jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Wasn't the one on the left a big-time prospect for Zeets' hypothetical harem?
Around Baseball
- Thread starter NinersSBChamps
- Start date
Wasn't the one on the left a big-time prospect for Zeets' hypothetical harem?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I think he's entirely right, and this is something MLB will have to consider vis-à-vis their suspension protocol.
I also think there's a similar, very concerning issue with Nelson Cruz: with the supposition being that, since he's an impending free-agent, he'll just serve his suspension this season in order to ensure maximum payout on a new contract in the offseason, MLB will be generating a set of circumstances wherein Cruz's current team would actually bear the brunt of the punishment. In my opinion, MLB should force Cruz to serve his suspension next season, thus decreasing his negotiating leverage and likely the value of his next contract, thereby applying the punishment squarely upon him and not residually upon his current team. I think this would be good precedent, if not outright protocol, for all impending free-agents who are forced to serve suspensions for PED use.
On the other hand, his current team (Rangers) are the team that has benefited (theoretically) from his use of PEDS. Why shouldn't they be punished?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I think your point would be more germane if Cruz had actually tested positive for PEDs this year, instead of just being linked to their previous purchase by testimony and circumstantial evidence.
So maybe, in normal circumstances, you're right that some sort of balancing would occur: the benefits a player's team hypothetically receives from PED-affected seasons would be "paid" by the loss of that player via suspension during the given season. However, in this case I don't really think your point applies, since there's absolutely no evidence that Cruz used PEDs during the 2013 season.
So your point is that the team can only be punished in the season that the player used? So, if he used last year and the Rangers won the world series, they wouldn't deserve punishment if you found out in 2013 that Cruz used in 2012? I'm just trying to understand your point.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
First: Cruz never tested positive for PED usage, so that's one mitigating factor. Two: there are special circumstances, which is why I retracted my suggestion that anything that happens with Cruz become protocol per se, and instead am arguing more particularly that Cruz should not be able to benefit financially by serving his suspension now, essentially quitting on his current team purely to reap more free-agent rewards in the offseason.
Three, and more generally: I'm not sure teams should really be "punished" at all for the individual actions of given players; I don't think contracts should be voided, certainly, but I don't think the point of these suspensions is or should be punitive measures against given teams, but instead given players. You seem to think – presupposing Cruz used PEDS in, say, 2012 – that the Rangers would "deserve punishment" for actions almost entirely outside their control, which to me doesn't make much sense.
It may be out of their control, but they clearly benefit from it. (to the degree that PEDs are assumed to help)
sentenza
Lynchburg Prospect
Yes! Everything ok!
It sounded like a broken bat homer! But everything is ok and nothing happpens!
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Agreed — which why I think it's a bit of a quandary, and why MLB should probably consider the context for each case. For Nelson Cruz in 2013, I think there's a good argument to be made that MLB should force him to serve his suspension next season, all circumstances considered; but I concede that this shouldn't necessarily be the guiding precedent in all cases (and Melky Cabrera's 2012 is a good example of your point).
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
Indeed.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
That is what I have been saying. Suspending ARod for more than 50 games is nothing more than a favor to the Yankees for their buddy Bud. The Yankees have to suffer the consequences of their inept leadership. Its bad enough they have twice the market of most teams but then to let them off the hook for 30 million a year bad contract on top of that is bull crap. Teams need to be held accountable to signing roids users too. Then they might be a little more active in making sure their players are clean.
If this goes down I say we commence operation slip BJ some steroids.
CrimsonCowboy
Moderator
I remember that game. I still can't believe that screaming all that night came from that little kid.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Wait — are they related?!
There has been speculation that they might be.
NinersSBChamps
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br> 2015 (Co-Winner)</BR>20
I know it's a little far-fetched, but the Royals are making a push for one of the wild card spots. Doubt that they would win enough to get the first spot, but the second spot is up for grabs. And the AL Central has three teams with winning streaks right now. Detroit, Cleveland, and Kansas City with 5, 8, and 9 games respectively.
