Everybody's favorite game:
What cliched, uninformative piece regarding the Mitchell Report will Shank come up with tomorrow?
My quick guess: Lots of Roger references, something about why did Gagne stop, and a bunch of references along the lines of "the immortal Paxton Crawford."
db - I think you have it pegged. Other thoughts
ReplyDelete- He will declare that no one is immune from suspicion
- He will muse whether Clemens legacy is tarnished and whether his Hall chances will be diminished - he will probably say that Clemens had a Hall of Fame career before steroids and thus will get in to the Hall...but then he will argue that this further puts the lid on Bonds chances for the Hall, ignoring the fact that Bonds had a Hall of Fame career before steroids
- He will crack a few jokes about how the steroids didnt help [insert fringe player]
- He will use the immortal reference as you mention
- He will dust off the Mitchell/Red Sox conflict of interest point of view...will bring up the strange timing of the Paul Byrd release of information
- A crack about Mo Vaughn and the Foxy Lady?
- Will ask why didnt Roger didnt start using steroids with the Sox
- Will take numerous shots at Bud Selig and Donald Fehr
- Will compare to Black Sox scandal, NBA scandals (Donaghy?), NFL scandals
- Wonder if he will declare it a day that will live in infamy
Well, he blew me away. I nice, focused piece that brought up a lot of the troubling issues with the accusations.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, this one point is a little silly:
"How many bloggers and radio jockeys reacted to "reports" of players who were going to be named by Mitchell?
So somehow bloggers and radio jockeys should be chastised for reacting to what those exemplars of integrity and professionalism, the sportwriters, say?
"It's never going to be tidy. There will be no closure. You won't be able to get your arms around it."
ReplyDeleteBy all the machinations of Dan Duquette, The Shank Report On The Mitchell Report has finally arrived!
"We know the biggest loser was Roger Clemens."
Not much here - the Players Association will be enraged, the primary witnesses are of dubious credibility, and (cue Marvelous Marv Albert) YES! the expected Shank attack that Mitchell has a conflict-of-interest because he's a part of the Red Sox and his report trashes the Yankees (10 of the 2000 WS champs are named). And of course Shank deplores that names were named - uh Shank, wasn't that the whole point of these investigations? And BTW, Shank, if you're going to trash Mitchell because he works for the Red Sox, could you at least deign to explain why, when he's working for the commissioner's office here, he'd withhold the names of Red Sox players who were dirty?
Sez monkeesfan:
ReplyDeleteAnd of course Shank deplores that names were named - uh Shank, wasn't that the whole point of these investigations?
-0-
Stan Grossfeld story of Mitchell interview in the Globe;
Mitchell says he deliberated before deciding to name names
"What were my choices?" he said. "To not name any names would mean there would be no meaningful report. And I ask you to consider what others might be saying now if I said I looked into this; I've got a lot of information, but I'm not going to tell you.
"I was asked to report what I learned fairly, accurately, and thoroughly, and that's what I did."
-0-
The guy who wrote the report says naming names wasn't the whole point of the investigations.
But let's not let truth get in the way of our childishness.
Hey Subjective Bruce, re-read what Mitchell said - he's basically saying that naming names was the point of these investigations.
ReplyDelete"But let's not let truth get in the way of our childishness."
OB,
ReplyDeleteAre you ever going to acknowledge your mistake about the videotaping?
"Objective" Bruce is nothing but a Shank sycophant. Why can you never acknowledge his shittiness as a sports columnist?
ReplyDeleteBob Ryan, everybody!
ReplyDelete""How many bloggers and radio jockeys reacted to "reports" of players who were going to be named by Mitchell?"
ReplyDeleteI think he may have been refering to those rumor-psuedo lists that were making the rounds a few hours before the report was realsed.
El Guapo was named on it, El Guapo, and some people took it seriously. As someone said on SOSH, someone out there is laughing their ass off that people believed a report that named Rich Garces on a steroid list.
dubegedi,
ReplyDeleteBut those lists were published by reporters. Why should bloggers be blamed for trusting and discussing something that WNBC decided to publish?