Blogging Mets

One of the first things I did when I moved to Los Angeles was to look into the MLB Extra Innings package, to make sure I could watch my Mets games. The first two seasons, DIRECTV only offered one feed of each game, so sometimes I would get the Mets broadcasts, sometimes the out of town team. Then for two seasons I got both feeds, so I always got to watch Gary, Keith and Ron.

I moved in the middle of this season from my luxury, celebrity-laden (for example, Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, Erin Andrews, the super-hot and super-nice Rebecca Mader, who played Charlotte on “LOST,” and the only celebrity with whom I was actually on speaking terms) apartment complex to a more modest (read: cheaper) building. I an now a Time Warner customer, and it only offers one feed of each game. So half the time I don’t get the Mets broadcasts. I had forgotten just how bad some of those broadcasts are.

Now, I’ll admit, I am a bit of a New York media snob. I am of the opinion that the best TV talent goes to New York, leaving smaller markets with inferior broadcasters. You’d be surprised by the steep drop-off in talent between local news anchors and reporters in New York and Los Angeles, which is still the number two market in the country. You’d think the talent level here would be high. Trust me, it is not.

I didn’t think it would be the same way with baseball. Think about it — there are 30 teams, and with three or four broadcasters per team, there are, what, like 100 of these highly-coveted jobs in the country? You’d think everybody would be of the highest quality, regardless of whether they are are in New York or Cleveland. Alas, I was wrong.

Some of these broadcasters are just horrible. Even now, I am watching the Pirates broadcast — two of the most boring men you’d ever want to listen to. Many of them are just dull as dishwater. Others are just plain bad. Mark Grace, who does color for the Diamondbacks, comes off as just a jerk, which was a bit of a surprise. Steve Lyons, who does some of the road games for the Dodgers, is among the worst. But THE worst is Rob Dibble of the Nationals. He’s just a class-A a-hole.

Aside from the talent level, I was shocked by the homerism of these broadcasts. Growing up in New York, we are used to broadcasters who are objective. They might have a slight bias for the home team — that is to be expected. But they don’t openly root for the team. That is not the case outside of New York. They take no steps to hide their feelings. I’ve heard things like:

– “Cardinals 2, bad guys 1″
– “We’ll be right back — let’s get some runs!”
– “Get out of here!! Go!! Go!!” when their guy hits a long drive.

There is also the constant use of “we” and “us. I guess this is the norm outside of New York, but it is a little jarring when you’re not used to it.

Which is not to say every broadcast team is horrible. It was a pleasure watching the Baltimore feed of the Mets-Orioles interleague series. Gary Thorne, who was excellent when he worked for the Mets and for my money is the best play-by-play guy in the business, was paired with Jim Palmer, who is just as good doing color. But other than that, no one else really stands out in my mind.

Which brings us to ancient Vin Scully, who on Sunday announced he is coming back for his 272ndseason behind the mike for the Dodgers. He is a legend here in Los Angeles, the same way New Yorkers revere Ralph Kiner, Marv Albert, and the late Bob Murphy and Phil Rizzuto. But in my opinion, Scully is horrible.

Perhaps I’ve never forgiven him for his work during the 1988 NLCS, when calling the games for NBC, he was openly hostile towards the Mets and clearly biased for his Dodgers. If the Mets had won that series like they were supposed to, maybe I wouldn’t be so bitter. But they didn’t, so I am.

But I find Scully unlistenable. He works alone, which means he has to keep talking. He’s got “diarrhea of the mouth” syndrome, in which he just spews whatever comes to mind. Much of this is babbling nonsense, stories that Angelenos find charming for some reason. He does have a pretty good sense of humor, though. When he said a player was out with what he thought was a rightgroin pull, he said, “Well, if I’m wrong, I’m only off by one.” Aside from the occasional humorous comment or anecdote, Scully is way, way overrated. GQjust named him the best baseball broadcaster in an article that had Gary, Keith and Ron number two. I’m sure I’m in the minority when I say this, but don’t believe the Scully hype, folks.

Since word broke of Roger Clemens’ indictment on perjury charges, we’ve been hearing how he brought this on himself — not by lying, but by insisting on testifying before Congress. We hear how Clemens was offered the chance not to appear, but he demanded it in an attempt to clear his name. This in not entirely accurate, and I don’t think it is being reported clearly in the media.

Clemens went on the offensive days after the Mitchell report named him as a steroid user. He went on “60 Minutes,” held a news conference, and posted a YouTube video proclaiming his innocence. That was certainly his right if he felt he was wrongly accused.

But then Congress jumped into action. “The Mitchell report has been called into question,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, who was the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and a former Clemens supporter. “We were invested in the Mitchell report, and it was important historically to show that the Mitchell report was correct.”

Why would Congress be” invested” in a report by a private individual (Mitchell), representing a private enterprise (MLB)? That is an excellent question. It probably has something to do with the government’s role in this private matter. As Forbes magazine writes in an article titled “The Roger Clemens Witch Hunt”:

Mitchell got to interview some individuals due to the coercive powers of federal prosecutors. In other words, federal prosecutors used their immense and special power to get witnesses to talk to Mitchell and tell him things. Mitchell says at one point in his report that these interviews were arranged through the “assistance of federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents.”

Was this appropriate? I don’t know, but the end result is that government had a stake in the report, hence Davis’ comment that Congress was “invested” in the report.

In any case, the Committee called for a hearing, and deposed, among other people, Clemens, his main accuser and former trainer Brian McNamee, and Andy Pettitte. After the depositions were taken, Davis said the Committee decided it had enough information, and decided the hearing was unnecessary, telling Clemens he wouldn’t have to testify at an open hearing. “We’ll give you a chance to clear your name, but you don’t have to do this,” Davis said he told Clemens and his legal team.

But Davis said Clemens insisted, and the hearing went on. Pettitte was also given a choice, and he decided not to testify.

Clemens’ lawyer, Rusty Hardin, has a very different view on the events. ESPN writes:

“Let me tell you what a hypocrite he is,” Hardin told ESPN.com’s Mike Fish, referring to Davis. “The week before the public hearings we give a deposition. So when they say Roger demanded a hearing — he didn’t demand a hearing. Everybody finished their depositions. Waxman [Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat and committee chairman] is getting a lot of pressure at that stage from the Democrats. We’re going around to all their offices. Nobody wanted a hearing.

“On Friday afternoon [four days before the hearing], Waxman gets the affidavit from Andy [Pettitte] that has Andy more definite than he was in his deposition. And in return for that he tells Andy he doesn’t have to testify.

“Then they announce to us at 3 o’clock that Friday, ‘Roger can decline to testify if he wants to and we won’t have the hearing. We’ll just issue a majority [Democratic] report. And the minority, the minority [Republican] is saying to us staff, ‘Here is what [Waxman] is going to do. What they’re going to do is hammer [Clemens]. They’re going to refer him to Justice.’ So nobody would have heard Roger [if he didn't appear at the hearing].

“So Tom Davis, who I saw on TV last night, comes down to us, calls us aside and urges us to have Roger testify. And now that son of a bitch is on TV saying that Roger insisted upon it.”

Davis is sticking to his story, telling The New York Times that the committee probably would not have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Clemens had lied if had not chosen to appear at the televised hearing. “If he let it go at the deposition level, I don’t think we would have referred it,” Davis said. “But when it’s high profile like that, you can’t let it go. And we didn’t.”

That’s a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Why is lying in a deposition better than lying in a televised hearing?  Lying in a deposition is just as illegal — Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton will attest to that.  The fact of the matter is that Clemens had already given the deposition prior to his infamous public testimony, so he had nothing to lose by testifying at the hearing. It’s easy for Davis to say now that they wouldn’t have referred the case to the Justice Department based solely on the deposition, but he probably would have been pressured to do so by his grandstanding Committee colleagues.

Obviously, Clemens could have avoided all of this all by telling the truth — and who’s to say he didn’t? The evidence against him looks strong, but it’ll be up to a jury to decide if he’s lying or not.

But to say that Clemens brought this on himself by “insisting” on testifying in nonsense. Yes, it might have been his option to have the hearing, but it was Congress who deposed him and forced him to tell his story, which could have resulted in the same charges. If Congress would have kept its nose out of what is essentially a private affair, Clemens would never have had to testify under oath, and he and McNamee could have battled it out in the media or in a civil court.

This should not be read as a defense of Clemens. As a Mets fan, I am obviously not a Clemens booster. But I don’t think the way this is being reported is fair to him. This was yet another example of publicity-seeking members of Congress getting involved in matters that they shouldn’t, and Clemens got caught up in it, unfortunately for him, as it turns out.

When Roger Clemens forced a trade from the Blue Jays to the Yankees prior to the 1999 season, he said he wanted to go to a club that had a chance of winning the World Series. And what better team than the Yankees, winners of two of the previous three championships? During a Mets broadcast, Ralph Kiner expressed his dismay at the move. He said he was surprised Clemens would want to be a cog on an established team, rather than being the leader, THE MAN, on an up-and-coming club. Well, LeBron James is following Clemens’ lead.

When Lebron announced Thursday night that he was joining Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami, he said it gave him the best chance to win. He’ll get no argument there. But this is Wade’s team. This will never be LeBron’s team. He will never be THE MAN in Miami, as long as Wade is around. And apparently that’s okay with LeBron.

And that is a bit surprising. Most superstar athletes crave to be THE MAN. Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal co-existed with the Lakers until Kobe couldn’t take it any more, and forced the team to decide between him and Shaq. Now Kobe is THE MAN in Los Angeles.

LeBron took the easy way out. It would have been a bold move to stay in Cleveland, where the path to a championship is not paved with Wade and Bosh. Choosing the Knicks would have also been bold. Or the Bulls. Even bolder if the Nets. And just crazy if he picked the loser Clippers. 

You want to know what a bold move is? When Reggie White was a free agent after the 1992 NFL season, there were rumors he was headed to the Green Bay Packers. No way the great White would go to a struggling Packers franchise and have to play in the middle of the winter in Wisconsin, said the “experts.” But he did indeed sign with the Packers, and helped make them Super Bowl champions (of course, having Brett Favre didn’t hurt, but White was THE MAN on that team).

You could even argue that Alex Rodriguez signing with a pretty crummy Texas Rangers team before the 2001 season was a bold move. But it appeared A-Rod was more motivated by money than winning, and it’s hard to call that “bold.” (Speaking of A-Rod, you think Scott Boras was watching LeBron’s one-hour special and saying, “Why didn’t I think of this?”). The same goes for Carlos Beltran when he picked the Mets in 2005, who were coming off the awful Art Howe years.

You have to hand it to LeBron for one thing — it wasn’t about the money. He could have signed with the Cavaliers for $30 million more, but chose to take less with the Heat. Of course, he’ll easily make that money up, and then some, with endorsements.

He took the easiest possible path to a championship. It’s hard to blame an athlete for that. It worked for Clemens — he owns two World Series rings. Clemens has his own issues now than worrying about not being the leader of those teams. But you have to wonder – when LeBron is an old man and looks back on his career, will he wish he was THE MAN on his championship teams, rather than the second (or third) fiddle? That is, if he wins any championships at all in Miami.

It was without a doubt the most unfair, heartbreaking thing I’ve ever seen in a baseball game. Wednesday night, Detroit Tigers starter Armando Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game — a perfect game – when the Indians Jason Donald hit a slow roller right of first base. Miguel Cabrera made the play, threw to Galarraga who was covering first — and safe! Perfect game gone.

One problem, though – he was out. By a lot (left).

Jim Joyce blew this call big-time. The replay showed Donald was out by at least a step. At first it appeared as if Galarraga may not have had his foot on the base. But the replay showed it was clearly on there. Tigers manager Jim Leyland argued briefly, but Cabrera let Joyce hear it until the next batter grounded out to end the game.

Afterwards, Leyland, Cabrera and several other Tigers yelled vehemently at Joyce, as the rest of the team congratulated Galarraga — the most somber display after a one-hit shutout you’ll ever see.

Joyce is going to feel horrible after he sees the replay. His mistake denied a man from being part of baseball history. As for Galarraga, it’s impossible to imagine how he must feel. He should have had a perfect game, and through no fault of his own — no fault on the part of any of his teammates – it was taken away from him.

And there’s not a damn thing anybody can do about it.

Did you ever know someone, or see someone on television who just made your skin crawl? I mean, every word out of their mouth? Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney do it for me. Just so there are no cries of partisanship, left-leaners Keith Olbermann and Rick Sanchez are also skin-crawlers for me. And Nancy Grace.

So how does this relate to baseball? I was watching a clip of commissioner Bud Selig today, and I forgot how much of a horrible human being he is. He is, in this man’s opinion, one of the worst people out there. And it had nothing to do with what he was saying — in an answer to a question about whether MLB should pull the All-Star game out of Arizona because of the state’s new immigration law, he yammered on about baseball’s fine record of minority hiring.

The exchange was an example of what kind of despicable person Selig is. Instead of simply answering the reporter’s valid question, Selig smugly avoided it, and answered a question no one asked.

Smugness and arrogance is Selig’s MO. Lying too. Remember when he was called to testify before Congress about baseball’s finances, he looked the members straight in the faces and lied, saying everybody was losing money? It was during this hearing that New York Rep. Anthony Weiner said the best thing ever uttered during a boring Congressional hearing. Speaking sarcastically about Selig’s less-than-successful stewardship of the Milwaukee Brewers, Weiner said, “Yeah, when the Brewers come to town — that’s a  good time.” That wiped the smug look off of Selig’s mug.

And when he graced Congress with a second appearance, this time during the steroid hearings (left), Selig said he had no idea steroids were running rampant in his game. No, of course he didn’t. How could he? It’s not like balls were flying out of ballparks in record numbers, and players looked more like massive bodybuilders than baseball players.

Of course Selig knew. Everybody knew. But owners were making too much money to care, and Selig does whatever the owners tell him to do. Of course he does — he was one of them. Even when he was a commissioner. How is it that the commissioner could also be the owner of a team, yet act independently for the good of the league? There is no way. Of course, Selig told the world that he had nothing to do with running his fine ball club, that his daughter was taking care of things. Another lie. It was absolutely shameful that Selig’s “daughter” owned the Brewers for 13 season while Selig was running the league.

Selig knew how to take care of his friends. When his buddy and fellow owner Jeff Loria wanted out of Montreal and couldn’t sell the team, Selig said, “don’t you worry about a thing.” The league bought the team, Loria was allowed to buy the Marlins from Selig’s other pal John Henry, and Henry was allowed to buy the Red Sox from his longtime friends, the Yawkeys. The league ended up owning the Expos/Nationals for four and a half seasons. How can a league own a team and allow the team to run independently? It can’t. Another shameful episode under a shameful man.

Have you noticed everything Selig did helped small-town teams, like his own team? How much money did Selig’s “daughter” make before Selig finally did the right thing and sold the Brewers? And with all of the revenue sharing and other small market improvements, Selig’s team was much more valuable, allowing him to make even more money on the sale.

You can tell a lot about a person by the words they choose to say, specifically words like ”I” and “me” and “mine.” Selig paid a visit to the Mets broadcast booth last season, and I lost track of how many times Selig arrogantly referred to himself. Just listen to the guy, and try to get you skin not to crawl. I’d put in a link, but I don’t want him fouling up my site. Bad enough I had to use photos of him.

How cool it must be for a guy like Albert Pujols. He just began his 10th season in the major leagues — the minimum to be considered for the Hall of Fame. Even if his career ended tomorrow, he would be a lock to get in. Hopefully it won’t end anytime soon, so he now gets to play the next 10 years or so as a sure-fire HOFer. It must be a nice feeling. That got me thinking about players in the league today whom we might see in Cooperstown some day. I only took into account players who are signed for this season, so guys like Pedro Martinez, Gary Sheffield and John Smoltz were not considered. Here’s what I came up with. I welcome your comments:

Locks — players with 10+ seasons who are no-doubt-about-it first ballot Hall of Famers

Ken Griffey, Jr.
Vladimir Guerrero
Roy Halladay

Todd Helton
Trevor Hoffman
Derek Jeter

Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Mariano Rivera

Johan Santana
Ichiro Suzuki
Jim Thome (Yes, I forgot him. Thanks readers!)
Omar Vizquel

Steroids — most would be locks, but their implication with PEDs will hamper their candidacies

Jason Giambi
David Ortiz
Andy Pettitte
Manny Ramirez

Alex Rodriguez
Ivan Rodriguez
Miguel Tejada

On the Bubble — players with 10+ seasons who need a few more big seasons to garner serious consideration

Carlos Beltran
Lance Berkman
Mark Buehrle
Adam Dunn
Andruw Jones

Carlos Lee
Magglio Ordonez
Roy Oswalt
Aramis Ramirez
CC Sabathia

Alfonso Soriano
Billy Wagner
Michael Young
Carlos Zambrano

Falls Short — players with 10+ seasons nearing the end of their careers who will get consideration, but just won’t make it

Bobby Abreu
Garret Anderson
Johnny Damon
Jim Edmonds

Troy Glaus
Torii Hunter
Raul Ibanez
Derrick Lee

Jamie Moyer
Jorge Posada
Edgar Renteria
Scott Rolen

On Their Way — still early, but players with fewer than 10 seasons who appear to be Hall possibilities

Ryan Braun
Miguel Cabrera
Carl Crawford
Prince Fielder

Adrian Gonzalez
Matt Holliday
Ryan Howard
Cliff Lee

Jon Lester
Tim Lincecum
Evan Longoria
Joe Mauer

Justin Morneau
Jonathan Papelbon
Jake Peavy
Hanley Ramirez

Jose Reyes
Francisco Rodriguez
Jimmy Rollins
Mark Teixeira

Chase Utley
Justin Verlander
Jered Weaver
Brandon Webb

David Wright
Ryan Zimmerman

Every off season players and agents do a pretty good job of milking owners of millions and millions of dollars that they are very willing to spend. But every now and then, a player turns down money hoping for a better offer that never comes. Here is a partial list of players over the years who turned down deals at which they should have jumped:

Ray Knight
The Mets plan prior to the 1986 World Series was to let Knight go, and turn third base over to Howard Johnson in 1987. That all changed with Knight’s MVP heroics in the Series. It wouldn’t look good to let him go, so they offered him a contract with the same salary he made in ‘86 — $750,000  (Baseball Reference says it was $645,000, but I remember $750K. Maybe he got some bonuses). Either way, Knight felt he deserved more, and turned it down. He ended up signing with the Orioles for less — $600,000, according to Baseball Reference. 

Juan Gonzalez
The godfather of bad decisions. After the Rangers sent Gonzalez to the Tigers in a huge nine-player trade, Detroit offered Gonzalez an eight-year, $160-million dollar contract. But new spacious Comerica Park was not a home run stadium like Arlington’s was, and Gonzalez didn’t like that. So he turned the offer down. Gonzalez would go on to earn just $45 million more over the course over his career.

Nomar Garciaparra
The Red Sox offered Garciaparra four-year, $60 million contract prior to the 2004 season. He wanted more, and said no. The Sox sent Garciaparra packing, and he suffered though several injury-filled seasons, earning a total of $25 million until retiring a few weeks ago.

Kevin Millwood
Prior to the 2004 season, the Phillies offered Millwood a three-year, $30  million contract with a vesting option for a fourth year. Agent Scott Boras turned it down, demanding a five-year deal. Boras misread the market in the short term. After earning $11 million in 2004, Boras could only muster-up a one-year, $7 million deal for 2005. But prior to the 2006 season, Boras conned Rangers owner Tom Hicks yet again, winning  a five-year, $60 million for Millwood.

Andy Pettitte
Prior to the 2009 season, the Yankees offered Pettitte a one-year, $10.5 million contract. But coming off a $16 million season, Pettitte thought that was too big a pay cut. He ended up signing a one-year deal for just $5.5 million, with incentives that could bring the total up to $12 million. Pettitte ended up meeting most of the incentives, making his total salary for the year — you guessed it — $10.5 million. He would have been better off just taking the money and not having to worry all year about meeting incentives.

Randy Wolf
Early in the 2008 off season, the Astros offered Wolf a three-year, $28.5 million contract. Wolf didn’t say yes quickly enough, because the Astros pulled the offer because of the collapsing economy. Wolf ended up signing a one-year deal with the Dodgers for $5 million. But Wolf made up for it, signing a three-year, $30 million deal with the Brewers this off season.

Ben McDonald
During the 1997 season, the Brewers offered McDonald a big  extension — three years, $18 million plus a $6 million option.  Scott Boras turned down the extension, demanding the fourth year be guaranteed. Big mistake – McDonald never pitched again due to injuries.

Dave Nilsson
The Australian-born Nilsson was an All Star in 1999. Perfect timing, because that was his walk year. But what did he do? — he turned down several big money offers because he wanted to play for his native land in the 2000 Olympics. He signed with the Red Sox after the Games, but the offer was withdrawn after he failed a physical. Boston tried again with Nilsson in 2003, but he walked away from a $400,000 deal, saying he lost the will to play.

Latrell Sprewell
It’s not baseball, but no list like this would be complete without Sprewell. He famously turned down a three-year, $21 million contract offer from the Timberwolves during a 2005 season in which he was making $14 million, saying he had a family to feed. His family must still be hungry, because Sprewell was out of the league the next year, and earned exactly $0 to buy groceries.

As I’ve written is the past, Peter Gammons is, in my opinion, the worst baseball writer out there. Here are just a  few of his offenses – he openly shills for the Red Sox. His columns are poorly written. And he is never right. His promo for the MLB Network makes me laugh — “I don’t worry about being first. I worry about being right.” Well, he’s never first, and he’s certainly never right.

Well, here’s another Gammons (left, being inexplicably being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame) gem from a recent column on MLB.com. Incidentally, I didn’t even know he had a column on MLB.com. There was a link to a Mets related story on MLB Trade Rumors, and I clicked on it. I don’t make a habit of reading writers whom I don’t like (cough, cough Phil Mushnick).

Speaking of Mushnick, it amazes me how one man can be on the wrong side of virtually every argument. Sometimes I get sucked into his column by an intriguing headline, and I’m always mad at myself afterwards.

Anyway, back to Gammons. He was writing about baseball looking into ways to make competition fairer. Here’s what he wrote:

One suggestion to slow down the economic impact the Yankees and Red Sox have on small-market teams is to break them up and move one of them into another division. The suggestion is to put the Yankees and Mets in the same division and the Red Sox and Rays in another.

“That way, the Yankees and Red Sox won’t be competing with one another,” says one official, “and reacting to every move the other makes.”

Okay, let’s look at this ridiculous statement from several different angles. First off, no one is named except “one official.” Gee, could that official be from the Red Sox, which would benefit the most from this scheme? Or is there no official at all — just Gammons trying to help out his favorite club?

Now, about splitting up the Yankees and Red Sox to help small market teams. Exactly how does that accomplish that? Unless the Yankees are in a division with four other big market teams, (say, the Mets Dodgers, Angels and Cubs) small market teams will still be in their division competing against them. Such a big market division would be geographically undesireable and logistically impossible. There would have to be a couple of small market eastern teams with the Yankees.

And the comment by that mysterious official, that the Yankees and Red Sox would no longer have to react to every move the other makes. Yeah, so that means the other big market team in the division, in this case the Mets, would have to react to every move the Yankees make to remain competitive. So that just replaces the Red Sox with the Mets as the team spending to keep up with the Yankees.

Finally, Gammons’ alignment (because I am convinced he is behind it) helps the Red Sox and no one else. Sure, the Rays are good now, but how long is that going to last? The Sox get to jettison the Yankees and win their division every year, because I’m sure Gammons would stack it with the Rays, Orioles, Blue Jays and Nationals. Meantime the Mets, the big losers in this plan, would be stuck playing the current bridesmaid role of the Red Sox.

This plan makes no sense at all — just like everything Gammons writes.

In November I wrote a column predicting the results of this year’s Hall of Fame ballot. And I’m proud to say that I was just five votes short of being 100% correct, confounding all of the so called experts.

I correctly predicted Andre Dawson (left, with fellow former Expos Hall of Famer and Mets hero Gary Carter) would get in. I also thought this was finally Bert Blyleven’s year. He missed by those five votes. I also said while Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin were eventually going to be Hall of Famers, they wouldn’t get in on the first ballot. Well, I was right again. Alomar just missed with 73.7%, and Larkin got  a surprisingly low 51.6%. Two other first-timers on the ballot, Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff, received tepid support at best, just as someone I know predicted.

But wait, there’s more. In December, I wrote a column about suspected steroid users and the Hall of Fame, in which I advocated that except for players who failed drug tests, they should all be allowed in because no one knows for sure if they were using. I said Mark McGwire deserves to be elected, but that he wouldn’t, and that his support would remain in the usual 25% range that he got in his three previous elections. Guess how much support McGwire got this year — 23.7%

“Baseball experts” Peter Gammons, Bob Costas, Jon Heyman, Ton Verducci and Ken Rosenthal all appeared on MLB-TV Wednesday morning in the hour leading up to the Hall of Fame announcement, and they all virtually guaranteed that Alomar and Larkin would get in. “No doubt about it first ballot Hall of Famers,” they said, especially about Alomar. They even had a live camera set up at Alomar’s house in Queens (interesting that Alomar stayed in Queens after his horrible stint in Flushing). Anyway, afterwards they all expressed shock that Alomar and Larkin didn’t make it. And by the way, they never went back to Alomar’s live-shot. It would have been interesting to see his reaction.

So yeah, I was right. Now that I’m on a streak, let me make some more predictions:

– The Mets trade Luis Castillo for Albert Pujols
– The Mets trade Oliver Perez for Tim Lincecum
– The Mets sign Babe Ruth, who emerged from the grave in his prime

In a previous column about the 2010 Hall of Fame ballot, I said I would write something about accused steroid users and the Hall of Fame. Never let it be said I don’t follow through on my promises, regardless of what a series of ex-girlfriends and former employers have said. My opinion on this is simple — let them all in, with one exception, hence the asterisk in the headline.

A little history first — baseball has banned the use of steroids without a valid prescription since 1991, but there was never any testing. That kicked in for the 2004 season, when the infamous anonymous testing (which, as it turned out, wasn’t very anonymous at all) of 2003 nabbed 104 players, or 7%  of the league, using steroids. That was more than the 5% specified in the union contract, so testing begun.

So while it was against the rules to use steroids from 1991-2003, there was no testing, which means there was no way to tell who was on the juice and who wasn’t. And let’s face it, there were plenty of articles written as well as warning signs all over the place that steroid use was running rampant throughout the league. But the great Bud Selig — who should be charged with perjury for telling Congress he had no idea players were using steroids — did nothing. Everybody was making too much money.

So you can’t blame the players for saying, “if baseball is looking the other way, I might as well use it like everybody else.” And more than 104 players were using steroids, you can be sure of that. Those were just the stupid ones who kept using despite the testing.

This is why I feel players accused of steroids should be let into the Hall of Fame. They were just playing by the rules of baseball, which basically said, “Steroids are banned, but we won’t test you for them. So you have to promise you won’t use them to hit more home runs and throw 100 mph , thus making millions of dollars. Wink wink.”

Mark McGwire has been the first test case. In his three years on the ballot, he received about 25% of the vote each time. Now, let’s look more closely at McGwire. Before he told the world “I’m not here to talk about the past,” he admitted using Androstenedione, or Andro, which is a steroid precursor. It has since been banned by baseball, but was not when reporters found it in clear view in his locker during the Great Home Run Chase of 1998. And except for Jose Canseco’s claims (which have mostly been confirmed, actually), there is no other evidence McGwire used steroids.

McGwire is being penalized for his performance before Congress (left), where his oft-repeated mantra was seen as a virtual admission of steroid use. Conventional wisdom was that McGwire didn’t want to lie and face perjury charges, and he didn’t want to admit to anything, so he just refused to talk about the past. So basically McGwire is being kept out of the Hall for what people think he did, even though they have no evidence. How many other players were using steroids, but were not called before Congress, and thus did not have to come up with a response that would open themselves up to second guessing?

The fact is, we don’t know who was using steroids and who wasn’t. So we either leave everyone out from the Steroid Era, or put everyone in. I choose putting everyone in. And that includes guys like McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and anyone mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Don’t get me wrong, they probably did use steroids or other PEDs, but we don’t know for sure because there was no testing. And there were dozens of other guys who were able to keep lower profiles who escaped suspicion. Why do they get in, and the others don’t?

Now to that asterisk. Anyone who failed a drug test should be banned from the Hall of Fame. It’s that simple. That is the only way to know for sure who cheated and who didn’t. Also, it shows that those players are stupid. We should try to keep stupid people out of the Hall as well. So that means Rafael Palmiero and Manny Ramirez are out. Sorry.

What about Alex Rodriguez, who admitted being on the list of 104 who tested positive?  I say let him in. All his forced admission (left) means is that he used steroids prior to 2004, just like the dozens of other players. That testing was supposed to be anonymous, and A-Rod should not suffer because of the union’s failure to destroy the list of names, and the government’s incompetence to keep the names from leaking out.

So I think McGwire should be voted in this time around. But he won’t — he’ll probably get his usual 25%. What I think will happen is eventually one of the alleged users — probably Bonds or Clemens — will be voted in, and that will open the floodgates to all of the accused, but not proven, steroid users.