So What The F*CK Was That Worth? I a small glimpse at the Mitchell Report

It always amazes me how quickly people are willing to simply accept a mountain of shit someone else is willing to pile on top of them.

Take, for instance, the Mitchell Report, which not only led the sports news for the last week but was the lead story on the national news outlets on Thursday when it became available.

The Mitchell Reports is nearly two years in the making. At its head was a man who once brokered peace in Northern Ireland (something former Senator George Mitchell seems only too willing to remind everyone of any chance he gets) and a litany of high priced invesitgators and lawyers. The report cost, reportedly $20 million or more to complete. And, for all of that, what, exactly did we get?

We got shit, that's what we got. We got an embarrassment. George Mitchell should keep reminding us that he brokered peace in Northern Ireland because, looking at this report, it would be hard to believe he brokered peace between his older and younger daughters. I have never seen a more useless, more trivial, bigger waste of time, money, energy ever, in any venue. The Mitchell Report must go down in history as the worst example of invesitgation in recent memory.

First, let's look at what everyone wanted to see: the list. I don't care who you are or what your personal views are about the steroids era, everyone wanted to see whose names were on that list. EVERYONE. So, what did we get? There was not ONE name on that list, save perhaps Paul LoDuca, that none of us haven't heard before. Every single name on the list had been implicated previously. Every name on that list had been "found" by some other invesitgative body, whether that was the federal government or state officials. So, after 2 years and $20 million, George Mitchell and his invesitgators essentially just lifted his report from other sources.

Think of it in terms of school. Let's say someone asked you to put together a list of the most important battles of the Civil War and then give a detailed account of why they were so significant. Imagine you were given the entire year to do the report. Can you imagine the SIZE of the F you would find on your paper if, at the end of that time, you had simply copied the list of battles from two books and included THEIR explanation of why they were important? Can you imagine what your teacher/professor would say if you presented something that was COMPLETELY unoriginal, with not one imaginative or unique thought of you own included?

That's exactly what Mitchell just gave us. The most expensive plagarized book report ever. NONE of the information he gave in the report is new. There is nothing we already didn't know.

Now, let's look at this from the standpoint of what it tells us about the beginning of the steroid era in baseball, how it came about, how it was cultivated, how this "culture of drug use" came to being, and who the major players were. Well, I wish we could look at that aspect of the report, unfortunately it doesn't tell us ANYTHING about that. It is further evidence of how useless this report truly is. You would think that, even if the Mitchell Report was unable to put together an accurate, all encompassing list of players who used during the era, it would at least be able to shed some light on the era itself. Instead, it gives us a history of steriods in general, a history of drug use and durg use regulations in baseball, and some of the medical reprecussions of steroid use in baseball. Never, not once, does it shed light on how steroids in baseball got started (where did it originate, who were the major suppliers, who were the major users in the early years). We know NOTHING about how such a "culture" was created in baseball. We only know it existed.

Again, for a history analogy, it is like discussin World War II, and starting your discussion in 1944, only stating that "political actions taken before hand led to the war." Wow, that would really be glossing over a lot of information, wouldn't it? The same things here. Mitchell tells us that baseball created a culture of steroid use, and cultivated an atmosphere where it was accepted, but never once explains how or why that happened.

Buster Olney of ESPN.com, who has been critical of the report from the beginning, had the best take on the report I have seen yet, and he makes this point very eloquently when speaking about what the report failed to do (which is provide any important information whatsoever). Instead of some critical insight, we get cancelled checks and detailed accounts of how someone sent a text message to a clubbie trying to acquire some steroids, or how many times Roger Clemens was injected with HGH, or who approached whom about HGH use. That's all fine and good if one is trying to build a case against one individual. But when you are charged with creating a narrative on how steroid use permeated the baseball landscape and how it was allowed to grow under the noses of all involved without ever being detected or dealt with, tracing a paper trail for athletes who purchased the drugs is worthless. I don't need a detailed account of HOW Paul LoDuca got his steroids. I assumed they didn't just magical appear when he thought of them, or that a genie provided them when he wished it. Whether he was purchasing through a clubbie, through some scam dentist or health center in Puerto Rico, or whether he was purchasing them on some Website called HGH Plus, I assumed he took some sort of active role is acquiring his own drugs. How does that help my understanding of the steroid era?

Now, the question, in my mind, becomes "why is this report so incomplete and so narrow in its focus?" A lot of people have suggested that it would be foolish to think that Mitchell, who is on the board of directors for the Red Sox and a personal friend of Bud Selig, would ever overlook pertinent, important information because of those ties. By God, they remind us all, this man brokered peace in Northern Ireland (I don't know if you knew this or not. I did a little digging and it turns out to be somewhat true. Mitchell should really mention that part of his resume more, don't you think?). How could HE ever be swayed but such petty considerations?

I am not the man nor do I have access to his head. All I know is this. This report is light in two very important areas; its examination of the Commissioner's office and baseball's role in allowing this "culture" to exist, and any examination of steroid use outside of the predominently New York based steroid ring he had access to.

Let me take the second part first. I do believe that the players silence was a major impediment to Mitchell. It is clear that his inability to get players to go on record all but destroyed his ability to put a real report together. Yet, many people are willing to give Mitchell a pass because of this. "What did you want him to do" they say, "no one would talk to him." Well, first off, the question is, what the hell did the old man expect? Yeah, come on in as we ask you hard, incriminating questions that could be held against you in a court of law, and even if you deny the charges, since most of the accusations are first hand accounts of what happened not backed by any hard evidence, your name is still going to go on my list. Shocking no one wanted to talk to him.

Olney has a wonderful anticdote on how a couple of players were named by Radomski and were approached about the accusation. They denied the accusation. Yet, their names appeared in the report anyway. Matt Franco, who was named, is the perfect example of that. So, when we say that Mitchell's investigation was stymied by the players refusal to meet with him, where is the proof? As with much of the actual report, proof is hard to come by.

Second, where does it say that an investigation can only be successful if the people you suspect of doing wrong are willing to talk with you, or their friends are willing to give them up? That's really what Mitchell was expecting? He was truly counting on players lining up to give HIM a detailed account of how everything happened? Why would we need an investigator if that were the case? Isn't an investigation designed to uncover information that is hard to come by, or even hidden from public view? Isn't it suppose to DO the work, not rely on other people to fill in the blanks?

This isn't just obvious when looking at the lack of cooperation from the players. Mitchell would have had NO report without Radomski. Why didn't Mitchell and his investigators flush out a few more Radomskis to talk to, or at least to finger in the report? Wouldn't the report be more credible if he included the steroid dealings of a few more spots other than New York? One would think that Kirk Radomski, a clubbie for the Mets in the late 90's, invented steroids, yet we know players were using all the way back in the late 80's. The $20 million gang couldn't uncover ONE other supplier?

Mitchell expects us to simply gloss over his inefficient and sloppy investigating by admitting what we already know; Mitchell hasn't given a complete picture of what happened. It is as if Mitchell expects us to give him a pardon because he admits the investigation was harder than we thought. But, if you've taken a $20 million pay day, the investigation should have continued until a REAL report could be filed.

And in filing this report, Mitchell convientely slaps the hand of MLB officials and the Commish office, but seemingly stays away from laying any real blame at their feet. So, from the late 80's until now, a culture of steroid use was allowed to exist in baseball, but we have no evidence that Bud Selig of ANYONE else in MLB had a hand in allowing that to happen? None?

Newspaper accounts of the last several years have more details about this than the Mitchell Report. No where in the report does it address the fact that Selig has stated in the past that he didn't know steroids was a problem in baseball until after the 1998 season, yet there are records indicating Selig was talking to MLB officials about steroid use in baseball years before. Did Mitchell not know or see this? Did he investigate those claims and deem them unfounded? We have no idea because it isn't addressed.

How about the fact that it took Selig and baseball until 2006 to institute a REAL drug test? Were there meetings, dealings, back room discussions between and owners and the players discussing this matter? We have no idea reading the Mitchell report. We simply have the senator's assertion that ALL of baseball is to blame. I could have made a simliar claim two years ago without the benefit of a multimillion dollar investigation.

So why is the Commish office not taken to task, and why were so few "suppliers" investigated?

There are two possibilities. The first is that Mitchell simply didn't possess the skill to do a better job. Negotiating peace in Northern Ireland doesn't necessarily mean you are the best person to investigate an entire era of baseball and put it into context. In fact, a more legitimate option would have been to hand the money and the man power over to a biographer or documentary maker, who is used to researching complex, wide ranging issues and trying to put them into broad context. Mitchell approached this as a prosecutor and a politician, two things the report did not need. While the list of names was the hook, the meat of the report, the important legacy of the report was to be shedding a light on a 15 or 20 year period where steriods went from rare to common in what seemed like a blink of an eye.

Mitchell built a case against players named in the report, at time providing devastating evidence, at other times providing flimsy evidence that doesn't even pass the smell test (Brian Roberts is in the report because he TOLD someone he injected himself with steroids? How can a former prosecutor sleep at night knowing he has smeared someone's name forever off evidence like that?). But the "how" of one particular player getting steroids was simply useless in this situation. As said before, this wasn't a "case" against a player, this was an overview, or was suppose to be an overview, a history if you will, of what happened and how it happened.

As a politician, Mitchell understood that he needed something sensational to blind everyone to the flimsy job he had done, so he focused much of his attention on Roger Clemens. Clemens use is a MAJOR part of the Mitchell report. Why? He is one player? How does knowing Clemens used help us better understand steroid use in baseball? It doesn't, but without Clemens name, Mitchell simply has retred names and Andy Pettite, who seems to be guilty of using HGH twice when his elbow was about to fall off. Add Clemens to the mix, Mitchell knew, and no one will ask "how come you didn't do any digging of your own senator?"

The second reason Mitchell might not have looked harder at those two questions is because he didn't want to get any muddier than he already was.

Mitchell and Selig are friends. Sorry if I am a little skeptical that Selig and his cronies are barely mentioned as having a hand in this era of steriod use. They didn't know what was going on? They were incapable of stopping it when they found out? They had no dubious intentions in letting it continue? Money, and the resurrection of the sport didn't play a factor in MLB looking the other way for years? There's no evidence that they did look away?

Mitchell didn't include those tidbits because he didn't find any evidence to support those claims. However, he didn't find evidence because he didn't look for it. If I don't want my girlfriend to leave I'll tell her I couldn't find her keys. Of course, if I never look for the keys in the first place, I'm not technically lying, am I? I didn't find the keys. The fact that I didn't look for them doesn't need to be mentioned.

Only the most naive of us all would believe that Selig didn't know what was happening in his sport for years, and chose to look away. But Mitchell didn't talk about that in his report, either because he is incompetent or perfectly willing NOT to find that evidence; evidence that would certainly damage his friend's legacy and perhaps put his job in jeopardy.

The same applies to the list of players. Aside from Clemens, there are no surprising names on the list. Most of them are from New York. Did Mitchell really want to turn every stone over, especially in Boston, and find that a few current players on the Red Sox have been taking some Canseco bathroom breaks? Did he purposely set out to attack New York players, or hide information on current Red Sox players that may be juicing? I'm sure he didn't. Instead, I'm sure he was perfectly content to produce a thin list that doesn't implicate any major names currently in baseball and doesn't tarnish the team he works for. Could he have done a little more digging? I'm sure he could have. In fact, what kind of investigator would he be if THIS is all he could legitimately come up with? But Mitchell chose to produce a list, and a report, he could have put together a year and a half ago, just by simply cutting and pasting newspaper reports and including the information he was given by federal investigators. I have to believe it was what he preferred to do.

Roger Clemens has never been a likeable guy his possible use of steroids has been rumored for years. The other players on the list seem to be just as guilty, and it is hard to focus on anything other than the 80 or so named players who cheated the game of baseball. I have no sympathy for any of them (except, perhaps, the players who were named on such flimsy evidence as to make the most skeptical of us all wonder outloud what Mitchell was doing). This isn't about defending the players or defending steriod use. Those who bought from Radomski and used over a period of years deserve whatever they get as a result of this disclosure.

But that doesn't negate the fact that the Mitchell report has done nothing but provide the names of suspected steriod users who essentially bought from one supplier. It hasn't "caught" the vast majority of those who cheated the game and, in fact, may have let many of them off the hook because no other investigation of this magnitude will be launched. If you never crossed paths with Kirk Radomski, you can feel safe that your past steriod use will probably remain a secret for many, many years to come.

We don't know why steriod infiltrated baseball, or when it truly began, nor do we know why the major players in baseball (Bud Selig, Don Fehr) allowed it to fester for as long as it did. There are no substanative questions answered by the Mitchell report, and the names we received, for the most part, are old and outdated. This was, in many ways, a plagarized report, and for that Mitchell has been congratulated for his efforts. Instead, the Mitchell Report should be viewed as another example of baseball dropping the ball on this issue and should hold less water in the eyes of baseball fans across America than the next Jose Canseco tell-all should.

George Mitchell may have secured peace in Northern Ireland, but he certainly seemed off his game on this one.

A moment of reflection

I just needed to write a very quick post about this past week. You see, my 77 year old grandmother passed away on Monday from gallbladder cancer. She had been struggling with the terrible disease for more than a year and the fight just became too much for her body. It has been an utterly gutwrenching week for my family as my grandmother was our patriarch. She was a larger than life character that filled whatever room she found herself in.

For me, I had a very special, unique relationship with my grandmother. She fawned over me for my entire life, taking me on as more than just a grandson but a favored child of her own. She was my greatest advocate and, because of her youthful personality and her outgoing approach to life, became my dear, dear friend. While my peers spoke of their grandparents in detached, impersonal ways, my grandmother was like a second mother to me. She was there for me all through my 29 years on this earth and there was scarcely a week of my life where I did not see or talk to her at some point.

Because of that the loss I feel now is real and pronounced. It is more than just the loss of the person, it is everything that person came to be in your life. My grandmother was my security blanket. I could go to her with problems or ideas, or simply go to her to feel safe and removed from the real problems I was facing in my life. She never judged me or doubted me. She would have done anything for me, at any time. She had unconditional love for me.

The comfort of her house is gone. She no longer lives there. It is no longer a place of warmth and peace, as it has been for me throughout my entire life. The traditions that centered around her are gone. Christmas eve will forever be changed. Thanksgiving Day will be different and probably more hallow. Family get togethers, always facilitated by her and her complete love of family, will become more sporadic and may even become nonexistent over time. The life that I had known is over, with a new one about to begin that I cannot see through the haze of grief.

This blog has been about sports and my passion for it. I won't bore you with another "at times like these sports seems so insignificant" columns, but it is true that life falls more into perspective now than it perhaps ever did before. I have had to try and deal with my own emotions and then be there for my family (mostly my mother) who has been devastated by this whole process.

I don't know if anyone ever reads this. I have always thought this blog was more about me writing to myself than anything else. But I needed to share this with someone, even if it is being shouted into thin air.

My grandmother is dead and my life, in the course of only a few days, is completely changed.

GET ER DONE CASH-MAN!!!!!!!!

Just a very quick note on the whole Santana saga.........

The reports now are pretty mixed, as you would expect, but the consensus seems to be that the Yanks are holding firm that they will give up Hughes and Melky but not another "top" prospect. It doesn't seem as if the Twins are holding out to try and fleece the Yanks on Ian Kennedy. Rather, they seem to be fixated on either AAA pitcher A;an Horne or AA outfielder Austin Jackson. John Heyman was reporting that the Twins were also interested in AAA SS Alberto Gonzalez in the deal.

Now, here's the thing. I understand Brian Cashman's desire not to be completely and utterly fleeced on this deal. It doesn't make any sense to build up your farm system only to give it away for one player. But some of this smacks of Cashman not wanting to APPEAR to be giving in to the Twins demands, rather than really evaluating the talent being given away. If this is being held up because of Alberto Gonzalez, than Cashman needs to be brought out back and pistol whipped. If it's Alan Horne, well, to me, you can replace Alan Horne, who came on this year but hadn't been a HUGE prospect before hand, in the system so he shouldn't hold up the deal either. I would much rather keep Jackson because, to me, he seems like a very nice CF waiting to happen.

The point is this............the Yanks CANNOT let Santana go to the Red Sox. Like I said, I am not into the whole "give them whatever they want" thing, but letting Santana land with the Sox would be absolutely devastating. The Yanks have said they will go after Dan Haren if Santana falls through. Ummm...............alright. Haren is a really, really good pitcher, but he isn't at Santana's level, and he has only had one year (this year) where he pitched to a Cy Young caliber year (and had a very bad second half of the season). Plus, there is no guarantee that the Yanks would be able to get Haren. Considering his cost, more teams would probably be in the mix for him than are in for Santana right now. And word out of Oakland is that it would take basically the same bounty of players to extricate Haren from the A's as it would Johan from the Twins. Think about this nightmare scenario: Yanks say no go on giving up another good prospect. The Sox turn around and throw Buckholtz into the package and the Twins say yes. Santana is now wearing that shitty, ugly red and white. The Yanks then turn their attention to Haren. Because of how cost effective he is for the next three years a BUNCH of teams are in it for him. The Yanks, out of desparation now (the Sox have two legit aces to none for the Yanks) give up the prospects they wouldn't give up for Santana to get Haren, who comes to New York and is more of the near to over 4ERA guy he had been rather than the lights out guy he was for the first half of last year.

That's why, if I'm the Yanks, I throw in one more really good prospect (Alan Horne for instance) and say "final offer, we want to hear back by noon tomorrow or the deal is off." But they just CAN'T let this guy go to Boston. It is far more important for the Yanks to get him than the Sox. Far more. Step up Cashman and make the deal. Just keep being smart with your draft picks, maybe find a way to trade off a Giambi for some young prospects, and replenish what you gave up for Santana. It needs to be done.

New York Sports..........the Good, the Bad, the Knicks

Okay, let's start with the good...........

Reports from ESPN are that the Yanks are willing to add Phil Hughes to the deal for Johan Santana. Right now, the deal would be Hughes, Melky Cabrera, and another second tier prospect. It wouldn't shock me if the Yanks added a second, second tier prospect in just to get the deal done.

This is a good trade for the Yanks for a variety of reasons. First, Joba "The Hut" Chamberlain proved last year that he is the creamy filling in the oreo, not Hughes. I think Hughes can still be a very, very good pitcher with number 1 quality stuff, but I think Chamberlain has the chance to be special. He can be the next BIG TIME pitcher, the type of guy whose name trancends the sport, and he was such a HUGE plus for the Yanks last year, such a cult icon right off the bat, you can't trade him. He is the next big, Yankee homegrown player.

Hughes will be good, but, legitimately, how much better could he ever be than Santana? Chances are he will never be AS good. Santana is 28. He is a lefty. He has a career 1.17 ERA in Yankee Stadium. He has playoff experience and has good numbers in those situations. He's a strikeout pitcher. He's durable. He pitches with his legs, not his arm. He has a plus fastball but the best changeup in the game, meaning that, in 7 years, when the zip on the fastball has come off, he will be able to transition nicely into Pedro Martinez land where he just knows how to pitch. He is the best pitcher in the game today and there is little chance the future "best pitcher in the game" will become available. And, to top it all off, it appears the Red Sox are the second team in this race and the Yanks CANNOT let him go to the Red Sox. It would give them too much of an advantage in the pitching department.

What about Melky?

I have been a HUGE Melky fan; moreso than a lot of people. I love the kid and the energy he brings to the game, and I honestly believe he can be a very productive offensive player (not great but productive). However, Melky isn't good enough to hold a deal for the best pitcher in baseball. You have to be willing to let him go. The Yanks can sign an Aaron Rowand or even an Andruw Jones, or they can bring up Bret Gardner and let him play next year. There has been talk of moving Damon back to CF, which is move I would be against, but the point is there are options if you lose Melky. You can replace him. This isn't like losing Cano where his offense at the position would be almost impossible to replace. Melky just isn't that caliber of talent.

Plus, while the Yanks don't have a tremendous amount of top tier position player prospects, their BIG young guys all seem to be center fielders. Jose Tabata may move to left or right, but right now the teenage phenom is a center fielder. Austin Jackson is looking everyday like a Tori Hunter type of player, and is rocketing up the minor leagues. He is a center fielder. And Gardner is someone people ironically compare to a Aaron Rowand. He's a center fielder. They can replace Melky in house. It doesn't mean losing him won't hurt, but when you weigh the team with him or with Santana, it is by far more formidable with Santana.

If the Yanks can make this deal and convince Pettite to return, they are set. It would give them a rotation of Santana, Pettite, Wang, Chamberlain, Mussina with Ian Kennedy waiting in the wings as the sixth starter. It would be the best rotation in baseball and, I have to believe that, unless the Red Sox are ready to relinquish both Ellsbury AND Buckholtz (they haven't even considered either one right now) the Yanks will make this deal happen.

Now, let's talk about the bad...............

I have never been a big Eli Manning fan. I just never saw the talent a drunk, tripping Ernie Acorsi evidently saw. Everything about him screams "ahhhh". There's nothing special about him. But, I always thought that, given time, Eli would become a good QB. Maybe not a great one, but at least a good one. He might have a bad day, but most days would be good, and some days would be great. I thought that would be his eventual landing place.

It has been almost three full years; almost four years total now. Can anyone truthfully say that Eli has made ANY true strides towards getting better? Look at it this way; less than a year into his NFL career, what were the major, MAJOR criticisms of Eli? He threw too many interceptions: This year, he has thrown 16 TDs and thrown 15 INTS. He isn't consistent enough. This year, he has a passer rating of 75, up only slightly over his career average of 73.6. He overthrows WAY too many open receivers. He has a completion percentage of 58 this year, which is slightly up from his career average of 55. He tends to start off great and then fall off dramatically in the second half of the season. Starting with a "lucky" win over the horrid Miami Dolphins, Eli has gone two and two with three TD's and six INTS. He doesn't seem to inspire his team and his body language is almost always negative. During his last 4 INT game, Eli looked like a small child just scolded by his little league coach. There was no passion or fire, simply a downtroden young man who seems to only be playing football because it is expected of him.

The point is that, after nearly four years in the league and three years directly under center for every game, one has to ask themself whether Eli will ever become a bonafide QB in this league. Considering how aweful QBs are in this league today, Eli will never be expendable. There just aren't enough quality quarterbacks to justify moving Eli. But not being bad enough to be let go is very different than being good enough to help lead a team to a championship.

Here's what it comes down to; teams with mediocre QBs can win if they have exceptional players or talent at other positions. If the team has an incredible defense, they only need a QB who can manage a game and an offense. If a team has an amazing running back, they can win with a QB that just needs to keep a defense honest. But if a team doesn't have those elements, they need a QB that can LEAD the team to victory. That doesn't mean only a team with an elite QB can win. That would pretty much mean that only the Pats and the Colts could win each year. But you better have a QB the caliber of Big Ben or Drew Brees or Carson Palmer or Donovan McNabb in order to win, or an excptional athlete with an intagible quality like Vince Young to win. Eli is just another run-of-the-mill QB, another guy who, when thrown up against the Tony Romo's and Brett Favre's of the world, looks small and out of his league. The Giants aren't good enough to overcome that. They need more from Eli than simply "managing" a game. They need more than just an "average" quarterback. They need someone who can win a few games all by himself, when the other parts of the team aren't working. Eli hasn't shown he can do that, and in year four of his career you have to wonder whether he ever, ever will. I mean, exactly WHEN does he stop being a young, learning QB? Year seven? Year ten? is that about the time we can expect him to make the "leap"? How about this; if it hasn't happened yet, the chances are it won't ever happen. Four years is plenty of time to address what a player is. Eli Manning is average at best, with his terrible days outweighing his exceptional days.

One thing's for sure, anyone who wants to praise Ernie Acorsi for ANYTHING will have to explain how a man who prided himself on knowing QB talent EVER wrote that Eli could be better than his brother. That ship has definitely sailed a long time ago.

And now.............for the ugly.

You have bad teams, then you have joke teams. You have bad coaches, then you have joke coaches. You have perrenial losers then you have perrenial embarrassments. The New York Knicks are always the latter.

I have to admit that I found myself fascinated by the most recent Knicks 45 point loss to the Celtics. It just seemed to be a watershed moment. It seemed to be a moment in sports, and Knicks history that you would be able to point back to one day. In 2003 the Yanks were no-hit by a Houston Astros team who threw what seemed to be 50 pitchers at the Bronx Bombers to achieve the feat. It seemed even more embarrassing because it was a combination of pitchers rather than just one dominant performance. It was the watershed moment of the season, where the team turned it around and started playing inspired baseball afterwards.

But, after that Knicks game, there was no feeling that the team would, or could bounce back. They won the next night against a lowly Milwaukee Bucks team, but there was no true feeling that the team would turn around and play inspired basketball on a consistent basis. Instead, it felt like you were watching the bottom of what has been a bottomed out team for a while. Not only did the Knicks give up, they looked like they WANTED to give up from the onset. They looked disinterested. And their coach, Isiah Thomas, looked like a man just content to sit on the bench and watch his team implode, as if he were disconnected from all the shame of the moment. It seems as if Thomas believes he has no culpability in what is happening at the Garden these days.

The sad part of the whole thing is that there is almost no light at the end of the tunnel for Knicks fans. Thomas was not fired after the Celtics game, and every win seems to be some sort of repreive for the worst basketball administrator in the history of the game. Lose in embarrassing fashion to the Celtics on national television where your team is openly mocked? Don't worry, as long as your team wins its next game, you're in the clear. Have a few wins on the season? That's all that counts.

The truth is it does not appear that Thomas is going anywhere, and James Dolan doesn't appear close to selling the team, meaning he isn't going anywhere, and Stephon Marbury and his bloated contract and terrible attitude doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and the collection of "I couldn't root for this team if I tried" players don't seem to be going anywhere. And the team seems destined to always have enough wins to keep them out of the top spot in the draft but never enough wins to have the team competing for anything other than jokes on radio.

Let the Hot Stove begin...............

You can really make the case that the baseball offseason is every bit as fascinating as the sport's regular season is. In fact, this year, there is no comparison between the offseason and the postseason. The postseason offered us snore fest after snore fest, with the Indians - Red Sox series even remotely appraoching watchable (and even that lacked real spark as the last three games of the series were easy wins for the Sox). Already, you have the pretty boy A-Rod out there, you have Miggy Cabrera on the block, you possibly have D-Train, Dontrell Willis, available for the right price, there are rumblings that the best pitcher on earth, Johan Santana, will become available, there are rumors that ace starters Erik Bedard and Scott Kazmir could be had, and free agent players like Tori Hunter, Aaron Rowand, and Andruw Jones are all on the market for someone to try and pluck up.

With the amount of money baseball is swimming in right now, and with the amount of teams possessing coveted young players (especially pitchers), this offseason really promises to be as interesting as we believe it can be.

Having said that, the Yanks have already been linked to a few big, big names, and a few interesting moves that may or may not pan out. It's important to look at each one individually and see what is the smart move for Cash and which move makes NO sense at all.

Miggy Cabrera - I go back and forth on this one all the time. On the one hand, the kids numbers are amazing. I mean, look at his stats playing for a horrid team in Florida, in a horrid ballpark? They rival anyone, even A-Rod. He is putting together one of the best all around careers we are ever going to see, and, oh, by the way, the kid really is a KID. He is 24 years old.

On the flip side, he is expanding like a star about to go supernova. For a kid who is about six feet tall, he is north of 260, with many feelin he may be 270 plus. Now, at 225 or 230, no problem, just has a little meat on him but he can carry that load pretty easy. An extra 40 pounds of chunky monkey at 24? That is a bit alarming.

What's also alarming is thathis defence at third is putrid, meaning that, if you traded for him with the idea that he would be your third baseman of the future, you might find yourself having to move him to first or to DH, which is tricky because you seemingly have enough firstbasemen to hold down the fort for this year, and you need that DH spot open down the line anyway for when Posada moves out from behind the backstop (and he's coming back folks, just read the Derek Jeter quotes from the Joe Torre dinner). If Cabrera can't control his Louie Anderson eating habits it could spell big problems down the road.

There is also the issue of Cabrera playing in New York. To me this is neither a positive nor a negative, it is simply an unknown. On the one hand, Yankee fans have seen too many guys, quality players, march into NY with a resume and an attitude and run screaming for the door. Cabrera would be going from the easy life of Florida, where each days game meant about as much to the citizens of Miami as rehab means to Lindsay Lohan, to the pressure cooker of New York, where fans are gonna know Cabrera's stats and have lofty expectations before he even steps off the plane. However, on the flip side, as opposed to the Dr. Phil case study A-Rod was, Cabrera seems to have a lot of that Manny, Bernie, Abreu, laize fair attitude, where nothing seems to really effect him. It isn't to say he doesn't want to win. It is just saying that the "pressure" of NY may not melt him the way it did A-Rod. He comes to the park, he hits the shit out of the ball, he tries to win, then he goes home. It might make it seem as if he doesn't care, but who would you rather have up in the big spot, Manny being Manny or A-Rod being pussy?

In the end, I think it comes down to how much the Yanks would have to give up. If the asking price is Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera, and another prized prospect, I would have to do it and take my chances. I like Kennedy, who looks like a Mussina clone, and I LOVE Melky, and seeing him go would be tough, but if Cabrera didn't break down, you would be getting yourself one of the top righthanded hitters in the game today, and a guy who promises to be that good for the next 12 years. You get yourself a Hall of Famer. It is hard to look that in the mouth and then walk away.

On the other hand, I would have to think twice before giving up Phil Hughes. Would it be a complete deal breaker for me? No, but Hughes showed in the playoffs that he may have a Roy Oswalt type of career waiting for him. He is only 21. He has been the most coveted player in their system for years. If I was going to give up Hughes in that deal, I would want to look to throw in a few more prospects and get Willis back WITH Cabrera. That is a rich diet to feast on, no doubt, but Hughes can be special, and as much as I love what Miggy can be, I don't know if he's worth a potential #1 starter, not when there are other options.

Joe Crede - It seems like this deal might be dead, but there was A LOT of talk about a Joe Crede for Johnny Damon swap. Now, a couple of things might have happened here. One possibility is that the Yanks were looking at Crede as a "shit, well, we got nothin else, and we need a player there, so why not take a chance" kinda guy and when Cabrera came on the market, and a few other possibilities presented themself to Cash and the boys, they decided that Crede really wasn't the type of splash they wanted to make. There is also the possibility that the Yanks decided (and rightfully so) that Damon is actually and incredibly valuable player for them. With he and Jeter at the top of the lineup - if both stay healthy - they have first and third with no one out ALL THE TIME. Damon is really a spark plug for the team and if they Yanks can hang on to him, and get his body to the point where it isn't constantly breaking down, then hanging onto him is a good idea I believe. Then, there is the possibility that one of the two teams simply pulled out of the running for either player, with the Yanks overly concerned about Crede's back problems, and the White Sox concern about Damon's overall health in the future.

Whatever the case, if this deal is dead for the Yanks, it is good news. Crede, when healthy, is a GREAT defensive third baseman. However, again, when healthy, Crede only had one really solid year with the bat. Let's assume that, as with most career years from second tier players, his 2006 campaign was more a flash in the pan than a sign of things to come. Let's assume he is more the .250, 17, 82 player than he is the All Star player his 2006 numbers suggest. That means the Yanks would be trading Johnny Damon for an average, at best, hitting third baseman. Okay, I can hear the "Scott Brosius" defense coming up (which is defined as a Yankee fan pointing out that the team was tremendously successful when Scotty Brosius was playing third and not putting up A-Rod numbers every year). That's a fine arguement, except for a few things. 1.) Brosius was on one of the most unique, dominant teams in baseball history. The chances of finding the type of players the Yanks had during those years is slim to none, and none just threw slim over the side of the boat in the middle of the Pacific. 2.) The Yanks had the Bam Tino at first during those years, who was good for 30+ homers a year. Maybe he wasn't the best player, but he was a slugger. Right now, if you brought Crede in and made no other move, your third baseman would be an average, at best, hitter, and your first base situation would be an unknown. Giambi might not be able to stay healthy at all and Shelley Duncan might turn out to be Shane Spencer light. You can't afford to have both corner infield positions be light hitting for you, not even the dynasty teams could have afforded that. 3.) Brosius was an OUTSTANDING fielder. So is Crede. That is to say, so WAS Crede before the back surgery. We have no idea what Crede is going to be, defensively, after undergoing such extensive surgery. Look at Hideki Matsui. Now, he was never a great fielder, but he was a solid left fielder (even playing some center from time to time) before he mangled his wrist. Now? He is atrocious. He is a liability in the field. His whole demeanor out there has changed. What if Crede is like that?

I say you move on to bigger and better things and let the White Sox deal with Crede, and it looks like the Yanks may be doing exactly that.

Johan Santana - Okay, here is the ONE guy that is potentially on the market that I believe the Yanks should look to give up almost anyone not named Joba Chamberlain. Here is the thing about Santana............if Phil Hughes accomplishes everything in this game we think he can, he will have possibly, possibly become as good as Santana. He isn't going to be better than him. He isn't going to eclipse him. He can only hope t match him.

Santana fits exactly what the Yanks would be looking for. He is relatively young (27), he throws hard, he is a lefty, he is durable, and he has postseason experience. Plus, all indications point to him being a bulldog. A package of Hughes, Melky, Tabata, and one more guy for Santana and maybe a player to be named later, or a middle of the road reliever, sounds like a decent deal for everyone all around. If you can work the deal with Kennedy instead of Hughes, Cashman should get GM of the century, but I believe the Yanks would HAVE to give up Hughes in that scenario.

Santana would instantly become a difference maker, and with the potential for Chamberlain to be utterly dominant, and with Wang still a very good pitcher (despite his deept throar choke job in the playoffs), the Yanks would have a starting rotation unmatched in the majors. And, with everyone under the age of 30, that rotation would be set for the next decade and beyond. Hughes is a high price to pay for anyone, but Santana is the one guy I wouldn't flinch to give him up for.

Miguel Tejada - Okay, I know this isn't gonna be a popular rumor, and it might be just a lot of noise which signifies nothing, but I actually think this makes a lot of sense for the Yanks. Let's say the asking price for Miggy Cabrera is too high. Let's say the Angels give up on A-Rod and walk in and say "here's Howie Kendrick and our two best prospects" and blow Florida out of the water. Let's say your options at that point are trading for the likes of Joe Crede and Hank Blalock, or going into the season with Wilson "Big Willie" Betemit. Isn't Tejada the BEST option at that point? Seriously, Tejada's bloated contract and his disatisfaction with the Orioles makes it likely that you can have him without having to give up ANY of your big pieces to the puzzle. You won't have to give up either of the big three pitcher, probably won't have to give up Melky Cabrera, and could put together a package of A- to B+ players in the minors to get him. The Orioles would be dumpling his salary and moving on.

That would give the Yanks their fourth place, right handed hitter. It would give them a guy who has power (not 50 homers power, but 30+ power), a good average, an ability to walk, and a nack for getting the big hit. He destroys the Red Sox, hits very well in Fenway, and seems to be a gamer, even if he is a little too emotional sometimes (which might be what the Yanks need right now). How would he make the transition to third? Well, I'm not here to tell you he will be a gold glover, but if he wanted to make the move, he has a good enough arm, has some pretty good range, and you have to believe he would be able to learn the position. Solid defenders usually stay solid defenders no matter where you move them (except from outfield to infield).

Now, the concern is that Tejada is declining and that he will be connected to the steroids once it comes out. I don't know how to answer this question except to say steroids hangs a black cloud over the entire sport, and there are NUMEROUS players who are gonna be suspected of using. Could Tejada's name be on that list Mitchell is about to release? Sure, but so could Miggy Cabrera or Joe Crede or Wilson Betemit or a million other players who might fit on the team. All I know is this..........last year was the first year Tejada did not play 162 games in the season, and it is the first time he didn't hit 20+ homers. In that Yankee lineup, if he stays healthy, he is hitting 25+ homers and knocking in 110+ RBI. Is that A-Rod esque? No, but it should be plenty good to win a lot of games and be right there in the playoff hunt. Then, in the playoffs, Tejada has routinely done better than A-Rod and has been, throughout his career, a better clutch performer. It isn't saying he is a better player than A-Rod, by no means. What it is saying is that Tejada is a cheap solution that could end up paying huge dividends to the team. Remember, he is only 31.

I'm sure, over the course of the next few weeks, more names are going to pop up. Do the Yanks decide to move Melky in a deal for a starter and sign a free agent center fielder as their big bat in the middle, ala Andruw Jones? Does a player like a Mark Texieira become available as the Braves decide that signing him after next year would be too costly? Do the Yanks try and pry a Willis away from the Marlins at a cheaper rate than what Santana would cost, trying not to use their big, blue chip players to acquire him? Is there another bat on the market no one truly knows about right now, someone the Yanks would be interested in for either third or first?

All these questions will be answered in the next month. But, for now, the Yanks already have some interesting names on their plate. Oh, and by the way, as I have stated MANY times before on this blog PLEASE SIGN KERRY WOOD TO BE THE SET-UP MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!