led to Congressional hearings and an anti-steroids environment that exposed supposed legends -- Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro and the rest -- as frauds.

I appreciate that Bush did that, but considering this is what he is best remembered for in regard to his policy successes here in the United States, this is not good. I don't think Obama wants to be known as the guy who hunted down steroid users, he wants to be the guy that prevented America from going into a Depression.

It's no surprise, then, that Rodriguez won't be asked to visit Capitol Hill, which means Selig and Fehr also are off the hook.

Priorities change, doing this is a complete waste of time right now.

The sport has been too dirty for too long, with the same people at the top, for any reasonable person to believe everything is cool now. I'm disappointed that the President of the United States didn't voice the same conclusion.

I am running out of ways to say this...but if Jay Mariotti doesn't understand that President Obama has 1,000 better things to do right now then I don't want Jay Mariotti to ever vote for anyone at any time for any political office.

Next time there's a steroids crisis -- and it's coming, as sure as beer at the ballpark -- Barack the talk-show host needs to be President Obama.

If Mariotti had his way there would be no steroids crisis in baseball, but unemployment would be 14% and America would be in the middle of a Depression where no one could afford to attend baseball games. Baseball was still great in the last Depression though, so at least it would not affect the sport and we know the players are clean...that's Mariotti's thinking.

3. Jay Mariotti wrote an article today taunting me and daring me to write about it.

On the first day of the rest of his life -- and I dare say, the rest of his life -- Brett Favre got on his bulldozer and did some Mississippi-style man things.

He learned to read.

(I am just kidding Mississippi citizens)

The most fun, entertaining football player of our generation was turning into an insufferable diva.

He turned into a diva about 10 years ago. Way to keep up with current events.

But the tone of his voice on a conference call, relaxed and polite, tells me this retirement isn't phony like the others.

This retirement will be different because Favre will announce he wants to come play football the day before the season begins, then demand the Jets give him the starting quarterback job or he wants to be traded.

"Honestly, I think my career in general will overshadow anything negative,'' he said. "It's probably human nature to think about what could have been or what I could have done better, but honestly, I believe I did everything I thought I could mentally and physically. With that, I'm satisfied. I'm proud of everything I have done in my career, and I'll leave it at that. You name it in professional football, I've done it. Very few people can say that.

Favre has accomplished things other players have not. No other player has ever actually thrown the ball to the other team more than he has and he also has as many Super Bowl victories as Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Honestly, since Favre spent the last 3 out of his 4 seasons with only average numbers as a quarterback, especially when he is supposedly an "elite" quarterback, I will always remember him as that quarterback and not what he was before that time.

He arguably has produced the greatest career of any football player ever, departing as the all-time ironman -- 269 consecutive starts -- and the owner of virtually every meaningful NFL passing record.

(Did anyone know that Kerry Collins is 14th all time in passing yardage?...I would never have guessed this)

Yes, Favre is definitely a Hall of Famer one who never cared about his personal statistics and only about how his team did. Why is it whenever someone sums up Brett Favre's career they only talk about his personal statistics and not how many times he led his team to actual team achievements? This always amazes me and this is something I actually have against Favre. He is supposed to be a selfless player but all he seems to focus on, and all those those who compliment him, focus on is his personal achievements. Favre was a great player and I think he was also incredibly selfish as well. His teammates did not always like playing for him and he called out Javon Walker for holding out of camp and then he pulled his retirement bullshit last year. I just see a lot of flaws.

He won a Super Bowl in Green Bay back when you weren't supposed to win in the league's smallest market.

Yes, Green Bay with its 9 NFL Championships and 3 Super Bowl Championships has always been a really hard place to win football games.

We watched him enter the sport as reckless and immature,

Did anyone see his last four games as a quarterback in the NFL and see what his Jets teammates thought about him? Did he really leave the sport any differently than the way he entered it?

"I have no reason to wonder why you would be so skeptical,'' he shot back, laughing lightly. "Because I have family and friends who are like, 'All right, Brett. Is this the real deal?' To me, it is. It is. Believe me, it has been a wonderful career. I couldn't ask for anything more. It was worth a shot for me to go to New York. I wish I could've played better down the stretch. I didn't. It's time to leave.

"I am leaving to play for the Minnesota Vikings. They will definitely want me around June."

In the end, neither the Packers nor Jets made the playoffs, and considering how Favre eroded physically, Thompson was better off allowing Rodgers to gain a year of starting experience.

I feel vindicated because I thought this was the best option all along. No one said I was wrong but I still feel vindicated.

Until then, we'll savor the man who never stopped playing like a little boy.

(Vomiting from an overdose of cliche)

To the very end, even when he drove us crazy, No. 4 kept it entertaining.

Yep, I knew he was always good for one or two absolutely horrid throws per game.

Replacing him as a man-crush won't be easy.

Peter King will wrestle you in a vat of Vasoline for Matt Ryan.

4. Peter King gives us his MMQB follow up.

Peter defends the Steeler's injury report for the Super Bowl.

I don't believe Big Ben needed to be on the injury report. It's simple. Putting him on the injury report as "probable'' would have told the world there was a "virtual certainty'' he'd play in the game. That's the definition of "probable'' in NFL injury-reportage. That sounds like a 94 percent chance he'd play. It was 100 percent. Same with center Justin Hartwig, who was gimpy with a knee injury but was definitely going to play in the game.

Right, but if a guy is injured, he needs to be on the injury report. It seems pretty simple to me. I don't know how he came up with "probable" was a 94% certainty, especially when the definition says that player is definitely playing. It doesn't really matter but if a player is injured, he needs to be on the injury report.

"My problem,'' said Florio, who has been beating the drum for more honest injury reports, "is the injury report focuses only on availability to play without giving full information as to whether a player will be effective. It's called an injury report. Roethlisberger was injured, and he wasn't on the report. I think that's wrong.''

True, with an asterisk. I think if a guy's definitely playing, he doesn't need to be listed.

No, he needs to be listed as "probable" because he is injured and is a virtual certainty to play. That is the definition as Peter kindly pointed out.

"I have a question that no one seems to comment on about the James Harrison touchdown run during the Super Bowl. If you notice during the run back, Larry Fitzgerald goes out of bounds around the 40-45 yard line. Instead of going back in bounds, he runs along the sidelines (clearly out of bounds the entire time) for what appears to be 40 yards and makes the tackle. Shouldn't this be illegal since he is chasing him for a considerable distance from out of bounds. If he chased him from in bounds, chances are he would have never caught up to him. There would have been a major controversy if Harrison would have been tackled short of the goal line. What is the rule for this type of play?"

On kickoffs and punts, players cannot run out of bounds unless they are blocked out of bounds. On all other plays, there is not a rule about where they may run.

I guess that answers our question we had after the Super Bowl.

5. Bill Plaschke thinks Manny Ramirez is up shit creek without a paddle...or a team.

Ramirez doesn't want a one-year contract that would make him baseball's second-highest paid player next season?

What's that? Is that the sound of Bill Simmons being wrong and Manny Ramirez is not only NOT underrated, but teams actually want him?

Ramirez wouldn't take an increased Dodgers offer of two years at $45 million, giving him an identical annual salary of this winter's hottest free-agent slugger, Mark Teixeira?

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Manny is being blackballed for his poor attitude in Boston and that he is underrated because teams don't want him. He is being offered contracts that are enormous, but not lengthy, simply because he is an older player and does have some problems playing LF...and his attitude would be a concern on a 5 year contract.

Yes, his dog behavior in Boston mattered. No, folks don't trust him with a long-term deal anymore.

I am not arguing that Manny is not being slightly affected by his behavior in Boston, he is still being offered a ton of money to play baseball, but he is also not being rewarded for that behavior with a long term contract.

The Dodgers' first offer to Ramirez -- two years, $45 million -- was immediately rejected by Boras, who said he wanted to consider "serious" offers.

This is a side note but why do players sign with Boras again? After the Varitek disaster this offseason, after A-Rod overestimating his ability to get a new contract last year with a team other than the Yankees, after A-Rod admitting to using steroids partially to live down his enormous contract, and now Boras is letting Ramirez sit on the market for a desperate team to grab him up and give him $25 million. Oliver Perez tested the market, there was no market for him, Derek Lowe got less money than he initially wanted, and there was no market for Varitek.

I will say it again, by signing with Boras you limit your options.

In a market where Adam Dunn can't get offers over $11 million, Manny is not getting $25 million per year.

6. Woody Paige finally has a mailbag back up.

Woody - How is it possible that one of the best tight ends to ever play the game was not elected to the Hall of Fame? Is it only prejudice against all things Broncos or are there more sinister things working? -- Bronncohowie, Columbus, Ohio

I always find it silly when people accuse the writers of having biases against certain teams, though there may be, I just don't know about it.

Sharpe will get in next year or the following year. I fought every year to put in the maximum (seven). Some years, some buffoons on the committee vote for fewer men, which just backs up the system and makes it harder for worthy players to make it.

This may be true but this attitude also annoys the hell out of me. When he says voting for fewer players "just backs up the system" it makes me feel like they want to put everyone who is above average in the Hall of Fame. This is probably just me though that worries about this. Is Cris Carter a HoF player? I don't know because I haven't researched it that much but I would have some initial questions about whether he is or not.

The Broncos, though, have to get through free agency: a great lineman (I still say Julius Peppers, although I get e-mails telling me I'm crazy), another quality linebacker and, at the minimum, one safety (should get three).

If you sign Julius Peppers, you will have used almost half of your available cap space on one player. Trust me, he wants a lot of money. I like how the brilliant Woody Paige thinks the Broncos should get three safeties in free agency. I don't know, that just seems like a whole hell of a lot of safeties when I see the biggest need as defensive linemen.

Woody - I think you're wonderful. That being said, you were way out of line saying Pittsburgh could possibly be America's team. There is no America's team. And if so, it wouldn't be Pittsburgh. Everyone loves a winner and that is the sole reason Pittsburgh has such a following right now. Don't forget, it was only about six years ago, Pittsburgh couldn't give tickets away. -- Kate, Ebensburg, Pa.

Kate smacks Woody in the page with some fair weather fan logic. This should be directed right at Snoop Dogg.

But here's why I am so strong on the Steelers. When the steel mills closed in the 1970s in Pittsburgh, and so many jobs disappeared, tens of thousands of Steelers fans moved elsewhere. They remained Steelers fans, and they made their kids Steelers fans, and the pyramid continues, especially with a winning team over the years. There are as many Pittsburgh fans in some cities as there are fans for the local team.

Oh yeah, there is a socio-economic reason the Steelers are a fan favorite and their fans travel from game to game, it has nothing to do with any bandwagon fans. This may be true but I love it anytime Woody Paige tries to explain a socio-economic reason for anything.

7. Rick Reilly gets paid millions to write articles like this.

Our sentence count for this week: 54 sentences and that includes probably 15 four word sentences.

I've been fired more than pottery.

I wish it would happen again.

And how did I react whenever I got canned?

Rick wrote a 13 sentence 2 paragraph letter protesting his firing and then took a nap from being exhausted after this slavish task.

Most of these guys didn't even deserve to lose their jobs, and they're acting like they just got handed a freaking fruit basket.

Dummy, that is because they want to get hired again. No owner is going to hire a guy who flips out at the news he has been fired because they don't want to hire a crazy person.

Me? I'd go triple Sean Penn!

Rick would write an emotional four paragraph letter about how his being fired has affected his family, find a new job quickly, start that new job 6 months after he is hired, and spend the vacation time he has taking pictures with co-eds in exotic locations.

When the certifiably mad Al Davis fired young Lane Kiffin as the Raiders coach this season during a disgraceful and insulting press conference, Kiffin had every right to march over to Davis and rip off his lips. Instead, afterward, Kiffin said, "I'm very appreciative of the opportunity." Then he added, "I felt bad for Al."

And he got a new job a few months later. See the correlation?

Or how about this, Mike? Your new house is only a three-minute drive from Bowlen's, right? Get yourself a massive catapult.

And a whole lot of eggs.

That's how he ends the column. It was all about what Rick would do if he got fired. Next week there will be a column on what Rick would do if he finds termites in his house, the week after that Rick writes an interesting piece on what he does when someone cuts him off in traffic and his big story of the year will be a 100 sentence (it's a two part-er) 12 paragraph expose on what Rick Reilly does when someone uses the handicap stall at a sporting event.

8. Alex Marvez doesn't believe Favre is retired and I am tired of talking about this.

"A lot of guys enjoyed having him in the locker room," Baker said. "I don't think it was as bad as it seemed when some of the comments came out at the end of the season. Obviously, guys were frustrated by the turnovers and interceptions, but that's part of the game.

"Brett has the most touchdowns and most interceptions (in NFL history). That's what you get when you get Brett Favre. Everyone understood that."

Now that is a ringing endorsement of Brett Favre if I have ever heard one. Turnovers and interceptions are not always a part of the game. Jake Delhomme has gotten crucified for making that part of his game, as he rightly should, just like Rex Grossman has gotten crucified. If you have a good quarterback on your team, then this is not so much of an issue.

Favre, though, suffered a torn biceps tendon that was kept quiet by the team until after the season (offering more proof that the NFL needs to revamp its injury report criteria, but I digress).

Not according to Peter King, even when it involves his ex-boyfriend, Brett Favre.

Whether he does the same before applying for NFL reinstatement — Minnesota, anyone? — will be proof whether this old dog is set on pulling the same trick or is ready to roll over permanently.

I don't believe he is done. I will believe that when he actually files his retirement papers and it is June and Brett Favre is not quoted as saying his shoulder feels better and hinting he would come back if someone wanted him.

9. Joe Posanski asks the question I have asked and that is what separates these steroid users from the other guys in baseball's Hall of Fame that have cheated.

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played."

This is the character clause in the Hall of Fame voting. Joe wants this to be gotten rid of and I am not sure how I feel about this. You want the Hall of Fame to include the best of the best players and it is about baseball, but you also want to honor the players that deserve to be honored. It seems the committee has ignored the clause until Pete Rose came along and now it is affecting the players from the steroid era.

Mark McGwire's alleged drug use has been a clause celebre: The guy hit 583 home runs, broke the single-season home run record, is the all-time leader in home runs per at bat, but almost 80 percent of the voters did not vote for him because they believe he cheated the game.

I think I am am more annoyed with the fact he continues to lie about it.

Meanwhile, the Hall of Fame is filled with people who admitted to using drugs (Paul Molitor, Ferguson Jenkins, etc.), who willingly cheated (Gaylord Perry threw spitballs, Don Sutton and Whitey Ford cut baseballs, players undoubtedly corked bats)

Exactly, you can't have an elastic morality clause, where betting on baseball and steroids were wrong, but these offenses are not.

I think the clause should have been changed a long time ago; it makes me queasy to think about sportswriters (or anyone else) trying to judge a man's character.

I think I agree. I write about some of the sportswriters on this site that have a Hall of Fame vote and they are barely qualified to give an acceptable opinion on who should be allowed in the Hall of Fame in regard to baseball skill, much less do I want these people judging ball players based on morality. They would kick Michael Phelps out of any Olympic Hall of Fame at this point.

In the years before Jackie Robinson, there were no black players. Players caroused and gambled and boozed. Many cheated to get ahead. Many took drugs. There have been beanballs and stolen signals and thrown bats. There have been thugs and racists and liars and everything else. And, yes, there have been steroid users, too.

Thugs and racists are fine because that has nothing to do with baseball performance...and gambling goes along with that in my mind. I guess my only problem is that using performance enhancers, like throwing spitballs, and other methods of cheating affect the basic numbers a player can accumulate to be considered for the Hall of Fame. If they have been elevated because of any type of cheating, I am not sure I feel comfortable with that player being in the Hall of Fame. I have no problem with the morality clause being gotten rid of, but it doesn't answer my question about whether a player should make the Hall of Fame based on their statistics or not, which may or may not have been affected by illegal supplements or even cheating. They have let cheaters in the HoF in the past, why stop now though?

10. This is big news in my neck of the woods.

So far this year I have said I would not believe Duke is in the contention to even get past the Sweet Sixteen until they have not collapsed in February (lost 3 of the last 5 games) and beaten a quality team on the road in February (hasn't happened). Neither of those things have happened. I also have predicted that UNC is still going to win the National Championship and come February and March we would read a bunch of articles about how the losses at the beginning of the year really helped UNC get better and that is exactly what this article is.

UNC won this game with Hansbrough not having his typical great game against Duke, which should be scary for the rest of the country. After watching the game last night, it is clear that UNC is the team to beat in the country and I really think they are going to win the National Championship.

For Duke, I have heard a lot of people whining about them losing again. I really chalk this up to Coach K and the fact he is not completely focused on the Duke program and that he tends to take guys out of the rotation later in the year, which leads to the fatigue that sets in and causes the team to lose. Every year he has an excuse for why his team loses. Let's look at them and see whose fault it could be:

05-06- The entire team sat around and waited for Redick and Sheldon Williams to do something instead of taking the lead and trying to score on their own. Coach K designs the offense and coaches the team, this is on him.

06-07- His youngest team ever, get beat in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament. Not much anyone can do.

07-08- The entire team got fatigued down the stretch and began to shoot jump shots when they did not have their legs. Coach K did not play other players due to injury or the other players would be ineffective in the game. You could blame him for this, but there was not much team depth at the time.

08-09- No excuse given yet. This Duke team is deeper than they have been in a while and start sophomores and juniors and have seniors coming off the bench. Coach K is letting two freshman, who while not spectacular, can at least not hurt the team while stealing minutes so the starters can be fresh down the stretch of the year and into the tournament. He has gone from a 11 man rotation to an 8 man rotation, which is only going to increase the fatigue and cause another February Fade. Duke haters are going to have a lot to love down the stretch this year based on the team's inability/unwillingness to drive to the basket and they just shoot jump shots and hang out on the perimeter. There is no penetration. I can only attribute it to fatigue (which the announcers commented on continuously). I believe this falls on the head coach, who needs to change the rotation to prevent this from happening, and there are no excuses for this.

I am done talking about this issue now. Duke has a lot to prove to the college basketball world and I don't think they even realize it.