ESPN: Roberts Will Be in Report

[Mizerooskie]

Not neccesarily, but it could mean that.

This is truly turning into a witch hunt. Since Brian can't prove that he didn't do steroids, the assumption is that he did?

[UMterp08]

Scarey, this was posted I think yesterday about some radio show:

Hendry was on Ronnie Lane. He was gushing about how smart his old boss is and how good the return for Tejada was. Said they would be ok with Derosa if they failed at obtaining a premier second baseman. Also said that signing Fukudome filled the real hole and made it possible to send some of the younger players to obtain a second baseman or starter that they are looking at.

That said, I could see the O's holding onto BRob now. Kind of as a way of standing by their guy in the midst of this Mitchell crap.

[Scarey]

Will do.

As I've said continuously, this is all based on my speculation and how I would logically look at things. That being said, logic cannot always be applied to these types of situations.

While completely ignoring public statements on the issue, it seems to me that landing Roberts was a backup plan if Fukudome had not signed. If Fukudome had not signed, I think DeRosa would have had quite a few ABs in right field with Roberts playing every day at 2nd. As it stands though, Fukudome has signed and dealing Gallagher or Pie for Roberts is not a need.

Now, if the Cubs were to throw those names around for a good starter like Bedard, that would make more sense to me. I think it's entirely possible that Hendry went back after the Fukudome signing looking into a Bedard trade... which lead sportswriters to believe Hendry was back to discuss Roberts.

This whole theory seems to fall apart however when your sources are brought into play. I've heard that the sources some people have here are pretty reliable and those sources were saying a Roberts to Cubs deal was close last night.

In the end, it's all speculation. But that's what makes the offseason fun, right?

[Mackus]

This is truly turning into a witch hunt. Since Brian can't prove that he didn't do steroids, the assumption is that he did?

No, nobody is saying thats the truth or even accusing him. But its certainly possible that he's just done a better job of not getting caught. Its also possible that he only tried them a few times like Bigbie said and stopped using. Anything's possible.

[RShack]

This is truly turning into a witch hunt. Since Brian can't prove that he didn't do steroids, the assumption is that he did?

Standard lynch-mob behavior.

[Lucky Jim]

Standard lynch-mob behavior.

[wow that was an incomprehensible typo...I wanted to say that] you rely on this "I'm the clear-eyed individual iconoclastic" b.s. too often. You know, a lot of us can differentiate fact from opinion, proof from speculation.

You (frequently) give the impression that you envision yourself as someone who sees clearly what the myopic masses cannot. But we're not talking about myopic masses here, today. There's no lynchmob on this board. There's only a report. And discussion of it.

[Crazysilver03]

Scarey, this was posted I think yesterday about some radio show:

That said, I could see the O's holding onto BRob now. Kind of as a way of standing by their guy in the midst of this Mitchell crap.

Honestly who cares. If we can trade him for younger players that will make this team better, do it!

[theblade]

Long time lurker. First time poster. Living in Chicago.

Chicago radio reported the story in the following manner (I'm para-phrasing):

A number of Cubs (about 7 names given) were listed in the report as well as Brian Roberts, whom the Cubs are trying to acquire.

No mention that Roberts is mentioned only in passing. Roberts is being lumped in with all the others (more serious violators).

This could hurt his trade value.

[RShack]

Standard lynch-mob behavior.

And more, I'm the clear-eyed individual iconoclastic b.s.. You know, a lot of us can differentiate fact from opinion, proof from speculation.

You (frequently) give the impression that you envision yourself as someone who sees clearly what the myopic masses cannot. But we're not talking about myopic masses here, today. There's no lynchmob on this board. There's only a report. And discussion of it.

Great, so now we're gonna have a contest about who is holier than thou? Who's winning, you or me? You don't think that what the guy said described lynch mob behavior? Who said most people on the board are doing it? I sure didn't. I didn't see anybody saying that. IMO, very few people are, and most people clearly aren't.

If I see somebody running a red-light, and I say "that's standard red-light-running behavior", does that mean I'm talking about every driver on the road, or even most of them? Why oh why do you jump to conclusions about a comment about a specific behavior somehow referring to everybody? How can a specific comment about specific behavior apply to everybody? Jeez...

[Odenton O]

Sure, it could. But unless you have evidence of something, you don't put it in some kind of big professional report that's going to be released to the public.

The statement by Bigbie WAS the evidence! That's why it went in the report! Gah.

[RShack]

The statement by Bigbie WAS the evidence! That's why it went in the report! Gah.

I think the issue is that we have various opinions about what kind of standard for evidence he should have used. Since this was not a court of law, he had all the leeway in the world to decide what kind of evidence was strong enough to justify him mentioning a guy. Evidently, he decided that he-said-she-said evidence was good enough. He could just as easily decided that only evidence that included some kind of paper-trail was good enough. AFAIK, this was entirely Mitchell's call, so I can see how people could disagree with his decision.

AFAUK, if he-said-she-said evidence is used in a court of law, then the guy being accused gets a chance to respond. He gets to do that in court, where well-established rules apply. Not true here. AFAIK, Mitchell was at liberty to make up whatever rules he wanted. Big difference.

[blueberryale77]

Long time lurker. First time poster. Living in Chicago.

Chicago radio reported the story in the following manner (I'm para-phrasing):

A number of Cubs (about 7 names given) were listed in the report as well as Brian Roberts, whom the Cubs are trying to acquire.

No mention that Roberts is mentioned only in passing. Roberts is being lumped in with all the others (more serious violators).

This could hurt his trade value.

This is precisely why it was irresponsible for Mitchell to include his name without something more concrete than a teammate saying he said he tried it in 2003. If Mitchell had reason to expect that the public was going to read the report carefully and make rational decisions about it, it would have been ok to mention what Bigbie said about Roberts. However, Mitchell was well aware that people were going to just look at the list and not distinguish between different levels of evidence. Therefore, he should have been very careful to limit names to those he had concrete proof about.

[Odenton O]

I think the issue is that we have various opinions about what kind of standard for evidence he should have used. Since this was not a court of law, he had all the leeway in the world to decide what kind of evidence was strong enough to justify him mentioning a guy. Evidently, he decided that he-said-she-said evidence was good enough. He could just as easily decided that only evidence that included some kind of paper-trail was good enough. AFAIK, this was entirely Mitchell's call, so I can see how people could disagree with his decision.

AFAUK, if he-said-she-said evidence is used in a court of law, then the guy being accused gets a chance to respond. He gets to do that in court, where well-established rules apply. Not true here. AFAIK, Mitchell was at liberty to make up whatever rules he wanted. Big difference.

Well, since the evidence was strong enough to be used in court, I think it was strong enough to go in the report. But more importantly, (and this goes to your reply to me on the other thread) if Mitchell starts cutting people out that he HAS evidence on, then his credibility starts to come into question--why did you mention this guy, but leave that guy out? Why did you draw the line here but not there? Look at all the people up in arms because there aren't any current Red Sox in the report, saying that Mitchell's biased, or that there's some kind of MLB/ESPN consirpacy, or what have you. The best way to maintain credibility is full disclosure. Something that players involved in the mess should probably learn.

No one is on trial based on this report. The only 'trial' is in that much discussed 'court of public opinion.' We're all on the jury, and each juror gets to weigh the evidence that is presented and make up their mind about it. People are free to disbelieve Bigbie. But putting the evidence out there is legit.

[RShack]

if Mitchell starts cutting people out that he HAS evidence on, then his credibility starts to come into question--why did you mention this guy, but leave that guy out? Why did you draw the line here but not there?

You don't think that's true as-is? You think he mentioned every thing he came across? I don't. I don't know anything that you don't, but I would imagine that he made lots of judgment calls about what to put in vs. what to leave out. You don't think he did?