MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[Lammycat]

To me, 'roids is a relevant issue in discussing where these guys stack up against players of other eras. But within their own era, it seems clear to me that they were the best players on steroids in an era where a ton of guys were on steroids, so it's just not so easy for me to write off their whole careers.

I don't think it's fair to write off a player's whole career who has been caught using banned/illegal substances, either. However, the tainted image and the baggage that follows (HoF candidacy jeopardized for those with an otherwise legitimate shot at it) are part of the consequences. It's also difficult to gauge how well they would have been without the usage and it muddies their career from being looked at objectively, imo.

[MrRain422]

Andruw Jones to Oklahoma City (AAA, Texas Rangers).

[Sir Stewart]

Andruw Jones to Oklahoma City (AAA, Texas Rangers).

 

Good BBQ there, I've heard.

[bobbob1313]

Interesting stuff I read on another board:

 

A-Rod allegedly tested positive for Primobolan, which is a prohormone. Prohormones didn't become illegal in the US until Janury 20, 2005 after George W. Bush signed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.

 

So, he allegedly didn't do anything illegal.

 

Hmm.

[John Smith]

It wasn't just about money, it was also about competing. All of those guys (and by that, I mean every single player in baseball) is extremely competitive. They wouldn't have gotten that far if they weren't. If they see someone else getting an edge, they're going to be interested in what they're doing, just for the sake of being able to compete with them and level the playing field for themselves again.

 

It's still stupid from a health standpoint, but a lot of people, especially young people, do things that are bad for their health, and when you put them in an incredibly competitive environment, and throw in millions upon millions dollars, it's not at all surprising.

 

I don't think anyone should be excused for doing steroids per se, I just think that it's important to keep it's pervasiveness into perspective when judging these guys. Would Bonds and A-Rod been as great as they were/are without 'roids? Probably not. How much worse would they be? No one knows, though the evidence suggests they'd still be pretty friggin' great. All I know is, the more we find out, the more it seems that steroids were the rule rather than the exception, so a player who dominated the way that those two guys did were probably still head and shoulders above everyone else, even without the 'roids. No, not every player was on steroids, but it's also just as certain that it was far more pervasive than just a few bad apples -- there was a steroid culture that existed in the game, and it was fostered and encouraged by team front offices and the league itself, in both direct and indirect ways. Doesn't mean they weren't jerks for doing it, but it also doesn't mean they weren't still great ballplayers and likely still the best of their generation.

 

To me, 'roids is a relevant issue in discussing where these guys stack up against players of other eras. But within their own era, it seems clear to me that they were the best players on steroids in an era where a ton of guys were on steroids, so it's just not so easy for me to write off their whole careers. As bobbob has pointed out numerous times, Bonds was already in the conversation as the best player in the game before he started doing steroids. Compared to Bonds, we don't really know the extent of A-Rod's use -- all we know for sure is that he used in 2003, though of course it stands to reason that his use wasn't limited to that season. But he was already an amazing player when he was 19 years old and right out of high school -- I tend to doubt he was already on 'roids back then (though of course I don't know for sure). Their accomplishments need to be put into perspective, but that perspective includes not only the fact that they were on steroids, but also the fact that a million guys were on steroids and that they were great even without the 'roids. All of those things should be considered in evaluating them as players (and I'm limiting my argument here to evaluating them as players, not as people).

 

I do not doubt that these guys are competative. They have to be, but at some point they are compeating for $$. How often do we hear atheletes in all sports talk about how they love the game but at this level they understand it is a business.

 

Interesting stuff I read on another board:

 

 

 

Hmm.

 

Illegallity is not the issue, what is the issue is what Baseball allows or does not allow. An unrelated example might be that gambling is legal in the world at large, but not in baseball.

[Serak_the_Preparer]

Interesting stuff I read on another board:

 

 

 

Hmm.

 

 

I read in the Star Tribune that he also took Testosterone.

[KevinG]

With all of this speculation and hearsay around A-Rod do we really know if his name is on the list? 4 independent sources sure sound credible in the crawl during sport center, but hell I could come up with four independent sources that says all kinds of things.

 

I am not saying that that A-Rod did or did not use steroids, but we will never know. The same extent the same will be true of Bonds. And say if we definitively find out that player X did steroids in 2003 or whenever, what can we do? Change is life time stats (if we do that do we change records of games won and lost)? Ban him from the hall? We can't and we should not do a damn thing. The steroid era was a dark and unfortunate time in baseball. The fans, players, and the league have to acknowledge this, learn from it, and move on.

 

This conversation of steroids is not doing the game and good. Yes some might see this as a cop out and that I am sticking my head in the sand, but some one tell me what good is coming out of this argument? Acknowledge, learn, and move on.

[Lammycat]

Speculation? Hear say?

What do you mean "we will never know?"

We know. Evidence.

 

It's not head in the sand. It's not speculation.

It's fact.

 

Whether it's good or bad for the sport is secondary to the point that player X decided that he would strive to be above the game. If player X gets caught going above the game through illegal and banned means, player X faces the consequences.

 

I guess another way to look at it is to continue to turn a blind eye at the open wound. What good does that do?

[ZenLunatic]

A-rod now tainted. Was there any legitimate stars?

[Lammycat]

Plenty of legitimate players, as far as we know.

[ZenLunatic]

Plenty of legitimate players, as far as we know.

 

I'm sure, but any of them superstars? When you think of the big HR hitters, they've pretty much all taken roids.

[KevinG]

Speculation? Hear say?

What do you mean "we will never know?"

We know. Evidence.

 

It's not head in the sand. It's not speculation.

It's fact.

 

Whether it's good or bad for the sport is secondary to the point that player X decided that he would strive to be above the game. If player X gets caught going above the game through illegal and banned means, player X faces the consequences.

 

I guess another way to look at it is to continue to turn a blind eye at the open wound. What good does that do?

 

Show your work, specifically in regards to A-Rod. And four "independent sources" is not enough. The burden of proof is on you.

 

What are the consequences? What are we gonna do with A-Rod, or Bonds for that matter? What about those 100 odd players on the report. What about the players who did steroids with a "doctor's" prescription. What about pre-1991 steroid use? What about that dude who pitched a no hitter on acid? And to dredge something else up those pitchers who "spitball." All of this sucks, but there is no good answer of what we should do we have to move on.

 

MLB now has a system in place to deal with performance enhancing drugs, is it perfect, no, is it better yes. The wound is being taken care of.

[bobbob1313]

Plenty of legitimate players, as far as we know.

 

Not really. We just know who hasn't been caught yet.

 

And Kevin, don't bring up spitballs. It's not cheating, and it's not dangerous. It's an art, don't you know.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Writeup on Dayan Viciedo for anyone who is curious about the Cuban:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,7953078.story

 

Vicideo taking BP:

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/player/mp_tpl_3_1...cid=mlb&v=2

 

He's a big boy.

[ZenLunatic]

I am in Chicago and have seen Cubs tickets prices rise every year and tickets selling out faster every year, even with horrible seasons. I wonder with this economy, if this could still hold up. Should be interesting to see how Cubs ticket sales will be this year. I know for the first time, I wont be spending money in Feb to buy up as many tickets as I can. I may go to a game if my budget allows when the time comes.

 

hoping scalpers will get screwed this year.

[rareair]

A-rod now tainted. Was there any legitimate stars?

 

[Lammycat]

How about five independent sources. Will you be swayed then? Good lord. The burden of proof is on me?

 

The 103 remaining players on the "anonymous" report does not come close to every player cheating.

 

The consequences are that a players reputation is tarnished because they went about their career in an unsavory manner. If that means not getting into the HoF, so be it. Deal with the fall out from your decisions.

 

There is no prescription for Primobolan (one of the drugs that A-Rod was busted with). It's an illegal and banned by MLB drug. Testosterone comes with a prescription (the other drug he was busted with) but I have yet to hear A-Rod say he was prescribed that drug.

 

As far as I know, acid is not a performance enhancer and isn't on the banned list. I don't think citing Dock Ellis tossing a great game on acid holds a candle to this stuff.

[Lammycat]

Not really. We just know who hasn't been caught yet.

 

And Kevin, don't bring up spitballs. It's not cheating, and it's not dangerous. It's an art, don't you know.

So we want to protect the guys actually caught cheating and slander the ones who haven't been? Nice.

And yes. Tossing a spitball and getting caught is punishable in the proper way as opposed to enhancing your body to become an uber-star and dominating over your competition. The "crime" fits the punishment.

[bobbob1313]

So we want to protect the guys actually caught cheating and slander the ones who haven't been? Nice.

And yes. Tossing a spitball and getting caught is punishable in the proper way as opposed to enhancing your body to become an uber-star and dominating over your competition. The "crime" fits the punishment.

 

So the punishment for Arod's (and Bonds') crime was nothing, since there was no punishment for using steroids, because baseball is run by a bunch of incompetent, greedy hacks who are now looking to pass the buck onto the players who they encouraged to use.

 

And what about the players who used and didn't become uber-stars who dominated over their competition? Do they not get punished?

 

And basically, you are just punishing the guys who didn't cover their tracks well enough, or who were unfortunate enough to make some enemies who would sell them out later on down the road. Remember when Canseco said 60% of ball players used? Well, he's been right about everything else, so why not that?

 

There's simply no way we will ever find out everyone who used, but what is going to happen is that a handful of stars will be caught and punished, and then baseball will be able to say "look at us! We cleaned up the game! These rotten apples were everyone that was using" and then people will forget they were angry about steroids in the first place. All of this "independent sources" and "Leaked testimony" screams witch hunt to me and just shows me that the only reason these players have come out is because they pissed someone off.

[Lammycat]

Players who weren't uber-stars have already suffered the consequences of getting caught. No matter how you slice it, if you get caught doing something illegal/banned then there is fallout. It's not exclusive to baseball.

 

I have little empathy for a player who was racking up big money and big stats under false pretenses and then gets caught in the act. Tough shit.

 

You and other apologists want to sweep the entire era under the rug, continue to turn a blind eye to a massive problem in the sport, and give every player a Mulligan when in reality, not every player chose the tainted path. It's an insult to any player from that era who played on the up and up as well as to a lot of fans. Because it doesn't mean a thing to you (and other like-minded fans) doesn't diminish from the fans who give a shit about it or the players who chose to play within the boundaries of the rules.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

NHL Gamcenter and MLB.TV package deal: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnerId=rss_mlb

 

 

MLB.TV is also $10 less this year if you buy the whole package up front. They changed the format to flash-based and I hear that it will be a lot better.

[KevinG]

How about five independent sources. Will you be swayed then? Good lord. The burden of proof is on me?

 

Well yes. You are claiming a guy's guilt, you need to back up your claim with facts. Who are these independent sources? You said it was fact, all I heard was independent sources. That to me is not fact. Is is speculation. I could come up with five independent sources that say you murder goats. Is it true, probably not. But now there is speculation that LammyCat murders goats. The only way I'll be happy is if I see the positive test report or a credible and known source confirms the results. I really don't like these shawdowy "independent sources."

 

If a guy is proven that he has used performance enhancing drugs hell yes his rep should be sullied, in the eyes of the fans. I don't think I have ever said otherwise. The speculation alone sullies the rep of players and prolly should. But with out hard definitive proof nothing MLB can do. Nothing, nor should they.

 

Oh and I am sorry about bringing up the spitball thing again.

[Lammycat]

Sports Illustrated is not a reliable source? What possible reason do you have to think that SI is making this up? The almost comical thing here is that A-rod (and the other 103) were told about the test and continued to break law/rules and fail the tests. And yet you still cling to the hope that it's all hearsay and innuendo. If that isn't a resounding echo of a lot of the attitude surrounding this I don't know what is.

[bobbob1313]

Sports Illustrated is not a reliable source? What possible reason do you have to think that SI is making this up? The almost comical thing here is that A-rod (and the other 103) were told about the test and continued to break law/rules and fail the tests. And yet you still cling to the hope that it's all hearsay and innuendo. If that isn't a resounding echo of a lot of the attitude surrounding this I don't know what is.

 

The bigger thing for me is that Gene Orza told Alex that another test was coming. This is proof that the higher ups in baseball are just as guilty of wrong doing as the players, yet this is being ignored by the people rushing to crucify Alex.

[Lammycat]

The bigger thing for me is that Gene Orza told Alex that another test was coming. This is proof that the higher ups in baseball are just as guilty of wrong doing as the players, yet this is being ignored by the people rushing to crucify Alex.

I don't think it's being ignored and it's a bigger eye-opener (to me) than A-rod cheating. It's emblematic of the mess that MLB has helped bring on itself. Still, it does not excuse A-rod or others trying to one-up others on the level.