is clemens considered a FA?

They tell me Bonds is also an FA. And it's taken me three years, but I've hit the 100 post mark - hip hip hooray.

Also a free agent, David Eckstein.

for some reason i dont think any big names will be on this report...especially bonds or clemens. arod i dont think ever juiced but ive been wrong before.

Depending on the interpretation of FA, Jose Guillen would have to be one of the eleven, I'd guess, so that would leave ten.

Lowell?

So I assume this info has also been shared with the teams, right?

Lowell?

And Schilling.

And so is A-Fraud.

Posada, Rivera.

I am surprised the number is not higher than 11. I am sure Brattain will be shocked, shocked, to find current FAs in the report.

only 11?

Most of the GMs at the meetings said they weren’t concerned by this revelation, but these revelations could cost these players big money.

Doesn't the second part of this statement contradict the first? Is it not a big deal or would you lower the offer to a player based on this news?

Also, we always have the free agent prediction contest. Why don't we have the 11 free agents linked to the Mitchell Report prediction contest? I've got my 11 ready!

I'm calling Tony Clark.

only 11?

That explains why the Free Agent market is so poor this year.

Obviously Barry Bonds is not on the list.
we all know his name would have been leaked already.
when the dude farts, it makes headlines.

There are 139 players listed on ESPN's free agent tracker. "Only 11?" is probably the right response.

I'm pretty sure that Bonds and Sosa will be "named" in the Mitchell report, but probably only as players who have been the subject of intense speculation. Is anyone really expecting much in the way of new information in this thing?

We already know 5 that are all but-confirmed.

1. Barry Bonds
2. Neifi "Caught Thrice for Stimulants" Perez
3. Sammy Sosa
4. Mike Cameron
5. Jerry Hairston Jr.


Mark Sweeney, whom some say gave Barry those greenies, is also a free agent. So we already have 5 or 6 that are almost certain to be mentioned, at least in passing. So that would leave 6 or 5 free agents that actually will be named.

Cameron's recent suspension was only 25 games, so it was not steroids-related.

Yeah, i thought 11 sounded quite low; of course, this suggests that the overall number of names in the report will be high enough to cause repercussions for all teams. If 11 out of 139 is a representative sample, then prorating that ratio across all 800+ MLB players we'll be looking at 60+ names. I suspect the actual number will be lower, assuming some cleaned up in recent years and some retired players are in there too, but there's going to be a feeding frenzy when this thing goes public

Cameron's recent suspension was only 25 games, so it was not steroids-related.

Is the Mitchell report expected to ignore non-steroid PEDs?

I would be shocked if A-Rod was tied to this pharmacy. I'm sure he could find a far more discreet way to get his hands on anything he wants than an internet-order pharmacy.

What's the media going to do when this report comes out and it turns out that a lot of people, especially the ones making the baseball decisions, don't really give a damn? So some marginal guys might get passed over in the future for other marginal guys that weren't named, when it comes to the players that people are supposed to actually care about the teams will still sign them and the fans will still cheer for them.

Are we sure it's really 11 current free agents? It could be, like, Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally.

It is a "steroids" investigation - who knows how exactly the Commish has cooked it up. I don't think Camercon and Neifi belong on the list of the 11 unless they were involved in more than stimulants.

We DO need a "Enhanced Eleven" prediction contest.

Anyone want to do a "number of executives in Mitchell report" pool?

I call 0.

It is a "steroids" investigation

No, it's a performance enhancing drug investigation.

AP: Union: No more than 11 free agents were asked to speak with Mitchell

No more than 11 players from this year's free-agent class were asked to speak with George Mitchell as part of his investigation into performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, a union official told agents this week.

Michael Weiner, the union's general counsel, made the statement Wednesday to agents attending a meeting in New York, two people with knowledge of the session said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the remarks were intended to remain private.

The Boston Globe's Web site Thursday afternoon reported agents were told at the meeting that 11 current free-agent players are named in Mitchell's report, but Weiner said the union didn't know whether any names would be included, those with knowledge of the meeting told The Associated Press.

"Under the collective bargaining agreement between the 30 major league clubs and the players' association, any request by me for an interview with a current player must be made through their representative, the players' association," Mitchell said in a statement.

OMG!!!!!!

some free agents are named in mitchell's reports as something and it just might could lower their value!!!!!

OMG!!!!!

what a shock!!!!!!

what timing. lowering their value!!!!!!

I would be shocked if A-Rod was tied to this pharmacy. I'm sure he could find a far more discreet way to get his hands on anything he wants than an internet-order pharmacy.

He was pretty discreet when getting his hands on a mannish stripper.

but that is the cover. The mannish stripper is the one that gets him the drugs.

sweet! I knew Carlos Silva was going to be a steal in my Mitchell Report Steroids Fantasy League draft!

The mannish stripper is the one that gets him the drugs.

Indeed, how do you think the stripper got so mannish in the first place?

When is Zero Hour for Mitchell's Eleven, anyway? When will the report come out? Any predictions? I say November 29th.

Seriously, the day after the report comes out, the MLBPA should announce that they're funding their own independent investigation of MLB executives to examine their complicity in the scandal.

The execs will then form their own union and say that the MLBPA has no right to interview them without permission.

Does anyone really understand what's going on here? There have been player names released, about what, every two weeks or so? Someone who has seen the names has leaked them, but one at a time. Or else a bunch of people have seen the names and and each person has leaked one. I know that's not the same as the Mitchell report, but the pattern's the same. The report's done, right? Why do we keep hearing little bits and pieces of it?

I don't get it.

The report's done, right?

Not just yet, it's not.

That's why Radomski's sentencing was delayed, so he could spend more time with the Mitchell team (cooperating with them was part of his agreed-upon plea bargain).

Since this thread is about the Mitchell report anyway, Phil Rogers wrote in today's Tribune (RR Required):

"George Mitchell and his team of highly paid lawyers continue to work on Major League Baseball's unprecedented internal investigation into the sport's steroid use. The report is expected to be released at some point before spring training, and its release almost certainly will be followed by a flurry of 50-game, first-time offense suspensions from Commissioner Bud Selig." (emphasis mine)

Which leads me to ask three questions:

(1) Has Selig said this or hinted at this?

(2) Does anybody really think this is good idea - suspending guys under 2007 punishment standards for something they did 5+ years ago for which there was no punishment in place at the time?

(3) Is there any chance that these suspensions aren't (a) challenged by the MLBPA and (b) overturned on appeal?

And so is A-Fraud.

That is a terrible way to talk about your new short stop.

"George Mitchell and his team of highly paid lawyers continue to work on Major League Baseball's unprecedented internal investigation into the sport's steroid use. The report is expected to be released at some point before spring training, and its release almost certainly will be followed by a flurry of 50-game, first-time offense suspensions from Commissioner Bud Selig." (emphasis mine)

Which leads me to ask three questions:

(1) Has Selig said this or hinted at this?

Yes. Very coyly, so he can't be accused of changing his mind or prejudging people or anything.

(2) Does anybody really think this is good idea - suspending guys under 2007 punishment standards for something they did 5+ years ago for which there was no punishment in place at the time?

Yes. Idiot sportswriters do.

(3) Is there any chance that these suspensions aren't (a) challenged by the MLBPA and (b) overturned on appeal?

No. None. Zero. Zilch. Trying to make it a 50 game suspension would be particularly laughable, since the first time penalties were negotiated, they were 10 games. (Or were they actually 0 games for a first offense under the original deal? I forget.)

only 11?

It doesn't say 11 are accused of using; it says 11 are named. Maybe those are on the list of "11 players who aren't using," with a postscript saying, "Everyone else is."

some free agents are named in mitchell's reports as something and it just might could lower their value!!!!!
]
Wouldn't it simply raise the value of the clean guys?

Mitchell, a former Senate Majority Leader who remains a director of the Boston Red Sox, would not comment on the Saturday deadline for player interviews.

I'm probably the only one in this thread that doesn't know this because nobody else commented on it, but isn't there the potential for conflict of interest here?

I'm just saying, what if NO Red Sox players show up anywhere in his report. Sure seems like the potential for conflict is there to me.

I'm probably the only one in this thread that doesn't know this because nobody else commented on it, but isn't there the potential for conflict of interest here?

I'm just saying, what if NO Red Sox players show up anywhere in his report. Sure seems like the potential for conflict is there to me.

there was quite a bit of discussion on this a few weeks back, and if I remember right, everybody agreed that 'yes' this was a conflict of interest. Well everybody but Senator Mitchell, Bud Selig and select Red Sox fans.
go figure.

Also, I thought I read either today or yesterday that the report wasn't expected till early next year now. That makes sense in that baseball usually takes the week off between Christmas and New Years, but why would you want to stretch this out into next year. That to me is dumb. Put this thing to bed already.

What they should have done was released the report 9 outs before Boston won the series.
They would have gotten scooped by A Rod, Boston and Torre, and by now 95% of the public would have moved on.

Dan Szymborski Posted: November 08, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2609957)
Seriously, the day after the report comes out, the MLBPA should announce that they're funding their own independent investigation of MLB executives to examine their complicity in the scandal.

I agree.

We already know 5 that are all but-confirmed.

3. Sammy Sosa

WHAT THE ####??

The man has never been linked to a single steroid scandal. Nobody ever found andro in his locker. He's not an admitted B12 user. He's never even had a former mistress say anything bad about him.

Of if one did, she probably said it in Spanish and sportswriters said "she must be from outer space or something."

He hit a lot of HR. He used a corked bat. He testified in Spanish, that lying bastard! But there isn't even shitty evidence that links him to steroid use.

That said, we seem to have a lot of people jumping to conclusions. Agents were told that 11 are named. The MLBPA seems to be saying 11 were asked to testify. (although "no more than 11" is an odd phrasing) The link doesn't work for me but the quoted bit doesn't say they were named as potential or confirmed steroid users. Was Sosa asked to appear? Yeah, probably.

The link doesn't work for me but the quoted bit doesn't say they were named as potential or confirmed steroid users.

The Globe guy "broke the story" and reported what was in the intro ("11 free agents named in Mitchell Report, and notified by Comissioner's office"). SportsTicker/AP picked it up and reported it, citing the Globe.

AP, an hour or two later, gets conflicting info from two other sources ("11 free agents were asked to speak with Mitchell's people"), which I linked about half-way through this thread and added to the intro when it first popped up.

Globe then went oops, we f'd-up, deleted original link, and reposted re-worded entry.

NY Daily News: MLB, union deny report of 11 names in Mitchell probe

Major League Baseball and the Players Association Thursday night denied a report that said agents were told the names of 11 current free agents will appear in the highly anticipated Mitchell Report.

The Boston Globe reported on its Web site that 11 current free agent players are named in the report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, which could come out sometime around the first of the year, and that all 11 players have already been notified by the commissioner's office.

"I can't imagine how that story can be accurate," MLB vice president for labor relations Rob Manfred told the Daily News Thursday night. "Only Senator Mitchell knows who's in the report. The union does not know who's named in that report - we have not notified any players of anything."

According to union counsel Gene Orza, agents may have misunderstood what was said at the agents meeting in New York on Wednesday. What the agents were actually told was that of all the players who Mitchell has asked to interview through the Players Association, 11 are currently free agents.

"The maximum number of free agents who could wind up appearing is 11," said one union source. "Or there may be none."

According to Orza, the union does not know who will be named and does not expect to be given advance knowledge before the report comes out.

This report isn't the result of an independent investigation. It's an in house investigation, MLB essentially investigating itself. As a result, this report lacks any real credibility, and a witch hunt five to ten years after the fact doesn't help.

I agree with the sentiments on this thread. It is totally unsatisfying to just go after the players.

What they should do is conduct an investigation to determine which MLB executive looks most like my father and put the blame on him.

According to union counsel Gene Orza, agents may have misunderstood what was said at the agents meeting in New York on Wednesday. What the agents were actually told was that of all the players who Mitchell has asked to interview through the Players Association, 11 are currently free agents.

This is why I'm always skeptical of these stories based on anonymous leaks, and why I insist on parsing them very carefully when there are no direct quotes. Even when (if?) reporters and sources are honest, there's just too much potential for confusion. It went from "11 free agents were asked to be interviewed" to "11 free agents are named."

Also, I thought I read either today or yesterday that the report wasn't expected till early next year now. That makes sense in that baseball usually takes the week off between Christmas and New Years, but why would you want to stretch this out into next year. That to me is dumb. Put this thing to bed already.

Well, according to the story, they're still collecting evidence through this week.

3. Sammy Sosa
But there isn't even shitty evidence that links him to steroid use.

But a shitty sports writer challenged him to pee in a cup, and since he didn't drop trou and do it immediately, it's rock solid evidence that he's a steroid user.

It went from "11 free agents were asked to be interviewed" to "11 free agents are named."

Didn't Mitchell say that any player who was to be named in the report would be given the opportunity to speak to the commission beforehand?

But a shitty sports writer challenged him to pee in a cup, and since he didn't drop trou and do it immediately, it's rock solid evidence that he's a steroid user.

You know what would have been cool? If Sosa had dropped trou and peed on Mariotti's notebook and said, "Test that, #######." In Spanish of course.

Didn't Mitchell say that any player who was to be named in the report would be given the opportunity to speak to the commission beforehand?

He said that any player who they had information on would be given the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations. To my knowledge, he hasn't said anything about what sort of evidentiary threshold he will use to decide which names to name.

It went from "11 free agents were asked to be interviewed" to "11 free agents are named."

Billy Beane should never have written that Mitchell report.

But a shitty sports writer challenged him to pee in a cup, and since he didn't drop trou and do it immediately, it's rock solid evidence that he's a steroid user.

You know what would have been cool? If Sosa had dropped trou and peed on Mariotti's notebook and said, "Test that, #######." In Spanish of course.

You know what's even funnier about the image of Sosa doing that to Mariotti? It was Rick Reilly who issued the challenge.

I hope Gagne is on the list. That'll deter the kids from using Steroids.

...since he didn't drop trou and do it immediately, it's rock solid evidence that he's a steroid user.

This kind of thing reminds of that movie with Jeff Bridges and Joan Allen where he's running for president and picks her as his VP. A sex scandal from her college days arises and she refuses to admit or deny involvement, saying that it's irrelevant. People encourage her to come clean if it's true or deny it if it's not, but she sticks to her guns. They get the nomination anyway. In the end she tell Bridges that it wasn't her in the video, but since she didn't feel it was relevant to her qualifications she didn't feel the need to justify.

I remember thinking at the time that she never would have actually gotten the nomination.

(checks IMDB)... The Contender

You know what would have been cool? If Sosa had dropped trou and peed on Mariotti's notebook and said, "Test that, #######." In Spanish of course.

And Moises Alou would have hurried up and stuck his hands under Sosa to get some of that high-quality pee on his hands.

I'm probably the only one in this thread that doesn't know this because nobody else commented on it, but isn't there the potential for conflict of interest here?

I'm just saying, what if NO Red Sox players show up anywhere in his report. Sure seems like the potential for conflict is there to me.

Yeah, we talked about it earlier, as GR says. A couple of people mentioned they would be looking carefully at the # of Red Sox and Yankees in the report.