Who else believes that the Mets won the 2000 World Series by default???

Question

The Yankees had over 20 players on the Mitchell report. Three out of five of the pitchers on the 2000 world series roster were taking HGH or steriods or both. Clemens, pettette and naegle, along with stanton, et al.

Answer 1

If the commissioner wanted to send a good, strong message he would strip the Yankees of their 2000 title and give it the Mets. Cheating is not winning. If they had tested positive before the 2000 WS, they would have been disqualified, so why is it OK to have the title now?

Answer 2

Yeah, but remember that was 7 years before this all happened. They didn't get caught then, and they odviously won it by being the better team in 2000, no matter if the New York Yankees were high, or on steriods, or if some of the members took them. But do you really think the MLB will take the 2000 World Series championship from the New York Yankees and give it to the New York Mets. Plus I am guessing that you must be a New York Mets fan, but that is just the way all things turned out, besides did Major League Baseball were aware of players that were taking steriods then either?

Answer 3

I Wish The Mets Won, But I Still Have To Say That The Yankees Won

Answer 4

If, could and would. The favorite words of those that live in the past. You should be more worried about how good or not good the Mets are now. IF they didn't suffer that meltdown at the end of last season they COULD have made it to the world series. IF the other teams in the playoffs weren't so good, the WOULD have won.

Answer 5

Not me!

How many players on the Mets were juicing? There is no way to tell. You can not re-write history. Don't grasp at straws here. The Yankees won that World Series, and that is that.

Answer 6

Ummm get your facts straight. It wasn't 20 players it was a toal of 9 while your Mets had 7 which makes that pretty much an even playing field. That being said Steroids or no steroids the Yankees where just a better team than the Mets that year. It's time for Met fans to get over the 2000 Series & move on.

Answer 7

The key players for the yankees that year were clemens and pettite and for the mets, i believe, it was piazza. Because clemens threw all those shutout innings, it makes you wonder what would have happened if clemens didnt use. But pettitte didnt use until 2002 from his own admission. I tend to believe Andy. So if you look at it. I guess it comes down to clemens. Hes everything thats wrong with baseball. BUT dont take it out on the yankees in general. One bad apple dont spoil the whole bunch. Does it?

Answer 8

The Mets still didnt win. Look at the names on the Mitchell Report, there are what just 2 HOF players in Clemens and Bonds? This goes to show that although some players had a leg up with the juice most of them were back up catchers and mediocre relievers...ooooo i dont think they were making the difference in big time ball games! The Yanks still won, but with an asteriks.

Answer 9

As Die hard Mets fan I love this question. As a baseball fan I have to say that the Yankees won fair. I'm sure there were Mets that now play in Japan who's name did not come out yet. I will say That when Clemns tossed the bat at Piazza that was a a man in a steroid rage. The key to that world series was game one. I said it then and I say now. The Mets win game one they win it all. Go back and look at all the games. Game one in Da Bronx tell's the whole story.

Answer 10

That's a bit of a stretch I think.
The effects of steroids has a differing effect on everyone and guys like Stanton that you name, who has played for many teams, doesn't narrow it down to what team he contributed to while he used.

It's really pointless to go back and say 'now this team deserves the world series' because it just won't happen.