A-Rod: Everyone else is writing about it, so I guess I should just follow the herd on this one. I can’t say I was shocked when I saw the news that A-Rod had (at that point) allegedly used PEDs back in 2003. I was definitely disappointed, as I had hoped that one of the towering figures from that era would emerge untainted. But there was always that little nagging doubt in the back of my mind about A-Rod, given how obsessed he was and still is, on being the best player ever. It struck me as illogical that given a chance to get a leg up on the competition, A-Rod wouldn’t seize the opportunity. That’s not to say he’s a bad person for doing it, because I think that was a logical choice, given his ultimate purpose. A common thread among many of the known steroid users of the 1990′s and early 2000′s is that they put their own careers above the team and above the game. Whether that’s right or wrong is irrelevant. But certainly it creates a different calculus in one’s mind when you’re thinking about YOU versus THEM. 

Other players are focused totally on winning and their team, and that makes them fundamentally different from players like A-Rod. As we’ve all heard about a thousand times on MLB’s CNN-like special reporting on the story (that, by the way, interrupted my enjoyment of the Strike Out Marathon on Saturday!), A-Rod needs to be liked by fans, teammates, the press, etc. He has focused that need for attention through his performance on the field, so to me it’s not surprising that he was willing to take a substance that MLB wasn’t even testing for.   If you were loved principally for your play on the field, and you had a greater-than-normal need for praise and attention, I think you’d be surprised just how easily you could talk yourself into taking steroids. 

Does that excuse what he did? No. But I think looking at his actions in this framework might at least help us understand why he did it. Nonetheless, I like A-Rod and am conflicted as to how I feel about his status as a shoe-in for the HoF. Bonds is a dick, so I think that makes the call easier for many people, including me, but A-Rod seems like a nice guy caught up in a desperate need to be liked, which makes him act like a jerk…I don’t know. 

Enough with the Arbitration, Nats. I consider myself a patient person on the whole, but this is getting absurd. The Nats have resolved just one of the four possible arbitration cases pending, signing new pitcher Scott Olsen to a one year deal for $2.88M. Shawn Hill, surprisingly, won his arbitration hearing and got a nice fat raise for a largely mediocre last season that included an injury. That leaves John Willingham and Zim as the final two. I think I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. I think the Nats are playing the odds on this and believe that if they don’t get a deal made by the hearing date, the odds are that the board will rule in their favor, as it tends to do 65% of the time. However, Hill’s surprise result may light a fire under their butts now, as it would be hard for me to justify giving Hill his desired salary while denying the same to Ryan Zimmerman (I don’t enough about Willingham to have an educated opinion as to whether he’s worth his asking price). Not only that, but it’s a distraction going into Spring Training and you would think that the F.O. would want to minimize those going into the season. As a fan, it’s disheartening to see the F.O. dallying on this, but I respect that they have real reasons (mostly financial) for pushing for the best contract for the organization. I just hope it gets wrapped up soon!