Friday, December 14, 2007


The Mitchell Report is out for all the world to see, and although there's a very slight sense that the other shoe hasn't yet dropped, we dodged our worst fears when we didn't see "David Ortiz" or "Mike Piazza" listed in there. A pair of sighs of relief.

In fact, I think there had to be a modest exhale when Rob saw that several Sox' and ex-Sox' names included on the rumor mill version were not on the real report: Varitek, Nomar, Trot, and Damon. I gotta ask -- if those names had appeared on the real list, does that tarnish the 2004 title in your mind, even a teensy bit?

"It is what it is" always strikes me as a dopey axiom, but it seems to be an easy way of describing steroids in baseball. It's not evil-doing, but it's not without effect. It's not ubiquitous, so that makes the playing field skewed, but it's fairly pervasive so it's hard to get a very pointed angle on it. It is what it is.

Still . . . I would be a little disappointed if one of my guys popped up in there. As it was, Paulie Lo Duca was the only Met revelation of any note, and he's a National now. Mildly disappointing.

(Oh, and I guess it goes without saying that I came to terms many years ago with the fact that one of my all-time favorite Mets took "really good vitamins" , so his inclusion here almost failed to register. Maybe some time is all this report needs.)

I guess it gets back to the questions on many folks' minds: so, what exactly does this report mean? What does it do for the game, or what did it do to the game? As fans, were we better off not knowing, or is this what they call closure? Incomplete as it inevitably is, though, is that impossible? And why was he trying to kill Nordberg? And for whom? And where the hell was I?

(Editor's Note: Our friends over at Gheorghe: The Blog weighed in today with a more substantive take on the Mitchell Report and its fallout.)

(Editor's Note regarding the previous Editor's Note: And by "friends over at Gheorghe: The Blog", we mean us, in a totally normal and not ironically self-referential way.)

1 comment:

rob said...

great question about the 2004 title. in my mind, probably not, just because of the overwhelming emotions that still prevail from that season. in the general public's mind, almost certainly.

as i saw elsewhere today, the report itself and the names mentioned represent a significant enough sample size to ensure that all games and all championships contested from the mid-80s to now are tainted in some form or another. they're all guilty, just happens that some of them didn't get named.

which is why i think other names will come out, and soon, as the players implicated yesterday start talking on and off the record. replace radomski and macnamee with the trainers of the cubs and rangers and we'd be looking at a whole different set of names - but the yankee and met-connected guys would still be guilty.