On the dotted line

So what is the chance any Dodgers will be named on the Mitchell report ?

Actually, I was pretty pleased that I didn't see more Dodgers on the list. One name I saw was Miguel Tejada, not that would probably come as any big surprise. But, isn't it interesting that Baltimore has been trying to trade him for the last year to several teams, the Angels among them, only to be able to move him the day before the list comes out--wonder if Houston is wishing they'd waited now. Albert Pujols was on the list as well--probably explains his sudden struggles last year. One thing I like about all this, is that we might finally be able to get back to being able to compare players from different eras. I remember when I was growing up and George Foster was the only one who had reached 50 homers for decades, then last decade Brady Anderson (on the list) hits 50 and so did everyone else with some power. You think of guys that many of us rooted for Garvey, Cey, Lopes etc. their numbers look pitiful compared to players today, but maybe in the next few years we'll realize that 25 homers and 100 RBI's (without any help from the juice) is a pretty good year after all.

Gange was a given....everybody had to know that after he went from being a average - bad starting pitcher and then came back huge and became a all-star. He stole the Dodgers money and then showed how bad he was off steroids.

I thought Nomar might be on list

bigyoonit,

You posted this on the last thread:

"Calm down, fellas. I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest with you over something so trivial. I was just wanted to mention Brooklyn to point out an inconsistency in replying to posts that he/she doesn't like.

I commend you, Ned Colletti, Jr., for your valued news-reporting. More importantly, I commend your father for extending the hope that Kemp will remain a Dodger. And I look forward to your next post that confirms this."

1. I am a 'he", so the "he/she" will no longer be necessary.

2. Could you please elaborate on your comments concerning my "inconsistency"? Haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

BK - "...feet spread too far in the box (could happen to any of us)..."

Yeah, just ask Sen. Larry Craig!

Kidding aside, I do NOT agreewith Ruben on Gagne being a "given". he may or may not used 'roids, but even if he did I don'think you can claim he "stole" the Dodgers money. Hardly. A Cy Young? ,

Dodgerskip,

I don't see Nomar anywhere in the report, other than a brief footnote unrelated to any steroid use allegation. Did I miss something?

At least no current Dodgers were named in the report, though I doubt all of them are steriod/HGH free. Just lucky to dodge that bullet.

Will this report jump the free-agent market again? It may be that some teams will be looking for free-agents to take the place of their newly signed free-agents. Yankees, Astros and Brewers: Caveat Emptor!

Brooklyn -

1. Got it. I didn't want to ASS_U_ME anything.

2. Was another post by dodgerskip very similar to the one I wrote, which you took issue with but refrained from interjecting...I guess it isn't a level playing field here. Or you got the message.

3. 'Why can't we all just... get along?' I'll stop wasting space on this thread now. Go Blue.

Really looks like Lo Duca was a major part of the steroid stuff. He introduced guys to it.

And of course, Hundley was the starting point for the Dodgers. What, he didn't kill us enough on the field?

I'm going to have to stop looking and posting for now, but as of yet, no Nomar or Raul Mondesi for that matter have been found in the report by me. Both were definately on the list I saw this morning supplied by one of the New York TV stations web sites who said they had obtained a copy early. Both may still have been doing--because this report only names people who were outed by their suppliers and there were only a couple of suppliers who talked to Mitchell. There are obviously 100's more names of guys who were using--they were just lucky not to have made this report. However, if Nomar and Raul's names are indeed not mentioned in this report, I owe them both an apology and apoligize to the blog for putting them out there without more collaboration. If I were a reporter, I never would have "run with these names" as I did, however, the blog, to me, is more of a public conversation and I think any of us in carrying on a conversation we each other would have brought up the fact that player x,y, or z was mentioned by a source as mainstream as a major TV station.
For Dodger fans though, the fact that steroids played a part in the Paul LoDuca trade--one of the most infamous moves in Dodgers history, sure sheds light on that deal. Maybe DePodesta was not as enamored with Choi as we thought--very interesting.

bigyoonit,

#1 was cute. Good job.

#2 I'm not very clear on, but in accordance in with #3, your point is well taken. GO BLUE!!!!!!!!!

Here's Baseball America's Top 10 Dodger prospects:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/features/265297.html

I'm not sure that you will be able to see the article without being a subscriber to Baseball America or their online service. Clicking on the link may result in your having to supply a username and password. But it's worth a try.

I tried to cut and paste the article to this post, but it didn't work.

Bud Selig is a fool!

The guy is looking for "OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE?"

What is objective knowledge? Objective knowledge, to me, is looking at it with common sense. Look at what happened to the drug cocaine.

Back in the 60s and 70s it was an elite/rich man's drug. In the late 70s and in the 80s it came out to the rest of the world. In the 80s it really took off to the point where it was in every street corner in the United States.

I think the same logic has to apply to steroids. I think it was like secret thing at first. Then it was passed around to the lower level of baseball's society.

Once it was passed around to the lowe level it took off to all aspect of the game.

Jose Canceco is the guy who "took it to the baseball streets." But he wasn't the first guy to mess with the drug. He was probably the first to use it outrageously. He was probably the first to pass it around like "hey, look what this drug does!"

Canceco was a fool! But I think if you go back further this stuff probably has it's roots in the 70s. My gut feeling, when I was listening to the Mitchell report was that Nolan Ryan is probably the great granddaddy of the whole era.

Look at Nolan Ryan's career compared to Roger Clemens and I think they both rejuvenated their careers when they were in their 40s.

That's my gut feeling.

Nolan Ryan is the steroid's granddaddy of it all.

mike