What The Mitchell Report Could Possibly Mean

Baseball has promised that the Mitchell Report will be out by Christmas, and several sources are whispering that it'll be out this week, including those who have talked to SI's John Donovan, who has an excellent pregame rundown. (Howard Bryant at ESPN has a great piece as well.

We brought this up in our Barry Bonds post, but the only way the Mitchell Report is going to be a disappointment is if it doesn't give us enough blood. It is, by definition, not going to be comprehensive, so in that respect, it will clearly fall short. But that's not what people want it for; people want the Mitchell Report because it will allow us to put a few more pelts on the wall, allow us to have a few more people to boo. That's really the only thing it can do. If it just tosses out a few obscure, low-level players as sacrificial lambs, no one will believe a word it says, and if it accuses everyone but a small smidgen of players as juicing, everyone will wonder why they left out that small smidgen.

We understand the report is meant to alleviate the sneaking suspicion the average fan has that all players are juicing. But because of the report's limited resources, that's impossible, unless it just starts crucifying people without any evidence, which is unlikely (but delicious!). The report exists only to shock us, to say, "Holy crap that's Roger Clemens Albert Pujols Alex Rodriguez Axl Rose's name! Whoa! Boo!" That's it. That might be enough.

Baseball's Christmas Gift: The Mitchell Report [SI.com]