Baseball Players Never Grew Up

I recently stumbled upon this blog post by a guy named Jeff Horrigan. In it, he mentions that former Reds catcher Joe Oliver (a classic name from dan-bob's youth and the catcher of the last world champion Reds team) is feeling disgruntled. Here's what Joe said:

What would happen if someone like me decide to have an attorney bring a lawsuit against MLB because the owners and GM’s knew about players juicing and did nothing about it. That would have created an unlevel playing field for players like me to compete. I had to vie for a job every year and now I know it had something to do with certain players having a competitive edge on me.

I don't think the lawsuit would hold a lot of water. But what confuses me is that Joe alleges that the owners and GMs knew about it, but that he didn't. This brings me to the larger point: sure, you got screwed, Joe... but as much as the owners and GMs tolerated it, so did the culture of the players tolerate it. Baseball players are some of the most immature athletes; a lot of them never even started college. Their player culture is famously closed (see the story of Jim Bouton's Ball Four). One wonders how many scores of clean players like Joe were aware of the level of abuse, but never said a word. Got to toe the line. Don't break the code.

“I spent all that time in the early hours running and lifting weights, these guys would shoot up and be done and get stronger, faster, and the owners knew who they were and the GM’s knew who they were. Every time I argued for a contract, I was competing with juiced catchers in the same boat looking for a job. They got the higher paying jobs and I got screwed.

Yep. You got screwed, Joe. You did get screwed, but just as much by your own players' culture as the management's willful ignorance. At least now you're not on the list, Joe. The players won't suffer repercussions due to the strength of the players' union [see how successful the game is? gotta feed the beast -ahem, the players]. It's hard for anyone to check the arrogance and collective power of a group of young men who, while making millions for themselves, also generate millions for the owners and for their cities.

The losers, as usual, are the fans and the Joe Olivers of the world. With apologies to Green Day and the Leo Durocher, "Nice Guys Who Didn't Take Steroids Finish Last in Contract Negotiations".

A New Milestone in Blogging Laziness

Blogging is an amazingly lazy process. Example: I was about ready to go to bed and realized that it's been an extremely long time since I have voiced opinions in a post. So here I am, it's 1:15, and instead of holding my breath in anticipation of the forecasted six inches of snow that will bring the Saint Louis area to a screeching halt tomorrow, I went trolling the blogosphere for somebody with a Doug Weight/Andy McDonald trade post that I could carve up.

Enter St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Jeremy Rutherford.

He reports hockey news and painstakingly handcrafts a blog for the P-D sports section. So, Jeremy, can you weigh in on the trade for us?

I’ve got a house full of people over for a Christmas party, so instead of blogging, I will post the story that I wrote for tomorrow’s Post-Dispatch

Oh, sorry. Wouldn't want to keep you from showing your article to your friends. My apologies. Go back to your cheese balls, and we'll touch base with you later.

The article really isn't bad, I guess. It's really just a bunch of facts. And who would want to read that in a newspaper, right? I hear a foghorn off in the distance... BOOOOOOR-INNNNNNNG.

Now please, somebody tell me that I'm inherently lazier than Mr. Rutherford for only boldfacing one sentence.

Ombudsman? More Like OmbudsWOman

I'm not trying to be some crazy, oversensitive, Birkenstock-wearing hyperliberal cootbag. I've just always thought it was weird how when a female gets a job that traditionally is titled with the suffix -man, you don't change it to -woman. If a lady who works for the USPS delivers your mail, can't you call her a "postwoman?" Is that so wrong? And fuck all that politically correct crap about changing the suffix to something gender neutral like -person. Foreperson, repairperson, and milkperson don't roll off the tongue. I just want to use "man" when it's a dude and "woman" when it's a chick. Simple as that.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah. LeAnne Schreiber is amazing. I'd even say that as far as my interest in blogging/sportswriting goes, she's my idol. If you haven't heard of her, she's ESPN's Ombudsman. (That still sounds funny to me but whatever.) She writes a monthly online column for their website which is basically a review of something the World Wide Leader did recently that elicited a lot of criticism or discussion. Recently she's addressed their handling of Barry Bonds's indictment, the Joe Torre melodrama, and Sean Taylor's death. Her tone is often critical, as it should be considering how shitty the product ESPN puts out often is, but it's also fair and objective. She's like a professional, non-angry, non-profane version of us who comments on a network as a whole rather than individual articles. If I'm allowed to define her as a journalist, she's easily my favorite anywhere on teh whole wide interwebs. Here's a link to her archive at ESPN; please read her last few articles if you haven't already. You'll understand why I'm hyping her up so much.

Redacted

Official Fire Jay Mariotti Mitchell Report Thread

*EDIT* Sorry...link works now.

I know this isn't what we're all about here at FireJay, but this is a pretty significant event, and I think some discussion could be fun and interesting. For those of you who haven't seen the Mitchell report yet, you can do so here. A bunch of the players cited can be found in boldface type from like pages 180 through the 200s.

Several of the names on the list made me laugh out loud.

Glenallen Hill....that one should have been obvious, but it never occurred to me.

Larry Bigbie.....he was perpetually terrible, yet next to David Segui he seemed to be the most enthusiastic guy about using steroids.

Probably the funniest one for me to see was Jim Parque. As a White Sox fan, I've seen quite a bit of Jim Parque....a diminuitive, skinny pitcher who threw really hard for a person his size.

Although the Mitchell Report is long, if you read it closely, some things are actually pretty funny....like how Benito Santiago ran away in fear of a drug test and the excruciatingly unnecessary story of Roger Clemens having some guy inject steroids into his ass.

Thoughts? Any players on the list particularly funny or shocking to anyone?

I'm Tired So This Is All You're Going To Get

I can't get full 100% confirmation on this, but a trusted source of FireJay was watching the Jazz/Suns game on ESPN earlier tonight. He claims that one of the announcers at one point celebrated a Steve Nash assist by claiming that Nash is "underrated." If this is true, that is dumbest thing that has been said about an athlete in years, or maybe ever. I don't think anyone who has covered the NBA during the past four or five years has underrated Steve Nash at any point. No one. None of them. Everything Nash touches turns to gold. He's completely un-criticizable. He's like basketball's answer for David Eckstein. (They're both white... they're both short... They're both constantly hyped by the media... I'm just saying.) Saying Nash is underrated is like saying Victor Zambrano is overrated.

On the other hand, if this tip is not true and that announcer actually said something else, I am basically printing lies in my blog. Is that illegal?

WMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wrong About Clock Management

I haven't done a WMTMQR in a while because Easterbrook has somewhat cleaned up his act recently. This has probably happened because he reads my scathing commentary and takes it to heart. But he tried to sneak a couple giant slices of crap pie into this week's column, so I might as well complain about them.

In other football news, would New England actually be better off losing Sunday against Jersey/B? If the Patriots beat the Jets, they lock in the No. 1 seed and home-field advantage throughout the postseason. Then, with two meaningless regular-season outings and a bye week, a full month will pass until Jan. 12, the earliest date the Flying Elvii could appear in another game that counts. Consider New England's last three regular-season opponents: the 3-10 Jets, the 0-13 Dolphins and a Giants squad that might be resting starters. Even the mad-at-the-world Pats could have trouble maintaining focus for an entire meaningless month. Meanwhile, Dallas is in almost the same situation as New England. With effectively a two-game lead over Green Bay -- owing to beating the Pack head-to-head -- through the final three weeks, the Cowboys need only a combination of Dallas wins and Green Bay losses that adds up to two to lock up home-field advantage in the NFC. Thus, Boys faithful actually might root for Green Bay to beat St. Louis on Sunday -- otherwise it's possible the Boys could lock up the top seed this weekend, and face a meaningless month of their own.

Oh yeah, definitely. I think think both of these teams should intentionally lose their next two games and hope Indy and Green Bay win both of theirs. That way, the Cowboys and Pats will have something at stake during week 17. That's a great strategy. No way that could possibly blow up in their faces. Or maybe Gregg is saying they should just lose this weekend, and then win to wrap up home field in week 16. Because, you know, a three week layoff from "meaningful" games is totally different than a 4 week layoff. Someone get this man a head coaching position.

It's been mentioned by commenters here before: do the "stats of the week" really add to anyone's enjoyment or understanding of football? Below, I have added a made up stat about my own life that I consider to be equally as interesting as what Gregg offers.

Stat of the Week No. 3: Since taking the field for their final playoff appearances last season, a combined 28-6 at that point, the Bears and Ravens are a combined 9-19.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 1: Since choosing the fastest checkout lane at the supermarket twelve out of a possible fifteen times during a stretch that ended last January, Larry has chosen the fastest lane only two out of thirteen times.

Stat of the Week No. 6: Kansas City was outrushed by 199 yards.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 2: Larry parallel parked his car four times.

Stat of the Week No. 8: In high school, college and now the pros, Derek Anderson is 3-1 as a starter against Kellen Clemens.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 3: Including high school, college, and now post-college, Larry is 23-18 in pickup football games against Chris Hart.

Stat of the Week No. 9: At the end of the Cleveland-Jersey/B game, the Jets attempted three onside kicks in less than three minutes.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 4: On Friday, Larry attempted to complete five transactions at the bank during their last seven minutes of business.

Tell me mine aren't better.

Sweet Special-Teams Plays of the Week: Trailing 17-3 with 10 minutes remaining, San Diego punted on fourth-and-29 at the Tennessee 40. Chargers special-teamers downed the ball at the Titans' 1, then the defense forced a three-and-out. Quick San Diego touchdown, and suddenly it's a game.

Although I will concede that converting a 4th and 29 is next to impossible, I can't count the number of times Gregg has bitched about teams punting from their opponent's territory while trailing in the 4th quarter. Now it's suddenly a good thing, as long as the team that does it subsequently forces a 3 and out. Had the Titans somehow put together a game icing field goal drive after this punt, I'm reasonably confident Easterbrook would have made some dumb point about how no matter the distance, punting in the 4th when you're trailing and in your opponent's territory is always bad.

Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's what we do here.

Dallas has reached the Detroit 16 with 22 seconds showing on the clock. To that point in the game, Boys tight end Jason Witten had 14 receptions for 122 yards. This is what is called "a clue."

What does that even mean? As if the Cowboys didn't have anyone else to throw to on that play. Assuming Marion Barber was in the game, he had 10 catches for 61 yards including an 8 yard touchdown at the end of the 1st half. Maybe that was "a clue." T.O. also has 74 catches for 1270 yards and 14 TDs on the season. That could have been "a clue" as well. Yeah, Witten was getting thrown to a lot during that particular game. That still doesn't guarantee shit on any one given play.

As the Cowboys broke the huddle, TMQ said aloud, "Maybe it's to Witten."

Easy there, Nostradamus. You had a one in five chance. And you didn't even say you knew for sure; you went with "maybe."

Moving on, I hadn't seen this particular demonstration of idiocy out of Gregg in a couple of months. But apparently old habits die hard.

TMQ's Law of the Obvious holds: Sometimes, all a team needs to do is run up the middle for no gain and things will be fine. Leading San Diego 17-10, host Tennessee faced third-and-4 on the Chargers' 46 with 2:37 remaining and San Diego down to one timeout. Run, grind the clock! Instead, incompletion, and San Diego scores to force overtime with nine seconds remaining. Had the Flaming Thumbtacks simply rushed up the middle for no gain, keeping the clock moving, the Chargers would have run out of time.

No. That is wrong. You can't say that with any certainty at all. You have no idea what would have happened if the Titans ran there. None. You have no idea how San Diego's play calling would have changed on their possession if they had 37 fewer seconds to work with. BOOOOOOO.

When Roger Goodell fined the Patriots a first-round choice in the Beli-Cheat scandal, it was New England's first-rounder, not the San Francisco choice acquired in trade, that Goodell voided. Belichick obtained San Francisco's first choice fair and square, and his decision to bank that choice reflects the wise husbandry New England has shown consistently under current management. Still, if the Patriots win the Super Bowl, then go second in the 2008 draft after Goodell publicly imposed what sounded like a harsh draft penalty, the situation will seem rigged, even if it isn't.

I hate the Patriots as much as anyone, but what the hell is the point of this? That's the item's conclusion: The Patriots have lost their own 1st rounder this April, but still possess another team's 1st rounder, which will probably be a top 5 pick. Even though there is nothing shady about this, it seems shady. What?

At the endgame, Washington led 24-13 and Chicago faced fourth-and-goal on the Redskins' 4 with 34 seconds remaining, holding a timeout. The Bears' faint hope was a touchdown and a two-point play and a field goal, wrapped around a recovered onside kick. Sure, that hope is faint, but to have any chance at all, Chicago needed to try for the touchdown first. Assume the onside kick will be recovered and the deuce will work. At the 34-second mark, the Bears were just 4 yards from a touchdown. If they go for the touchdown here, they need to gain 4 yards and -- after the deuce and the recovered onside, likely to be recovered just on their side of midfield -- will need to gain about 25 yards to attempt the field goal that forces overtime. Thus, Chicago needs about 30 offensive yards, plus success with the deuce and the onside, of course. If, on the other hand, the Bears take the field goal here, they must score a touchdown after the onside and will need to gain about 55 offensive yards to do so. So to keep the faint hope of victory aflame, the team should go for the touchdown first in this situation because it already is close to the goal line and, if successful with the onside, can launch the field goal try for long distance. Yet Lovie Smith ordered the field goal first. When this happens, it is fairly obvious the coach is not going all out to try to win but rather is taking the easy three points to make the final score more respectable and deflect criticism. (Washington got the onside.)

I agree that kicking there was probably bad strategy. I would have elected to go for the TD in that situation. But it's not like Smith's decision is completely indefensible. To accuse him of not really trying to win is laughable. I mean, let me play devil's advocate. Easterbrook's claim about the yards the Bears needed in each hypothetical situation was correct, but didn't factor in the number of plays the team would get in order to gain said yards. Had they recovered the onside after kicking the field goal, they would have had probably about three or four plays (maybe five) to get the 55 yards needed for the tying TD. That's pretty unlikely but not impossible. Sure, had they instead gone for it on 4th and gotten the touchdown, they would have had three or four plays to get a mere 25/30 yards needed for the tying field goal. But that opportunity only arrives after putting the entire game on the line for four yards on one play against a compressed defense. Failure, obviously, would have ended everything before an onside attempt even becomes part of the equation. So although I disagree with the decision, I can definitely see why Smith chose to kick. TMQ just loves implying that coaches care more about the margin of victory than their won-loss record; he's done it many times before this. It's pretty comical. When he's being evaluated by his owner/GM at the end of a failed season, what coach actually gets points for saying "Well, I went 5-11 this year, but nine of those losses were by single digits!" That's ridiculous and does not happen. Coaches are judged first and foremost on Ws and Ls. To imply anything else is WRONG. There is absolutely a 0% chance that Smith sent in his field goal team with any thought in mind other than "I think this gives us the best chance to win." Zero.

Speaking of WRONG, I think I'll wrap this up and attach the labels. And speaking of labels, don't you all love the kooky and zany labels we sometimes use here at FireJay? They're soooooooo silly! We can't quite match up with the juggernauts of the absurd label world like Kissing Suzy Kolber, but I think we do alright for ourselves. I think for this post I'll re-use a couple of the wackiest ones we've already got, just for the hell of it. Get ready to laugh at something that's not really overly funny!

In Case It Wasn't Already Obvious, Last Friday I Learned That I'm Not Meant To Be a Real Journalist

I haven't posted anything for a few days, and I do feel bad about that. Horrible sportswriting happens every single day; I usually take pride in the fact that I in turn complain about it each and every day. Or each and every weekday, anyways. So I'll be getting back to that kind of thing on a regular basis starting tomorrow. For now, though, please indulge me while I tell you a story about my brush with real journalism and the valuable lesson I learned in the process. I know this is going to come off douchebaggy and boring- I promise I don't intend it to be either of those things. It's actually a kind of good story, and I swear that this kind of writing will not happen (from me, anyways) regularly here at FireJay.

(Preface: It really bothers me when sports bloggers/columnists put information about their personal lives into their posts. I constantly rip Bill Simmons for doing it. Wow, you helped conceive a child? Congratulations. You've managed to perform a basic mammalian function. Here's your sticker. And although I absolutely love The Big Lead (how could I not when he's responsible for about 75% of FireJay's exposure), he sometimes lets details about where he lives and how he's employed slip into his writing. It's not like these kinds of things are the end of the world but for some reason they do kind of bother me. Obviously, though, I'm going to have to do exactly the same if I want to tell you a story about something cool that I did. So I apologize in advance for that. And I promise that when I'm not having adventures like this one, which are extremely rare, I'm squarely planted in my parents' basement doing nothing but playing Stratego against myself and eating Teddy Grahams. Also, like I already said, I promise that this kind of post is a one time deal, unless something equally exciting happens to me during the life of this blog, which is very unlikely.)

A few weeks ago, one of my roommates gave me a great idea. "Hey," he said, "you should go to that Bonds arraignment thing." Although normally he's full of crap, I had to hand it to him on this one. It was a damn good suggestion. I do live in the Bay Area (near Palo Alto, so about a 45 minute drive from downtown San Francisco). I will be going to law school next fall. I am self employed, meaning I can take a day off from "work" pretty much anytime for any reason. And furthermore, as a huge baseball fan, I do definitely find Bonds's legal troubles fascinating. Several of my biggest interests were intersecting at a massively significant event which was to take place less than an hour from where I live. How could I not show up?

I quickly realized, however, that I was probably not the only person in this metropolitan area of about 8 million people interested in this arraignment. And federal courtrooms can only accomodate so many people. A quick search of the court's website revealed that after allotting 60 of the available "public" seats to media members, there would be a whole 30 seats left over being made available to people like me. My interest level in the event quickly sank. What were the odds that I could secure one of those seats? Surely there were enough crazed Giants fans, avid court watchers, media members having to pose as regular citizens after being denied a media spot, and streakers-that-always-show-up-at-big-events interested in Barry's big day that there wasn't really a point in me trying to get in.

But come Thursday, I couldn't help but continue to be interested. It's not that I harbor some dream of becoming an actual sportswriter, but I couldn't help but remember what ESPN's Jeff Pearlman told me when I interviewed him for the blog back in September.

LB: bloggers/amateur writers with big dreams about getting into professional sports journalism should make sure they do what, in order to best increase their chances of one day making their living from writing?

JP: ... do reporting—real, honest-to-goodness reporting... The thing about blogging is that, while it's great, it's also lazy. I know—I write a lame blog, and it's literally me on the couch. It may well show you can write, but it doesn't show you can report.

Again, it's not that I want to be a real journalist. I'm selling my soul to the US legal system in about 9 months. But that doesn't mean that I don't want just a little taste of what it's like to be a real journalist before I go through with the whole legal career deal. This was obviously the perfect opportunity for me to do so. Not only would I be getting off my couch, I would be leaving my house AND going to a significant event in the world of sports! Plus, I mean, what if the impossible happened and Bonds decided to take a plea bargain right then and there? I would be kicking myself for years after passing up an opportunity to be in that room to witness such an occurrence. Of course it wasn't going to happen, but this thought wouldn't leave my head. I had to at least take a shot at getting in. So Thursday night, I threw my Spiderman toothbrush and Harry Potter pajamas in a backpack and drove to San Fran. I have some friends who live up there, in an apartment that's about a 20 minute walk from the courthouse. My plan was to park at their place, crash for the night (to avoid making the drive in the morning), get up at 5:30, and walk down to the courthouse. Assuming no one was allowed to camp out overnight, I figured there was a pretty good chance that getting there at 6 would put me in the top thirty. And hey, if it didn't, I could just go back to my friends' place and continue to sleep.

I don't really remember waking up and getting dressed. Five thirty in the morning is not a time I am well acquainted with, unless I experience it before going to bed rather than after. Somehow, some way, thanks to pure will power and my unstoppable desire to pretend to be a journalist, I found myself in front of the Philip Burton Federal Building at 6:30 AM. Those who know me well can confirm that this is a minor miracle. I really surprised myself by pulling this off, especially since I hadn't gone to sleep until about 2 in the morning. Even more surprising though, at least to me, is that I was the first motherhumping person in line! That's right! Me! I won! I won the prize! Laptop under my arm and smug sense of satisfaction evident on my face, I proudly stood inside a temporarily fenced off area as a handful of camera crews and other media types hanging around on the building's front patio sipped coffee and wondered who would be dumb enough to wake up that early unless it was part of their job. You want to know who? Me, baby. Me. The rest of the line filled in very quickly with a combination of interested citizens and (as predicted) media members who hadn't been able to get a media pass during the next 20 or so minutes. But they'd better not forget who was first. Bitches.

Don't believe me? I've got proof. Check out this. And this. (Note: now that you know my full name from those articles, please do not steal my identity. That would really piss me off.) That's right. To the victor go the spoils. At least eight or nine print journalists interviewed me, along with three camera crews from local TV stations. I didn't bother to watch the news that evening and see if my ugly mug made it into the lead for their Barry piece; I fucking hate my voice when it's recorded and played back to me. I tried not to sound like a total dumbass, but when you're coming off less than 4 hours of sleep and it's the earliest you've been awake in a year and a half, the words tend to stumble out of your mouth. You can see the guy from that first article I linked chose to directly quote me on the stupidest thing I said during our three minute conversation in order to make me look like an idiot. Why? I'm not sure. That's the media, I guess. Always out to screw you.

My favorite part about the interviews was that everyone seemed shocked that while I didn't support Barry, I also claimed not to be there just to shit on him either. Which was true- although I hate the guy, I didn't go to the arraignment to watch him crash and burn. I was there, as I've said, for a variety of other reasons. Attending a possibly historic event involving both baseball and the courts. Trying to do some "real reporting." (I failed to plan out in advance just what I would see that justified reporting; an arraignment is a very vanilla process. But whatever.) Not wanting to miss out on the 0.0000000001% chance Barry would plead guilty. Etc. But I definitely didn't go there with any kind of anti-Bonds rage. I save that for the ballpark, where you can't get thrown out of the building by a couple of US Marshals for loudly telling him he sucks.

One of the TV interviewers, in particular, was really hoping for some kind of angry and/or racist sound bite from me. She asked what I thought about Barry being charged with using steroids. When I pointed out to her that he was actually standing trial for perjury, she looked disappointed that I understood that issue. She then immediately switched gears asked me if I thought the fact that he is black has something to do with it. Fortunately I was able to voice my disagreement with that assertion without bursting into laughter; had I done so it might have come off wrong. But really, are people who think that serious? I mean, COOOOOOME ONNNNNNNN... Anyways, this reporter moved on down the line as soon as she realized I wasn't going to play the role of local idiot for her. I was on to your little trick, Jemele Hill. Don't think I didn't recognize you under all that makeup. You're going to have to do better than that.

This is getting long winded and I've already done what I really wanted to do, which was gloat about being first in line, so I'll move forward and get to my conclusion. I brushed off the media like a celebrity and entered the building as soon as they opened the doors around 7:15. I spent the next hour or so in the cafeteria, talking to the guy who had been second in line. He recently retired and now spends his days as a court watcher. He had been to the vast majority of the BALCO case happenings so he was able to answer all my questions about their intricacies. He also knew a lot about the judge and Barry's legal team, so we discussed that for a while. Probably the most eyebrow-raising thing he told me was that it took so long to get an indictment against Bonds because (by his estimation) the US Attorney who had formerly been in charge of the case, Kevin Ryan, is a lazy bastard who wasn't doing anything with the case before his removal about a year ago. Ryan is the balding guy you see being interviewed on ESPN in split screen all the time whenever Bonds is being discussed. I can now no longer take him seriously. I probably should have written down some of the other interesting things this court watcher guy said, but I was too tired/delirious to do so.

At around 8:30 I took the elevator up nineteen floors to claim my rightfully earned spot. Brushing elbows with lawyers and other well-dressed people in the elevator was mildly awkward. I was wearing a hoodie and jeans, and probably had forgotten to brush my teeth. My seat in the courtroom was unfortunately in the back row. But the room was small, with a maximum capacity of maybe 120 people, so that wasn't a huge deal. It was mostly full by the time I arrived. I ended up sitting directly behind ESPN's Pedro Gomez, the guy that has been Barry's shadow for about four or five years now. I didn't have the heart to tell him he has basically contributed exactly jack shit to my appreciation or understanding of the Bonds situation since the day he was assigned to report on every single Goddamn thing Barry does. He's been more useless than Ed Werder and his reports from Dallas Cowboys headquarters. Gomez definitely has a nicer cell phone than me. But it wasn't one of those "ESPN Special Superfan" ones with video highlights on it that they're always advertising, which was disappointing. At 8:55 Barry and his high powered legal team came in, silencing the room. I'll say this- Barry's head is shockingly enormous from 20 feet away. I couldn't believe it didn't get stuck in the door frame as he made his entrance. It really looks like it needs to be lanced like a giant boil. There's got to be a soda can's worth of fluid in there.

At 9:00 sharp, the magistrate judge arrived and the next ten minutes were spent receiving Barry's plea ("Not guilty." FUCK! A tiny hopeful sliver of me really hoped he was going to give in) and hammering out the details of his release bond. After a ten minute break, the actual judge who will conduct the trial came in and spent about twenty minutes talking to both sides and agreeing that the next time everyone would convene would be in exactly two months, on February 7. In the meantime, they'll begin the discovery process and send threatening letters to one another. They didn't even get close to beginning to think about setting a trial date. Hell, I don't even think they used the word "trial" in a sentence at any point in time. And then, at about 9:40, it was all over.

All told I had spent just over an hour staring at the back of Pedro Gomez's head. Barry hadn't pleaded guilty. No one had made a "WE LOVE YOU BARRY!" or "GO FUCK YOURSELF BARRY!" outburst and been forcibly removed. No surprise witnesses had been produced. No one cracked under the pressure of an intense cross-examination. The most interesting part was probably when the US attorneys initially said they wanted to restrict Bonds from leaving the country, only to relent and instead limit his travel to North America when his attorney pointed out that the might have to go to Toronto to play ball next summer. Yawn.

I looked down at the blank screen on my laptop. I hadn't written a damn thing. What was that I had thought to myself about Pearlman's "real reporting" advice? Did I honestly think I could do that kind of thing? Sure, it was cool to have been there. Had Barry pleaded guilty I would probably have shit myself with excitement. And the experience made me hope that one day if I'm a lawyer, I can somehow practice law related to sports because that's probably slightly less boring that other types of law. Most importantly, I knew the whole experience would make for a half decent story. But really... what did I think I was accomplishing, "journalistically?" The only way to describe the situation is to say that I was completely out of my element.

Go back and read the stories those two guys who interviewed and quoted me wrote. They made this mudane arraignment sound kind of interesting. I, on the other hand, just wasted five to ten minutes of your day so I could brag about being first in line at something. There's definitely something wrong with that picture. Not only am I mentally about seven years old, I'm also a bad reporter. I'm just not cut out for it. So here's my conclusion, and the explanation for the title of this post: the main reason Friday morning was great (again, besides being first in line) was because it made me appreciate how much fun being a hateful blogger is! Let the Pedro Gomezes, the Jemele Hills, and the Howard Bryants of the world do the dirty work. Let them attend Barry's arraignment and broadcast completely useless "updates" back to Bristol, CT afterwards. Let them (SMACK!) play the race card and formulate ridiculous ideas and perspectives on the case. People like me don't belong in that world. We just don't do well coming up with our own material. Some might say this makes us useless to the world of discourse, since all we do is tear down other peoples' original thoughts. So? Someone's got to do it, when those original thoughts have little or no value in and of themselves. Even if we can't further the discussion with our own ideas, we can certainly try to prevent stupid people from doing the same when they have little to no business being employed by a major media outlet.

Friday gave me a new lease on life as a FireJay blogger. I feel great. From now on, I'm going back to exclusively bitching and moaning about professional sportswriters. And of course, living in my parents' basement while eating various unhealthy snack foods.

Will People Please Stop Saying Barry Bonds Is Being Treated Unfairly Because of his Blackitude?

Meh. Guess that won't happen. Instead, let's just read more crap about why Mark McGwire is just as bad a dude as Barry Bonds. Take it away, Howard Bryant of ESPN.

Both men are in the position they are today -- Bonds perhaps facing prison, McGwire a fallen legend -- because they looked in the faces of powerful, law-enforcing, law-making bodies (never mind their millions of admirers) and did not convince the public they were telling the truth. Not only did they fail the public with the truth; the public believes they refused to tell it even when each was largely guaranteed that no matter what he said, no harm would come to him.

Well maybe no legal harm. Are we just going to count losing the respect of millions of American citizens and being perpetually labeled as a cheater as "harmless"?

And in the years that have followed, neither has been able to "man up." McGwire ran under the back porch and hid like a child, and he's been hiding ever since. Bonds bullied, went on the offensive to say he was being singled out because of his race, even though it is common knowledge in the game that Bonds is, at best, indifferent to other blacks in baseball.

Now let's pretend that McGwire and Bonds aren't white and black for a second. Let's imagine they're both fucking purple or something, I really don't care. If you have two guys that have been up to anything suspicious in any area of life, who is going to get the brunt of the public attention? The one who quiets down and doesn't say anything, or the one who drones on like a pompous jackass and acts like he's being mistreated? Bonds is an asshole. He's asking for the public eye and getting it. He's singling himself out. That's why he's the proverbial lightning rod of American attention. I'll even go so far as to say it's Bonds's own fault that people stopped giving a shit about Mark McGwire.

A common thread exists for both men; race is a secondary, but still important, spool.

Race is not important at all when it comes to lying under oath, which only one of these two men did.

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

There you go. This is the primary difference, and the only truly significant one. "McGwire did not exactly lie under oath." We're going to be copying and pasting this line many times to remind Bryant of why Bonds is being remembered and McGwire isn't. Go on...tell us how he "sort of" lied under oath.

but he wasn't forthcoming that cold day in Washington, the day he stood under oath and verged on moral collapse, weighted by his guilt. That day, he grew as defiant as Bonds has ever been, his answers short, his tone quick and arrogant.

What a bastard. He wasn't being forthcoming! Quick, defiant, arrogant responses! None of this is equivalent, however, to: lies.

He looked into the faces of millions of his countrymen and women and under oath refused to defend one day of hard work, or any of his 583 home runs, against steroid allegations. He refused to say that even one single moment of his career came honestly.

So basically...he refused to lie.

He rejected his hero position then as much as he runs from it now. That's why, as a person of public substance, he's been finished for two-and-a-half years, having plummeted mercilessly to earth, a flaming, redheaded Sputnik, unlikely to return.

Bonds effectively dared prosecutors to take him down. He spent the past four years using his wealth, his talent and his position to buttress a defense that has gone no deeper than "because I said so." Exposing him was a challenge federal prosecutors readily accepted and one the public, tired of easy escapes by powerful people, hungrily relished.

Howard....you're writing my point for me! Bonds literally challenged United States judicial officials. The public wanted to see him go down in flames because he's an arrogant asshole! It had nothing to do with him being black and McGwire being "a flaming, redheaded Sputnik". Great phrase there, by the way. Simply awesome. These two paragraphs alone should put any thought aside of the race card even being important.

They also are linked because they provide an unforgiving mirror for the American blemishes that do not fade. One is white, the other is black.

Other mirror. One is an arrogant asshole who committed perjury, the other is a once-respected guy who kept his mouth shut and decided not to make more waves than necessary. America chooses to hate: assholes.

There are many tributaries along this river of disgrace. They range from the thought that the federal government wanted to "get" Bonds more than the rest, to the flimsy notion that neither of them ever failed an official Major League Baseball drug test and so somehow both are $100 million victims, to the idea that Bonds' blackness is the reason he has been hit the hardest, been treated more harshly than McGwire, has received the least amount of public sympathy.

None of these issues lacks merit.

The last idea completely lacks merit becuase it's based on nothing but a wild allegation made by Bonds and the whims of a bunch of people ignoring the timing of the two incidents (one is after the start of steroid investigations) and the fact that Barry Bonds fucking challenged the judicial branch of the government of the United States of America to take him down. Oh, and this little detail.

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

If you reverse the timing and actions of both men, the public forgets Bonds and zeroes in on McGwire. It's that simple, I swear.

Race plays a factor in every discussion between blacks and whites, whether it's about Friday night poker, Bonds, O.J., Michael Vick, Don Imus or McGwire.

I strongly disagree. Black people and white people can't discuss how Michael Vick was a dog-killing asshole without making a big deal out of the fact that Vick is black?

But it should be remembered that the Steroids Era has had many other faces, many other suspects, at least in public perception.

And it should also be remembered that the "baseball players who lied to a grand jury during the Steroids Era" has exactly one face in public perception.

There was Brady Anderson, who faced questions about his 50 home runs in 1996; and Sammy Sosa, who hit 60 home runs three times and didn't win the National League home run title in any of those years. There was Ken Caminiti, who admitted he won the 1998 NL MVP award on steroids

The 1998 NL MVP award was won on steroids, but by someone not named Ken Caminiti.

and David Wells, who in 2003 -- the old days of resistance -- said half of the game's players were using steroids. The Yankees forced him to retract that statement. There were Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi, Rafael Palmeiro. Bonds has outlived them all as a productive, record-breaking player.

....and perjury-committing douche!

The difference isn't that Bonds has been treated differently because he happens to be black.

Thank you!

The difference is in how McGwire has been treated because he happens to be white

Oh no he di'int!

Let the record show that those two sentences make some level of contradiction, and that they should be thrown into the American Hall of Ignorance for all eternity, along with every fact HatGuy has ever tried to use in a column.

But since the second sentence leaves a little bit of a loophole for me to work with, I'll go with it. Sosa. Sammy Sosa. Sosa isn't white. Sosa essentially got the same treatment as McGwire, and even came back to play baseball again without facing extensive government pursuit or anything. How can you argue McGwire was treated differently because he was white when the guy who will be tied to McGwire's legacy for all eternity isn't white and got the same fucking treatment? If you ask me, he actually got off EASIER than McGwire because he was able to slip into irrelevance earlier.

and it started with the decided lack of bloodlust to pursue him after he folded before Congress

The difference in bloodlust might have had something to do with the fact that he didn't challenge prosecuters to take him down! Oh, and also, there's this....

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

See how important that detail is?

The inescapable conclusion is that the two are the dominant faces of a disgraced era. Both were at the top of their profession. Both broke records that commanded the respect of the country beyond of the boundaries of their sport. Both had their moment under oath and didn't come clean. Their images define the times and us.

Second to last sentence ignores....

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

Last sentence is a major exaggeration. I tend not to be defined by the images of Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire.

One is the black Bonds, whose "bad Negro" defiance inspires a certain kind of basic hatred toward him, especially when combined with his enormous wealth and unwillingness to play the hero game, even for the millions of fans who pay to watch him play. Bonds knows that only he stands in the batter's box. For him, his success is not a shared experience.

Is it possible....just MAYBE possible.....that his defiance is not interpreted by people in the "bad Negro" sense, but rather in a "this guy is a complete dickhead, it doesn't matter what the color of his skin is" sense? The "race card" wasn't prevalent until Bonds made it so.

The other is the white McGwire, less confrontational but equally suspect, with one special distinction

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

I'm just kidding folks. I copied and pasted that second part. Bryant's special distinction is idiotic and stupid.

Too many fans and members of the press, especially, willfully deluded themselves with the McGwire myth, built by them because of their shared whiteness, their belief in his false purity.

This is it people. No white guys ever think other white guys do anything wrong. Every white person sees white skin and thinks, "gee, he/she must be pure!" This is just such fucking bogus bullshit. I don't know any other way to put this.

To turn on McGwire would be to admit he took steroids in '98, that the whole thing was a testosterone-fueled act. Unlike with Bonds, whose record-breaking years of 2001 and 2007 came long after the public had learned the joke was on them, it was too hard for them to outright reject McGwire. The legend became fact, so they printed the legend.

This part is legit. This is a significant distinction between the two situations. It's not as major as

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

but it's important.

As whites are with McGwire, blacks want to believe in Bonds, to hold on to the different but similarly destructive myth that their shared blackness makes his problems the same as theirs. The racial prism through which the two men are viewed so differently will always say more about us as a whole than it ever could about the two of them.

I'm sorry Howard, but do you think that if a white asshole took the place of Barry Bonds, took steriods, shattered home run records, challenged federal prosecutors to find him guilty, and COMMITTED PERJURY, that he would be treated any different than Bonds? There are plenty of examples of racism in America. I won't deny it exists. It obviously does. But what you are doing is taking two men who have taken vastly different courses of action and complaining, that's right, COMPLAINING, that the lying, confrontational asshole isn't being treated the same as the guy who kept his mouth shut because the former is black. These are two men that have defined themselves and created their own status in the government/public eye by their actions. Plain and fucking simple.

But on this senseless day and the days to come, when Bonds' fate is in the hands of the law and McGwire has lost the only thing worth owning -- a reputation -- they are the same man, disgracing their sport and themselves.

The same. Except for one little detail.

McGwire did not exactly lie under oath

So Like, Andruw Jones Puts the Dodgers in Good Shape, Right?

Michael Ventre doesn't think so.

[The] Dodgers overpaid for [Andruw Jones], although it’s only for two years, and besides, it’s not my money.

Right off the bat, I'll clarify my standpoint on this. Yes, Jones was overpaid for. He's not worth $18M/season even in this market. It is only two years, however, and the Dodgers are in a spot such that a major improvement at one position could easily be the difference between winning the division and losing.

The Jones move is also beneficial because it gives the team some options. Besides adding another much-needed stick to their odd assemblage of geezers and punks, it creates a positive logjam in the outfield. Jones will play center field, which will move Juan Pierre to left, leaving youngsters Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier to fight it out for right field.

How is that positive? Explain to me how moving Juan Pierre to left field is in any way beneficial for your team. Pierre was a dismal CF, won't be an awesome LF or anything (speed doesn't equal good left-fielder....see also: Podsednik, Scott). In a perfect world, the Dodgers swallow their pride, bench/trade Pierre, and allow younger, better, non-awful Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier to start every day.

Or alternatively, slop that .331 OBP and .353 SLG in left. Those are good numbers at a key offensive position (especially in the NL) right?

It may not be much of a bout. The Dodgers’ most pressing need, even beyond a bat, is starting pitching.

Wrong. Go ahead and prove to me why you're wrong by mentioning good people who start games for the Dodgers.

Their rotation of Brad Penny

The very good pitcher who allowed 9 HR in 208 IP last year.

Derek Lowe

The very good pitcher whose season ERA has not been higher than 3.9 for the last 3 years.

Chad Billingsley

The 3rd year 23-year old who posted a 3.31 ERA and struck out 141 guys in 147 IP last year.

Jason Schmidt

The veteran who prior to last year's injury-destroyed season put up consecutive WHIPs of 1.19, 0.95 (!!!), 1.08, 1.42, and 1.26. This is your 4th starter.

plus whatever retread, fill-in or promising kid they decide to toss into the fray

Apparently you've never heard of Esteban Loaiza, who the Dodgers have, and is a perfectly capable 5th starter on a contending team. And just think, this is who the Dodgers start if no "promising kid" breaks out in the spring.

is not good enough to get them to the World Series. It may not be good enough to win the division.

Holy shit. Be more blatantly wrong please.

Let me get this straight. That rotation might not be good enough to win the division. Only teams with rotations like Brandon Webb, Doug Davis, Livan Hernandez, Micah Owings, and some combination of Yusmeiro Petit, Edgar Gonzalez and the ghost of Randy Johnson, can win the division (with a much, MUCH worse supporting offense than the Dodgers).

That rotation can't go to the World Series, you need one of the great all-time staffs to do something like that! A staff like Jeff Francis, Aaron Cook, Josh Fogg, Jason Hirsh, and some combination of Ubdalo Jimenez, Rodrigo Lopez, and Franklin Morales. The Dodgers don't have a fucking chance!

(Before the pro-Rockies faction of FireJay jumps down my throat, I'm not bashing the Rockies, just illustrating how ridiculous it is for Ventre to rule out the Dodgers from the WS with their rotation.)

Even though the $18.1 mil is a lot of dough per season to pay a guy who is coming off a disappointing year, Jones has the talent to rebound, and more significantly, he has the incentive to do so.

Why is incentive more significant than talent? Every fucking major league baseball player has the incentive to rebound from a bad season. It could be for money, for personal pride, or desire to win the World Series, but every fucking player has the incentive to rebound from a bad year. Don't feed people this bullshit.

From the moment he puts his Jown Hancock on his new contract, Jones will be working hard in preparation for the next one.

1) The "W" is nowhere near the "H" on the keyboard. I have no idea how you fucked that up.

2) This point is totally unique to Andruw Jones, and no other player in baseball is faced with this situation.

More likely, though, given the tendency of major league players to bear down and produce when they know there’s a pot of gold waiting for them

Like Andruw Jones, the very guy you're talking about, did in 2007.

2008 and 2009 could turn out to be career years for Jones.

For completely dissimilar reasons to those you stated, yes.

He’s never been a great hitter for average. He has only hit over .300 once; that was in the 2000 season, when he hit .303.

You don’t get Andruw Jones to hit for average. You get him to patrol center field and to drive in runs.

You forgot walking. He's very good at walking, and it's a very important difference between him and this guy, known for his negative VORP in 2006 despite driving in 100+ runs. Did I mention driving in runs is a stupid way to evaluate Andruw Jones?

With the Dodgers, he’ll be batting behind Rafael Furcal and Pierre, who presumably will do their parts and get on base.

Our friend Michael has turned delusional and is now presuming that Juan Pierre, the perpetual MVP of the MLB Out-Star Game, is going to contribute by ::gasp:: getting on base!

Does the signing of Jones make up for the lack of desire in pursuit of Alex Rodriguez? Serious Dodger watchers knew that A-Rod was more likely to sign with the Kansas City Royals than he was to don the Blue.

The Kansas City Royals wear an equal amount of blue as the Los Angeles Dodgers.

It was a plausible scenario only if you were a fantasy league geek living in your parents’ basement.

Nice. While Ventre goes ahead and alienates the basement-dwelling, Pop-Tart-chomping, Sega Genesis-playing faction of his readers, I'm going to ask legitimate questions.

1) When was there some sort of stereotype that fantasy league geeks, people who presumably have no life but to study up on facts/numbers and understand how baseball works, believe in wild and crazy places for big-ticket stars like A-Rod to land?

2) No professional writer or "baseball man" thought that A-Rod had a shot at going to the Dodgers? Really? There wasn't anything written about him going there and following in Torre's footsteps? There was never a fucking week in which people didn't talk about anything but "A-Rod to the Dodgers?"

Nah, must just be some fantasy geek pipe dream. I have never seen such an out-of-context and unnecessary geek/parents' basement reference.

Anyone else notice how super-personally I'm taking this? My mom even came downstairs because of the noise from how ferociously I was typing! I really hope she brings Teddy Grahams next time.....

And does it help them keep pace with their area rivals to the south, the Los Angeles Angels, who also nabbed a high-profile center fielder in Torii Hunter?

Doesn't matter. The Angels do not play in the same league as the Dodgers.

But if the Dodgers don’t use Jones as a first step in the process of building a World Series contender, it’ll be a waste of money.

For crissake Ventre, Jones works perfectly fine as the last step in the process of building a World Series contender. The Dodgers as-is are well poised to compete and win the division. There's no magic formula for a "World Series team", you just have to get fucking lucky in the playoffs. Thinking the Dodgers can win the division = thinking the Dodgers can make it to the World Series. And I don't think there's an idiot out there that doesn't think that this Dodgers team has a legitimate shot at the NL West title.