Two good things about the offseason: I have more time for books and movies, and Curt Schilling has a lot more time for blogging. Otherwise, how could he have written 3,676 words about Jose Canseco and Roger Clemens?It's not easy to blog something that long. Where does one start? Well, let's begin with Schilling's take on Canseco:

As far as Jose goes, my opinion on what he's done is, I guess, rather convoluted. On one hand, Jose lied about every aspect of his professional career as a player. His entire career, all of it, is a sham. He never belonged in the big leagues and anything he ever did in the major leagues is a hoax. He made it clear that he would not have been the player he was had he not cheated. His statistics should be erased, his MVP given to the runner-up, and he should go down as the guy who broke the silence on a horrible period of the game, period. He was never in his life a major league player. The problem I have, and the opinion I have, is based on the fact that he lied his entire career, every single day of it. He cheated his entire career, and lied about it. He spent his entire career on the record claiming he didn't use PEDs, yet only when his life was in shambles and only when it served Jose Canseco the most, did he 'come clean.' Only then did he become this bastion of truth and honesty. Is that not the scam of scams? He made his hundred million or so, and when he was no longer good enough to compete up here, only when cheating stopped being enough to keep him competitive, only then did he scream "blackballed" and vow to get his revenge. Only then did he tell the truth, or his version of the truth.

Whether you like Schilling or not, it's both fascinating and refreshing to see one player call out another player like this, though one may wonder what offends Schilling more: the lying, or the truth telling. And I hope Schilling understands, in his more thoughtful moments, that one cannot simply "erase" statistics. Could the BBWAA revoke Canseco's MVP, though? I suppose they could, which would make Mike Greenwell (Mike Greenwell?) the winner instead. That's an awfully slippery slope, though, and I'm 100 percent sure the BBWAA wants nothing to do with revisiting old awards. To Schilling's credit, he doesn't stop with an easy target like Canseco.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. I know both of these men. Roger had a profound effect on my career from a very early point. His 'undressing' of me and lecture were a major turning point. I've always respected his career accomplishments and regarded him as the greatest pitcher to ever play the game. Now I, like every other Yankee [and] Clemens fan, am faced with a dilemma. The two men that fingered multiple players, from my understanding, both testified with immunity, but only if they told the truth. So these guys had every reason in the world to NOT lie. That doesn't mean they didn't, but there is an immense amount of incentive for them to NOT lie when they gave their depositions, because lying would have seen them open to legal actions beyond what they are already facing. So the question to me then becomes this. It's no mystery that Roger and Andy are as close as any two teammates I know of. Andy makes no bones about Roger's influence in his career. Their personal trainer, the trainer Roger took to Toronto, then to New York, has admitted to administering PEDs to both men. Andy has admitted he did, and that it was a mistake and he never did it again. Roger has denied every allegation brought to the table. So as a fan, my thought is that Roger will find a way in short order to organize a legal team to guarantee a retraction of the allegations made, a public apology is made, and his name is completely cleared. If he doesn't do that, then there aren't many options as a fan, for me, other than to believe his career 192 wins and [three] Cy Youngs he won prior to 1997 were the end. From that point on, the numbers were attained through using PEDs. Just like I stated about Jose, if that is the case with Roger, the [four] Cy Youngs should go to the rightful winners and the numbers should go away if he cannot refute the accusations.

For the record, if we take away Clemens' last four Cy Youngs, the new "winners" would be Randy Johnson (1997), Pedro Martinez (1998), Mark Mulder (2001) and Johnson again (2004). Also for the record, one can't just wave a magical wand and make the numbers "go away." But I admire Schilling's courage here. He'll probably wind up in the Hall of Fame. So will Clemens, if only because of those pre-1997 192 wins and three Cy Young Awards. Schilling and Clemens' paths probably will cross many times over the next few decades, in Cooperstown and various other places where our heroes congregate. So it takes courage to be honest about his feelings, and I also find his analysis fairly cogent. Roger Clemens can afford the finest legal assistance. Yes, I understand that the odds are against winning a libel suit against his accuser, because the standards in this country are tough (as they should be). But wouldn't the effort suggest that he is, at the very least, serious about his innocence? As Schilling concludes,

No one named in Jose's book that he claims has used has taken the effort or made the commitment to clear their names, and with the exception of Dave Justice and Roger Clemens, every person named in the Mitchell report has either already been caught, or admitted to using since the report was issued. I am hoping that every person that was named and did use admits to it, admits it was a mistake (where applicable) and asks for forgiveness (if they want it) and moves on. At the same time, I pray that ANYONE in this report that is innocent steps up and clears their names, now, today. No one has, and through today, no one has done anything but issue a crafted statement in someone else's words denying their guilt or association in any of this.

That sort of cuts to the quick, doesn't it? If you cheated and you don't think you'll get busted, best to stay quiet. If you cheated and you've been busted, or you think you'll be busted, best to confess and take what's coming. To this point, most of the players who have confessed have apologized, and acknowledged their mistake. A few -- Canseco, David Segui, Ken Caminiti -- have admitted what happened but offered no apologies, and there's a certain integrity in that, too, because we have to assume that a lot of players making apologies are sorry only about being caught. So what happens if a player gets out in front of this thing? For most of them, not much. I recently read somewhere that Jason Giambi was "destroyed" after his confession. Really? He's heard a lot of cheers and earned a lot of millions of dollars since then. Was Jose Guillen "destroyed" after being implicated in an HGH scandal? Shortly afterward, he signed a $36 million contract. I would argue that through all of this, only one player has tangibly suffered: Mark McGwire would be in the Hall of Fame today if not for his involvement with steroids. Why aren't players more forthcoming, then? Because most of them never have been forced to mature beyond adolescence. It's often been said that baseball is about men playing a kids' game, but all too often the men are actually kids themselves. Clemens is like a little boy with a full stomach and an empty cookie jar. His mom knows those cookies went somewhere, and she knows her little boy loves cookies. But he'll never admit that he ate them.