Alex Rodriguez hit .250/.356/.486 this year with 33 home runs, which surprised the shit out of me. That's pretty damn good for a guy who is 40 years old. Of course, as soon as he starts hitting poorly next year the New York media will jump all over him again for the mistake of continuously getting older. Regardless of how good of a year A-Rod had at the plate, and regardless of how little controversy he stirred up, he still did many things wrong. He participated in an unfunny skit, he didn't increase YES ratings, he made his teammates like him, and most egregiously, he showed up early to Spring Training. Simply because the season is over doesn't mean that A-Rod still isn't doing things wrong. Of course. Now he was hired as an analyst for Fox during the playoffs and is ruining everything for "the kids," while poisoning their mind with the idea if they use steroids to enhance their performance then they may one day also be able to be a sports analyst. Christine Brennan has had enough of this and does a public service by finally speaking out about this travesty. In fact, Brennan says they (Fox) "swing and miss" (GET IT?????????) by hiring A-Rod as an analyst.
Of the thousands of baseball players and experts Fox Sports could have
selected to appear on its postseason shows, it picked the worst.
You mean the guy who has been banned from baseball permanently, Pete Rose?
It chose the most notorious, earnest and purposeful cheater to ever play
the game. It chose the man whose name is synonymous with
performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza's bacne?
It chose A-Rod.
Oh no, not A-Rod. His mere presence on the Yankees roster has caused steroid use among youth to be nearly tripled since April. Millions of kids are dying, with their last breath screaming, "I just wanted to be like A-Rod!" What about "the kids," doesn't Fox care about the kids at all?
Alex Rodriguez,
who admitted to using steroids from 2001-03 and then was suspended for
the entire 2014 season for his big role in the Biogenesis scandal, isn’t
just any old baseball steroids guy. He is the guy.
He's the guy unless you want to consider Mark McGwire "the guy," Barry Bonds "the guy" or Roger Clemens "the guy." It all depends on the type of article being written really. In this case, A-Rod is "the guy" but this could change if the column is about which current Hall of Fame eligible players should receive the honor of induction. When it comes to a Hall of Fame discussion, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are the face of steroids. In fact, I would argue given all the government resources and the hysteria surrounding the breaking of Roger Maris' home run record that these three players will always be the face of the Steroid Era. I don't see A-Rod in that role.
Congratulations, Fox.
You're ruined the world's ability to prevent drug use among teens and driven thousands of young children away from the heroin they are using and into the arms of steroids by hiring A-Rod. Congrats.
What a terrible message this sends to children
WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING KIDS? DO "THE KIDS" KNOW ABOUT A-ROD BEING ON FOX? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND WHICH SAYS A BASEBALL PLAYER WHO CHEATED IS STILL CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING BASEBALL IN A NETWORK TELEVISION ENVIRONMENT?
if kids actually watched playoff baseball games anymore.
Oh, so it's not hurting the kids at all because they don't watch baseball? So disaster averted and we can all move on to other things. Though, if "the kids" did still watch baseball then A-Rod being on Fox would be a total disaster. Let's assume kids don't watch baseball, acknowledge nobody watches FS1 (yet...ever?), and still work under the assumption that A-Rod is singlehandedly poisoning today's youth. Sound like fun? Great, Christine Brennan will now continue.
Experts say the use of performance-enhancing drugs by kids in high school sports has reached epidemic proportions.
Experts also say kids in high school are increasingly getting addicted to heroin and other drugs such as that. I'm not going to downplay the impact of steroids, but the use of heroin among high school kids has also reached epidemic proportions. I really don't believe A-Rod being an analyst for Fox is going to drive more kids towards using steroids any more than his playing baseball for 162 games a year would drive them in that direction already.
Seeing superstars suspended or hauled before Congress can act an a deterrent to these kids.
This is the biggest crock of shit I have read in this column so far. Hauling these superstars before Congress can serve as a deterrent to these kids? I have quite a few issues with this statement.
1. How does Christine Brennan know this is true? Is there research she can cite that says seeing superstars hauled before Congress is a deterrent to drug use among kids? Is there anything she can use to show this as a true statement, outside of any anecdotal evidence or the idea this is what she WANTS to believe is true? I see nothing in this column confirming this statement isn't a lie.
2. If superstars being hauled before Congress or being suspended really served as a deterrent, then how come experts say the use of PED's by kids is reaching epidemic proportions? Using logic, which I know isn't something Christine is doing right now, wouldn't the stricter MLB drug policy after the Steroid Era where big name players (like A-Rod) have been suspended have served as a deterrent to using PED's?
3. Christine Brennan can't cite how A-Rod has been suspended twice, in an effort to expose his true villain tendencies, then explain that's why he shouldn't be working for Fox, and then claim seeing baseball players get suspended serves as a deterrent to kids. It doesn't work this way. So if seeing players get suspended did serve as a deterrent, then it wouldn't make a difference at all if A-Rod works for Fox during the postseason.
4. If seeing superstars hauled before Congress was a deterrent, then there should be a decrease in high school kids using PED's. These kids grew up seeing Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens hauled in front of Congress and in court fighting accusations of PED use. Seeing this would cause a decrease in PED use among high school kids, if this statement by Brennan wasn't a crock of shit.
Seeing them propped up on pre-game shows as faux stars does not.
But A-Rod has been suspended! That's the deterrent for "the kids," right?
Perhaps next year, Fox can put together a panel featuring A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.
Bonds has worked with Giants hitters during Spring Training and McGwire has been a hitting coach in the majors. I get how Christine Brennan is upset, but it's well-known in baseball that A-Rod is a student of the game and knows something about hitting. He's a cheat and has a huge ego, but he's also really good at hitting a baseball and analyzing the game.
Fox Sports’ baseball audience is minuscule compared with the NFL’s, but
that doesn’t make the network’s decision any less egregious. In fact,
that’s probably why Fox did it, to try to boost ratings.
Let's see...no one watches Fox, players like A-Rod who get suspended serve as a deterrent to kids and kids don't watch baseball anyway. So how are A-Rod and Fox ruining kids by having him show up on their postseason coverage again?
It’s not a coincidence that one of Rodriguez’s fellow studio analysts is Pete Rose.
It's not a coincidence. Fox wants ratings and they want guys on their postseason shows that have played in the postseason and played the game at a high level. They also want eyes on their show and Rose/A-Rod also serve that purpose. ESPN hired Tim Tebow, but is he more qualified to talk about college football because he's a good person, as compared to the qualifications of Rose/A-Rod to talk about baseball even though they haven't always been good people? I wouldn't think so.
Our senses are so dulled by the misbehavior of athletes these days that
most of us probably don’t give it a second thought when a bad guy like
Rodriguez shows up talking about the playoffs. Do we have any standards
anymore?
I bet Christine Brennan's editor asked this same question when reading this article.
Or maybe we still do. Could you imagine an Olympics telecast featuring Ben Johnson? Lance Armstrong hosting coverage of the Tour de France?
It feels different with A-Rod being on MLB's postseason coverage. Perhaps because he is still an active player and has served his suspension. I can't explain the difference honestly.
Tonya Harding on Olympic figure skating? Thankfully, I think we’re safe from all three, at least for a few more years.
If she knew enough about Olympic figure skating these days, then I would have no issue with Tonya Harding commenting on Olympic figure skating. The issue is there are more knowledgeable commentators available to discuss Olympic figure skating. A-Rod is a really knowledgeable source about baseball and knows today's players because he is still an active player himself.
For all baseball’s talk and action on the subject of PEDs, it has never
taken them as seriously as the Olympic world has, and it still does not.
But MLB takes PED's much more seriously than every other major sport. Sorry, but the NFL and the NBA have a PED problem (mostly the NFL) even if they don't know it yet. Human beings don't look like NFL players look and I don't believe some guys in the NBA get as strong as they are without some additional help. I'm not pointing a finger at any certain players, but MLB has a strong PED policy. It's not strong enough for some people, of course. It never will be.
That’s why the sport allows someone who has flaunted the rules as badly as A-Rod has to still be one of the faces of the game.
A-Rod is not one of the faces of MLB. He is not. He's never really even been the face of the Yankees either. A-Rod doing postseason work for Fox doesn't make him a face of baseball. Max Scherzer does postseason work for Fox too and I'm not sure he can be considered one of the faces of baseball (perhaps wrongly). Even on his own team, Bryce Harper, Jonathan Papelbon and Stephen Strasburg move the needle more than Scherzer tends to, even if Scherzer appears on Fox's postseason coverage.
This tells us that the game, and Fox Sports, will do anything to get attention.
"The game" had nothing to do with Fox hiring A-Rod. That was a decision by Fox. Trust me, if MLB really had an issue with Pete Rose and A-Rod being hired by Fox then neither of these individuals would be working on Fox's postseason coverage.
Anything.
What about "the kids?" What will the kids who don't watch baseball on Fox and who are already deterred from using PED's by A-Rod's suspension for PED use think about A-Rod being seen on Fox's postseason coverage? Will it drive them right back into the arms of PED's, seeing that they could also one day get a job as a studio analyst if they just use enough PED's to get there? What will happen if an entire generation of studio analysts use PED's in order to further their career and make an even playing field that much more uneven?
Showing posts with label mark mcgwire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mark mcgwire. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Thursday, August 7, 2014
0 comments Gregg Doyel Has a List of Baseball Players Who He Knows Use PED's, Which He Will Totally Reveal Once It's Confirmed They Used PED's
You know guys, I know who is going to win the World Series this year. I can't obviously tell you now who will win the World Series this year, because that wouldn't be fair, but I will tell you after the baseball season is over who will win the World Series. Also, I know who the next President of the United States will be. Again, I can't tell you yet, but it's going to surprise you. Don't worry, I will tell you after the next President is elected if I was right or not. Much along the same lines, Gregg Doyel has a list of baseball players he knows use PED's. He can't name their names right now, but when the new Biogenesis names come out he will confirm those were the players he suspected of PED use. The reason he knows these players used PED's is because it's so obvious when an MLB player is using steroids. Just take a look at this list. Who didn't take a look at J.C. Romero or Neifi Perez and say, "Now THAT is a player who is using PED's." I remember looking at Freddy Galvis' career statistics and knowing he couldn't have hit nine career home runs without a little additional help from illegal performance enhancing drugs. Pablo Ozuna's fastball doesn't dip and dive like that without a little help from the old Cream and Clear.
The best part about this column is it gives readers a chance to speculate in the comments about which MLB players are using PED's. So Gregg Doyel's guessing game---I'm sorry, that's wrong---scientifically accurate judgment based on visual inspection on which current MLB players are using PED's is a game that YOU TOO can play at home. This is an interactive column.
I have a list. So do you, right?
Oh yeah, I do. I have a grocery list, a list of improvements needing to be made around the house, a list of people who I will call and cuss out once I'm old enough to pretend to be senile, and a shit-list which had new names added every week.
If you're a baseball fan and you're hearing that more names are about to be connected to Biogenesis, the cheatingest PED factory since BALCO, this is where you dig through your mental rolodex for the names of guys you're sure are cheating.
Nope. Don't have a list. I don't care. Players cheat and players I never dreamed would cheat (Hi, Clay Hensley!) are caught cheating. I enjoy the sport of baseball, and as much fun as it would be to speculate, I have long gotten over the PED name-and-then-blame game. MLB does testing, players will get caught, sportswriters will write columns about what a terrible person he is for cheating, and then I will cover a few columns on this site if the outrage is silly enough. Guess what? NBA and NFL players are using PED's too. I would give out my mental rolodex for the guys I'm sure are cheating, but I don't care enough to do that. If the NBA and the NFL doesn't care, why should I? MLB does care, which is why they have a PED policy. That's good enough for me at this point. I'm taking back my love of baseball by not worrying if there are certain players using PED's.
It wouldn't be fair to say that list out loud, certainly not with a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com,
Well yes, that certainly would not be fair. It's much more fair to have a mental rolodex of these player's names and then write an entire column stating you know the players that have cheated because it's so obvious. Contribute to steroid hysteria by claiming you can name names, it's much more fair that way.
But I have a list.
Which Gregg will reveal immediately after the new Biogenesis names are announced. Once that happens, we will all see just how right Gregg was.
Baseball deserves the scrutiny, even the suspicion, that its players have stirred among us since the 1990s -- when the ordinary became stars, and stars became superstars, and superstars began doing things we had never seen before. Mark McGwire hitting 70 home runs? Barry Bonds hitting 73? Roger Clemens posting a career-best 1.87 ERA at age 43?
Yes, baseball does deserve the scrutiny. Though I am very focused on the current players who aren't putting up crazy numbers like this. All of those numbers happened over a decade ago. What crazy, insane, hard-to-believe numbers are MLB players putting up currently that sends Gregg Doyel's PED radar off so much?
Come on. To this day Bonds hasn't admitted he was cheating. Neither has Clemens. So they're on another list, a list that seems fair to say out loud, even on a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com. Given their superhuman results and their constant links to PEDs, Bonds and Clemens -- and Sammy Sosa -- are on that list of players we suspect used PEDs.
(Gregg Doyel drags 10 year old PED story horse out and starts beating it)
At some point, these sportswriters have to move past the Clemens, Bonds, and Sosa names. It won't happen for a while because these are the go-to names whenever PED's in baseball are brought up. PED use by these players is the gift that keeps on giving when some enterprising sports columnists needs to crap out a column about baseball's sordid PED history.
The players we suspect are using them to this day? That's another list, and soon baseball will provide us with its own list, and we can compare notes.
And I bet Gregg's list will have a few names that are revealed by baseball. Not that Gregg would ever have a list and then pretend some of the names that are revealed were on his list too. That's not something he would do. He wouldn't have to, because his PED list is so obvious, just like Humberto Cota's PED use was obvious to anyone willing to pay attention.
It would be foolish, not bordering on naive but bordering on outright denial, to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore.
I recognize this is a strawman argument, but where is the outrage and denial about PED use in other sports? Whey doesn't Julius Peppers' PED suspension not lead to angry columns from sportswriters about how the NFL has a PED problem? MLB has faced their PED problem and have very stringent drug testing. And yes, it would be naive to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore. Just like it is foolish to think there will never be another murder in the United States. It's ridiculous to suggest baseball, or any sport for that matter, will be completely free of PED's. That doesn't mean there is a massive problem throughout baseball and it doesn't mean contributing to steroid hysteria is a logical reaction to this reality.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: Baseball will always have a PED problem.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: No shit, Sherlock. I don't think anyone has ever suggested baseball wouldn't have players trying to use PED's. I guess that makes it a problem if a person wants to be hysterical about it, but as long as humans are humans (and not dancer), then athletes are going to find a way to cheat. The fact there is a stringent drug policy in question that MLB is committed to which will lead to baseball players testing positive for PED's doesn't make it seem like a "problem" to me. It seems like the positive effect of drug testing.
The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and while the PED police eventually catch lots of cheaters -- as they caught Victor Conte of BALCO and Anthony Bosch of Biogenesis -- there are more cheaters out there. Baseball can't catch them, because baseball doesn't know they exist. Not yet anyway.
So baseball can't catch cheaters they don't know about yet? No way.
Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be spoken. The fact baseball will have more players who try to cheat is an example of one of these statements. This doesn't mean baseball has a "problem," it means baseball players are human. As long as Sabermetricians are kept away from the sport, baseball will be played by humans and not computers. This means humans will try to cheat. So yes, the cheaters will always be slightly ahead of the PED police.
There's nothing new in this column. It's the same stuff as other PED hysteria columns.
The next Conte and Bosch think they're untouchable, because for now they are. The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and they're like degenerate gamblers or thieves on a hot streak: They stupidly think they'll stay ahead forever.
So what baseball needs are pre-cogs. People who can predict a crime before it happens so that the PED police can round up these future cheaters and punish them for the crime they are going to commit.
The fact these cheaters "think" they will stay ahead forever is why I would argue baseball doesn't have a PED problem. MLB may not be able to stay ahead of the cheaters, but they will catch up, and the players who have cheated by using PED's will be found out most likely. It's not a problem, because lateness aside, MLB has a system that enables PED users to be caught.
Ryan Braun used to think he would never be caught, I promise you. So did Melky Cabrera. And Alex Rodriguez. And going back, Mark McGwire.
So the system works and MLB doesn't have a problem? Does it mean I have ant problem if I lay out ant bait systems in my house that attracts and kill ants or does it just mean that ants are going to find their way into my house and I have a way of killing them before they end up crawling on my food?
And I'm 100% sure before Melky Cabrera was caught using PED's he was on Gregg's list of players who DEFINITELY used PED's. I don't doubt that at all.
Nothing lasts forever, not even something as murky and vaporous as a drug the police don't yet know exists. The cream that Barry Bonds took? Drug testers didn't catch that because they didn't know what it was. Just as life finds a way to survive, evolving to adapt in the conditions it has confronted, cheaters are the same.
And yet, writers like Gregg Doyel trot out the same tired names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and other "name" players to show the huge problem MLB has, as well as show how it's so obvious which players are using PED's. This is all done in a way to prove it's easy to figure out which players are using PED's, but conveniently ignores the hundred other players suspended for PED use whose name wasn't on any person's mental list.
And people like us, we sit back and wait for the next wave of players to be caught, then outed publicly, so we can scorn them like we scorned A-Rod and Braun.
Perhaps it says something about me, but I don't wait for the next wave of players to be caught so I can scorn them. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction in scorning athletes publicly for using PED's that I just haven't chosen to experience to it's fullest morally superior extent? Athletes who use PED's deserve to get caught and suspended, but I'm very much over taking up my energy to scorn these players.
When the next list comes out, I'll scan it for three names I'm sure are cheating.
These are three names Gregg KNOWS are cheating. No matter who they are, I'm betting those three names will be on the new Biogenesis list. It's obvious these players are cheating and Gregg would out them, but that's not the classy thing to do. It's more classy to vaguely refer to players you know are cheating, since it's so obvious who is using PED's and who isn't, and then gloat once these names appear on the Biogenesis list. But don't worry, Gregg will reveal just how right he was once that new Biogenesis list is revealed, just like I'll tell you all who is going to be the next President of the United States (because it's so obvious) just after the next Presidential election occurs.
What do I look for? I'll tell you some day, when the list comes out and if any of my names are on there. I figure one of them will be at least. This stuff is easy, really. It's simple to look at certain guys and just think, just know, "He's not doing that legally."
Someone like Jesus Montero. Someone that is playing baseball and you look at and KNOW he can't be that slow and unable to hit the baseball well naturally. He must be secretly less talented and is using PED's to just bring himself up to the level of being a massive disappointment. What about Kevin Frandsen? He makes hitting .256 look a little too easy if you ask me. How did we not see his PED suspension coming?
Especially given what we know about the nature of baseball, just like the nature of sprinting and cycling. Certain things have never been possible before, and while breakthroughs and advances do happen, there are some ceilings that get cracked that just don't seem plausible. Not legally plausible, anyway.
I'd love to know what ceilings have been cracked that don't seem plausible. It's been well-documented that hitters are striking out more and this is supposedly the age of pitchers (it's the pitchers who are using PED's!). No players are destroying home run records and no players are putting up the numbers seen during the Steroid Era. I'm just wondering what the advances and breakthroughs that are happening now are. Of course if Gregg Doyel told me now, it would ruin the surprise once the list comes out.
So my list is ready. Is yours? Baseball's about to release its list, and while I have no idea who's nice anymore, I have a strong feeling about which guys have been naughty.
Of course you do. Just be sure to tell us how right your list was once the Biogenesis list is released. I'm dying to know how right you were and what factors you looked for that tipped you off to whether a player was using PED's or not. My guess is Gregg is going to reverse-engineer this whole thing and everything will look way more obvious once he gets the answers to the test questions. Of course we should have expected Player X! I mean, that one time he did that one thing! We should have known, just like it was obvious Antonio Bastardo was a PED user.
The best part about this column is it gives readers a chance to speculate in the comments about which MLB players are using PED's. So Gregg Doyel's guessing game---I'm sorry, that's wrong---scientifically accurate judgment based on visual inspection on which current MLB players are using PED's is a game that YOU TOO can play at home. This is an interactive column.
I have a list. So do you, right?
Oh yeah, I do. I have a grocery list, a list of improvements needing to be made around the house, a list of people who I will call and cuss out once I'm old enough to pretend to be senile, and a shit-list which had new names added every week.
If you're a baseball fan and you're hearing that more names are about to be connected to Biogenesis, the cheatingest PED factory since BALCO, this is where you dig through your mental rolodex for the names of guys you're sure are cheating.
Nope. Don't have a list. I don't care. Players cheat and players I never dreamed would cheat (Hi, Clay Hensley!) are caught cheating. I enjoy the sport of baseball, and as much fun as it would be to speculate, I have long gotten over the PED name-and-then-blame game. MLB does testing, players will get caught, sportswriters will write columns about what a terrible person he is for cheating, and then I will cover a few columns on this site if the outrage is silly enough. Guess what? NBA and NFL players are using PED's too. I would give out my mental rolodex for the guys I'm sure are cheating, but I don't care enough to do that. If the NBA and the NFL doesn't care, why should I? MLB does care, which is why they have a PED policy. That's good enough for me at this point. I'm taking back my love of baseball by not worrying if there are certain players using PED's.
It wouldn't be fair to say that list out loud, certainly not with a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com,
Well yes, that certainly would not be fair. It's much more fair to have a mental rolodex of these player's names and then write an entire column stating you know the players that have cheated because it's so obvious. Contribute to steroid hysteria by claiming you can name names, it's much more fair that way.
But I have a list.
Which Gregg will reveal immediately after the new Biogenesis names are announced. Once that happens, we will all see just how right Gregg was.
Baseball deserves the scrutiny, even the suspicion, that its players have stirred among us since the 1990s -- when the ordinary became stars, and stars became superstars, and superstars began doing things we had never seen before. Mark McGwire hitting 70 home runs? Barry Bonds hitting 73? Roger Clemens posting a career-best 1.87 ERA at age 43?
Yes, baseball does deserve the scrutiny. Though I am very focused on the current players who aren't putting up crazy numbers like this. All of those numbers happened over a decade ago. What crazy, insane, hard-to-believe numbers are MLB players putting up currently that sends Gregg Doyel's PED radar off so much?
Come on. To this day Bonds hasn't admitted he was cheating. Neither has Clemens. So they're on another list, a list that seems fair to say out loud, even on a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com. Given their superhuman results and their constant links to PEDs, Bonds and Clemens -- and Sammy Sosa -- are on that list of players we suspect used PEDs.
(Gregg Doyel drags 10 year old PED story horse out and starts beating it)
At some point, these sportswriters have to move past the Clemens, Bonds, and Sosa names. It won't happen for a while because these are the go-to names whenever PED's in baseball are brought up. PED use by these players is the gift that keeps on giving when some enterprising sports columnists needs to crap out a column about baseball's sordid PED history.
The players we suspect are using them to this day? That's another list, and soon baseball will provide us with its own list, and we can compare notes.
And I bet Gregg's list will have a few names that are revealed by baseball. Not that Gregg would ever have a list and then pretend some of the names that are revealed were on his list too. That's not something he would do. He wouldn't have to, because his PED list is so obvious, just like Humberto Cota's PED use was obvious to anyone willing to pay attention.
It would be foolish, not bordering on naive but bordering on outright denial, to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore.
I recognize this is a strawman argument, but where is the outrage and denial about PED use in other sports? Whey doesn't Julius Peppers' PED suspension not lead to angry columns from sportswriters about how the NFL has a PED problem? MLB has faced their PED problem and have very stringent drug testing. And yes, it would be naive to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore. Just like it is foolish to think there will never be another murder in the United States. It's ridiculous to suggest baseball, or any sport for that matter, will be completely free of PED's. That doesn't mean there is a massive problem throughout baseball and it doesn't mean contributing to steroid hysteria is a logical reaction to this reality.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: Baseball will always have a PED problem.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: No shit, Sherlock. I don't think anyone has ever suggested baseball wouldn't have players trying to use PED's. I guess that makes it a problem if a person wants to be hysterical about it, but as long as humans are humans (and not dancer), then athletes are going to find a way to cheat. The fact there is a stringent drug policy in question that MLB is committed to which will lead to baseball players testing positive for PED's doesn't make it seem like a "problem" to me. It seems like the positive effect of drug testing.
The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and while the PED police eventually catch lots of cheaters -- as they caught Victor Conte of BALCO and Anthony Bosch of Biogenesis -- there are more cheaters out there. Baseball can't catch them, because baseball doesn't know they exist. Not yet anyway.
So baseball can't catch cheaters they don't know about yet? No way.
Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be spoken. The fact baseball will have more players who try to cheat is an example of one of these statements. This doesn't mean baseball has a "problem," it means baseball players are human. As long as Sabermetricians are kept away from the sport, baseball will be played by humans and not computers. This means humans will try to cheat. So yes, the cheaters will always be slightly ahead of the PED police.
There's nothing new in this column. It's the same stuff as other PED hysteria columns.
The next Conte and Bosch think they're untouchable, because for now they are. The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and they're like degenerate gamblers or thieves on a hot streak: They stupidly think they'll stay ahead forever.
So what baseball needs are pre-cogs. People who can predict a crime before it happens so that the PED police can round up these future cheaters and punish them for the crime they are going to commit.
The fact these cheaters "think" they will stay ahead forever is why I would argue baseball doesn't have a PED problem. MLB may not be able to stay ahead of the cheaters, but they will catch up, and the players who have cheated by using PED's will be found out most likely. It's not a problem, because lateness aside, MLB has a system that enables PED users to be caught.
Ryan Braun used to think he would never be caught, I promise you. So did Melky Cabrera. And Alex Rodriguez. And going back, Mark McGwire.
So the system works and MLB doesn't have a problem? Does it mean I have ant problem if I lay out ant bait systems in my house that attracts and kill ants or does it just mean that ants are going to find their way into my house and I have a way of killing them before they end up crawling on my food?
And I'm 100% sure before Melky Cabrera was caught using PED's he was on Gregg's list of players who DEFINITELY used PED's. I don't doubt that at all.
Nothing lasts forever, not even something as murky and vaporous as a drug the police don't yet know exists. The cream that Barry Bonds took? Drug testers didn't catch that because they didn't know what it was. Just as life finds a way to survive, evolving to adapt in the conditions it has confronted, cheaters are the same.
And yet, writers like Gregg Doyel trot out the same tired names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and other "name" players to show the huge problem MLB has, as well as show how it's so obvious which players are using PED's. This is all done in a way to prove it's easy to figure out which players are using PED's, but conveniently ignores the hundred other players suspended for PED use whose name wasn't on any person's mental list.
And people like us, we sit back and wait for the next wave of players to be caught, then outed publicly, so we can scorn them like we scorned A-Rod and Braun.
Perhaps it says something about me, but I don't wait for the next wave of players to be caught so I can scorn them. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction in scorning athletes publicly for using PED's that I just haven't chosen to experience to it's fullest morally superior extent? Athletes who use PED's deserve to get caught and suspended, but I'm very much over taking up my energy to scorn these players.
When the next list comes out, I'll scan it for three names I'm sure are cheating.
These are three names Gregg KNOWS are cheating. No matter who they are, I'm betting those three names will be on the new Biogenesis list. It's obvious these players are cheating and Gregg would out them, but that's not the classy thing to do. It's more classy to vaguely refer to players you know are cheating, since it's so obvious who is using PED's and who isn't, and then gloat once these names appear on the Biogenesis list. But don't worry, Gregg will reveal just how right he was once that new Biogenesis list is revealed, just like I'll tell you all who is going to be the next President of the United States (because it's so obvious) just after the next Presidential election occurs.
What do I look for? I'll tell you some day, when the list comes out and if any of my names are on there. I figure one of them will be at least. This stuff is easy, really. It's simple to look at certain guys and just think, just know, "He's not doing that legally."
Someone like Jesus Montero. Someone that is playing baseball and you look at and KNOW he can't be that slow and unable to hit the baseball well naturally. He must be secretly less talented and is using PED's to just bring himself up to the level of being a massive disappointment. What about Kevin Frandsen? He makes hitting .256 look a little too easy if you ask me. How did we not see his PED suspension coming?
Especially given what we know about the nature of baseball, just like the nature of sprinting and cycling. Certain things have never been possible before, and while breakthroughs and advances do happen, there are some ceilings that get cracked that just don't seem plausible. Not legally plausible, anyway.
I'd love to know what ceilings have been cracked that don't seem plausible. It's been well-documented that hitters are striking out more and this is supposedly the age of pitchers (it's the pitchers who are using PED's!). No players are destroying home run records and no players are putting up the numbers seen during the Steroid Era. I'm just wondering what the advances and breakthroughs that are happening now are. Of course if Gregg Doyel told me now, it would ruin the surprise once the list comes out.
So my list is ready. Is yours? Baseball's about to release its list, and while I have no idea who's nice anymore, I have a strong feeling about which guys have been naughty.
Of course you do. Just be sure to tell us how right your list was once the Biogenesis list is released. I'm dying to know how right you were and what factors you looked for that tipped you off to whether a player was using PED's or not. My guess is Gregg is going to reverse-engineer this whole thing and everything will look way more obvious once he gets the answers to the test questions. Of course we should have expected Player X! I mean, that one time he did that one thing! We should have known, just like it was obvious Antonio Bastardo was a PED user.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
4 comments It's a Double Dose of T.J. Simers Being a Dick
T.J. Simers only exists in order to be a troll and all-around asshole. He has repeatedy taken on the city of Memphis for not being as great as the city of Los Angeles. Who takes on the city of Memphis for anything but negative attention? Simers is most famously known for interviewing professional athletes and asking them the most baiting and emotion-provoking questions possible. He did it to Marcus Thames twice, Matt Treanor once, and even attacked his own colleagues. Don't forget his epic dismissal of the women's World Cup soccer team. He's useless as a human being and it is a travesty that the "Los Angeles Times" supports him by employing him, but that's the world we live in. Simers brings pageviews which brings revenue. Over the past few weeks Simers has taken to asking Josh Hamilton and Mark McGwire annoying questions that are only designed to get a rise out of them. Fortunately (well, unfortunately because I wouldn't mind seeing either of them get in Simers' face) they didn't take the bait. It's the same shit that T.J. Simers always pulls and miraculously no courageous athlete has punched him in the face yet.
I will start with Simers baiting Josh Hamilton and asking him why he smiles so much.
Uh-oh, we've got another smiler.
This catches on and we won't have any athletes around town who appear as if they give a rip.
Dwight Howard, meet Josh Hamilton.
These two players are exactly alike. There are no differences between them.
"I've had people screaming at me when I'm at the plate, 'Wipe that smile off your face,''' said the Angels bust.
This is journalism, people. Wonderful, wild (shitty) journalism. Josh Hamilton is better known as "the Angels bust." Regardless of whether that is true or not, this isn't a case of T.J. Simers "telling it like it is," but just trying really hard to be a dick and get pageviews. There's no need to write that Hamilton is a bust other than to get a rise out of Hamilton and those who read this column.
Hamilton gets any more relaxed and he really will be an automatic out. He stands casually in the batter's box holding his bat like he's waiting for the next slow-pitch softball to arrive.
Because Simers has nothing if not an athlete's physique so he knows the best way to hit a baseball is to not relax and press really hard to do well. It's just a matter of trying harder of course. That's all.
At least Howard works up a sweat.
There is a difference in baseball and basketball. The sports require different amounts of sweating.
It's never good when the fans seem to care more than the guys competing to win or lose.
The fans always seem to care more than the guys competing to win or lose. This is an absurd point. Fans are sometimes irrational. They are capable of overreacting and seeming to care much more than athletes often care. It's not a sign of anything that the fans care more than the players. Caring more and trying harder doesn't always lead to a player performing at a high level.
"I know the game is based on results and the world wants to see results. But if I can take that out of the equation, play hard and prepare to the best of my abilities, the results are going to be there.''
He's right; it sounds bad.
Hamilton preceded this comment by saying,
"I know this is going to sound bad, and you can spin it whatever way you want,
so at least he knows Simers will spin this quote how he sees fit. This quote does sound bad, but it's not necessarily bad (outside of the fact Hamilton isn't getting the results), but improving in sports or other areas of life is often more about completing the process and allowing the results to come through working hard through the process. Baseball is like sales. You can't win every one, but preparing and taking the right steps to be successful is as much a part of success as anything else. It is a process-oriented way of looking at achievement rather than being focused on the results.
I'll never know. But I do wonder why he's not more thankful. We talked before Wednesday's game and I reminded him how inept he has been in driving the ball out of the park the opposite way. And I suggested he do better.
Unbelievable. This is typical T.J. Simers for you. He's merely a sportswriter and has the balls to tell Josh Hamilton how to hit the baseball. I'm not sure what makes Simers qualified to be a hitting coach, but he probably should be careful about doling out free advice about an athlete's performance or else an athlete could point out the terrible writing job Simers performs several times weekly.
As bad as Josh Hamilton is struggling, he is 100 times better at hitting a baseball than T.J. Simers ever could be. Simers "suggests" that Hamilton does better. It's ridiculous and incredibly infuriating. I wish someone would suggest to Simers that he stop acting like a troll and try not to be an embarrassment to his profession. I don't get how Hamilton didn't punch Simers in the face. It's not like Hamilton isn't aware that he has been inept at driving the ball out of the park the opposite way. There's absolutely no reason to remind him of this unless Simers is trying to bait Hamilton into shedding his new "nice guy" image and getting angry.
An hour or so later he homered, but before Thursday's game he refused to say thank you.
"I'll need to do it again,'' he said, as if he did it himself in the first place.
Clearly he is an athlete who doesn't care enough.
Then he went out and hit another home run, two homers in two days with Page 2's help after having two in the first 31 games.
God, Simers is insufferable. I know he is being tongue-in-cheek in order to get some attention, but it's pathetic to pretend he is responsible for Hamilton homering. It's not true and Simers knows it isn't true. He just wants to get a rise out of everyone.
Also, notice how Hamilton homered and started playing better and Simers still has nothing positive to say about him. When he doesn't homer, he's a bust, but when he does homer, it is simply because Simers has served as Hamilton's personal batting coach. Simers already had part of this column written and certainly wasn't going to change the content to fit reality.
I just found a way to make Hamilton care enough to prove himself after he repeatedly told me, "You cannot push my buttons.''
He sucks right now, but my respect for Josh Hamilton has increased dramatically. He isn't going to play T.J. Simers' games.
"I don't care,'' said Hamilton, and in addition to working on his home run swing, he needs help on how to talk to fans.
"I hear it from the stands every night. You have to come to the understanding that people like to bring up your weaknesses and failures and throw them in your face.
Fans certainly don't like to hear a baseball player say he doesn't care, but Hamilton is referring to the fact he doesn't care what his haters have to say about him. Maybe he could pretend to outwardly care more, but that's not his personality.
The Angels signed him to hit baseballs. The facts are sometimes blunt, but most fans probably care more about his swing than his relationship with the Lord.
"I understand,'' Hamilton said. "We're all different. It depends on your starting point, and mine is the Bible.''
Hey remember that time "Forbes" said Josh Hamilton could learn something from Whitney Houston? That was pretty odd, wasn't it?
"Does it mention anywhere in the Bible,'' I asked, "what it takes to hit more home runs?''
I have some sense of self-control, but I would have punched T.J. Simers in the face by now if I were Hamilton. Josh Hamilton has been called inept, a bust, and now Simers is somewhat mocking Hamilton's religion by asking if it says anywhere in the Bible what it takes to hit more home runs. Simers is simply being sarcastic in order to be a dickhead and most quality newspapers would do something to prevent this type of behavior. It turns out the "Los Angeles Times" is condoning this troll-like behavior, so much like the middle-aged child he is, Simers will continue to perform these juvenile antics in a desperate plea to get attention or a reaction.
I would imagine T.J. Simers used to break his mom's dishes intentionally as a child to watch her yell at him. I get the feeling he craved attention even at an early age. If only he didn't have a forum to garner more attention with his sports columns in the present day then the world would be a better place.
He has what most folks would want in an athlete. He's personable and approachable, offering a pat on the fanny to almost everyone he meets, including sports columnists. He signs autographs before batting practice, after batting practice and Thursday he huddled for prayer with a young man who found lifesaving inspiration in Hamilton's book about his struggles with addiction.
That's all well and good, but he is paid to hit a baseball and Hamilton understands that. He also understands that getting angry with T.J. Simers stupid, baiting questions and trying really, really hard isn't going to make him hit the baseball any better. It's a process, and if he is pressing too hard in his mind or at the plate then he just needs time to snap out of this funk. It sucks for Angels fans, but Hamilton will start to hit the ball better eventually.
But how about living up to expectations as a superstar?
Hamilton does need to do that, but there is a much better column to be written about Hamilton in relation to living up to expectations as a superstar. T.J. Simers isn't capable of real sports journalism, so he isn't capable of writing a better column than this. He's a one-trick pony whose only trick is to take a crap on the most people possible.
Or ignore his insistence on letting everyone know he doesn't care what they think — which lets you know he really does.
"It's important to me to do well and that's why I work hard to improve every day,'' he said. "But when the game is over I stop thinking about it.''
If only it was so easy for Angels fans.
What is it with "Los Angeles Times" sports columnists that they write one sentence paragraphs? I feel like there needs to be an investigation into this.
If talking to T.J. Simers were such good luck that he did have a secret to help a baseball player perform better, and if I were Josh Hamilton, I would forever accept mediocrity and retire immediately. Talking to Simers wouldn't be worth it. The only thing worse than being hated by Angels fans is having to listen to T.J. Simers ask you bullshit, baiting questions in a desperate attempt to get a reaction.
Now Simers, being an equal opportunity asshole, asks Mark McGwire if he should give steroids to the Dodgers hitters. Because a question like that is a real question that a real sportswriter should be asking. Well, it seems T.J. Simers thinks this is a real question that a real sportswriter should be asking.
I had never met Mark McGwire before Tuesday night, but I knew of his reputation and the fact he has struck out so far as the Dodgers' hitting coach.
Sit down, T.J. Let's have a talk about hitting coaches. They generally get too much blame and too much credit depending on how their team is hitting. Why does McGwire suck with the Dodgers when he was good with the Cardinals? It's almost like he isn't the one hitting the baseball and there is another variable (the hitters he is coaching) that needs to be accounted for.
So given the Dodgers' lack of power, I asked, "Is it time to introduce the players to steroids?"
Oh, my gentle Jesus. Wouldn't it be quicker and more efficient just to wear a sign that says, "I need attention"?
McGwire laughed and I wondered why.
Because your question is so absolutely ridiculous and baiting of McGwire it doesn't even deserve a response. That's why he laughed. T.J. Simers is a one-trick pony and a person who has control over his emotions won't get set off by Simers' weak attempts to troll.
"The magic potion is in between the ears," he said. "This game is beautiful, things can change overnight."
You win tonight, I told him, and the Dodgers will still be in last place.
So does T.J. believe the Dodgers should just pack it up and quit playing hard for the rest of the year? It's not like the season is 162 games long or anything like that. There's still time to panic!
"It will come," McGwire added. I think he was referring to power rather than some shipment in the mail.
How miserable of a person do you have to be to write in the way that T.J. Simers does? I wonder if it is his hatred for mankind entirely or self-hatred that causes him to write in the way he does?
The Dodgers rank third to last in the major leagues in home runs and RBIs, and yet they have a guy who hit 70 home runs as their hitting instructor.
You would think McGwire could transfer his power-hitting ability to the Dodgers hitters through some sort of "Freaky Friday" type magic, but alas, he can't do this. He probably needs steroids to accomplish this feat.
"It's all about pitch selection," said McGwire, who has apparently changed his mind on what it takes to hit the ball out of the park.
You still have to select the right pitches to hit a home run, even if you are using steroids. It's hard to hit a home run when you can't make contact with the baseball.
I remember how much fun it was when Sammy Sosa and McGwire were hitting a lot of home runs. I thanked McGwire for providing those thrills and asked if he could still score some steroids.
Break his neck! Leg-sweep him! Burn him with fire! Whatever it takes, let's get rid of T.J. Simers.
I wish McGwire had answered "yes" and then busted out with a needle, held down Simers and injected him with the most powerful steroid on the market. This has to happen. Someone has to call Simers on his bullshit sometime.
"Certainly not," he said. "Can't, and will not. That is just no."
So much then for the Dodgers turning things around.
Reading a T.J. Simers column is like eating horseshit out of a used coffee filter topped with burning cigarettes and washing it down with a glass of cat urine.
The fun is gone in Donnie Baseball.
The last time we spoke he talked about how good he felt about his team after three straight defeats.
In his own snippy and uncharacteristic way, he said he still feels good about his team. But how do you feel good about a team that cannot win consistently? I asked.
"I like our talent," Mattingly said, while jerking his head from side to side to avoid eye contact. "I like what we can be."
It's hard not to be snippy to a person who asks a loaded question like this. How do you even expect a person to answer a question like "how do you feel good about a team that cannot win consistently?" Mattingly can either sound like a moron by saying he feels great about it or he throws his team under the bus. Obviously the intent of the question was to get Mattingly to throw his team under the bus.
WHEN I began Page 2, I asked the question in my first column: If F.P. Santangelo can enter a room with a sign over the door that reads: "Players Only,"' why can't I?
Never one to laugh or hit, a grouchy Santangelo was soon gone.
Now he's a broadcaster for the Nationals, much like Steve Lyons for the Dodgers. Much like Lyons.
What a great country this is.
Because if a person isn't great at baseball (relatively to other professional baseball players of course) then this lack of skill should translate to other parts of life. It's interesting T.J. Simers mentions taking over Page 2 at the same time he says what a great country it is for ex-baseball players to become announcers. If it wasn't such a great country then T.J. Simers would be writing for a small town newspaper or at least would be responsible for the drivel and trolling content he writes on a weekly basis.
There's not much else to say except T.J. Simers won't ever change. I imagine he is stalking Marcus Thames right now trying to ask him questions about what it is like to be a complete and utter failure. I am sure he will phrase the question exactly that way too. Maybe someday someone can get Simers to come from under his bridge and ask him what it is like to be the biggest piece of shit, trolling sportswriter on the West Coast. If this can't happen, is it wrong that I hope a player at least punches him one day when he asks one of his baiting questions?
I will start with Simers baiting Josh Hamilton and asking him why he smiles so much.
Uh-oh, we've got another smiler.
This catches on and we won't have any athletes around town who appear as if they give a rip.
Dwight Howard, meet Josh Hamilton.
These two players are exactly alike. There are no differences between them.
"I've had people screaming at me when I'm at the plate, 'Wipe that smile off your face,''' said the Angels bust.
This is journalism, people. Wonderful, wild (shitty) journalism. Josh Hamilton is better known as "the Angels bust." Regardless of whether that is true or not, this isn't a case of T.J. Simers "telling it like it is," but just trying really hard to be a dick and get pageviews. There's no need to write that Hamilton is a bust other than to get a rise out of Hamilton and those who read this column.
Hamilton gets any more relaxed and he really will be an automatic out. He stands casually in the batter's box holding his bat like he's waiting for the next slow-pitch softball to arrive.
Because Simers has nothing if not an athlete's physique so he knows the best way to hit a baseball is to not relax and press really hard to do well. It's just a matter of trying harder of course. That's all.
At least Howard works up a sweat.
There is a difference in baseball and basketball. The sports require different amounts of sweating.
It's never good when the fans seem to care more than the guys competing to win or lose.
The fans always seem to care more than the guys competing to win or lose. This is an absurd point. Fans are sometimes irrational. They are capable of overreacting and seeming to care much more than athletes often care. It's not a sign of anything that the fans care more than the players. Caring more and trying harder doesn't always lead to a player performing at a high level.
"I know the game is based on results and the world wants to see results. But if I can take that out of the equation, play hard and prepare to the best of my abilities, the results are going to be there.''
He's right; it sounds bad.
Hamilton preceded this comment by saying,
"I know this is going to sound bad, and you can spin it whatever way you want,
so at least he knows Simers will spin this quote how he sees fit. This quote does sound bad, but it's not necessarily bad (outside of the fact Hamilton isn't getting the results), but improving in sports or other areas of life is often more about completing the process and allowing the results to come through working hard through the process. Baseball is like sales. You can't win every one, but preparing and taking the right steps to be successful is as much a part of success as anything else. It is a process-oriented way of looking at achievement rather than being focused on the results.
I'll never know. But I do wonder why he's not more thankful. We talked before Wednesday's game and I reminded him how inept he has been in driving the ball out of the park the opposite way. And I suggested he do better.
Unbelievable. This is typical T.J. Simers for you. He's merely a sportswriter and has the balls to tell Josh Hamilton how to hit the baseball. I'm not sure what makes Simers qualified to be a hitting coach, but he probably should be careful about doling out free advice about an athlete's performance or else an athlete could point out the terrible writing job Simers performs several times weekly.
As bad as Josh Hamilton is struggling, he is 100 times better at hitting a baseball than T.J. Simers ever could be. Simers "suggests" that Hamilton does better. It's ridiculous and incredibly infuriating. I wish someone would suggest to Simers that he stop acting like a troll and try not to be an embarrassment to his profession. I don't get how Hamilton didn't punch Simers in the face. It's not like Hamilton isn't aware that he has been inept at driving the ball out of the park the opposite way. There's absolutely no reason to remind him of this unless Simers is trying to bait Hamilton into shedding his new "nice guy" image and getting angry.
An hour or so later he homered, but before Thursday's game he refused to say thank you.
"I'll need to do it again,'' he said, as if he did it himself in the first place.
Clearly he is an athlete who doesn't care enough.
Then he went out and hit another home run, two homers in two days with Page 2's help after having two in the first 31 games.
God, Simers is insufferable. I know he is being tongue-in-cheek in order to get some attention, but it's pathetic to pretend he is responsible for Hamilton homering. It's not true and Simers knows it isn't true. He just wants to get a rise out of everyone.
Also, notice how Hamilton homered and started playing better and Simers still has nothing positive to say about him. When he doesn't homer, he's a bust, but when he does homer, it is simply because Simers has served as Hamilton's personal batting coach. Simers already had part of this column written and certainly wasn't going to change the content to fit reality.
I just found a way to make Hamilton care enough to prove himself after he repeatedly told me, "You cannot push my buttons.''
He sucks right now, but my respect for Josh Hamilton has increased dramatically. He isn't going to play T.J. Simers' games.
"I don't care,'' said Hamilton, and in addition to working on his home run swing, he needs help on how to talk to fans.
"I hear it from the stands every night. You have to come to the understanding that people like to bring up your weaknesses and failures and throw them in your face.
Fans certainly don't like to hear a baseball player say he doesn't care, but Hamilton is referring to the fact he doesn't care what his haters have to say about him. Maybe he could pretend to outwardly care more, but that's not his personality.
The Angels signed him to hit baseballs. The facts are sometimes blunt, but most fans probably care more about his swing than his relationship with the Lord.
"I understand,'' Hamilton said. "We're all different. It depends on your starting point, and mine is the Bible.''
Hey remember that time "Forbes" said Josh Hamilton could learn something from Whitney Houston? That was pretty odd, wasn't it?
"Does it mention anywhere in the Bible,'' I asked, "what it takes to hit more home runs?''
I have some sense of self-control, but I would have punched T.J. Simers in the face by now if I were Hamilton. Josh Hamilton has been called inept, a bust, and now Simers is somewhat mocking Hamilton's religion by asking if it says anywhere in the Bible what it takes to hit more home runs. Simers is simply being sarcastic in order to be a dickhead and most quality newspapers would do something to prevent this type of behavior. It turns out the "Los Angeles Times" is condoning this troll-like behavior, so much like the middle-aged child he is, Simers will continue to perform these juvenile antics in a desperate plea to get attention or a reaction.
I would imagine T.J. Simers used to break his mom's dishes intentionally as a child to watch her yell at him. I get the feeling he craved attention even at an early age. If only he didn't have a forum to garner more attention with his sports columns in the present day then the world would be a better place.
He has what most folks would want in an athlete. He's personable and approachable, offering a pat on the fanny to almost everyone he meets, including sports columnists. He signs autographs before batting practice, after batting practice and Thursday he huddled for prayer with a young man who found lifesaving inspiration in Hamilton's book about his struggles with addiction.
That's all well and good, but he is paid to hit a baseball and Hamilton understands that. He also understands that getting angry with T.J. Simers stupid, baiting questions and trying really, really hard isn't going to make him hit the baseball any better. It's a process, and if he is pressing too hard in his mind or at the plate then he just needs time to snap out of this funk. It sucks for Angels fans, but Hamilton will start to hit the ball better eventually.
But how about living up to expectations as a superstar?
Hamilton does need to do that, but there is a much better column to be written about Hamilton in relation to living up to expectations as a superstar. T.J. Simers isn't capable of real sports journalism, so he isn't capable of writing a better column than this. He's a one-trick pony whose only trick is to take a crap on the most people possible.
Or ignore his insistence on letting everyone know he doesn't care what they think — which lets you know he really does.
"It's important to me to do well and that's why I work hard to improve every day,'' he said. "But when the game is over I stop thinking about it.''
If only it was so easy for Angels fans.
What is it with "Los Angeles Times" sports columnists that they write one sentence paragraphs? I feel like there needs to be an investigation into this.
If talking to T.J. Simers were such good luck that he did have a secret to help a baseball player perform better, and if I were Josh Hamilton, I would forever accept mediocrity and retire immediately. Talking to Simers wouldn't be worth it. The only thing worse than being hated by Angels fans is having to listen to T.J. Simers ask you bullshit, baiting questions in a desperate attempt to get a reaction.
Now Simers, being an equal opportunity asshole, asks Mark McGwire if he should give steroids to the Dodgers hitters. Because a question like that is a real question that a real sportswriter should be asking. Well, it seems T.J. Simers thinks this is a real question that a real sportswriter should be asking.
I had never met Mark McGwire before Tuesday night, but I knew of his reputation and the fact he has struck out so far as the Dodgers' hitting coach.
Sit down, T.J. Let's have a talk about hitting coaches. They generally get too much blame and too much credit depending on how their team is hitting. Why does McGwire suck with the Dodgers when he was good with the Cardinals? It's almost like he isn't the one hitting the baseball and there is another variable (the hitters he is coaching) that needs to be accounted for.
So given the Dodgers' lack of power, I asked, "Is it time to introduce the players to steroids?"
Oh, my gentle Jesus. Wouldn't it be quicker and more efficient just to wear a sign that says, "I need attention"?
McGwire laughed and I wondered why.
Because your question is so absolutely ridiculous and baiting of McGwire it doesn't even deserve a response. That's why he laughed. T.J. Simers is a one-trick pony and a person who has control over his emotions won't get set off by Simers' weak attempts to troll.
"The magic potion is in between the ears," he said. "This game is beautiful, things can change overnight."
You win tonight, I told him, and the Dodgers will still be in last place.
So does T.J. believe the Dodgers should just pack it up and quit playing hard for the rest of the year? It's not like the season is 162 games long or anything like that. There's still time to panic!
"It will come," McGwire added. I think he was referring to power rather than some shipment in the mail.
How miserable of a person do you have to be to write in the way that T.J. Simers does? I wonder if it is his hatred for mankind entirely or self-hatred that causes him to write in the way he does?
The Dodgers rank third to last in the major leagues in home runs and RBIs, and yet they have a guy who hit 70 home runs as their hitting instructor.
You would think McGwire could transfer his power-hitting ability to the Dodgers hitters through some sort of "Freaky Friday" type magic, but alas, he can't do this. He probably needs steroids to accomplish this feat.
"It's all about pitch selection," said McGwire, who has apparently changed his mind on what it takes to hit the ball out of the park.
You still have to select the right pitches to hit a home run, even if you are using steroids. It's hard to hit a home run when you can't make contact with the baseball.
I remember how much fun it was when Sammy Sosa and McGwire were hitting a lot of home runs. I thanked McGwire for providing those thrills and asked if he could still score some steroids.
Break his neck! Leg-sweep him! Burn him with fire! Whatever it takes, let's get rid of T.J. Simers.
I wish McGwire had answered "yes" and then busted out with a needle, held down Simers and injected him with the most powerful steroid on the market. This has to happen. Someone has to call Simers on his bullshit sometime.
"Certainly not," he said. "Can't, and will not. That is just no."
So much then for the Dodgers turning things around.
Reading a T.J. Simers column is like eating horseshit out of a used coffee filter topped with burning cigarettes and washing it down with a glass of cat urine.
The fun is gone in Donnie Baseball.
The last time we spoke he talked about how good he felt about his team after three straight defeats.
In his own snippy and uncharacteristic way, he said he still feels good about his team. But how do you feel good about a team that cannot win consistently? I asked.
"I like our talent," Mattingly said, while jerking his head from side to side to avoid eye contact. "I like what we can be."
It's hard not to be snippy to a person who asks a loaded question like this. How do you even expect a person to answer a question like "how do you feel good about a team that cannot win consistently?" Mattingly can either sound like a moron by saying he feels great about it or he throws his team under the bus. Obviously the intent of the question was to get Mattingly to throw his team under the bus.
WHEN I began Page 2, I asked the question in my first column: If F.P. Santangelo can enter a room with a sign over the door that reads: "Players Only,"' why can't I?
Never one to laugh or hit, a grouchy Santangelo was soon gone.
Now he's a broadcaster for the Nationals, much like Steve Lyons for the Dodgers. Much like Lyons.
What a great country this is.
Because if a person isn't great at baseball (relatively to other professional baseball players of course) then this lack of skill should translate to other parts of life. It's interesting T.J. Simers mentions taking over Page 2 at the same time he says what a great country it is for ex-baseball players to become announcers. If it wasn't such a great country then T.J. Simers would be writing for a small town newspaper or at least would be responsible for the drivel and trolling content he writes on a weekly basis.
There's not much else to say except T.J. Simers won't ever change. I imagine he is stalking Marcus Thames right now trying to ask him questions about what it is like to be a complete and utter failure. I am sure he will phrase the question exactly that way too. Maybe someday someone can get Simers to come from under his bridge and ask him what it is like to be the biggest piece of shit, trolling sportswriter on the West Coast. If this can't happen, is it wrong that I hope a player at least punches him one day when he asks one of his baiting questions?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
18 comments Gene Wojciechowski Just Doesn't Give A Crap Anymore
I spend nearly every day of the week mocking some sportswriter somewhere for writing a column I don't like or think is bad journalism. The most frustrating columnists are those like Gregg Easterbrook who is just absolutely sure he is right, but he just isn't...or maybe someone like Bill Plaschke who probably doesn't even realize how terrible he is, so he writes every column with a great amount of confidence that he shouldn't have. You get the feeling they are trying to be good sportswriters, it's just not happening for them.
Sometimes I get the feeling Gene Wojciechowski isn't even trying anymore. The latest column he wrote is about Pete Rose (curiously I tagged him as Peter Rose when I first tagged his name and discussed him here) and Mark McGwire and the similarities they have. He mailed this one in. It's not well-researched or well-thought out in any fashion. It's just there for people to read if they get bored. Or it can be used in case someone has run out of toilet paper. Of course it's a short article, so it may not even be that useful as toilet paper.
I feel like Gene's editor told him to write an article about Mark McGwire and his thought process went like this:
"Mark McGwire isn't going to make the Hall of Fame any time soon. Pete Rose isn't going to make the Hall of Fame either. Both did things that baseball frowns upon, so there must be similarities between them, vague as they may be. Let's see if I can put a column together about this and blame Major League Baseball."
So that's what he did.
Mark McGwire is back in. But Pete Rose is still out?
Mark McGwire did not make the Hall of Fame, so he is not "back in" necessarily. He is on the ballot which is something Pete Rose can't say. Other than the fact both players are disgraced in the eyes of many fans and Major League Baseball there really aren't that many similarities in the situation of these two players. One was banned for gambling, the other used steroids and has been sort of unofficially blacklisted, except by his PED forgiving ex-manager Tony La Russa.
Major League Baseball continues its hit streak of hypocrisy.
Here is where there the entire column Gene writes here falls apart. There is no Major League Baseball hypocrisy. Pete Rose was found to gamble on baseball games, WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT, while there was no such rule on the books when McGwire used steroids. So there was nothing inherently hypocritical in Major League Baseball for banning Rose when he broke a rule MLB had, but not punishing McGwire for breaking a rule not currently on the books of MLB.
Sure, maybe Major League Baseball should do something about McGwire being the hitting coach for the Cardinals but it really wouldn't make sense to punish him for violating a rule that wasn't a rule when he played. So the entire comparison between Rose and McGwire falls apart because there isn't a justifiable comparison between the two players and their wrong deeds.
Knowing this point, Gene's entire column falls apart. Yet, I will continue going forward...
How is it that McGwire receives a standing O from St. Louis Cardinals fans, but Rose still has his 68-year-old face pressed against MLB's window?
These are two completely different things. On one hand you have the fans reaction to Mark McGwire and on the other hand you have MLB's reaction to Pete Rose. If I am not wrong, Pete Rose got cheered in 1999 when he was introduced in Atlanta during the World Series. So given the fact they were both cheered by fans, the fan reaction to both is fairly similar. The difference in reaction by MLB to McGwire's transgression was very little to nothing because there is nothing MLB can do to permanently punish McGwire, while MLB's reaction to Pete Rose can be explained by the fact it is against the rules to gamble on games when affiliated with MLB. Hence, while Gene tries to combine the two reactions into a contradiction, there is no contradiction present.
McGwire not only goes directly from his self-imposed isolation tank to a big league coaching job, but he has Cards manager Tony La Russa running interference against anyone who thinks this is a bogus idea.
Major League Baseball may have a hard time controlling how Tony La Russa runs his baseball team and who he chooses for his coaches. So it's not exactly MLB's fault that La Russa continues to run interference for his PED-connected players. Again, Mark McGwire hasn't been banned from baseball for life, while Pete Rose has. So there is the difference in these two players Gene is looking for and feels the need to ignore.
Meanwhile, Rose, who has forgotten more about hitting than McGwire will ever know, remains an outcast. Huh?
Pete Rose has forgotten more about hitting than Mark McGwire will ever know? Gene does realize that Mark McGwire is a Hall of Fame caliber player, based on his steroid aided statistics of course, and was a good hitter? I hope he realizes this.
They both compromised the game and they both suffered irreparable harm to their reputations. But somehow Rose's baseball sins are mortal and McGwire's are venial.
Venial? That's some fancy words Gene is trying to distract us from the substance of the article with. I can see how someone who has a hard and fast stance against steroids would disagree with this statement, but Pete Rose literally messed with the integrity of the game, while Mark McGwire didn't do it to the degree Rose did. Pete Rose was a man in a position to control the outcome of games, while Mark McGwire mostly controlled the outcome of his at-bats.
I know steroids are not exactly like other forms of cheating like scuffing the ball, throwing a spitball or using sand paper, but really the result is the same. The difference in Pete Rose and Mark McGwire is the difference in one person cheating in a college English class and the English professor grading the papers in a way to control the outcome of what students get what grades. Steroids are micro-level cheating while gambling on baseball is macro-level cheating...especially when a MLB manager is the one doing the gambling.
Just so there's no confusion, Rose was a creep. He gambled on baseball games, got caught and then lied through every one of his Charlie Hustle teeth for nearly 15 years.
So if Mark McGwire was Pete Rose, he would keep publicly denying the use of steroids and then when he is trying to sell a book come clean in 2013 in order to get publicity for his book and get back in the good graces of baseball. According to Gene, this is a suitable idea.
Just so there is no confusion, what Pete Rose did was specifically prohibited by MLB, while steroids were not specifically prohibited at the time McGwire claims he took them. Also, so there is no more confusion, gambling on the outcome of baseball games when you are in an authority position is much more serious than an individual player on a baseball team cheating. It sucks and I don't like it either, but I feel it to be true.
He violated the game's most sacred rule and was thrown out of the profession like a scuffed ball gets tossed aside by a plate umpire.
Yet, while saying all of this, Gene Wojciechowski still can't figure out why Major League Baseball is treating Pete Rose and Mark McGwire differently. One violated baseball's most sacred rule and the other violated baseball's non-existent at-the-time steroid policy.
Rose finally admitted he bet on baseball in 2004. Doesn't matter. The MLB-issued lifetime restraining order prohibits him from coming within a foul pole of the game.
What Rose should have done is this: Take illegal steroids and performance enhancers, deceive baseball fans, make millions of tainted dollars, cheat the record book and the Roger Maris family, press the truth mute button, go into hiding and then reappear five years later with tears in his eyes and a confession with more holes than a catcher's mask.
Actually yes, perhaps Pete Rose should have done that instead since there isn't a rule banning PED users for life and there is a rule banning anyone affiliated with MLB who gambles on baseball games for life. Perhaps Pete Rose should have taken illegal steroids (though there is almost no doubt in my mind he took some "greenies" or some other substance that is a borderline PED...a lot of the players took them in his time) and then apologized a few years later. He didn't do this though. He gambled on baseball and lied about it repeatedly. I would like to see him in the Hall of Fame since I think the "character clause" that often gets brought up in relation to Rose and PED users is a joke.
Also, I am sick and tired of the "McGwire went into hiding" act the media has put on McGwire. He retired from baseball, he doesn't have to face the media and their inane questions while he is retired if he doesn't want to. The media isn't a court of law where a person HAS to speak to them and clear his name to avoid punishment, though it often seems that way and the media feels like a person isn't truly coming clean until that person's entire life story has been told publicly.
So in summation, regardless of the type of cheating that had taken place, gambling on baseball had the punishment of being banned for life, while there was no such punishment for PED use. That's the bottom line.
To McGwire's credit, at least he admitted the obvious and apologized. Still, how come Rose's gambling admission in 2004 makes no difference to MLB, but McGwire's recent admission of steroid use (nearly six years after his embarrassing congressional appearance) results in a welcome-back hug from the league office?
Well dumbass, I mean Gene, it's because what Rose admitted to was exactly what got him banned for life from baseball. So Rose was essentially admitting to the crime that got him banned, while there was no such ban for admitting PED use since McGwire isn't currently an active player. This argument is like saying a convicted murderer should be able to avoid the rest of his sentence simply because he admits what everyone already knows AFTER he is sentenced, that he killed a certain amount of people. You don't get credit for admitting to your crime after you have been punished for said crime. In the case of McGwire, there is no available punishment for him that could come from MLB at this point.
Not everyone is thrilled with Big Mac's return. Since McGwire's Confession Lite, Hall of Famers such as Carlton Fisk and Ferguson Jenkins have ripped him.
There is nothing like Carlton Fisk questioning how McGwire put up great numbers at the age of 34 when Fisk was putting up lines like 37 HR, 107 RBI, 17 SB, .238/.320/.488 as a 37 year old catcher.
Or how Fisk hit 18 HR, 74 RBI, .241/.299/.413 as a 43 year old catcher. That's also a 43 year old catcher that played 106 games behind the plate. No, those numbers aren't suspicious at all and I am sure it's just because Fisk had new exercises he did and took care of his body.
Carlton Fisk probably isn't the best person to question others about fishy numbers in their mid to late 30's. To be honest, if those numbers occurred during the Steroid Era he would be a prime suspect.
Soon, McGwire will report to spring training as the team's new hitting instructor. He gets to wear a major league uniform again. He gets to do what he loves.
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET A LIFETIME BAN FROM BASEBALL! There was a specific rule that said, "Don't fucking bet on baseball or you will be banned for life from the game." Shoeless Joe Jackson fell under this rule and he isn't in the Hall of Fame either. There was a rule and Pete Rose broke it. There was no such rule for McGwire. End of story.
Not Rose. The all-time hits leader (his career .303 batting average is 40 points higher than McGwire's)
Well that means Pete Rose is a much better baseball player than Mark McGwire. Mark McGwire had 423 more home runs than Pete Rose and had a higher lifetime on base percentage (.394 to .375). What does this mean? Nothing. Gene is trying to distract us by trying to remind us that Pete Rose was a great baseball player.
This isn't about the Hall of Fame. The moment Rose made a bet on baseball is the moment he forever forfeited his bronze plaque. McGwire should be held to an identical standard.
Except for the fact McGwire's crime was completely different and didn't have the same penalty attached to it, this statement makes sense. You can't hold two different crimes with two different penalties to an identical standard. Life just doesn't work that way.
Rose gambled. McGwire juiced. Both cheated.
Yes, both cheated. One person cheated and violated a baseball rule that goes back 100 years and the other cheated and violated the public trust and will never make the Hall of Fame or have credibility in the minds of many baseball fans. Both have gotten punished in their own way, and regardless of whether you think Pete Rose should be reinstated (I think he should be in the Hall of Fame but in the special "cheaters" wing that will eventually have to be opened), you have to admit he got a lifetime ban and if the commissioner doesn't want to overturn it, Pete Rose hasn't given him a reason to.
If Selig is going to embrace McGwire's explanation and apology, then he has to do the same for Rose. It's time to end the double standard endorsed by the commissioner's office and MLB.
It's not a double standard if the crime each person committed doesn't have the same penalty because they are separate crimes, albeit with the same result of breaking the public trust. Bud Selig hasn't embraced McGwire's explanation and apology, he just doesn't have much recourse to do anything about McGwire's PED use. He can suspend him, but McGwire would be back eventually and that just prolongs the problem. He can't ban him for life from the game unless he wants to be sued. What permanent punishment can Selig enact on McGwire since he didn't break a baseball rule in place when he used PEDs?
I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but it's the fair thing to do. You can't give McGwire a second chance, but ignore Rose's plea for reinstatement.
You absolutely can. If we are going to be straight by the book, Bud Selig has precedent to ignore Rose's pleas for reinstatement. No commissioner before Selig reinstated Rose and the fact Rose admitted to gambling on baseball to sell books shouldn't convince Selig to do so.
You can't hug one cheater, but stiff-arm the other.
The fact both players cheated doesn't mean the punishment for the cheating was or should be the same. Both players cheated but they cheated in completely different ways that required different punishments from MLB.
Rose has groveled, begged and pleaded for forgiveness. He even sells T-shirts on his Web site that read, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball."
Yet again, Rose is trying to make money off the fact he bet on baseball. The fact Rose wants to make a profit off his lifetime ban doesn't help him seem like he is the type of person who is contrite and serious about it.
I don't know if my opinion would change if Rose gave out T-shirts that read, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball," but I know the fact he is SELLING the T-shirts doesn't help him too much.
McGwire issued a statement to The Associated Press and agreed to a handful of sit-down interviews, but has yet to do a full news conference (the recent six-minute fiasco in St. Louis doesn't count). Put it this way: McGwire hasn't gone through the full truth car wash.
You mean other than his interviews with Bob Costas, Tim Kurkjian, and ESPN's own "Outside the Lines?" I can't help but wonder what questions these guys didn't ask McGwire which Gene Wojciechowski wanted answered? Maybe if Gene had any credibility in the world of a known cheater like Mark McGwire, he could get his own sit-down with McGwire, but I have a feeling that would never happen.
Yes, Rose betrayed the game by gambling on baseball. There's no way around that elephant in the middle of the dugout. But McGwire, Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettitte -- admitted PED users -- betrayed a similar trust.
Yes, they both betrayed a trust. It's the difference in someone stealing your car and stealing your wife. The theft remains the same but the penalty for both is different. Pete Rose stole our car while Mark McGwire stole our wife.
But who knows if Giamatti wouldn't have softened his own stance over 20-plus years? Anyway, Giamatti made a decision on his own. Selig is secure enough to do the same when it comes to Rose.
And he has. He's kept Pete Rose banned from the game. Decision made.
Rose made his major league debut in 1963, the same year McGwire was born. McGwire made his major league debut in 1986, the same year Rose played his final game.
Holy shit! They must be cosmically linked then! Bud Selig you must immediately de-ban Pete Rose from baseball because he is cosmically linked to another baseball player who was a cheater! It's written in the stars, it must be done!
So they are linked by years, by scandals and by confessions.
Yet they are not linked by baseball rules that guide the punishments for both players. Herein lies the problem with Gene's argument.
If Selig does the right thing, Rose and McGwire will be linked by 2010, too: the season they both returned from exile.
Weak. If I can criticize an entire article arguing a point with one sentence,
"Pete Rose and Mark McGwire are in different situations because there was a lifetime ban as punishment for those who gamble on baseball in place when Rose was caught gambling on baseball, and there was no penalty on the books for players who use PEDs when McGwire admitted to PED use after he retired."
Then you know it is a weak argument.
-Speaking of bad ass things to do, Bryant Gumble randomly accused Jeff Bagwell, Nomar Garciaparra, and Ivan Rodriguez of using steroids. I think that's awesome. I wasn't aware we could just randomly name people who we think used steroids without repercussion (That whole Raul Ibanez thing last summer sort of caused me to think this). Since I am feeling chipper, here's my partial list of players I think (but have no proof so I am not saying I am right) used steroids or some other PED:
Jeff Bagwell
Ivan Rodriguez
Nomar Garciaparra
Marcus Giles
Brian Giles
Javy Lopez (the catcher)
Kevin Brown (it sounds far fetched, I am aware of this)
Brady Anderson (for one year...maybe)
Gary Sheffield
Raul Mondesi
Jim Thome (though I hope not)
Albert Belle
Mike Hampton (again, it sounds far fetched)
That's just a partial list and I will hopefully think of some more in the comments.
Sometimes I get the feeling Gene Wojciechowski isn't even trying anymore. The latest column he wrote is about Pete Rose (curiously I tagged him as Peter Rose when I first tagged his name and discussed him here) and Mark McGwire and the similarities they have. He mailed this one in. It's not well-researched or well-thought out in any fashion. It's just there for people to read if they get bored. Or it can be used in case someone has run out of toilet paper. Of course it's a short article, so it may not even be that useful as toilet paper.
I feel like Gene's editor told him to write an article about Mark McGwire and his thought process went like this:
"Mark McGwire isn't going to make the Hall of Fame any time soon. Pete Rose isn't going to make the Hall of Fame either. Both did things that baseball frowns upon, so there must be similarities between them, vague as they may be. Let's see if I can put a column together about this and blame Major League Baseball."
So that's what he did.
Mark McGwire is back in. But Pete Rose is still out?
Mark McGwire did not make the Hall of Fame, so he is not "back in" necessarily. He is on the ballot which is something Pete Rose can't say. Other than the fact both players are disgraced in the eyes of many fans and Major League Baseball there really aren't that many similarities in the situation of these two players. One was banned for gambling, the other used steroids and has been sort of unofficially blacklisted, except by his PED forgiving ex-manager Tony La Russa.
Major League Baseball continues its hit streak of hypocrisy.
Here is where there the entire column Gene writes here falls apart. There is no Major League Baseball hypocrisy. Pete Rose was found to gamble on baseball games, WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT, while there was no such rule on the books when McGwire used steroids. So there was nothing inherently hypocritical in Major League Baseball for banning Rose when he broke a rule MLB had, but not punishing McGwire for breaking a rule not currently on the books of MLB.
Sure, maybe Major League Baseball should do something about McGwire being the hitting coach for the Cardinals but it really wouldn't make sense to punish him for violating a rule that wasn't a rule when he played. So the entire comparison between Rose and McGwire falls apart because there isn't a justifiable comparison between the two players and their wrong deeds.
Knowing this point, Gene's entire column falls apart. Yet, I will continue going forward...
How is it that McGwire receives a standing O from St. Louis Cardinals fans, but Rose still has his 68-year-old face pressed against MLB's window?
These are two completely different things. On one hand you have the fans reaction to Mark McGwire and on the other hand you have MLB's reaction to Pete Rose. If I am not wrong, Pete Rose got cheered in 1999 when he was introduced in Atlanta during the World Series. So given the fact they were both cheered by fans, the fan reaction to both is fairly similar. The difference in reaction by MLB to McGwire's transgression was very little to nothing because there is nothing MLB can do to permanently punish McGwire, while MLB's reaction to Pete Rose can be explained by the fact it is against the rules to gamble on games when affiliated with MLB. Hence, while Gene tries to combine the two reactions into a contradiction, there is no contradiction present.
McGwire not only goes directly from his self-imposed isolation tank to a big league coaching job, but he has Cards manager Tony La Russa running interference against anyone who thinks this is a bogus idea.
Major League Baseball may have a hard time controlling how Tony La Russa runs his baseball team and who he chooses for his coaches. So it's not exactly MLB's fault that La Russa continues to run interference for his PED-connected players. Again, Mark McGwire hasn't been banned from baseball for life, while Pete Rose has. So there is the difference in these two players Gene is looking for and feels the need to ignore.
Meanwhile, Rose, who has forgotten more about hitting than McGwire will ever know, remains an outcast. Huh?
Pete Rose has forgotten more about hitting than Mark McGwire will ever know? Gene does realize that Mark McGwire is a Hall of Fame caliber player, based on his steroid aided statistics of course, and was a good hitter? I hope he realizes this.
They both compromised the game and they both suffered irreparable harm to their reputations. But somehow Rose's baseball sins are mortal and McGwire's are venial.
Venial? That's some fancy words Gene is trying to distract us from the substance of the article with. I can see how someone who has a hard and fast stance against steroids would disagree with this statement, but Pete Rose literally messed with the integrity of the game, while Mark McGwire didn't do it to the degree Rose did. Pete Rose was a man in a position to control the outcome of games, while Mark McGwire mostly controlled the outcome of his at-bats.
I know steroids are not exactly like other forms of cheating like scuffing the ball, throwing a spitball or using sand paper, but really the result is the same. The difference in Pete Rose and Mark McGwire is the difference in one person cheating in a college English class and the English professor grading the papers in a way to control the outcome of what students get what grades. Steroids are micro-level cheating while gambling on baseball is macro-level cheating...especially when a MLB manager is the one doing the gambling.
Just so there's no confusion, Rose was a creep. He gambled on baseball games, got caught and then lied through every one of his Charlie Hustle teeth for nearly 15 years.
So if Mark McGwire was Pete Rose, he would keep publicly denying the use of steroids and then when he is trying to sell a book come clean in 2013 in order to get publicity for his book and get back in the good graces of baseball. According to Gene, this is a suitable idea.
Just so there is no confusion, what Pete Rose did was specifically prohibited by MLB, while steroids were not specifically prohibited at the time McGwire claims he took them. Also, so there is no more confusion, gambling on the outcome of baseball games when you are in an authority position is much more serious than an individual player on a baseball team cheating. It sucks and I don't like it either, but I feel it to be true.
He violated the game's most sacred rule and was thrown out of the profession like a scuffed ball gets tossed aside by a plate umpire.
Yet, while saying all of this, Gene Wojciechowski still can't figure out why Major League Baseball is treating Pete Rose and Mark McGwire differently. One violated baseball's most sacred rule and the other violated baseball's non-existent at-the-time steroid policy.
Rose finally admitted he bet on baseball in 2004. Doesn't matter. The MLB-issued lifetime restraining order prohibits him from coming within a foul pole of the game.
What Rose should have done is this: Take illegal steroids and performance enhancers, deceive baseball fans, make millions of tainted dollars, cheat the record book and the Roger Maris family, press the truth mute button, go into hiding and then reappear five years later with tears in his eyes and a confession with more holes than a catcher's mask.
Actually yes, perhaps Pete Rose should have done that instead since there isn't a rule banning PED users for life and there is a rule banning anyone affiliated with MLB who gambles on baseball games for life. Perhaps Pete Rose should have taken illegal steroids (though there is almost no doubt in my mind he took some "greenies" or some other substance that is a borderline PED...a lot of the players took them in his time) and then apologized a few years later. He didn't do this though. He gambled on baseball and lied about it repeatedly. I would like to see him in the Hall of Fame since I think the "character clause" that often gets brought up in relation to Rose and PED users is a joke.
Also, I am sick and tired of the "McGwire went into hiding" act the media has put on McGwire. He retired from baseball, he doesn't have to face the media and their inane questions while he is retired if he doesn't want to. The media isn't a court of law where a person HAS to speak to them and clear his name to avoid punishment, though it often seems that way and the media feels like a person isn't truly coming clean until that person's entire life story has been told publicly.
So in summation, regardless of the type of cheating that had taken place, gambling on baseball had the punishment of being banned for life, while there was no such punishment for PED use. That's the bottom line.
To McGwire's credit, at least he admitted the obvious and apologized. Still, how come Rose's gambling admission in 2004 makes no difference to MLB, but McGwire's recent admission of steroid use (nearly six years after his embarrassing congressional appearance) results in a welcome-back hug from the league office?
Well dumbass, I mean Gene, it's because what Rose admitted to was exactly what got him banned for life from baseball. So Rose was essentially admitting to the crime that got him banned, while there was no such ban for admitting PED use since McGwire isn't currently an active player. This argument is like saying a convicted murderer should be able to avoid the rest of his sentence simply because he admits what everyone already knows AFTER he is sentenced, that he killed a certain amount of people. You don't get credit for admitting to your crime after you have been punished for said crime. In the case of McGwire, there is no available punishment for him that could come from MLB at this point.
Not everyone is thrilled with Big Mac's return. Since McGwire's Confession Lite, Hall of Famers such as Carlton Fisk and Ferguson Jenkins have ripped him.
There is nothing like Carlton Fisk questioning how McGwire put up great numbers at the age of 34 when Fisk was putting up lines like 37 HR, 107 RBI, 17 SB, .238/.320/.488 as a 37 year old catcher.
Or how Fisk hit 18 HR, 74 RBI, .241/.299/.413 as a 43 year old catcher. That's also a 43 year old catcher that played 106 games behind the plate. No, those numbers aren't suspicious at all and I am sure it's just because Fisk had new exercises he did and took care of his body.
Carlton Fisk probably isn't the best person to question others about fishy numbers in their mid to late 30's. To be honest, if those numbers occurred during the Steroid Era he would be a prime suspect.
Soon, McGwire will report to spring training as the team's new hitting instructor. He gets to wear a major league uniform again. He gets to do what he loves.
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET A LIFETIME BAN FROM BASEBALL! There was a specific rule that said, "Don't fucking bet on baseball or you will be banned for life from the game." Shoeless Joe Jackson fell under this rule and he isn't in the Hall of Fame either. There was a rule and Pete Rose broke it. There was no such rule for McGwire. End of story.
Not Rose. The all-time hits leader (his career .303 batting average is 40 points higher than McGwire's)
Well that means Pete Rose is a much better baseball player than Mark McGwire. Mark McGwire had 423 more home runs than Pete Rose and had a higher lifetime on base percentage (.394 to .375). What does this mean? Nothing. Gene is trying to distract us by trying to remind us that Pete Rose was a great baseball player.
This isn't about the Hall of Fame. The moment Rose made a bet on baseball is the moment he forever forfeited his bronze plaque. McGwire should be held to an identical standard.
Except for the fact McGwire's crime was completely different and didn't have the same penalty attached to it, this statement makes sense. You can't hold two different crimes with two different penalties to an identical standard. Life just doesn't work that way.
Rose gambled. McGwire juiced. Both cheated.
Yes, both cheated. One person cheated and violated a baseball rule that goes back 100 years and the other cheated and violated the public trust and will never make the Hall of Fame or have credibility in the minds of many baseball fans. Both have gotten punished in their own way, and regardless of whether you think Pete Rose should be reinstated (I think he should be in the Hall of Fame but in the special "cheaters" wing that will eventually have to be opened), you have to admit he got a lifetime ban and if the commissioner doesn't want to overturn it, Pete Rose hasn't given him a reason to.
If Selig is going to embrace McGwire's explanation and apology, then he has to do the same for Rose. It's time to end the double standard endorsed by the commissioner's office and MLB.
It's not a double standard if the crime each person committed doesn't have the same penalty because they are separate crimes, albeit with the same result of breaking the public trust. Bud Selig hasn't embraced McGwire's explanation and apology, he just doesn't have much recourse to do anything about McGwire's PED use. He can suspend him, but McGwire would be back eventually and that just prolongs the problem. He can't ban him for life from the game unless he wants to be sued. What permanent punishment can Selig enact on McGwire since he didn't break a baseball rule in place when he used PEDs?
I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but it's the fair thing to do. You can't give McGwire a second chance, but ignore Rose's plea for reinstatement.
You absolutely can. If we are going to be straight by the book, Bud Selig has precedent to ignore Rose's pleas for reinstatement. No commissioner before Selig reinstated Rose and the fact Rose admitted to gambling on baseball to sell books shouldn't convince Selig to do so.
You can't hug one cheater, but stiff-arm the other.
The fact both players cheated doesn't mean the punishment for the cheating was or should be the same. Both players cheated but they cheated in completely different ways that required different punishments from MLB.
Rose has groveled, begged and pleaded for forgiveness. He even sells T-shirts on his Web site that read, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball."
Yet again, Rose is trying to make money off the fact he bet on baseball. The fact Rose wants to make a profit off his lifetime ban doesn't help him seem like he is the type of person who is contrite and serious about it.
I don't know if my opinion would change if Rose gave out T-shirts that read, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball," but I know the fact he is SELLING the T-shirts doesn't help him too much.
McGwire issued a statement to The Associated Press and agreed to a handful of sit-down interviews, but has yet to do a full news conference (the recent six-minute fiasco in St. Louis doesn't count). Put it this way: McGwire hasn't gone through the full truth car wash.
You mean other than his interviews with Bob Costas, Tim Kurkjian, and ESPN's own "Outside the Lines?" I can't help but wonder what questions these guys didn't ask McGwire which Gene Wojciechowski wanted answered? Maybe if Gene had any credibility in the world of a known cheater like Mark McGwire, he could get his own sit-down with McGwire, but I have a feeling that would never happen.
Yes, Rose betrayed the game by gambling on baseball. There's no way around that elephant in the middle of the dugout. But McGwire, Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettitte -- admitted PED users -- betrayed a similar trust.
Yes, they both betrayed a trust. It's the difference in someone stealing your car and stealing your wife. The theft remains the same but the penalty for both is different. Pete Rose stole our car while Mark McGwire stole our wife.
But who knows if Giamatti wouldn't have softened his own stance over 20-plus years? Anyway, Giamatti made a decision on his own. Selig is secure enough to do the same when it comes to Rose.
And he has. He's kept Pete Rose banned from the game. Decision made.
Rose made his major league debut in 1963, the same year McGwire was born. McGwire made his major league debut in 1986, the same year Rose played his final game.
Holy shit! They must be cosmically linked then! Bud Selig you must immediately de-ban Pete Rose from baseball because he is cosmically linked to another baseball player who was a cheater! It's written in the stars, it must be done!
So they are linked by years, by scandals and by confessions.
Yet they are not linked by baseball rules that guide the punishments for both players. Herein lies the problem with Gene's argument.
If Selig does the right thing, Rose and McGwire will be linked by 2010, too: the season they both returned from exile.
Weak. If I can criticize an entire article arguing a point with one sentence,
"Pete Rose and Mark McGwire are in different situations because there was a lifetime ban as punishment for those who gamble on baseball in place when Rose was caught gambling on baseball, and there was no penalty on the books for players who use PEDs when McGwire admitted to PED use after he retired."
Then you know it is a weak argument.
-Speaking of bad ass things to do, Bryant Gumble randomly accused Jeff Bagwell, Nomar Garciaparra, and Ivan Rodriguez of using steroids. I think that's awesome. I wasn't aware we could just randomly name people who we think used steroids without repercussion (That whole Raul Ibanez thing last summer sort of caused me to think this). Since I am feeling chipper, here's my partial list of players I think (but have no proof so I am not saying I am right) used steroids or some other PED:
Jeff Bagwell
Ivan Rodriguez
Nomar Garciaparra
Marcus Giles
Brian Giles
Javy Lopez (the catcher)
Kevin Brown (it sounds far fetched, I am aware of this)
Brady Anderson (for one year...maybe)
Gary Sheffield
Raul Mondesi
Jim Thome (though I hope not)
Albert Belle
Mike Hampton (again, it sounds far fetched)
That's just a partial list and I will hopefully think of some more in the comments.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
19 comments Two For One Thursday: King and Steroids
You know you all wanted it and you got it. Two different articles in one post. Don't act like you aren't excited at this wonderful deal. Today we have my personal favorite Peter King and Johnette Howard.
I have a soft spot for Peter King mailbags. I don't know if it is because usually the first part is just an extension of his MMQB or it is the only time he directly answers his fan's questions. It's probably a mixture of both, but either way I enjoy reading Peter's "these people aren't an insider like me" reaction to his fan's questions and his indignant responses when they question him. Fortunately, we get a little bit of both in Peter's weekly mailbag this week.
Five quick observations, then your e-mail from a busy NFL week:
Busy week, but still a one page mailbag. If I was a major sportswriter I would probably do a huge mailbag, depending on how mail I got of course. Mailbags just seem like a lot of fun, I can't lie, so I don't know why Peter doesn't do a larger one. I think Bill Simmons does a good job in getting a huge mailbag together (though the questions and answers sometimes irritate me).
1. We don't know who the Bills' coach might be because, and I can assure you this, they don't know either.
Anyone really surprised the Bills have no idea who their coach will be? Me neither.
When the Bills began this process, they made it clear they're going through a long process that won't be short-cutted unless Cowher would have said yes early.
Because of course Bill Cowher is the mecca for any team that wants to hire a coach who has had success in the NFL before. Bill Cowher is the only qualified coach currently available in the job market apparently. I like Bill Cowher and I think he is a good coach, but doesn't anyone remember when he was on sort of thin ice with the Steelers and couldn't win the big games? His last year at Pittsburgh he went 8-8 and there was a 3 year stretch where his best year was 9-7. Again, he seems to be a great coach, but he also has a 12-9 playoff record and a history of losing home AFC Championship Games.
If they're the only job open (other than Oakland, which almost doesn't count because the pool of candidates is so different), why rush? But I do know they like Frazier a lot.
Two things:
1. I like how Peter acknowledges the pool of candidates for the Oakland job is so different from the pool for any other NFL team. I just wonder if people who have never actually coached or played in the NFL are candidates? Is Al Davis going to attempt to lure Phil Jackson or possibly a high profile celebrity (Matt Damon?) to the Raiders to coach them? Would we put this past him?
2. I also like how the Vikings like Leslie Frazier a lot, but they want to wait on Cowher first of course. Bill Cowher is the high school girl who broke up with her boyfriend after sophomore year and now all the guys are trying to score with her when they are seniors. These senior guys are spending so much time trying to get with her, they are completely ignoring the fact there are potentially as good sophomore and junior girls to date. I feel like some NFL teams are too blinded by Cowher to look at other candidates.
(How's that for a random high school analogy?)
2. Tom Cable's in limbo. I keep hearing Cable expects to get fired, and I also hear of conflicting signs from inside the building that Al Davis may try to get him to fall in like with JaMarcus Russell again.
If I were Tom Cable and "falling in line" with JaMarcus Russell is a condition of employment then I am going to soon be unemployed. At what point do you think the NFL should step in and start running the Raiders? It's not that the team doesn't know what they are doing, it is that they don't get a chance to show they know what they are doing because the owner is a moron. A meddling owner getting older and more senile is not a path to success.
3. Pete Carroll has this bit of good news to welcome him. The Seahawks have three of the top 40 picks in the April draft -- No. 6 (theirs), No. 14 (from Denver, in the deal that allowed the Broncos to draft Alphonso Smith last year) and No. 40 (theirs).
Peter looks at this as good news, while I am not so sure this is really good news. Sure, give a good head coach a bunch of draft picks and that might lead to success, but give a head coach with a career record of 33-31 and hasn't coached at all in the NFL in a decade those three early picks and it could be disaster waiting to happen.
Pete Carroll has coached 4 seasons in the NFL and led his team to the following finishes in the division: 5th, 1st, 4th, and 4th.
Here is a list of players that Pete Carroll's teams have drafted while he was the head coach I realize he wasn't the General Manager, but he had to have some say in these picks:
1994 (with the Jets):
Other than Aaron Glenn and Fred Lester does anyone recognize those names?
1997 (with the Patriots):
1998:
1999:
Out of those four drafts there are four players that are or were starter quality in my book. The Patriots had bad luck with Robert Edwards and I didn't count him in that list of quality starters, but from his previous draft history is Pete Carroll a guy a team should trust to handle multiple draft choices? Even ignoring the fact he has been out of the NFL since 1999, I would say "no."
I'm not saying Pete Carroll is going to bust in Seattle, certainly he may have become a better coach in his time at USC, but based on his coaching and drafting history it doesn't look good to me. Coaching college football is so different from coaching in the NFL and part of Carroll's success at USC was that he was a great recruiter and usually had better players than anyone else because of that. I know it sounds like a cliche that he played with better players, but it is also partly true.
When you watched a USC game did you think, "man, Pete Carroll is getting a lot out of these guys," or "what a game plan by Pete Carroll and his staff!" Probably not. He always seemed to have better players because he was a great recruiter. This won't be the case in the NFL. Count me as apprehensive for the Pete Carroll Era in Seattle.
The draft picks could be the edge Seattle needs to fill two long-term holes -- at quarterback and left tackle. Carroll needs to work the Combine and the college stops as hard as he worked recruiting to have a good chance to turn the Seahawks around quickly.
But it's still not the same as recruiting. Pete Carroll can still work hard but he also has little control over what players fall to him beyond the #6 pick. It also isn't a situation where he can get three good quarterbacks (Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, and Mitch Mustain) on his roster and hope to God one of them stands apart in training camp and practice enough to be the starter. If Carroll wants a quarterback at #6, he will have to pick THE GUY at that spot. Drafting is ever-so-different from recruiting.
I heard from a few people, mostly on Twitter, about my statement saying I wasn't sure which QB-WR-TE trio I'd rather have right now -- the one in Green Bay or the one in Indy.
Probably because Peter phrased his opinion poorly. He picked an older trio and a younger trio and then tried to compare them now, instead of saying he would rather have the Colts trio now and the Packers trio in 3 years.
"You never cease to amaze me,'' wrote Tom Illg of Apple Valley, Minn. "Are you completely insane? You are debating between Peyton Manning, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne and Aaron Rodgers, Jermichael Finley, Greg Jennings. How do you possibly stay employed as a football expert? You have to think about choosing either a first-ballot Hall of Fame player or a player who still has a lot to prove.''
There are times I could take what Tom from Minnesota wrote here and just put it on a loop when talking about Peter King. I could just throw these three phrases in after every Peter King statement when I am doing the MMQB Review:
1. "You never cease to amaze me."
2. "Are you completely insane."
3. "How do you possibly stay employed as a football expert?"
I could just simply write those three phrases and it may still be entertaining. Let's see how Peter responds to this reader...
Well, glad you're reading, Tom.
"Gosh, you have a lot of anger Tom. I am surprised that someone would have so much anger that a football expert would make exaggerated or unclear claims. Can't I just say whatever I want without repercussions from you picky-ass readers?"
On opening day 2010, Tom, I'd take the Colts' trio. For the next seven years, I'd take Green Bay's. And that's my insanity defense.
You know who else this type comparison could go for, but it doesn't seem like Peter ever brought this up when "he who should not be talked about" was retiring/unretiring? I hesitate to say it since I talk about these two all the time, but this "I'd rather have this guy now, but this other guy 4 years from now" comparison could also have worked well for (code names) Brett Rodgers and Aaron Favre two years ago. Yet Peter never attempted to make it when analyzing the situation two summers ago.
Michael Donner of Rochester, N.Y.: "Hear me out, as I think this makes sense given the history of the Belichick Era (Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Curtis Martin): Offer Tom Brady to the Raiders for their 2010 1st, 2nd, 3rd; 2011 2nd, 2012 1st, 2nd. Brady's contract is tradeable and Al Davis would love him for a variety of reasons; Belichick could deal one of the first-rounders to the Rams for Steven Jackson and then draft Tim Tebow to run the exact same system in New England as he had in Florida.
This is why normal people should not try to be amateur General Managers. Is Tom Brady really the problem with this New England Patriot team and is Tim Tebow really a great replacement for Brady? I say "no" to both of these questions. I call this type trade proposal a "Fantasy Madden Trade" because it combines the idea in Fantasy Football you can try to trade which ever player you want, in return for a ton of draft picks which is a staple of the Madden football games. These do not work in real life. I hate it when a person just assumes an inferior team will cough up draft picks for established players. It drives me crazy.
I am sure the Raiders like Tom Brady, but would they trade: 2 first round draft picks, 3 second round draft picks, and one 3rd round draft choice for Tom Brady when he is a free agent after 2010? How does this make sense? Then this guy just assumes the Rams will take a 1st round pick for Steven Jackson and Tim Tebow will be available for the Patriots to draft...oh yeah, the Patriots will also change their entire offensive system to the one Tebow ran at Florida.
So the plan is to rebuild the entire Patriots team, offensively around Tim Tebow...by trading one of the best quarterbacks of all-time. Does this sound a bit risky to anyone?
The Pats then have a solid running threat added in the backfield and under center. Am I crazy, or does this not make perfect sense?''
The Patriots then have an unproven 1st round draft pick starting at quarterback and a team learning a new offensive system. It sounds a little crazy to me.
PK: All except the trading Brady part.
Haha, Peter with the smackdown! Then Peter loses his mind and irritates me.
What makes more sense to me was raised by one of my Twitter followers the other day -- deal the first-rounder, 22nd overall, to Carolina, without a first-rounder right now, for one of its backs.
Oh of course, the Panthers would love to trade one of the top 13 running backs in rushing yards last year to any team who will give them a 1st round draft choice! Can Carolina throw in a 2nd round pick just to make it even? Then Peter jumps right on the crazy train...
If it's Jonathan Stewart, I'd do it. I'm a little worried about the injury bug biting DeAngelo Williams.
Well of course they will trade the younger (22 years old) of the two backs for a 1st round pick that is almost a 2nd round pick (#22). The Panthers drafted Stewart at #13 and he looks like a franchise back, but I am sure, since they are stupid, they would trade him now that he is a proven player for an upper 1st round pick. Where can they sign to make this happen?
Not to mention, Peter King proves he really doesn't follow the NFL that closely when he mentions DeAngelo Williams having the "injury bug." Jonathan Stewart participated in roughly 30% of the practices during the season this year because he has nagging injuries and needs to be ready to play on Sunday. Williams only missed games at the end of this year because the team had Stewart and they didn't have to rush him back since they weren't in the playoff hunt. I would expect someone who follows the NFL to know this.
Just to be sure I am not crazy, I asked my favorite Panthers beat writer and fellow Appalachian State grad Darin Gantt on Twitter if this was a possibility. Gantt is easily my favorite beat writer that follows the Panthers and he actually knows his stuff and writes well, rather than being the type of writer who tries to start speculation or increase readership with his columns. I can appreciate that.
daringantt I wouldn't. Same for Pep? Let's talk. RT @bengoodfella Peter King said Pats could trade 1st to Carolina for J-Stew. Would Cats go for that?
By "I wouldn't" he means "They wouldn't."
daringantt Just read the King item in question http://tinyurl.com/yfhzwkv, not sure I see Stew being that much more durable than DeAngelo.
daringantt Not sure they're eager to give up either one. RT @OrangeChuck Maybe Carolina is more willing to trade Stew because of his injury status.
My point of all this writing is that Peter King should realize the Panthers set up their entire team to run the ball and that requires keeping two of the best running backs in the NFL. Stewart is young, affordable and productive. There is no reason to get rid of him. This is like asking if the Giants should trade Steve Smith for a 1st round pick to use on defense or the Cowboys should trade Felix Jones for a 1st round pick. Just because there is depth at a position doesn't mean the team wants to trade out of that depth. Peter also should know that Stewart is the one with the injury bug, not Williams.
From E. Alberto of Honduras: "If Peter King were head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles would he have benched Donovan McNabb for Michael Vick versus Dallas after Vick's touchdown?
What is with some of the questions Peter is asked today? If McNabb was going to be replaced, it better be with Kevin Kolb and not Mike Vick. I would hope to God this is how it would be. Also, didn't Vick fumble a handoff in the Cowboys game? It's not like he performed supremely well.
PK: Once you take that genie out of the bottle -- the genie of yanking McNabb without warning from the biggest game of the year -- the mayhem would be so pronounced that you'd already have determined that Kevin Kolb was going to be your quarterback going forward. So the answer is no. Not sure at that exact moment I'd have been ready to make that call.
This is another problem with yanking McNabb, though really I don't know if yanking him in the game should cause a massive quarterback controversy, even though it probably would. More importantly, the part Peter didn't address is why the hell the Eagles would yank McNabb for Vick and not Kolb?
From Robert of Portland, Ore.: "With what seems to be a large number of juniors coming out early in what was already a deep draft, what teams besides Cleveland look to be in the best positions to take advantage of this cornucopia of talent?''
PK: New England has the most picks in the top two rounds -- four. I haven't gotten the exact spots confirmed yet, but I believe they'll be picking 22nd, 44th, 47th and 53rd overall. As one club president said to me Monday: "The Patriots are in the perfect spot to get some new pieces because it's going to be a pretty deep draft and they don't have the cost of one of the top six, eight picks.''
What? Hasn't Peter heard? The Patriots dynasty is over! Done! Never to rise again! Trade Tom Brady to the Raiders and draft Tim Tebow to run the Urban Meyer offense and watch the team succeed in the future! Trade Moss, Welker, and Mayo, it is time to rebuild around Tim Tebow!
You can't tell me all these media outlets were over reacting to a bad playoff loss can you? There is no way the media could over react to a loss like this, especially a large media outlet like there is in Boston.
I just wanted to take this time to emphasize how stupid it is for everyone to assume the Patriots are done as a team. They have a bunch of draft picks in prime spots and a bright head coach. Everyone needs to simmer down a little about writing the obituary for the Patriots team.
From Heather Boyer of Brooklyn: "The one thing that I read this morning that made me feel slightly better about the Packers loss Sunday was your column. I appreciate that you recognize the strength and talent of Aaron Rodgers and the team. But most of all I appreciate that you analyzed the last sack over and over and determined that the face mask was not a factor. I know that the missed call did not lose the game for the Packers, but it sure made the loss more difficult to accept with any sort of aplomb. I always enjoy your column, but this one helped me work through a difficult Monday morning. Thank you.''
Actually, the facemask sort of was a factor in the Packers losing the game (other than the fact they played zero defense), but I am glad Peter can help other people feel better about a tough loss.
-Everyone has obviously heard the least shocking news of the week. Mark McGwire finally admitted he used steroids for nearly a decade in the late 1980's to the late 1990's. One reason I dislike the sports media is that revelations like this from athletes is never enough for them. You read articles written by sportswriters about how players should just come clean and then when players come clean the media writes crap about how the players didn't really come clean...or they have some other complaint. Our example for the day is Johnette Howard.
It was supposed to be the day that Mark McGwire re-surfaced and finally made things right.
Clearly McGwire felt compelled to do it since he is now the hitting instructor for the Cardinals. He must have felt now was the right time or was motivated to come clean since he was getting back involved with MLB.
But by time McGwire finished talking Monday about his tainted home-run hitting career, McGwire’s expected but long overdue admission that he used performance-enhancing drugs deserved an asterisk, too.
No apology is ever good enough for the media. A contrite apology is seen as not really coming clean and an apology without a player being contrite is seen as not really being sorry. The sports media will not let the players win. They can't let it happen. They want more than tears, more than blood. It's like they want to just get a chance to rip the player one more time and will use any excuse to do it.
What McGwire delivered wasn’t a show of true contrition.
Does it really matter? He is getting low Hall of Fame vote totals, everyone assumed he used steroids anyway, and there is very little sympathy from fans and baseball people alike. Who cares if he was contrite? He admitted he used PEDs like everyone wanted him to do at the Congressional hearing a few years ago. Mark McGwire is just another baseball cheater that has wrecked the record books and our illusions about baseball over the last 20 years. We knew it then sort of and we know it now for sure. Let's move on.
The most fascinating mutation of baseball’s drug era has always been The Superstar Steroid User like McGwire or Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, not the journeymen who were all just trying to keep their roster spots.
Because the media doesn't get any joy from tearing down journeymen who cheated and possibly cost another borderline player a roster spot. Pointing out the journeymen who cheated and possibly denied another player his dream of playing in the major leagues isn't as fun to talk about as players who are stars and cheated. I think a good case could be made that more wrong was done to players who were borderline MLB players and didn't get a spot because the guy ahead of him was on some sort of PED.
The ego and hubris, the sense of entitlement and indignation McGwire felt at being criticized for his admittedly bad choices all bubbled up as he talked.
This is why players don't confess. If a player doesn't confess, he is just a cheater. If a player does confess the media can then call him a cheater and take personal shots at him (by calling him names) as well.
Mark McGwire cheated. Did him admitting it tell us anything we didn't really know prior? So what's different other than he admitted it? He is still a PED user who is going to try and make the Hall of Fame despite his admission. Does the direct knowledge of his PED use really change our opinion of him compared to the suspected knowledge? He got 23% (or around there) of the Hall of Fame vote this year. He was already treated like a PED user in the Hall of Fame voter's eyes, so really his admission doesn't do much other than give people like Johnette Howard a chance to call him names.
A workmanlike question about the five years McGwire went underground after the disastrous 2005 Congressional hearings in which McGwire said “I’m not here to talk about the past” struck a raw chord with McGwire.
“It wasn’t an exile,” McGwire tersely corrected Costas, “It was a retirement.”
The thing was, IT WAS A RETIREMENT! Mark McGwire had been traveling for 7 months of the year for 20 years of his life. He wanted to spend time with his family and get away from baseball. It's his right. He wanted to get away from baseball, so he did. He shouldn't be forced to do baseball television shows or make himself available for interviews anymore if he doesn't want to. Contrary to the belief of Johnette Howard, Mark McGwire may have actually been retired and away from the game for reasons that don't have to do with steroids. The perception the media has that athletes should always make themselves ready and available for interview at all times has mystified me for a while now.
McGwire didn’t mind freely admitting that the carefully orchestrated way his apology was rolled out — the surprise release of his written statement at 3 p.m. ET Monday, followed by supportive statements that baseball commissioner Bud Selig and St. Louis manager Tony La Russa released within the hour — was intentionally timed to smooth his return to baseball next month as the Cardinals hitting coach.
Yes, this is absolutely true. It's a public relations move. I wonder at what point sportswriters are going to quit standing over headlines of college football coaches who leave a college for more money and PED users admitting their PED use when it is convenient and beneficial for them, and stop naively screaming, "Oh my God, I can't believe this! What a shocking and underhanded move!" Maybe I am more jaded but I expect these things to happen and it doesn't bother me anymore. Isn't it time to stop being shocked?
Like Pettitte, McGwire said he used steroids only so he’d be healthy enough to play, and not for any strength gain — which is simply impossible to believe.
So don't believe it. McGwire is probably lying about this. He lied about using steroids for 5 years since that congressional hearing, so it should be nothing new. If you assume a player is lying, it saves a lot of time when going through the moral indignation phase of writing columns about that player.
Like A-Rod, McGwire tried for a little legacy repair by pointing out to Costas that he’d had good years and bad years before he used steroids in 1993 and afterward.
Which is probably a true statement. What does Johnette Howard expect McGwire to say?
"I don't really have any good years other than when I was on steroids, so don't even bother looking to see if I did. I was a marginal player at best."
McGwire is proud of his accomplishments and is trying to back up his statement that he was a good player and took the steroids to get healthy, by pointing out he was a good player before he took steroids.
He blamed his drift toward steroid use partly on the era he was playing in when he should’ve put the blame wholly on personal choices he made.
I hate to break it to Ms. Howard but this is probably true. McGwire made a poor personal decision to use steroids but if he played in an era when no one else was using steroids he may not have felt the need to do them to keep up. He made a bad decision because he felt pressure to do anything to stay on top of his game. It's an excuse built solidly on a truth.
He swore La Russa, his manager at two major league stops, never knew the truth about his steroid use until he told him in a phone call Monday morning — a farce that La Russa, McGwire’s longtime apologist, continued to repeat during the rounds of interviews he did Monday.
I personally don't see how La Russa gets off without any more blame like he does. He should get a tiny amount of blame from the media but he doesn't. He personally has had alcohol-related problems, there is a list of players he has coached baseball players who were the benchmark for steroid users, and he continuously claims to not know anything about steroids in baseball. I can't help but feel he always knew more than he claims he knew.
I have never said Albert Pujols used steroids, but how can he not be linked to them when his manager has managed other players who are known PED users, nearly every other top slugger of this era other than Pujols has been found to use some form of PED, and he has been linked to a trainer who used steroids? There is some circumstantial evidence regarding Pujols. I want to believe Pujols is clean, but it doesn't help my belief with some of his affiliations.
He was the closest thing baseball had to The Hulk when he and Sammy Sosa locked up in their mesmerizing chase of Maris’ single-season home run record in the summer of 1998. By then McGwire was a 255-pound strongman. His Cardinals uniforms looked like they’d been shrink-wrapped on him.
Yet how many sportswriters, journalists or observers who are criticizing McGwire now and had access to McGwire at the time blew the whistle or said anything about what they thought? Zero that I could find. As I have said before, the sports world, including sports journalists who had access to see these players bodies before/after steroids were all along for the ride. I find the same writers who condemn McGwire now at the time of his steroid admission to be culpable in turning a blind eye in 1998. Don't lie, I bet many of them suspected something.
McGwire’s statements might be worth getting more worked up about if most people who are inclined to care hadn’t long ago decided that McGwire used steroids and moved on.
Yet, Johnette Howard is still worked up.
Nothing McGwire said Monday is going to help him lose the stigma of being the only hitter with more than 500 home runs not to be voted into the Hall of Fame. (In four tries, he’s never gotten more than 24 percent of the 75 percent of the votes needed;
I can't answer the question of whether Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame or not. My inclination is to say, "no," but then I believe Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez should be in the Hall of Fame when they retire. That's a sort of contradiction. More importantly, what about those players that have been suspected but never linked, is it fair they may be in the Hall of Fame while the unlucky ones who got caught aren't? Probably not, but life is not fair. PED users are a tough case and I am glad I don't have to vote one way or another on this issue for the Hall of Fame (actually, I would like to vote because I am sure the voters are going to screw it all up).
So don’t say he finally came clean. He didn’t even come close. He just got closer than ever before.
I am sure there are some things McGwire is holding back. He attempted to come clean though and I can understand why he didn't fully come clean. It's because nothing is good enough for sportswriters, no matter how the apology goes, they will still find a problem with it. McGwire just told us what we all knew already, I don't know what else Johnette Howard wanted from him, other than being able to have the pure joy of him being in a position where he can make whatever apology he wants and still get criticized. No apology a PED user has given has ever satisfied the sports media. He used steroids, more information about this isn't going to change anything and his reasoning really shouldn't matter that much.
I have a soft spot for Peter King mailbags. I don't know if it is because usually the first part is just an extension of his MMQB or it is the only time he directly answers his fan's questions. It's probably a mixture of both, but either way I enjoy reading Peter's "these people aren't an insider like me" reaction to his fan's questions and his indignant responses when they question him. Fortunately, we get a little bit of both in Peter's weekly mailbag this week.
Five quick observations, then your e-mail from a busy NFL week:
Busy week, but still a one page mailbag. If I was a major sportswriter I would probably do a huge mailbag, depending on how mail I got of course. Mailbags just seem like a lot of fun, I can't lie, so I don't know why Peter doesn't do a larger one. I think Bill Simmons does a good job in getting a huge mailbag together (though the questions and answers sometimes irritate me).
1. We don't know who the Bills' coach might be because, and I can assure you this, they don't know either.
Anyone really surprised the Bills have no idea who their coach will be? Me neither.
When the Bills began this process, they made it clear they're going through a long process that won't be short-cutted unless Cowher would have said yes early.
Because of course Bill Cowher is the mecca for any team that wants to hire a coach who has had success in the NFL before. Bill Cowher is the only qualified coach currently available in the job market apparently. I like Bill Cowher and I think he is a good coach, but doesn't anyone remember when he was on sort of thin ice with the Steelers and couldn't win the big games? His last year at Pittsburgh he went 8-8 and there was a 3 year stretch where his best year was 9-7. Again, he seems to be a great coach, but he also has a 12-9 playoff record and a history of losing home AFC Championship Games.
If they're the only job open (other than Oakland, which almost doesn't count because the pool of candidates is so different), why rush? But I do know they like Frazier a lot.
Two things:
1. I like how Peter acknowledges the pool of candidates for the Oakland job is so different from the pool for any other NFL team. I just wonder if people who have never actually coached or played in the NFL are candidates? Is Al Davis going to attempt to lure Phil Jackson or possibly a high profile celebrity (Matt Damon?) to the Raiders to coach them? Would we put this past him?
2. I also like how the Vikings like Leslie Frazier a lot, but they want to wait on Cowher first of course. Bill Cowher is the high school girl who broke up with her boyfriend after sophomore year and now all the guys are trying to score with her when they are seniors. These senior guys are spending so much time trying to get with her, they are completely ignoring the fact there are potentially as good sophomore and junior girls to date. I feel like some NFL teams are too blinded by Cowher to look at other candidates.
(How's that for a random high school analogy?)
2. Tom Cable's in limbo. I keep hearing Cable expects to get fired, and I also hear of conflicting signs from inside the building that Al Davis may try to get him to fall in like with JaMarcus Russell again.
If I were Tom Cable and "falling in line" with JaMarcus Russell is a condition of employment then I am going to soon be unemployed. At what point do you think the NFL should step in and start running the Raiders? It's not that the team doesn't know what they are doing, it is that they don't get a chance to show they know what they are doing because the owner is a moron. A meddling owner getting older and more senile is not a path to success.
3. Pete Carroll has this bit of good news to welcome him. The Seahawks have three of the top 40 picks in the April draft -- No. 6 (theirs), No. 14 (from Denver, in the deal that allowed the Broncos to draft Alphonso Smith last year) and No. 40 (theirs).
Peter looks at this as good news, while I am not so sure this is really good news. Sure, give a good head coach a bunch of draft picks and that might lead to success, but give a head coach with a career record of 33-31 and hasn't coached at all in the NFL in a decade those three early picks and it could be disaster waiting to happen.
Pete Carroll has coached 4 seasons in the NFL and led his team to the following finishes in the division: 5th, 1st, 4th, and 4th.
Here is a list of players that Pete Carroll's teams have drafted while he was the head coach I realize he wasn't the General Manager, but he had to have some say in these picks:
1994 (with the Jets):
| 1994 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 12 | Aaron Glenn | DB | Texas A&M |
| 2 | 2 | 12 | 41 | Ryan Yarborough | WR | Wyoming | |
| 3 | 3 | 29 | 94 | Lou Benfatti | DT | Penn State | |
| 4 | 4 | 14 | 117 | Orlando Parker | WR | Troy State | |
| 5 | 5 | 21 | 152 | Horace Morris | LB | Tennessee | |
| 6 | 6 | 12 | 173 | Fred Lester | RB | Alabama A&M | |
| 7 | 7 | 14 | 208 | Glenn Foley | QB | Boston College |
Other than Aaron Glenn and Fred Lester does anyone recognize those names?
1997 (with the Patriots):
| 1997 | 1 | 1 | 29 | 29 | Chris Canty | DB | Kansas State |
| 2 | 2 | 29 | 59 | Brandon Mitchell | DE | Texas A&M | |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | 61 | Sedrick Shaw | RB | Iowa | |
| 4 | 3 | 29 | 89 | Chris Carter | DB | Texas | |
| 5 | 4 | 1 | 97 | Damon Denson | G | Michigan | |
| 6 | 4 | 29 | 125 | Ed Ellis | T | Buffalo | |
| 7 | 5 | 29 | 159 | Vernon Crawford | LB | Florida State | |
| 8 | 6 | 29 | 192 | Tony Gaiter | WR | Miami (FL) | |
| 9 | 7 | 29 | 230 | Scott Rehberg | T | Central Michigan |
1998:
| 1998 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 18 | Robert Edwards | RB | Georgia |
| 2 | 1 | 22 | 22 | Tebucky Jones | DB | Syracuse | |
| 3 | 2 | 22 | 52 | Tony Simmons | WR | Wisconsin | |
| 4 | 2 | 24 | 54 | Rod Rutledge | TE | Alabama | |
| 5 | 3 | 20 | 81 | Chris Floyd | RB | Michigan | |
| 6 | 3 | 22 | 83 | Greg Spires | DE | Florida State | |
| 7 | 4 | 23 | 115 | Leonta Rheams | DT | Houston | |
| 8 | 5 | 22 | 145 | Ron Merkerson | LB | Colorado | |
| 9 | 6 | 23 | 176 | Harold Shaw | RB | Southern Mississippi | |
| 10 | 7 | 22 | 211 | Jason Andersen | C | Brigham Young |
1999:
| 1999 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 17 | Damien Woody | C | Boston College |
| 2 | 1 | 28 | 28 | Andy Katzenmoyer | LB | Ohio State | |
| 3 | 2 | 15 | 46 | Kevin Faulk | RB | Louisiana State | |
| 4 | 3 | 30 | 91 | Tony George | DB | Florida | |
| 5 | 5 | 21 | 154 | Derrick Fletcher | T | Baylor | |
| 6 | 6 | 11 | 180 | Marcus Washington | DB | Colorado | |
| 7 | 7 | 21 | 227 | Michael Bishop | QB | Kansas State | |
| 8 | 7 | 35 | 241 | Sean Morey | WR | Brown |
Out of those four drafts there are four players that are or were starter quality in my book. The Patriots had bad luck with Robert Edwards and I didn't count him in that list of quality starters, but from his previous draft history is Pete Carroll a guy a team should trust to handle multiple draft choices? Even ignoring the fact he has been out of the NFL since 1999, I would say "no."
I'm not saying Pete Carroll is going to bust in Seattle, certainly he may have become a better coach in his time at USC, but based on his coaching and drafting history it doesn't look good to me. Coaching college football is so different from coaching in the NFL and part of Carroll's success at USC was that he was a great recruiter and usually had better players than anyone else because of that. I know it sounds like a cliche that he played with better players, but it is also partly true.
When you watched a USC game did you think, "man, Pete Carroll is getting a lot out of these guys," or "what a game plan by Pete Carroll and his staff!" Probably not. He always seemed to have better players because he was a great recruiter. This won't be the case in the NFL. Count me as apprehensive for the Pete Carroll Era in Seattle.
The draft picks could be the edge Seattle needs to fill two long-term holes -- at quarterback and left tackle. Carroll needs to work the Combine and the college stops as hard as he worked recruiting to have a good chance to turn the Seahawks around quickly.
But it's still not the same as recruiting. Pete Carroll can still work hard but he also has little control over what players fall to him beyond the #6 pick. It also isn't a situation where he can get three good quarterbacks (Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, and Mitch Mustain) on his roster and hope to God one of them stands apart in training camp and practice enough to be the starter. If Carroll wants a quarterback at #6, he will have to pick THE GUY at that spot. Drafting is ever-so-different from recruiting.
I heard from a few people, mostly on Twitter, about my statement saying I wasn't sure which QB-WR-TE trio I'd rather have right now -- the one in Green Bay or the one in Indy.
Probably because Peter phrased his opinion poorly. He picked an older trio and a younger trio and then tried to compare them now, instead of saying he would rather have the Colts trio now and the Packers trio in 3 years.
"You never cease to amaze me,'' wrote Tom Illg of Apple Valley, Minn. "Are you completely insane? You are debating between Peyton Manning, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne and Aaron Rodgers, Jermichael Finley, Greg Jennings. How do you possibly stay employed as a football expert? You have to think about choosing either a first-ballot Hall of Fame player or a player who still has a lot to prove.''
There are times I could take what Tom from Minnesota wrote here and just put it on a loop when talking about Peter King. I could just throw these three phrases in after every Peter King statement when I am doing the MMQB Review:
1. "You never cease to amaze me."
2. "Are you completely insane."
3. "How do you possibly stay employed as a football expert?"
I could just simply write those three phrases and it may still be entertaining. Let's see how Peter responds to this reader...
Well, glad you're reading, Tom.
"Gosh, you have a lot of anger Tom. I am surprised that someone would have so much anger that a football expert would make exaggerated or unclear claims. Can't I just say whatever I want without repercussions from you picky-ass readers?"
On opening day 2010, Tom, I'd take the Colts' trio. For the next seven years, I'd take Green Bay's. And that's my insanity defense.
You know who else this type comparison could go for, but it doesn't seem like Peter ever brought this up when "he who should not be talked about" was retiring/unretiring? I hesitate to say it since I talk about these two all the time, but this "I'd rather have this guy now, but this other guy 4 years from now" comparison could also have worked well for (code names) Brett Rodgers and Aaron Favre two years ago. Yet Peter never attempted to make it when analyzing the situation two summers ago.
Michael Donner of Rochester, N.Y.: "Hear me out, as I think this makes sense given the history of the Belichick Era (Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Curtis Martin): Offer Tom Brady to the Raiders for their 2010 1st, 2nd, 3rd; 2011 2nd, 2012 1st, 2nd. Brady's contract is tradeable and Al Davis would love him for a variety of reasons; Belichick could deal one of the first-rounders to the Rams for Steven Jackson and then draft Tim Tebow to run the exact same system in New England as he had in Florida.
This is why normal people should not try to be amateur General Managers. Is Tom Brady really the problem with this New England Patriot team and is Tim Tebow really a great replacement for Brady? I say "no" to both of these questions. I call this type trade proposal a "Fantasy Madden Trade" because it combines the idea in Fantasy Football you can try to trade which ever player you want, in return for a ton of draft picks which is a staple of the Madden football games. These do not work in real life. I hate it when a person just assumes an inferior team will cough up draft picks for established players. It drives me crazy.
I am sure the Raiders like Tom Brady, but would they trade: 2 first round draft picks, 3 second round draft picks, and one 3rd round draft choice for Tom Brady when he is a free agent after 2010? How does this make sense? Then this guy just assumes the Rams will take a 1st round pick for Steven Jackson and Tim Tebow will be available for the Patriots to draft...oh yeah, the Patriots will also change their entire offensive system to the one Tebow ran at Florida.
So the plan is to rebuild the entire Patriots team, offensively around Tim Tebow...by trading one of the best quarterbacks of all-time. Does this sound a bit risky to anyone?
The Pats then have a solid running threat added in the backfield and under center. Am I crazy, or does this not make perfect sense?''
The Patriots then have an unproven 1st round draft pick starting at quarterback and a team learning a new offensive system. It sounds a little crazy to me.
PK: All except the trading Brady part.
Haha, Peter with the smackdown! Then Peter loses his mind and irritates me.
What makes more sense to me was raised by one of my Twitter followers the other day -- deal the first-rounder, 22nd overall, to Carolina, without a first-rounder right now, for one of its backs.
Oh of course, the Panthers would love to trade one of the top 13 running backs in rushing yards last year to any team who will give them a 1st round draft choice! Can Carolina throw in a 2nd round pick just to make it even? Then Peter jumps right on the crazy train...
If it's Jonathan Stewart, I'd do it. I'm a little worried about the injury bug biting DeAngelo Williams.
Well of course they will trade the younger (22 years old) of the two backs for a 1st round pick that is almost a 2nd round pick (#22). The Panthers drafted Stewart at #13 and he looks like a franchise back, but I am sure, since they are stupid, they would trade him now that he is a proven player for an upper 1st round pick. Where can they sign to make this happen?
Not to mention, Peter King proves he really doesn't follow the NFL that closely when he mentions DeAngelo Williams having the "injury bug." Jonathan Stewart participated in roughly 30% of the practices during the season this year because he has nagging injuries and needs to be ready to play on Sunday. Williams only missed games at the end of this year because the team had Stewart and they didn't have to rush him back since they weren't in the playoff hunt. I would expect someone who follows the NFL to know this.
Just to be sure I am not crazy, I asked my favorite Panthers beat writer and fellow Appalachian State grad Darin Gantt on Twitter if this was a possibility. Gantt is easily my favorite beat writer that follows the Panthers and he actually knows his stuff and writes well, rather than being the type of writer who tries to start speculation or increase readership with his columns. I can appreciate that.
daringantt I wouldn't. Same for Pep? Let's talk. RT @bengoodfella Peter King said Pats could trade 1st to Carolina for J-Stew. Would Cats go for that?
By "I wouldn't" he means "They wouldn't."
daringantt Just read the King item in question http://tinyurl.com/yfhzwkv, not sure I see Stew being that much more durable than DeAngelo.
daringantt Not sure they're eager to give up either one. RT @OrangeChuck Maybe Carolina is more willing to trade Stew because of his injury status.
My point of all this writing is that Peter King should realize the Panthers set up their entire team to run the ball and that requires keeping two of the best running backs in the NFL. Stewart is young, affordable and productive. There is no reason to get rid of him. This is like asking if the Giants should trade Steve Smith for a 1st round pick to use on defense or the Cowboys should trade Felix Jones for a 1st round pick. Just because there is depth at a position doesn't mean the team wants to trade out of that depth. Peter also should know that Stewart is the one with the injury bug, not Williams.
From E. Alberto of Honduras: "If Peter King were head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles would he have benched Donovan McNabb for Michael Vick versus Dallas after Vick's touchdown?
What is with some of the questions Peter is asked today? If McNabb was going to be replaced, it better be with Kevin Kolb and not Mike Vick. I would hope to God this is how it would be. Also, didn't Vick fumble a handoff in the Cowboys game? It's not like he performed supremely well.
PK: Once you take that genie out of the bottle -- the genie of yanking McNabb without warning from the biggest game of the year -- the mayhem would be so pronounced that you'd already have determined that Kevin Kolb was going to be your quarterback going forward. So the answer is no. Not sure at that exact moment I'd have been ready to make that call.
This is another problem with yanking McNabb, though really I don't know if yanking him in the game should cause a massive quarterback controversy, even though it probably would. More importantly, the part Peter didn't address is why the hell the Eagles would yank McNabb for Vick and not Kolb?
From Robert of Portland, Ore.: "With what seems to be a large number of juniors coming out early in what was already a deep draft, what teams besides Cleveland look to be in the best positions to take advantage of this cornucopia of talent?''
PK: New England has the most picks in the top two rounds -- four. I haven't gotten the exact spots confirmed yet, but I believe they'll be picking 22nd, 44th, 47th and 53rd overall. As one club president said to me Monday: "The Patriots are in the perfect spot to get some new pieces because it's going to be a pretty deep draft and they don't have the cost of one of the top six, eight picks.''
What? Hasn't Peter heard? The Patriots dynasty is over! Done! Never to rise again! Trade Tom Brady to the Raiders and draft Tim Tebow to run the Urban Meyer offense and watch the team succeed in the future! Trade Moss, Welker, and Mayo, it is time to rebuild around Tim Tebow!
You can't tell me all these media outlets were over reacting to a bad playoff loss can you? There is no way the media could over react to a loss like this, especially a large media outlet like there is in Boston.
I just wanted to take this time to emphasize how stupid it is for everyone to assume the Patriots are done as a team. They have a bunch of draft picks in prime spots and a bright head coach. Everyone needs to simmer down a little about writing the obituary for the Patriots team.
From Heather Boyer of Brooklyn: "The one thing that I read this morning that made me feel slightly better about the Packers loss Sunday was your column. I appreciate that you recognize the strength and talent of Aaron Rodgers and the team. But most of all I appreciate that you analyzed the last sack over and over and determined that the face mask was not a factor. I know that the missed call did not lose the game for the Packers, but it sure made the loss more difficult to accept with any sort of aplomb. I always enjoy your column, but this one helped me work through a difficult Monday morning. Thank you.''
Actually, the facemask sort of was a factor in the Packers losing the game (other than the fact they played zero defense), but I am glad Peter can help other people feel better about a tough loss.
-Everyone has obviously heard the least shocking news of the week. Mark McGwire finally admitted he used steroids for nearly a decade in the late 1980's to the late 1990's. One reason I dislike the sports media is that revelations like this from athletes is never enough for them. You read articles written by sportswriters about how players should just come clean and then when players come clean the media writes crap about how the players didn't really come clean...or they have some other complaint. Our example for the day is Johnette Howard.
It was supposed to be the day that Mark McGwire re-surfaced and finally made things right.
Clearly McGwire felt compelled to do it since he is now the hitting instructor for the Cardinals. He must have felt now was the right time or was motivated to come clean since he was getting back involved with MLB.
But by time McGwire finished talking Monday about his tainted home-run hitting career, McGwire’s expected but long overdue admission that he used performance-enhancing drugs deserved an asterisk, too.
No apology is ever good enough for the media. A contrite apology is seen as not really coming clean and an apology without a player being contrite is seen as not really being sorry. The sports media will not let the players win. They can't let it happen. They want more than tears, more than blood. It's like they want to just get a chance to rip the player one more time and will use any excuse to do it.
What McGwire delivered wasn’t a show of true contrition.
Does it really matter? He is getting low Hall of Fame vote totals, everyone assumed he used steroids anyway, and there is very little sympathy from fans and baseball people alike. Who cares if he was contrite? He admitted he used PEDs like everyone wanted him to do at the Congressional hearing a few years ago. Mark McGwire is just another baseball cheater that has wrecked the record books and our illusions about baseball over the last 20 years. We knew it then sort of and we know it now for sure. Let's move on.
The most fascinating mutation of baseball’s drug era has always been The Superstar Steroid User like McGwire or Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, not the journeymen who were all just trying to keep their roster spots.
Because the media doesn't get any joy from tearing down journeymen who cheated and possibly cost another borderline player a roster spot. Pointing out the journeymen who cheated and possibly denied another player his dream of playing in the major leagues isn't as fun to talk about as players who are stars and cheated. I think a good case could be made that more wrong was done to players who were borderline MLB players and didn't get a spot because the guy ahead of him was on some sort of PED.
The ego and hubris, the sense of entitlement and indignation McGwire felt at being criticized for his admittedly bad choices all bubbled up as he talked.
This is why players don't confess. If a player doesn't confess, he is just a cheater. If a player does confess the media can then call him a cheater and take personal shots at him (by calling him names) as well.
Mark McGwire cheated. Did him admitting it tell us anything we didn't really know prior? So what's different other than he admitted it? He is still a PED user who is going to try and make the Hall of Fame despite his admission. Does the direct knowledge of his PED use really change our opinion of him compared to the suspected knowledge? He got 23% (or around there) of the Hall of Fame vote this year. He was already treated like a PED user in the Hall of Fame voter's eyes, so really his admission doesn't do much other than give people like Johnette Howard a chance to call him names.
A workmanlike question about the five years McGwire went underground after the disastrous 2005 Congressional hearings in which McGwire said “I’m not here to talk about the past” struck a raw chord with McGwire.
“It wasn’t an exile,” McGwire tersely corrected Costas, “It was a retirement.”
The thing was, IT WAS A RETIREMENT! Mark McGwire had been traveling for 7 months of the year for 20 years of his life. He wanted to spend time with his family and get away from baseball. It's his right. He wanted to get away from baseball, so he did. He shouldn't be forced to do baseball television shows or make himself available for interviews anymore if he doesn't want to. Contrary to the belief of Johnette Howard, Mark McGwire may have actually been retired and away from the game for reasons that don't have to do with steroids. The perception the media has that athletes should always make themselves ready and available for interview at all times has mystified me for a while now.
McGwire didn’t mind freely admitting that the carefully orchestrated way his apology was rolled out — the surprise release of his written statement at 3 p.m. ET Monday, followed by supportive statements that baseball commissioner Bud Selig and St. Louis manager Tony La Russa released within the hour — was intentionally timed to smooth his return to baseball next month as the Cardinals hitting coach.
Yes, this is absolutely true. It's a public relations move. I wonder at what point sportswriters are going to quit standing over headlines of college football coaches who leave a college for more money and PED users admitting their PED use when it is convenient and beneficial for them, and stop naively screaming, "Oh my God, I can't believe this! What a shocking and underhanded move!" Maybe I am more jaded but I expect these things to happen and it doesn't bother me anymore. Isn't it time to stop being shocked?
Like Pettitte, McGwire said he used steroids only so he’d be healthy enough to play, and not for any strength gain — which is simply impossible to believe.
So don't believe it. McGwire is probably lying about this. He lied about using steroids for 5 years since that congressional hearing, so it should be nothing new. If you assume a player is lying, it saves a lot of time when going through the moral indignation phase of writing columns about that player.
Like A-Rod, McGwire tried for a little legacy repair by pointing out to Costas that he’d had good years and bad years before he used steroids in 1993 and afterward.
Which is probably a true statement. What does Johnette Howard expect McGwire to say?
"I don't really have any good years other than when I was on steroids, so don't even bother looking to see if I did. I was a marginal player at best."
McGwire is proud of his accomplishments and is trying to back up his statement that he was a good player and took the steroids to get healthy, by pointing out he was a good player before he took steroids.
He blamed his drift toward steroid use partly on the era he was playing in when he should’ve put the blame wholly on personal choices he made.
I hate to break it to Ms. Howard but this is probably true. McGwire made a poor personal decision to use steroids but if he played in an era when no one else was using steroids he may not have felt the need to do them to keep up. He made a bad decision because he felt pressure to do anything to stay on top of his game. It's an excuse built solidly on a truth.
He swore La Russa, his manager at two major league stops, never knew the truth about his steroid use until he told him in a phone call Monday morning — a farce that La Russa, McGwire’s longtime apologist, continued to repeat during the rounds of interviews he did Monday.
I personally don't see how La Russa gets off without any more blame like he does. He should get a tiny amount of blame from the media but he doesn't. He personally has had alcohol-related problems, there is a list of players he has coached baseball players who were the benchmark for steroid users, and he continuously claims to not know anything about steroids in baseball. I can't help but feel he always knew more than he claims he knew.
I have never said Albert Pujols used steroids, but how can he not be linked to them when his manager has managed other players who are known PED users, nearly every other top slugger of this era other than Pujols has been found to use some form of PED, and he has been linked to a trainer who used steroids? There is some circumstantial evidence regarding Pujols. I want to believe Pujols is clean, but it doesn't help my belief with some of his affiliations.
He was the closest thing baseball had to The Hulk when he and Sammy Sosa locked up in their mesmerizing chase of Maris’ single-season home run record in the summer of 1998. By then McGwire was a 255-pound strongman. His Cardinals uniforms looked like they’d been shrink-wrapped on him.
Yet how many sportswriters, journalists or observers who are criticizing McGwire now and had access to McGwire at the time blew the whistle or said anything about what they thought? Zero that I could find. As I have said before, the sports world, including sports journalists who had access to see these players bodies before/after steroids were all along for the ride. I find the same writers who condemn McGwire now at the time of his steroid admission to be culpable in turning a blind eye in 1998. Don't lie, I bet many of them suspected something.
McGwire’s statements might be worth getting more worked up about if most people who are inclined to care hadn’t long ago decided that McGwire used steroids and moved on.
Yet, Johnette Howard is still worked up.
Nothing McGwire said Monday is going to help him lose the stigma of being the only hitter with more than 500 home runs not to be voted into the Hall of Fame. (In four tries, he’s never gotten more than 24 percent of the 75 percent of the votes needed;
I can't answer the question of whether Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame or not. My inclination is to say, "no," but then I believe Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez should be in the Hall of Fame when they retire. That's a sort of contradiction. More importantly, what about those players that have been suspected but never linked, is it fair they may be in the Hall of Fame while the unlucky ones who got caught aren't? Probably not, but life is not fair. PED users are a tough case and I am glad I don't have to vote one way or another on this issue for the Hall of Fame (actually, I would like to vote because I am sure the voters are going to screw it all up).
So don’t say he finally came clean. He didn’t even come close. He just got closer than ever before.
I am sure there are some things McGwire is holding back. He attempted to come clean though and I can understand why he didn't fully come clean. It's because nothing is good enough for sportswriters, no matter how the apology goes, they will still find a problem with it. McGwire just told us what we all knew already, I don't know what else Johnette Howard wanted from him, other than being able to have the pure joy of him being in a position where he can make whatever apology he wants and still get criticized. No apology a PED user has given has ever satisfied the sports media. He used steroids, more information about this isn't going to change anything and his reasoning really shouldn't matter that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)