58 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

@BradZiegler: It pays to cheat...Thanks, owners, for encouraging PED use

This was said in reference to the Peralta deal.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Of course he does... but we already knew that winning was most important in this society.

[Mike in STL]

I'm glad someone said it. He makes a great point.

[Oriole85]

Yeah it does, think we saw that Melky as well. He didn't get as much $ as he would've if he hadn't been caught, but sure more than he was going to get as a 4th OFer.

 

Not sure what the answer is here, once you serve your time, you can't exactly be penalized. The only real answer is more than 50 games. I don't see taking away future salary as too realistic. How would you go about that anyways?

[JeremyStrain]

The onus is on the owners and front offices. While teams should be taking advantage of the fresh suspension and potential future suspensions to be able to sign said player at a discounted rate, some teams are giving contracts like the suspension never happened and paying a premium still. While at least in the Melky deal, he lost a ton of money after his, STL just set a bad precedent. There's always at least one team out there desperate enough to get ahead of everyone else.

 

In the NFL, it has deterred teams pretty well because a full season suspension on failed test #2 is a lot to give up. While 100 games for a second fail is big in baseball, it's only 2/3 of a season, and I feel like NFL testing is tougher than MLB is.

[SportsGuy]

Yeah it does, think we saw that Melky as well. He didn't get as much $ as he would've if he hadn't been caught, but sure more than he was going to get as a 4th OFer.
 
Not sure what the answer is here, once you serve your time, you can't exactly be penalized. The only real answer is more than 50 games. I don't see taking away future salary as too realistic. How would you go about that anyways?

This is all on the owners. That's his point.

Has nothing to do with MLB or the MLBPA.

The owners want this out of the game and then they turn around and reward it?

[You Play to Win the Game]

This is all on the owners. That's his point.

Has nothing to do with MLB or the MLBPA.

The owners want this out of the game and then they turn around and reward it?

 

The owners don't want this out of the game. Congress did. The owners could care less.

[Oriole85]

This is all on the owners. That's his point.

Has nothing to do with MLB or the MLBPA.

The owners want this out of the game and then they turn around and reward it?

So what do you want the owners to do, not sign any players who've used steroids?

[Oriole85]

The owners don't want this out of the game. Congress did. The owners could care less.

I think the owners want it out of the game at this point now that it's been exposed. They didn't necessarily in the late 90s during the Sosa/McGwire chase.

[Oriole85]

The onus is on the owners and front offices. While teams should be taking advantage of the fresh suspension and potential future suspensions to be able to sign said player at a discounted rate, some teams are giving contracts like the suspension never happened and paying a premium still. While at least in the Melky deal, he lost a ton of money after his, STL just set a bad precedent. There's always at least one team out there desperate enough to get ahead of everyone else.

 

In the NFL, it has deterred teams pretty well because a full season suspension on failed test #2 is a lot to give up. While 100 games for a second fail is big in baseball, it's only 2/3 of a season, and I feel like NFL testing is tougher than MLB is.

Exactly and short of making a rule that a steroid player can't make X amount of $ for X amount of years, I don't see what the solution is.

 

I think a second suspension for 100 games is a big deterrent with younger player. I don't think so much with older players, like Tejada/Ramirez. So they get caught and "retire."

 

I think I'm in favor of longer suspension for a first and second suspension. The second one should definitely be a full season IMO.

[JeremyStrain]

Exactly and short of making a rule that a steroid player can't make X amount of $ for X amount of years, I don't see what the solution is.

 

I think a second suspension for 100 games is a big deterrent with younger player. I don't think so much with older players, like Tejada/Ramirez. So they get caught and "retire."

 

I think I'm in favor of longer suspension for a first and second suspension. The second one should definitely be a full season IMO.

 

After thinking about it, the difference in the NFL is that it's an overall substance policy, so recreational drugs are also being tested for, which makes it easier to catch a suspension than it is in baseball. That increased risk, thinking that if these guys go get high one weekend, we are out a player for a full season is probably a huge deterrent.

 

Either way, stupid owners. They want the drugs out of the game so that the negative press will go away, hopefully improving attendance, but then they reward guys who use over and over (Colon) so it just encourages players to take their chances for the big pay days.

[Oriole85]

After thinking about it, the difference in the NFL is that it's an overall substance policy, so recreational drugs are also being tested for, which makes it easier to catch a suspension than it is in baseball. That increased risk, thinking that if these guys go get high one weekend, we are out a player for a full season is probably a huge deterrent.

 

Either way, stupid owners. They want the drugs out of the game so that the negative press will go away, hopefully improving attendance, but then they reward guys who use over and over (Colon) so it just encourages players to take their chances for the big pay days.

Yeah I agree with you from a PR perspective they want it out more than anything, I don't think they actually care that much.

 

But they're rewarding the players because they want to win and they think those players give them the best shot to do it. I think without a deterrent, there's no real way solution. I don't think any owner is sitting there saying, "let's sign every player associated with roids we can think of."

[JeremyStrain]

Yeah I agree with you from a PR perspective they want it out more than anything, I don't think they actually care that much.

 

But they're rewarding the players because they want to win and they think those players give them the best shot to do it. I think without a deterrent, there's no real way solution. I don't think any owner is sitting there saying, "let's sign every player associated with roids we can think of."

 

Nope, not intentionally, but I think they are saying, let's target these guys and give them a normal contract, while everyone else is offering them less, so we know we can get someone.

[SportsGuy]

So what do you want the owners to do, not sign any players who've used steroids?

No, of course not...but how about 1 year deals to establish that they aren't doing anything and then they can get rewarded?

[You Play to Win the Game]

No, of course not...but how about 1 year deals to establish that they aren't doing anything and then they can get rewarded?

 

1-year league minimum.

[Oriole85]

1-year league minimum.

I'm in complete agreement here and let's add the Jay Gibbons promise (which he later reneged on) of them playing exclusively for charity.

 

That said, I don't have confidence in this getting done.

[SportsGuy]

This reminds me of the NFL talking about safety.

End of the day, they don't really care.

What they care about is money....that's what this is all about.

[Pedro Cerrano]

When a player is caught roiding, he's suspended without pay right?  If that's the case then I have no problem giving past users contracts.

 

If the owners and FO trust that past results are not due to roiding that's on them.

 

I think most people on here would take Ryan Braun, right?  And most people would endorse giving him a sizable deal (maybe not as big as he would have gotten prior to being suspended)?

[Pedro Cerrano]

This reminds me of the NFL talking about safety.

End of the day, they don't really care.

What they care about is money....that's what this is all about.

 

No shit Sherlock

[You Play to Win the Game]

When a player is caught roiding, he's suspended without pay right?  If that's the case then I have no problem giving past users contracts.

 

If the owners and FO trust that past results are not due to roiding that's on them.

 

I think most people on here would take Ryan Braun, right?  And most people would endorse giving him a sizable deal (maybe not as big as he would have gotten prior to being suspended)?

 

My problem with it is that it's not enough of a deterrent. In the current system. You can roid, maybe get caught, serve a suspension, then still get a huge contract afterwards. My only real problem with this is that it just further motivates non-user/fringe players to use and get over the edge. That just isn't fair.