Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Kicking off the blog today with some old-school plagiarism.

1. I think that if I were presented my Hall of Fame ballot today with Roger Clemens' name on it, I'd have to vote "no" on perhaps the greatest pitcher ever. Good Lord, did he get crushed by his former personal trainer Brian McNamee, who really had no choice in the matter given the government's pressure on him. I think, unfortunately, that Clemens should probably sue Mitchell if he truly believes that he has been wronged.

2. I think that this document actually helps Barry Bonds' case as he fights the U.S. government's charges. The report features an interview with Giants owner Peter Magowan, who told Mitchell (and/or his staff) that Bonds took substances that he learned, only later, were steroids. Oddly, Magowan later amended those comments, to say that his conversation with Bonds matched Bonds' leaked grand jury testimony. In any case, sounds like Bonds' attorneys should call up Magowan to the witness stand.

3. I think the Joe Torre dynasty has taken a huge hit, and no team more than the 2000 Yankees. I covered that team for The Bergen Record, and I vividly remember Clemens' dramatic turnaround. He had been mediocre as a Yankee for a year and a half, and suddenly, in July of 2000, he turned it on and carried the team, pitching-wise. I wrote that Clemens had been motivated by a pep talk from George Steinbrenner in Tampa, during which The Boss said he regretted trading David Wells for Clemens. It turns out that Clemens might also have been motivated by either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin. That team also had Jose Canseco, Glenallen Hill, Mike Stanton, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Jason Grimsley, Denny Neagle and of course Andy Pettitte. Whew! What a corrupt group!

4. Speaking of Canseco, who hilariously showed up outside Mitchell's news conference yesterday, I think that if Mitchell can credit Canseco's contribution to literature as an impetus for a better drug-testing plan (page 57), then Bud Selig should do the same.

5. I think the reports of Major League Baseball getting hammered in this report were overblown. Selig, in particular, is little more than a peripheral character. The Players Association is dinged far more _ deservedly so, in some cases.

6. I think the management figures who come off the worst are Cardinals manager Tony La Russa, who admits to Mitchell that he exaggerated some accusations of Canseco around the time that Canseco's book came out, and Giants general manager Brian Sabean, who clearly wanted nothing to do with whispers of Bonds' illegal performance-enhancing drug usage.

7. I think Jason Giambi has never been fully honest about his usage of illegal PEDs. All of his testimony, with the BALCO grand jury and Mitchell, has him beginning in 2001. But his dramatic physical transformation took place well before then.

8. I think, if not for the Radomski bust, this would've been a complete joke. The BALCO and Albany district attorney sections are little more than copy-paste jobs. That said, Mitchell has to get some credit for putting himself in a situation where the government seeked him out when Radomski went down.

9. I think, if not for Clemens, this would've lacked real bite. Pettitte is a beloved Yankee, but he doesn't transcend baseball like Clemens does. Really, given the buildup, the list of names was somewhat tame, if amusing. I think, also, that I am surprised that others are so surprised about the inclusion of Pettitte, given his very close relationship with Clemens.

10. I think I like that Mitchell discloses many of his conflicts of interest on page A-1. But he neglected to mention that his law firm, DLA Piper, has done work with the Cubs (scroll down). And he wrote that "From the outset of the investigation," he determined that the lawyers from Foley & Lardner _ which represents Major League Baseball _ would not serve as members of his investigative team, but at the March 30, 2006 news conference, the Foley attorneys were presented, precisely, as members of his investigative team, emitting outrage from ethicists.

I think, at the end of the day, that Mitchell didn't keep any Red Sox out, or bulk up on Yankees. But I think that he showed his arrogance once more on the conflict-of-interest issue yesterday, when, challenged about his ties with the Red Sox, he brought up his role in helping to attain peace in Northern Ireland. The whole "You're lucky to have me here" vibe.

I think we have to get over this "Mitchell would never tarnish his good name" stuff. What good name? The guy is a politician and a businessman. He partook in Selig's Blue Ribbon Panel (scroll down), which wasn't quite celebrated as a paragon of integrity. He will shortly be getting a paycheck from the Red Sox again, as Howard Bryant reported here. He ain't quite Gandhi.

11. I think I give the report, as a whole, a B-. Some good suggestions, looking forward, and there's no denying the Radomski allegations are fascinating. But just like I reserve the right to change my mind on Clemens' Hall of Fame candidacy, this is a fluid grade, as we see the reverberations and reactions throughout the sport. If any of this evidence is disproved _ and as Jayson Stark points out here, Mitchell didn't set the bar that high _ then the whole thing will go down in flames.

What do you think you think?

This will be a most fascinating day in baseball history. We've never quite had anything like the Mitchell Report before, and today, I and scores of other media members will conduct a mini-tour of New York City's hotels: Three news conferences, back-to-back-to-back, from George Mitchell to Bud Selig to Don Fehr.

Given the volume of media that will be there, I'll hope to get in one question - or maybe a sneaky, multi-tiered question - to each subject. But if I could have each person to myself for five questions, here is what I would ask:

George Mitchell
1. Given your refusal to resign from the Red Sox, a move that kept you in the "team management" category, how can you blame the players for their refusal to cooperate with you?

2. How would your definition of "due process" in this investigation play among your old prosecutor pals? Would it pass muster?

3. Were you empowered to recommend the resignation of Bud Selig for his role in the steroids era?

4. At what age does someone become "above reproach," as you clearly believe yourself to be?

5. Will you be receiving a World Series champions ring from the 2007 Red Sox? Will you wear it?

Bud Selig
1. Can we clarify once and for all when you first learned about steroids in baseball? You're quoted on the matter in a 1995 Los Angeles Times story, yet you've said repeatedly that you realized it only in 1998.

2. RMT says you were notified of Operation Equine in the early 1990s, and you and your office chose to ignore it. Is this accurate?

3. What does it say for our Congress that they are thrilled with your selection of Mitchell as lead investigator, while the general public sees right through Mitchell's conflict?

4. If this was truly an independent investigation, then how were you allowed to steer Jason Giambi toward Senator Mitchell?

5. Would you agree that your successor should come from outside baseball, since all of the internal candidates have been stained by this scandal?

Don Fehr
1. Do you concede now that you should have handled things differently when steroids became prominent in the 1990s?

2. Civil rights are great and important, but at what point do you have to consider the rights of the innocent over the rights of the guilty?

3. If you could have chosen a lead investigator, whom would you have chosen?

4. Will you commit, without caveat, to signing on for an HGH blood test if a reliable such test emerges in the next few years?

5. How much do you think your deputy, Gene Orza, hurt your case with his assertion that illegal performance-enhancing drugs are "not worse than cigarettes"?

Please submit your suggestions here.

So tomorrow's the big day. Finally, we'll see the forever-anticipated George Mitchell Report.

I couldn't be less optimistic about its legitimacy. As I have opined repeatedly, I think Mitchell is profoundly conflicted, from his ties to the Red Sox from his ties to commissioner Bud Selig to his ties to Disney (which owns ESPN, which telecasts Major League Baseball games), and those conflicts will color our perception of the report.

But I will say this, in Selig's defense: The commissioner could have found an easier way out of baseball's steroids mess. He could have done nothing.

When "Game of Shadows" came out last year, Selig could have said, "I can't control the past, but I'm confident that our current drug-testing program is the best of any professional sport, and it's time to move forward." Perhaps he could have thrown in an apology for the past, as well, and this critic, for one would have been satisfied.

But Selig instead tried to document what happened, to see if baseball could learn from it. Mitchell, unfortunately, was a horrible choice _ check out this story by Howard Bryant of ESPN _ and it reminded us that Bud doesn't quite grasp the conflict-of-interest thing; after all, this is a man who served as interim commissioner for almost six years while owning the Milwaukee Brewers at the same time.

I've had a good amount of conversations with Selig over the years, and I can honestly say that I like him. He is always up for a good debate, and I believe that he truly does want the best for baseball, always. He also has been a master innovator. You may not agree with some of the changes baseball has made since 1992 _ three divisions per league, the wild-card, interleague play _ but you can't dispute their success.

I look forward to asking Selig a tough question or two tomorrow, and he'll deserve such scrutiny. But I'll do so with the opinion that Selig's downfall isn't malice. His greatest sin is more likely arrogance, in that he doesn't understand why people don't agree with everything he does. Yet everything he does, I think, he does with good intentions.

Time to address a personal pet peeve, which surfaces virtually every day in the media in the coverage of the Barry Bonds saga.

Former Mets and Twins pitcher Frank Viola spoke on XM Radio Sunday about the illegal, performance-enhancing drugs issue, and here are the snippets that raised my ire:

"It just drives me crazy when you talk about the color issue with Barry. Barry isn't getting picked on because he is black. Barry is getting picked on because he wants to be the best in the game, and could have been the best in the game without cheating."

"...If Barry was nice to the media, if Barry took the approach that 'I need these people more than they need me,' I think he would have been treated a lot better than the way he is being treated. It's not a color issue. It's just Barry being typical Barry, thinking he's better than the game. There was one other guy like that, and his name was Pete Rose. He isn't in the Hall of Fame either, so it's going to be an interesting couple months leading up to this."

Here's what just drives me crazy: When people unilaterally announce that a member of a minority (be it racial, gender, sexual orientation or something else) has not been victimized by bias. We see this in sports all of the time.

I would ask Frank Viola, "How do you know that Barry Bonds isn't being picked on because he's black? Have you personally interviewed every member of the United States government who investigated Bonds? Have you personally interviewed every fan who hates Bonds?"

Now, I understand the point that Viola is attempting to make. Obviously, Bonds largely dug his own grave here. He is a jerk, and a cheating jerk, at that.

But as Viola mentioned, Pete Rose is a cheating jerk, too. And his transgression _ gambling, even if just on his own team _ had far greater ramifications on the game's integrity than Bonds' sin. Bonds juiced at a time when an undetermined percentage did the same. As far as we know, Rose is the only manager to have wagered on his own games.

According to the Dowd Report, Rose didn't bet on 1987 Reds games started by Bill Gullickson or Mario Soto. Did he not use his best lineups and relievers in those games? Did he try harder to win the games on which he bet? Those are truly terrifying questions, within the confines of baseball.

And yet, Rose goes about his life showered with love by fans. Sure, he's banned from baseball, but he does just fine in autograph shows and with the occasional advertisement.

Yes, Rose can be far more personable than Bonds. But are you prepared to declare that no one in the world loves Rose and hates Bonds primarily due to race? I'm not that optimistic.

When word broke yesterday that the Yankees signed LaTroy Hawkins, a line from "Night Court" quickly came to mind.

The gang thinks that Dan has died in a plane crash, and in planning the funeral, an effort is made to think of something nice to say about the ultra-sleazy Dan.

"He was a mammal," Bull suggests.

Similarly, if you're a Yankees fan, and you ask me to say something nice about the Hawkins signing, I'd offer similar faint praise: "It's a one-year deal."

Maybe the Hawkins signing will work out just fine. I'll bet against it. But the best part for the Yankees is that if Hawkins does fail at his job, they can wash their hands of him quickly and relatively painlessly. A release at the All-Star break, for instance, would cost them less than $2 million.

We know that baseball's big three _ Yankees, Mets and Red Sox _ can afford just about any move, including a long-term deal for Johan Santana. But when a big-market team makes bad signings, it's weighed down by the roster space more than the money.

The 2005 Yankees were the textbook example of this. Remember when they got off to that awful start? Over one-third of that early-season roster constitued dead weight: Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Steve Karsay, Carl Pavano, Paul Quantrill, Mike Stanton, Bernie Williams (sorry, but he was, by that point), Tony Womack and Jaret Wright. The Yankees had to eat a great deal of money to jettison these useless parts, or in some cases, they simply held onto the players with the hope that they would improve.

Giambi miraculously rediscovered his power stroke that summer, and Bernie played a little better with more rest. But that season proved a turning point in recent Yankees history. When George Steinbrenner berated Brian Cashman over the team's awful play, Cashman reminded The Boss that he hadn't made many of these bad decisions, and Steinbrenner responded by giving Cashman more responsibility. Thanks to unlikely heroes like Shawn Chacon, Al Leiter and Aaron Small, not to mention youngsters Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang, the Yankees rallied to win the division.

Cashman, on his own, has made some mistakes - Kyle Farnsworth was probably the worst, and many industry people think that Kei Igawa will not show any more in 2008 than he did in 2007. In general, however, Cashman has tried to give his roster more flexibility. This coming year, potential dead weight candidates are Farnsworth, Giambi and Mike Mussina, all of whom will be off the books by season's end.

Of course, we'll see whether the new contracts to Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera and Alex Rodriguez eventually produce high-profile dead weight.

The Mets' potential dead weight includes only Carlos Delgado and Scott Schoeneweis _ not bad, really. It's one of the overlooked components of Omar Minaya's run that he has signed off on very few awful contracts.

There was an unyielding sense of disappointment as people, particularly many in the media, departed Nashville yesterday; some, like myself, are leaving today. The buildup forecasted the potential trades of Johan Santana, Dan Haren, Joe Blanton and Erik Bedard, and that quartet remained intact.

We did have a monster trade between the Tigers and Marlins, but that failed to send people out of town smiling.

The days of winter meetings filled with a dizzying slew of transactions are behind us, I believe. With the game thriving financially, there is so much on the line with every decision these clubs make. They're more hesitant to trade the wrong player for the wrong package, a la the Johan Santana negotiations. In the same vein, those extra dollars have allowed clubs to commit more to their homegrown players, which means the free-agent market is weaker.

It doesn't figure to get any better for a while, and really, it's a reflection of the game's health. So we all have to deal with it.

Willie Randolph raised eyebrows yesterday morning when he expressed optimism over the Mets acquiring Johan Santana. It appears, however, that Willie's faith has little basis in reality. The Twins are absolutely compelled to not give Santana to the Mets, unless the Mets give Jose Reyes in return, which would be a horrible decision on Omar Minaya's part.

Rarely do I feel a team needs to make a big acquisition. But I feel like these Mets, coming off their historic collapse, have to change the subject. Have to get everyone talking about something else.

That is, of course, far, far easier said than done. Other teams simply don't think very highly of the Mets' prospects. I'm not smart enough to know what exactly the Mets should do to solve this problem. I'm just saying this is a problem.

What do you think, Mets fans? Can you stomach an offseason in which your biggest acquisitions are Ryan Church, Brian Schneider and perhaps Livan Hernandez? Or do you want someone to arrive and take attention off of the immediate past?

As the Yankees contemplated a trade for Johan Santana that isn't happening, for now, their current Game 1 starter, Chien-Ming Wang, remained an item on their offseason agenda. Wang is eligible for arbitration for the first time, so the Yankees have to hammer out a seven-figure agreement with the power sinker specialist.

Wang would like to sign a long-term deal with the Yankees, but the most Brian Cashman has done so far is ask Wang's representatives to present such an offer. That's baseball-ese for "No." No self-respecting agent is going to put himself or herself in such a box.

There's been plenty of Wang-bashing this winter, in the wake of his awful performance in the Yankees' playoff loss to Cleveland. I say let's take a step back. Look at Wang's 2007 compared to his 2006: More strikeouts, fewer homers, better WHIP. Ideally, he's more of a second starter than an ace. But this is a guy whose toughness cannot be questioned, as he's pitched through a slight tear in his rotator cuff back in 2005.

If I were the Yankees, who are clearly interested in cost containment on Cashman's watch, I would let Wang pitch for now. But if Wang puts up a strong first half, quelling fears that teams are starting to figure him out, I'd pounce on a long-term deal, to buy him out of arbitration through 2011.

What would you do?

Sorry for the delay this morning. Technical problems. So let's get right to the latest from the winter meetings:

Hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving and tree-lighting week. This guy over here is, of course, Vince Gill, whom I selected for my wake-up call this morning at the winter meetings hotel.

This is the hotel where, five years ago, I purchased some ice cream at a Ben & Jerry's, and then the place told me they were out of spoons.

"How does an ice-cream place run out of spoons?!" I asked, loudly and angrily.

But so far, at least, it seems like the hotel has upgraded its conditions, so I can spend less time complaining and more time focusing on baseball.

And today should be very interesting, thanks to Hank Steinbrenner's public ultimatum, issued last night.

We know, already, that Hank doesn't necessarily stick to every word he says. After all, he said "Goodbye" to Alex Rodriguez after A-Rod opted out, and yet A-Rod will be a Yankee again. So this seems like a pretty harmless maneuver - try to expedite the process in making Johan Santana a Yankee. It doesn't mean it's now or never.

It's all high-stakes for the Yankees. Trading Melky Cabrera and Phil Hughes for Santana will hurt the team's payroll flexibility and defense, and there's always the chance that Hughes becomes an ace and Santana is already on the decline. That said, if you're a Yankees fan, how much better would you feel with Santana as your Game 1 starter next October?

If they don't get Santana, they'll be in on conversations for Erik Bedard, Joe Blanton, Dan Haren and any and all other available pitchers. But there's only one Santana. Only one two-time Cy Young Award winner who wants to be The Man in The Bronx. And while his 2007 was slightly worse than his previous seasons, he'll be just 29 on Opening Day. It's a little different than acquiring Randy Johnson at age 41. Really, if the Santana trade doesn't work out, the Yankees' next-best scenario would probably be pocketing all of their youngsters and praying that Andy Pettitte decides to come back.

In any case, I don't see the Red Sox making the extra push to get Santana. Boston seems more interested in upping the ante for the Yankees than actually acquiring him, and you can understand why, given how strong the Sox's starting rotation already is.

Other thoughts, compiled over the last 10 days: