I'm Getting Fed Up With the Roid........Reaction

When players like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were first embroiled in the steroid controversy, I shared some of your outrage. I felt like it was unfair for a "few select players" to cheat their way to the top.

But by 2005-2006, when it became abundantly clear that a "few select players" to cheat became "hundreds", my outrage dissipated. My blame went from the users to the ones using the users for profit, Bud Selig and the owners. And I started to justify users thinking: Why should they be put at a competitive disadvantage because their peers use? Why should they potentially lose their jobs and millions of dollars because others juice?

By 2008, the news of the Mitchell Report, and the subsequent high-profile juicers were created with yawns from me.

Now, after the NY Times report of Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz flunking confidential steroid tests in 2003 that weren't confidential, I'm now angry again. But not at Manny and Ortiz(or Manny Ortez as supposed Red Sox die-hard John Kerry once called them). I'm angry at the general public for continually being naive on the steroid issue. I'm angry at the mainstream media for driving up drivel like "Should the Red Sox 2004 and 2007 World Series be tainted?". I'm angry at baseball, for not destroying confidential tests, and thus, breaching the idea of anonymity to exploit their own phony interests in sending a message to kids and their parents.

I'm just angry that anyone still cares about steroids in baseball.

Yes, I suppose Manny and Ortiz's alleged steroid usage prolongs a bad message to America's youth(altho I think a worse message is trade masculinity for homers). And Ortiz, in particular, looks like a jackass for saying steroid users should be suspended for an entire season.

OK but where do you want to go from here? Strip the Sox of their 2004 title? That's a great idea, let's instead award the World Series to the Yankees, with A-Rod and the human raging steroid Kevin Brown. How bout the Cardinals, and manager Tony LaRussa? Yeah, he didn't know what the Bash Brothers were doing when he was the A's skipper. Or the team they beat in the NLCS, the Astros ? Now pitching.....Roger Clemens!!!

Then I guess we should keep Manny and Ortiz out of the Hall of Fame(not that the latter was likely to go). Joining a distinguished list of Barry Bonds, Clemens, Juan Gonzalez, McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, A-Rod, Pudge Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Sosa, some of our generation's best players who's accomplishments are supposedly "tainted." Why don't we just make Derek Jeter and Ken Griffey Jr the only two people to get into the Hall from the steroid era? I have a better idea if that happens: Close it down. It's not a Hall of Fame without the all-time home run leader, hits leader, or a guy who wins 7 Cy Youngs.

I almost think that it'll take a Jeter or Griffey to get busted before the average Sportscenter viewer actually realizes that most people were PED users. And still could be. In the meantime, I wish everyone would either move on or move out. If you don't like the fact that most baseball players have juiced in the last 20 years, then find another sport to root for that you think is clean. For the rest of us, let's enjoy tomorrow's trade deadline. Whether it involves PED users or not.

What to Do With Vick? I Have No Idea...

The last time I consistently cranked out general sports talk shows was September 2007. The hot topic at that time was Michael Vick's recently imposed 23-month prison sentence, and whether he should be allowed to ever play football again when he became a free man. My contention at the time: I have no clue, because I don't know whether he will have rehabilitated himself by July/August 2009.

Flash forward to the present. Vick no longer incarcerated. And NFL commissioner Roger Goodell today announcing that Vick has been partially reinstated in the NFL, and could be green lighted to play after Week 5.

My reaction: I still have no clue. And most of you shouldn't either.

Let's step back and examine for a second. What Vick did was absolutely despicable, and deserved severe punishment. You can lament about 23 months(18 served) not being enough, but to me, compounding losing your freedom with relinquishing 130 million dollars, filing for bankruptcy, and forever being known first and foremost as the "dog killer" is quite a severe punishment. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel remorse for him in the slightest, but it is stiff.

That being said, while seeing your life turned upside down would cause a reasonable person to undergo a conscience metamorphosis, it doesn't guarantee that someone has "paid their debt to society." Just look at thousands of prisoners who serve time, have no life upon release, and then commit another crime. So while I would hope that Michael Vick is a changed man, I have no way of knowing that just based upon his release from jail.

However, I do believe that most offenders deserve an opportunity to do what they love if they have rehabilitated themselves. And that goes beyond giving them a second chance. Society shunning someone in Michael Vick's position could trigger them back into crime. And who's to say that if Vick became a successful NFL'er, he won't use his celebrity platform to speak against the unethical treatment of animals? It's all possible.

So where am I on the Michael Vick debate? The only place where I feel I can logically be: Supporting the decision of Roger Goodell. You can talk about sponsors/public pressure swaying him to suspend Vick for an additional 4 games, but there was no obligation for the NFL commissioner to ever re-instate Vick. By doing so, he believes Vick has/will rehabilitate himself. And that puts him in a better position to make the call than me or you, because he has more information on the alleged transformation of Vick than 99 percent of us.

I understand that my position of "let's defer to the commissioner" can be construed as more "soft" than most of my fellow media members. But for someone who believes in rehabilitation when warranted, there's no other choice.

One final note on Vick: No thanks to Denny Green, but I've now come around to the idea that the Dolphins would be interested in a non-guaranteed deal with Vick if Stephen Ross doesn't block it for PR reasons, which he may. And yes, unlike Denny Green, I'm aware of the Fins QB and Wildcat situation. But like Belly and unlike most others, Bill Parcells constructs rosters based on "the best 53", and not on position. So Michael Vick's place on the Fins could be anyplace from steering a 2nd wildcat package, to a slot receiver, to an extra defensive back, to a special teams demon. From a football standpoint, it's makes sense to bring Vick to Fins camp and decide whether he is one of the top 53 players on the roster.

Riley and the Miami Wade's-My Thoughts

In list format, because there are plenty of layers on the future of Dwyane Wade with the Miami Heat:

And yes, I am on Twitter. Feel free to follow.

1. Unless I'm missing something, Dwyane Wade has NEVER said he is leaving the Miami Heat in 2010 unless the team gets a significant upgrade. All he has said is he won't sign a long-term extension this offseason unless he feels the Heat is moving towards scaling the championship mountain. There's a big difference with the two, because now if absolutely necessary, Pat Riley has more than one off-season to construct a title team. It's a tricky spot to be playing chicken and the egg when neither side is relenting. But can you really blame Wade for playing the waiting game with a non-championship contending team? After all, none of the prize free agents seem ready to re-sign, other than maybe Steve Nash.

2. It's 100 percent naive to say that Wade is 100 percent staying no matter what happens(more on that below). But if I'm taking him at his word, then the Heat are still the favorites to retain his services. And that doesn't change, even if he tests free agency waters in 2010. Nearly every interview(and don't ask me for origin specifics cause there are too many to keep track of) contains some form of "I love it here" and "this is where I want to be." So again, all things equal, Dwyane Wade insists he wants to stay. How does that turn into he's likely to leave?

3. That doesn't mean he's selling his Pinecrest home to foot the bill for new properties. As candid as he's been, there are many things we don't know. How do we know he wouldn't turn down the opportunity for an extra 30 million dollars?(Other NBAers have, including Shaq). How do we know he couldn't garner that and more in endorsements by flocking to New York, or even going home and playing in the shadow of Jordan? And let's not forget about his personal trials and tribulations. Getting sued by your restaurant partners, and what appears to be dueling lawsuits with his ex-wife, yeah not fun. And if the off-the-court drama explodes, then could he be looking for a fresh start elsewhere? I elude to this because Heat fans assume Dwyane Wade is truly happy here and has it all, but do we know that for certain?

4. I still think there's a hidden message in all of this: Wade wants Riley to commit being here past 2010. If Riley packs up his office, the chances of Wade packing his bags elsewhere increase exponentially in my opinion. And knowing that Riles is arguably the most impatient person in sports(mostly a good thing), it's possible that D-Wade is worried that staying in idle and preaching patience is code for I'm turning the keys over to someone else when my contract expires next year.

5. So what do I do if I'm in the office overlooking South Beach and Biscayne Boulevard? Call up Ernie Grundfeld and see if he'd be interested in consummating a Michael Beasley-Mark Blount for Caron Butler deal. It makes sense for both sides. Caron gives Wade an instant sidekick, not to mention a good buddy that can only help persuade him to stay, and makes them better. Not top 3 better, but certainly the inside track at the 4 seed. Plus, he's only making 10.7 million in 10-11, so the Heat could still theoretically sign a max guy(if they opt out of James Jones and Daequan and don't resign Udonis) in 2010. From the Wizards perspective, they save 6.5 million in 2010 and could sign a 14-15 million a year player, plus get a 20-year old playing at home that arguably has more upside than Caron.

I like Michael Beasley, and think he's an enormously gifted offensive player, but I'm not sure how much Wade enjoys playing with him, and if he's gonna progress much further than being a big time scorer that dominates the ball and is lost on defense. And that type of player to me should be expendable if you are getting a star(like Bosh) or a surefire No. 2 All-Star caliber player(Caron). By not making this deal, you are saying that Michael Beasley will be better than a guy who has improved every year and will give you at least 20 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 1.5 steals, and can capably defend. Isn't that a lot to ask?

6. Whether he stays or goes, I will go on record saying I don't think Michael Beasley ever starts a game for the Heat at small forward. It will hamper his play on both ends, big time. He's already got miles to go just defending PF's, now you are going to ask him to learn how to defend LeBron James, Paul Pierce, or guys that are much quicker and athletic? And much of his offensive success derives from beating slower PF's off the dribble-not as easy to do against small forwards. No chance he should play the three-and Wade and Zo agree with me.

7. Finally, I'm not condemning the Heat for being interested in Allen Iverson, but isn't he a more talented Ricky Davis as this stage? And how did that work out?

Trade Johan? No Way....

Not sure if I've expressed these thoughts on 'ze blog, but if I were Omar Minaya(and sometimes I thank my lucky stars I'm not, although he's a lot better looking than I am), my blueprint for my beloved Mets was simple: Blow the Bleeping thing Up! Other than 4 or 5 players, dangle everyone else for either prospects, or younger major-league talent. In other words, rebuild to an extent where the Mets toil around .500 this year, but have a good enough team to seriously contend for the next decade afterwards, rather than masquerade as the NL's best team on paper April-August, and then remind everyone in September that you really aren't that good.

Well, 77 games and 39 losses later, others are coming around to this idea. Except they are taking it one ill-conceived step further. They are endorsing a potential move of the great Johan Santana...

For our response, let's bring on Andres Cantor: NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Yes, I've seen Santana get his ass ripped off in 3 of his past five starts(26 hits, 19 ER in 16 innings). Yes, I'm aware that he has 5 years and a gazillion dollars left on his deal. But I'm also aware that the greatness of Johan Santana often doesn't come into focus until after the All-Star Break.

The raw data can be viewed here:

Career Totals
1st Half: 60-40, 3.46 ERA, 1.16 WHIP
2nd Half: 58-17, 2.70 ERA, 1.05 WHIP

Johan's Cy Young Season of 2004
1st Half: 7-6, 3.78 ERA, 1.07 WHIP
2nd Half: 13-0, 1.21 ERA, 0.75 WHIP

Johan's 2nd Cy Young Season of 2006
1st Half: 9-5, 2.95 ERA, 1.00 WHIP
2nd Half: 10-1, 2.54 ERA, 0.99 WHIP

Johan's 1st Season as a Met
1st Half: 8-7, 2.84 ERA, 1.19 WHIP
2nd Half: 8-0, 2.17 ERA, 1.09 WHIP

So, in other words, I fully expect that Johan's mortal 9-6, 3.34 ERA numbers will look more like 18-9, 2.80 ERA by the end of the season. And that he will still be considered one of the top 3 pitchers in the game, and will continue to pitch at such a level throughout most of his contract.

It makes no sense for the Mets to deal him because there's virtually no shot they will get someone with Johan Santana potential in return. The key to making a rebuilding deal is you hope the player/players you get in return can eventually supplant the player you traded away. It's certainly possible the Mets can land another Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado, or even David Wright in a deal. There's virtually no shot of grabbing another Johan Santana though.