58 replies to this topic

[JeremyStrain]

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)?

 

I don't think the owners should get off the hook if they pay a potential suspension risk. They should still have to pay the salary into revenue sharing.

 

It's a no-risk scenario for the owners, they pay them, if they put up huge numbers, they win, if they get suspended, they don't have to pay them. Time to put some of the risk on the owners.

[SportsGuy]

No shit Sherlock

But that's the point of Zieglers tweet...it's the hypocracy of all of this.

[SportsGuy]

I don't think the owners should get off the hook if they pay a potential suspension risk. They should still have to pay the salary into revenue sharing.
 
It's a no-risk scenario for the owners, they pay them, if they put up huge numbers, they win, if they get suspended, they don't have to pay them. Time to put some of the risk on the owners.

This is a good point....but, the commissioners office works for the owners and we know this will never happen.

[Oriole85]

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)?

Like Ricker said, it's not enough of a deterrent. I agree with your Ryan Braun analogy, we want our teams to win. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to prevent the use of it and rewarding bad behavior.

[Oriole85]

I don't think the owners should get off the hook if they pay a potential suspension risk. They should still have to pay the salary into revenue sharing.

 

It's a no-risk scenario for the owners, they pay them, if they put up huge numbers, they win, if they get suspended, they don't have to pay them. Time to put some of the risk on the owners.

I think you've made this point before. So let's say -- complete hypothetical -- that Adam Jones is caught using roids. He gets suspended 50 games, that the O's should have to pay his salary into the revenue sharing pool? I can't get behind that for a first time user.

[JeremyStrain]

This is a good point....but, the commissioners office works for the owners and we know this will never happen.

 

Yeah, doesn't look great, but it will be a talking point for a while. There are a lot more players than just Brad who feel the same way, but it's a tricky situation because in my scenario that also kind of hurts the players.

[Markus]

On one hand I wanna completely side with Ziegler and get all upset at the hypocrisy but in all honesty I don't care that much.  Players wanna juice up and risk getting caught or not?  Sure.  Owners and MLB want get infront of tv cameras and talk about cleaning up the game while continuing to reward said actions?  Sure, go for it.

[JeremyStrain]

Oriole85, on 25 Nov 2013 - 12:02, said:
I think you've made this point before. So let's say -- complete hypothetical -- that Adam Jones is caught using roids. He gets suspended 50 games, that the O's should have to pay his salary into the revenue sharing pool? I can't get behind that for a first time user.

I don't know that I believe in it for the first offense. More so for when owners know the risk involved in a player and still hand out the money with that 2nd offense.

Not going to start making bold claims online or start anything, but HYPOTHETICALLY, imagine that ownership knows of certain players using in an ongoing fashion, knowing that if they don't get caught, they can trade said player, playing at a high level to boost the minor league system, and if they do get caught they don't lose anything since they get out of paying 2/3 of the contract. Sounds like an underhanded but ingenious plan for a small market team doesn't it?

[Oriole85]

I don't know that I believe in it for the first offense. More so for when owners know the risk involved in a player and still hand out the money with that 2nd offense.

Not going to start making bold claims online or start anything, but HYPOTHETICALLY, imagine that ownership knows of certain players using in an ongoing fashion, knowing that if they don't get caught, they can trade said player, playing at a high level to boost the minor league system, and if they do get caught they don't lose anything since they get out of paying 2/3 of the contract. Sounds like an underhanded but ingenious plan for a small market team doesn't it?

I think a second time offense is fine since they already know there's a certain risk involved.I'm not OK with the hearsay argument.

[DJ MC]

Ziegler has a point. The problem is, it's an irrelevant point.

 

So much of current baseball policy on PEDS--both official, and unofficial within the media--is about blame. Most of it blames the players. A lot of it blames the MLB organization. Some of it blames the media and fans. This particular commentary blames the owners and teams. But that does absolutely nothing for the problem. Instead of trying to find a solution, it is passing the buck.

 

Baseball history shows that all sides within the sport will do whatever it takes for two outcomes: win games, and make money. Players will cheat and lie and jump teams to find the best place to win and the best contract. Owners will do what they can to either acquire the talent to win games, or game the system to make money. Media and fans honestly don't care what players do, as long as they help teams win games or help the media earn more money.

 

Suspensions don't work, and we're seeing why: players like Peralta, and Melky Cabrara, and likely Nelson Cruz, can still earn big contracts. Making longer and/or stronger suspensions won't stop that.

 

Penalizing the teams won't work, because the owners won't want those restrictions, and even if they are convinced or cajoled into them the union will go to the mattresses on anti-trust and collusion charges.

 

Permanent banning might be the one solution, but that puts PED use on par with throwing games, and those things aren't even remotely the same thing.

 

I don't know if there is a solution out there, but statements like this aren't helping anyone.

[DJ MC]

Let’s pump the brakes on the “PED use got Jhonny Peralta his big deal” talk

 

Here’s a shocking idea: Jhonny Peralta got a big crazy free agent contract, not because he used PEDs, thereby messing up the incentive system, but because everyone in free agency is getting a big crazy free agent contract these days.

[SBTarheel]

On one hand I wanna completely side with Ziegler and get all upset at the hypocrisy but in all honesty I don't care that much.  Players wanna juice up and risk getting caught or not?  Sure.  Owners and MLB want get infront of tv cameras and talk about cleaning up the game while continuing to reward said actions?  Sure, go for it.

This. 

 

You serve your allotted suspension, and you're allowed back, that's it. Did Ziegler expect Peralta to just retire? I don't get it. The rules are there, he broke them, served his penalty, and now can earn a living again. End of story. 

[Oriole85]

This. 

 

You serve your allotted suspension, and you're allowed back, that's it. Did Ziegler expect Peralta to just retire? I don't get it. The rules are there, he broke them, served his penalty, and now can earn a living again. End of story. 

I think the major point of contention here is that these players are benefiting from using roids, even if they are getting lower salaries than they would've had they not been caught. The whole "rewarding bad behavior." That's why Jeremy and Ricker are proposing further penalties. In the NFL, I believe you aren't eligible for awards or Pro Bowl honors if you have a drug suspension. I'm in favor of that. I think if it happens before the All-Star break, you aren't eligible for that year's All-Star game. If it happens after, then it applies the next year. For example, Ryan Braun would not be eligible in 2014 for the All-Star game.

[SBTarheel]

I think the major point of contention here is that these players are benefiting from using roids, even if they are getting lower salaries than they would've had they not been caught. The whole "rewarding bad behavior." That's why Jeremy and Ricker are proposing further penalties. In the NFL, I believe you aren't eligible for awards or Pro Bowl honors if you have a drug suspension. I'm in favor of that. I think if it happens before the All-Star break, you aren't eligible for that year's All-Star game. If it happens after, then it applies the next year. For example, Ryan Braun would not be eligible in 2014 for the All-Star game.

Ok, fine. But after they serve the further penalties, they'll be allowed to earn a living, right? 

 

You break the rules, and get caught, absolutely get penalized. But no need to keep complaining about it after said penalty is served. And Ziegler saying "thanks owners" or whatever doesn't sit well with me. Did he not expect Peralta to sign anywhere?

[Oriole85]

Ok, fine. But after they serve the further penalties, they'll be allowed to earn a living, right? 

 

You break the rules, and get caught, absolutely get penalized. But no need to keep complaining about it after said penalty is served. And Ziegler saying "thanks owners" or whatever doesn't sit well with me. Did he not expect Peralta to sign anywhere?

No, they'll be blacklisted (kidding).

 

Yes, I think after the further penalties, the complaining can end. You serve your time, it's over. As it is, I don't think you can be mad at the players, it's more the "system" in place. That falls more on the owners and MLB central management (who work for the owners).

[SBTarheel]

No, they'll be blacklisted (kidding).

 

Yes, I think after the further penalties, the complaining can end. You serve your time, it's over. As it is, I don't think you can be mad at the players, it's more the "system" in place. That falls more on the owners and MLB central management (who work for the owners).

That's all well and good, but these penalties have been agreed upon, and each of the players served theirs. When Peralta and crew were allowed to return, that was the end of story.

 

I assume Ziegler will tweet again when Nelson Cruz signs as well? 

[You Play to Win the Game]

That's all well and good, but these penalties have been agreed upon, and each of the players served theirs. When Peralta and crew were allowed to return, that was the end of story.

 

I assume Ziegler will tweet again when Nelson Cruz signs as well? 

 

Maybe he's jealous that he won't ever see a contract that big, in part because he is clean. 

[SBTarheel]

Maybe he's jealous that he won't ever see a contract that big, in part because he is clean. 

 

And not as good. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

And not as good. 

 

Right, and clean.

[Oriole85]

That's all well and good, but these penalties have been agreed upon, and each of the players served theirs. When Peralta and crew were allowed to return, that was the end of story.

 

I assume Ziegler will tweet again when Nelson Cruz signs as well? 

That is true and it's not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. I did say repeatedly after all when people called for Aroid to not be allowed to appeal because he was directly impacting the playoff the race that it wasn't fair to have two sets of rules for pre-agreed to deals. So yes, Peralta can sign, you don't have to like it, and you can think the rules should be changed for future violators.