Why It’s Okay That PED Players Are Getting Paid

Over the last few days, you’ve no doubt heard a lot of grumbling about the fact that players with PED histories are getting paid. You heard it a little when Marlon Byrd (career earnings: approximately $22 million) signed for a guaranteed $16 million with the Phillies, and a little more when Carlos Ruiz (career earnings: approximately $15 million) accepted $26 million to stay in Philadelphia.

But of course, that was just a prelude to the howling that came when Jhonny Peralta, with around $30 million in career earnings to his name, picked up a $53 million contract from the Cardinals — and it’s only going to get worse if Nelson Cruz, who has earned approximately $20 million in his career, actually gets the 4/$75m contract he’s reportedly asking for.

Multiple MLB players took to Twitter to complain about Peralta, notably relievers David Aardsmawho said “getting suspended means you get a raise” — and Brad Ziegler, who chastised the owners for “encouraging PED use” and said that he didn’t mind Peralta being employed so much as he did that the new Cardinal got “a massive raise“.

The question, however, in regards to the signings, is this: What did they expect the Cardinals should have done?

Peralta got $53 million because the Cardinals acted in the best interests of their team. They recognized a Kozma-shaped hole on their roster, and determined that paying Peralta rather than giving up a pick for Stephen Drew or tons of talent and even more money for Troy Tulowitzki was the best way to fill that hole. They did it because a general manager’s job is to put out the best team on the field that he can, not police the morals of the sport, and while we’d love to think otherwise, the most talented players are not always Boy Scouts. Baseball teams employ drunk drivers, domestic abusers, and sexual abusers, offenses which are unarguably more dangerous to society at large than PED guys. (The hypocrisy of fans easily cheering for those players while crucifying PED users is another topic entirely.)

If St. Louis could have nailed down Peralta for $10 million, or $15 million, or whatever number the aggrieved would have deemed acceptable, then they most certainly would have. The free market said otherwise, so they paid what they needed to get the right man for the job. $53 million is more than anyone expected Peralta to get, to be sure, but with the incredible amount of money flooding the game these days, very few free agent contracts should shock us any more — and it was reported that Peralta could have made even more elsewhere, but wanted to go to St. Louis. (It should also be noted that Dan Szymborski’s ZiPS has that number as almost exactly his value anyway.)

Between the money, the need, and the player, it’s a completely defensible deal, one that likely makes the Cardinals better, but the players and fans who are upset aren’t looking at it from that point of view. They’re looking at it from an emotional stance: Hey, that guy cheated. Why is he getting paid?

He’s getting paid because he’d served his suspension, and it’s really not the job of front offices to collude against PED guys in the absence of collectively-bargained rules saying they ought to do so. Either way, it’s far too simplistic to suggest, as some have, that Peralta and the others got their big deals “because” of PEDs. The Cardinals are obviously aware of his past, and evaluated it analytically along with everything else they know about the player. They considered whether he was likely to get hurt; they considered if he was likely to regress as he ages, and if so, by how much; and they considered how much of his recent performance could be attributed to PED usage. They came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that Peralta’s 2013 was not fueled by chemical help, and so if anything the stain on his name was a detriment to his free agency, not an enhancement.

We don’t know their process, so we don’t know how they came to those answers. But what we do know is that they took it all into account, and their decision further cements what we already knew: Major League front offices look at PED busts very, very differently than fans and players do. Though fans like to include all “cheating” under one huge unforgivable umbrella, it’s rarely that cut-and-dry. Even now, what we don’t know about the effects of PEDs on baseball players probably outweighs what we do, and the various players nailed didn’t all use the same thing at the same time. (Ruiz was reportedly busted for Adderall, for example, a far cry from the big cartoon needle filled with Popeye’s spinach that many envision all users as having.) Peralta’s case adds even more mystery, since he’s part of the big Biogenesis mess that we still don’t — and may never — fully understand, as the Alex Rodriguez saga is showing.

You can certainly understand why the players and fans feel that way, of course, and Ziegler did later add that he’d be pushing the union to make chances to prevent this sort of thing in the future. (Many are asking  for much harsher penalties for PED abusers; Peralta’s new St. Louis teammate, Matt Hollidayis on record as saying he’d prefer a full season for the first bust and a lifetime ban for the second.)

Perhaps the union and owners will do just that. Depending on your perspective, maybe it’s “hopefully” they’ll do just that, because the view that the current system isn’t enough of a deterrent is probably accurate. But until they do, the game rolls on under the system that the owners and players agreed to. It’s naive to expect a general manager who has certainly done his due diligence to hesitate on upgrading his team, knowing that other GMs would be all too happy to jump on that opportunity to strengthen their own roster instead.



Print This Post



Mike Petriello used to write here, and now he does not. Find him at @mike_petriello or MLB.com.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Guest
Guest
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

If the players were actually interested in stopping PED use, then they would institute punishments for players caught cheating that actually have teeth- such as giving teams the right to void a player’s contract for being suspended for PEDs.

David
Guest
David
2 years 10 months ago

Have to hit the teams who employ them also. The Cards, for example, don’t lose anything but playing time if Peralta were to get caught again, should they be allowed to void the contract.

So in addition to being allowed to void the contract, the salary should still count against the luxury tax calculation. Or a draft pick should be zapped. Or … something …

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

Oh, I think that having the player suspended and his salary go straight to luxury tax, but count for double even if the team wasn’t over the threshold, for example: A player making $10m gets busted for PEDs either with a positive tests or evidence. That player now has to forfeit his salary for the year (regardless as to how many games he’s been suspended) and it would go directly to the luxury tax pool. Then the team owning him would would be considered $20m over the luxury cap threshold (which would be $209 million as it currently stands). If they are already over the luxury tax threshold then perhaps the salary should count triple towards the team’s threshold (so a team at $200 million would be considered 230 million for tax purposes).

But, you could also do this a number of different ways. You could have that money come out of a team’s Rule IV draft allotment starting with first round picks until it’s all used up (this could even mean that it would span multiple years), or likewise you could have it come out of the international FA allotments.

Personally, I think that any of these would be a deterrent for both the player, the team who signed him, and any future team that he may sign with.

Baltar
Guest
Baltar
2 years 10 months ago

I think PED players should be executed. This would ensure that they never got paid for anything again and be one hell of a deterrent.

B N
Guest
B N
2 years 10 months ago

@Baltar: That is far too harsh. You can’t just go around killing people! (Source: John Connor) Instead, they should be injected with a capsule that would react with any PED in the bloodstream to release deadly poison into their brain. All the deterrent, and they WERE warned that PED’s are harmful.

PS They should also play on a space station, starring Christopher Lambert and Arnold Schwarzenegger as team captains.

Brad Johnson
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

There is merit to the idea that the teams themselves need to be disincentivized from employing PED users. There is even merit to a clearly punitive system like the one Stuck recommends below (although I would not personally advocate for that specific approach). If you want PEDs out of the game entirely, then you need to create a strong incentive for all stakeholders.

Guest’s idea for voiding contracts is far too team friendly and it can create a massive conflict of interest similar to what we see between the Yankees and ARod.

However, one of the problems with this is that innocent mistakes can be made in regard to PEDs. While some people who get caught claim they didn’t know they were using a banned substance, I have little doubt that there are actually a few instances of players just following the advice of others and not doing enough homework.

One thing we have to remember is that every single professional baseball player is using performance enhancing substances. Most of these are not banned, some of them are. Some of them may be arbitrarily banned (I do not know). Some of them may be legal but shouldn’t be (I do not know).

Carlos Ruiz is a good example. For Adderall to work as intended, Ruiz has to have an actual medical use for it. Otherwise it’s a pure stimulant that would make it hard for him to focus. Maybe he did use it as a stimulant, but there are easier, legal ways to get a similar effect. He probably used it for it’s intended purpose.

nada
Guest
nada
2 years 10 months ago

“However, one of the problems with this is that innocent mistakes can be made…”

yes but by punishing teams, we should be incentivizing them to make sure their players know exactly which supplements to use and which not to use, thereby minimizing the number of innocent mistakes (which suck, I agree).

In the example of Ruiz, it’s nearly unfathomable to me that at no point in the time between him going to the doctor and taking his first pill, he thought to himself “Gee, I wonder what the PED policy on Adderall is?” If so, then MLB and the individual teams have profoundly failed to educate players on the policy, and they need some incentive to do so.

Bob
Guest
Bob
2 years 10 months ago

Make it difficult for him to focus? Clearly you’ve been out of the college scene for a while.

AK7007
Member
AK7007
2 years 10 months ago

Two things. One, the whole first time year, second time life ban isn’t going to change anything except for established players. Players like Holliday would be wise not to use PEDs under such a scheme because he already has his payday and can only lose money, not significantly gain from PED use. Players on shorter contracts wouldn’t want to use as much, because it would likely eat into a future contract. (right now, that first 50 game ban is a buffer for players like cruz and peralta) Marginal players have a huge incentive to use, because even with harsh penalties, if the alternative is you don’t make the big leagues – you should be using. Draconian punishment policies aren’t the answer, and I think you know that they aren’t. Education and early intervention are the answer, even if it will take a long time to be effective. (get them while they are still in the minors, which is what MLB is doing)

Secondly, Adderall suspensions are bullshit. 1/10 MLB players are given use exemptions already, and MLB appears to have great latitude in who they choose to give them to. For all we know, since nobody’s talking, Ruiz might have had one under the previous rules before you needed to go before a 3 person panel to get one. What we do know is that if 10% of the league is taking a PED lawfully (doubtful they all need it for ADHD) it’s just plain stupid to go after a few guys who couldn’t get their papers in order. Just deregulate the damn stuff.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

Ok, the US military has a zero tolerance policy. If you unknowingly take a banned substance under it’s drug policies, it doesn’t matter how you ended up with it in your system the only thing that matters is that it WAS in your system.

This puts incentive on members of the US military to disassociate themselves from people who have that kind of lifestyle and to ensure that they know what is in the things that they are taking/using. Is it unfair if a member of the military goes to a party and accidentally eats a hash brownie? A little, but (s)he should have known better than to be involved with that crowd anyway.

This type of truly zero tolerance policy is what baseball needs if it’s ever going to clean itself up, and by incentivizing teams to ensure that their players know the policies inside and out and to squash the culture of PED usage despite the benefits it may provide to their teams.

Brad Johnson
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Stuck, I’m not sure it’s fair to expect athletes to follow the same code as soldiers. The military has a zero tolerance policy because failure is a very serious thing. That’s not the case in baseball.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

Brad, illegal drugs like marijuana have similar effects to alcohol without nearly as much risk (the risk is similar to tobacco when smoked), yet soldiers can drink all they want as long as it doesn’t harm their performance and they are sober while on duty, they can also smoke in designated areas. The penalty for a positive test or evidence based failures is still discharge and possible jail time.

PED’s are just as illegal and are more detrimental to the game than responsible marijuana use (under the guidlines I mentioned above) is to the military. If MLB wants to clean up then seriously punitive ramifications to both team and player are needed.

You called my ideas “clearly punitive”… Really? That’s the idea! If players who are linked to PED’s can lose a year’s worth of salary and the teams they play on are severely punished don’t you think that both might think twice? The players may be seen as higher risk than reward for a second positive meaning that future teams may avoid them like the plague which would result in depressed salaries so that it can’t be argued that they are being rewarded.

If the teams are hit so hard that thy see stars then they will clearly have incentive to change the atmosphere in their club houses and police themselves harder.

Do you really think that Ortiz was unknowingly but literally ‘juicing’ when he tried to explain that he was drinking some sort of funky energy drink while he was hanging out in the DR? I call bullshit on that.

Sam
Guest
Sam
2 years 10 months ago

Hash brownies don’t make you better and shooting machine guns or driving tanks. As a vet, I can’t think of any single banned substance that made us better at our jobs, or gave us an unfair advantage for that matter. Booze was legal, but I figure all that did was level the playing field.

Mando steroid use for all, I say.

Brad Johnson
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Stuck, as I mentioned in that first comment, a punitive system has merit. If you really want to drub PEDs out of the game, you create incentives that punish the player, teammates, front office, and owners. That way, it’s not up to a single individual to make morally ambiguous decisions.

As for Ortiz, who the hell knows. Back then, nobody had any reason to be careful, so if someone came up to you and said this new formula will help with your training and is healthy for you, you’d probably take it with only a minimal amount of research. And if in that research you learn that the substance is technically banned, everyone else is also taking banned substances, so why not.

It’s like driving 10 miles over the speed limit or smoking weed in college, there’s almost no chance you’ll get in trouble and in fact it’s expected behavior.

Simon
Guest
Simon
2 years 10 months ago

Not knowing what you took is hardly a defence. Don’t take strange things unless the team signs them off. Not hard.

Brad Johnson
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Simon, it’s easy to say that, but try putting yourself in the athlete’s shoes.

Let’s say you’re Melky Cabrera and you’re close to be drubbed out of the league and pigeon holed as an org soldier. Someone you trust (at least somewhat) offers you “something” that will help take your game to the next level. How many questions are you really going to ask?

I’m not saying Melky didn’t know that he was cheating, I’m just using his use case as an example.

Go Nats
Guest
Go Nats
2 years 10 months ago

I have taken adderall for its intended purpose in the past. It always helps anyone concentrate. It is very good for helping you recover from a tough night out and still function. So, I would consider it a PED, but nowhere near as much as a steroid. Adderall effects you for only 3-4 hours. Then you need more to have the same affect. it is also a bit addictive.

Albert Dimond
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

Of course, wartime use of otherwise illegal stimulants has been common in military history. The purpose, goal, and motivation of a military is quite different from that of a baseball league. Neither is, nor ever will be, a temperance society.

Anaphylaxis
Guest
Anaphylaxis
2 years 9 months ago

I once took an Adderall and it most certainly did NOT help me concentrate.

nada
Guest
nada
2 years 9 months ago

I think it’s fair to say that Adderall has different effects on different users. With that said, if you are voluntarily seeking Adderall, one would presume that it is because you are one of the people for whom Adderall is useful. So even if you personally don’t get any benefit from Addy, the MLB ballplayers who take it probably do, or else they wouldn’t take it.

cowdisciple
Guest
cowdisciple
2 years 10 months ago

If the players were actually interested in stopping PED use, then they would institute punishments for players caught cheating that actually have teeth- such as giving teams the right to void a player’s contract for being suspended for PEDs.

Allowing teams to void the contracts of players caught using would be hugely counterproductive. In that scenario, there is nothing but benefit for teams who offer large contracts to users – they get the enhanced production (to whatever extent it exists) and then they get to void the deal if the player is caught? Pure profit.

I agree with above posters that you HAVE to punish the team as well as the player if you want to fix the perverse incentives that are the root of the problem. If the team of the suspended player lost their next first-round pick (or something), teams would be much more likely to police their own organizations (and teams are in by far the best position to do that) and would also be very reluctant to offer contracts to PED users. It would have essentially the same effect as the player receiving and rejecting a qualifying offer, and we’ve already seen that the QO has a huge impact on a player’s market value.

Fix the incentives, or you’re never going to be able to address the cause of the problem.

Wayne
Guest
Wayne
2 years 9 months ago

I have no problem with ball players using PED’s….my problem is when they lie, get caught in a lie, and embarrass their teams (A-Rod, and Braun to name a couple)

dixie_flyer
Member
dixie_flyer
2 years 10 months ago

yep, it’s OK for PED users to get huge paydays, just like it’s OK for banksters to steal $billions with only a slap on the wrist as “punishment”

Matt Cake
Guest
Matt Cake
2 years 10 months ago

Because those things are identical…

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

They’re both cheating the system and engaging in criminal activity to get more money at the expense of those who don’t. So maybe not identical, but close enough that you don’t have to use excess hyperbole to make the comparison.

paperlions
Guest
paperlions
2 years 10 months ago

Feel free to provide evidence that PED users make more money in FA than they would have if they had not used PEDs. While you are at it, you might want to figure out how to quantify what (if any) effect PEDs have of different aspects of baseball peformance, figure out how many PED users have not been caught via testing (as most of the biogenesis guys were not caught via testing), and also try to justify the fact that ADHD suddenly more than doubled among MLB players when amphetamines were banned, with each of those players that allegedly have ADHD getting waivers to take amphetamines. It seems highly unlikely that individuals with ADHD would be more likely to be professional baseball players than individuals without it, but MLB players allegedly have ADHD at twice the rate of the general population.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

I think that we can point out to the many PED users during the steroid era that made out like bandits either in arbitration, free agency, or by signing contract extensions that well known non-users didn’t receive. Was McGuire a better player than Eckstien? Sure, but would teams have had more money to spend if they weren’t giving out huge paydays to the guys that we now know to have been using?

Would Eckstein have looked better relative to the league if PED usage wasn’t so rampant? It’s hard to definitively say that PED’s increased overall performance, but it’s also pretty obvious that they can extend careers by allowing faster recovery and that they can in fact help build muscle mass. Given that scouts have long looked at body types when using projections it seems obvious to me that PED usage to build muscle mass can very easily equate to dollars or that extended careers and shorter DL stints helped many players reach their next pay day or allowed them to play out the life of their final contacts.

Oh, Beepy
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

This is great because you’re clearly talking about Anabolic Steroids despite the fact that all the people that this article is about were reported to be using either testosterone or adderall, neither of which purports to add much mass and instead claims to promote focus, concentration, recovery and stamina as I understand it.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

Or you know, I was talking about HGH which is one of the drugs that the Biogenesis players were reportedly using.

AC of DC
Guest
AC of DC
2 years 10 months ago

Presumably he inferred that you meant anabolic steroids because you have in several posts referred to the illegality of the substances in question and/or to the criminality of taking them. Many of the substances considered to be PEDs by MLB are not wholly illegal in the United States. Anabolic steroids were added to the Crime Control Act of 1990 as a controlled substance.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

The misuse of a controlled substance of any sort is a crime, whether it’s typically punished or not doesn’t make a difference. I can’t take a prescription for Valium or testosterone or even asthma medicine and then resell it to kids who live in my neighborhood.

eayres33
Member
eayres33
2 years 10 months ago

You here the low t commercials right before the sports talk host rips on PED users, what do you think the T stands for.

Go Nats
Guest
Go Nats
2 years 10 months ago

paperlions- I have ADHD and it is seems very likely that ADHD kids that are properly medicated would flock to sports at much higher rates than society as a whole. The H stands for hyperactivity. An inability to sit still. Athletics is recommended as a daily treatment for ADHD, so why not play sports rather than run ten miles a day or bounce balls. One advantage of ADHD is you get a tad bit more stamina and that could help with sports. ADHD is terrible for anything academic, all academic pursuits are much harder. So most ADHD kids play lots of sports to validate themselves. Plus, they can be good at sports if they are able to concentrate which is where the Adderall helps a ton!

Brad Johnson
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Here’s the issue. As the MLB or federal gov’t, if you institutionalize a set of incentives, you have to expect that agents will leverage those incentives. If there is a line in the sand that you do not want crossed, it is your responsibility to prevent agents from doing so. The MLB and federal gov’t has to take a substantial portion of the blame because it’s their incentives that caused the problems.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
2 years 10 months ago

I don’t want to get into a whole think, but “banksters stealing billions” is reductionist and simplistic. As adults we should be able to get beyond the “works for a bank = bad” type of black-and-white thinking that you might expect from a small child.

Did many “bankers” engage in questionable or unethical practices, lending money to individuals and businesses that they likely shouldn’t have and then trying to hide those bad loans by bundling and selling them? Absolutely, and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Keep in mind many banks often provide money for people on your street to purchase their first home and small businesses in your community to start or expand those businesses that provide services you enjoy and employ your friends and neighbors.

Did many individuals knowingly apply for and accept loans knowing they would be unable to afford them? Yes. They have culpability for their actions also.

Did various government programs incentivize and promote homeownership, often to people who were not ready or able to handle that responsibility? Yes. Did they also institute programs that encouraged banks to lend to these very borrowers, or punish them for not doing so? Yes.

Of course the individuals and companies that broke the law should be punished and regulations should be put in place to ensure certain unethical practices are stopped or disincentivized. But it’s a multifaceted problem and we should be able to get beyond “banks and bankers = fatcats = bad = derp”.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
2 years 10 months ago

‘Think’ = ‘thing’. Proofreading is for suckrs.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew
2 years 10 months ago

I mean we are talking about jHOnny peralta…

Oh, Beepy
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

J-HONEY

Get it right, plebs.

Hey now!
Guest
Hey now!
2 years 10 months ago

How dare you sir bring nuance into this debate and not allow me to cast a broad net of ill-informed hatred! HOW DARE YOU!!

A Canadian
Guest
A Canadian
2 years 10 months ago

“banks and bankers = fatcats = bad = derp”

I agree with everything except the derp. This is textbook blame deflection; just because some other parties have partial culpability in the financial collapse doesn’t mean that bankers don’t bear the lion’s share of the fault.

At this point it’s pretty clear that at the top levels of banks, there is absolutely no regard for society or what’s good for it, and limitless regard for making as much money possible in whatever way possible.

So:
Bankers = Fat Cats = Bad
still stands, even if:
poor gov’t policy encouraging bad loans + dumb people making bad loans = minor contribution to financial crisis

(sorry I couldn’t resist the bait…)

Wobatus
Guest
Wobatus
2 years 10 months ago

Probably I should avoid adding to this topic, but perhaps you should say that you think some bankers at top levels have no regard for society at large, etc. Not to water down your point.

A fairly top level banker (chief risk officer) of a large bank is a good friend of mine. I am godfather to his son and he is godfather to my daughter. And he’s not the only banker or investment banker I know that isn’t solely concerned with making money. The idea that everyone at the top level of banks are soulless moral ogres is a caricature.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
2 years 10 months ago

Wobatus – exactly, well said. I know a lot of people who work in the banking industry. Like any other industry, it employs people of all stripes. Most of the ones that I know are fair and honest people to a fault, who are genuinely trying to help people and are trying to do the right thing. Some are not. The industry contains people who are greedy, others generous. Some acutely self-interested, others fiercely loyal. Some unfailingly honest, some amoral (or immoral).

In other words, a reflection of society. I know it doesn’t fit the “GREEDY FATCAT BANKERS = WORST DUDES ON EARTH” narrative that some like to imagine, with Randolph and Mortimer Duke sitting around in $5,000 suits lighting cigars with $100 bills and Scrooge McDucking into a pile of ill-gotten coin.

And the other side of the political spectrum has plenty of tired and misinformed caricatures that they resort to also. We can take a break from the hysterics and look beyond the trite, easy answers, is all I’m saying.

Hey, a guy can dream :)

Oh, Beepy
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

I’ve had enough of all this hyperbole!

Diving into a pool full of coins would not make them behave as if they were water! You would smack into the top of the unmoving mass of coin and likely break some bones, and your shitty little duckling nephews would blow your whole load on wacky adventures, ruuining your legacy.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
2 years 10 months ago

Not true! Scrooge jumped in and swam about in them, always to the amazement or consternation of his contingent of nephews.

Cartoons always obey the immutable laws of physics, amirite??

Wobatus
Guest
Wobatus
2 years 10 months ago

Jason and Obeepy, apropos of Scrooge McDuck and the coin swimming.

My wife was born in Latvia when it was part of the USSR. She told me an enduring image of the west she recalls from childhood is a fat man with a watch fob across his waist coat sitting on or carrying a bundle marked “$” She also fondly recalls Uncle Scrooge McDuck, and when I am up late going over accounts, asking for receipts and basically keeping track so that what goes out the door doesn’t exceed what comes in over the transom, she says something like come to bed Uncle Scrooge, your swimming pool of coins can wait.

Guest
Guest
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

Canada gets it. Go ask Paul Hollyer. Jason B and Wobatus need to take the banker dick out their collective mouths. Saying you know bankers doesn’t mean you know the devils that control that system. Go watch “Money Masters”. Its a documentary about the history of fractional reserve banking and fiat currency. Understand that people on Earth starve and die daily over worthless paper currency that’s value was created upon its printing and set to systematically and exponentially diminish in value over time as more is printed. Paper bills are traded for paper bills with interest thus guaranteeing that there will never be enough printed to pay back what is owed. This is how banks have been seizing the world’s governments for the last four hundred years. Do some research; this site claims to be full of intelligent people.

Excelsior
Guest
Excelsior
2 years 10 months ago

LOL at this being “nuanced.” (Incidentally, the word “derp” needs to die in a fucking fire, it’s the worst thing the internet has ever created.)

Oh, Beepy
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

Child porn communities, a torture video industry and Julian Assange would like a word…

KDL
Guest
KDL
2 years 10 months ago

If the original was a child’s thought, the response was the wise 7th grader who realizes “life is all shades of gray, man”.
At least go beyond “everyone did something they shouldn’t have”. Yeah, it’s true. But real nuance brings in things like how much of the blame do bankers, homeowners, gov’t policy play. Surely not equal blame – even if they all contributed. Saying everyone could have done something differently is hardly nuance. It’s just a slightly less broad brush-stroke. (And one that, incidently, really swings the whole argument in favor of the banking industry in ways that don’t really match up with the reality of the situation.)

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
2 years 10 months ago

No one is saying they were all equal in their share of the blame, were they? Just that we like to focus on the parts that we despise and give everyone else a pass. And there is nothing less nuanced than “those bankerz, they all gots ta PAY!!” *shakes fist ruefully*

Ben
Guest
Ben
2 years 10 months ago

This has to be a troll. The mortgage scandals destroyed innocent lives. Hard to believe anyone could compare that to using PEDs.

Bustacard
Guest
Bustacard
2 years 10 months ago

Appreciating all level headed responses to this situation. There is so much wrong with the institution of baseball and so much ambiguity to which PEDs are allowed and which aren’t, the “he’s a cheater” reaction is amazingly simplistic and unjust.

Hurtlockertwo
Guest
Hurtlockertwo
2 years 10 months ago

If the players are outraged by this situation, they have the power to make changes in the system. It really doesn’t matter what the rest of us think.

bflaff
Guest
bflaff
2 years 10 months ago

Huh?

> The Cardinals are obviously aware of his past, and evaluated it analytically along with everything else they know about the player.

How does anyone evaluate PED use analytically when you don’t even know who has been using PEDs and when?

> They came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that Peralta’s 2013 was not fueled by chemical help….

How do we know the Cards came to that conclusion?

Aaron (UK)
Member
Aaron (UK)
2 years 10 months ago

Quite. A more sensible conclusion for the Cards to draw would be that Peralta was able to perform at his 2013 levels without getting busted for PEDs*.

*NB I am not opining as to whether or not Peralta used in 2013, or indeed before that.

Alex Rodriguez
Guest
Alex Rodriguez
2 years 10 months ago

Exactly. Not everyone quits using after being caught on their first offense.

Melky Cabrera
Guest
Melky Cabrera
2 years 10 months ago

Oh, hai there.

stan
Guest
stan
2 years 10 months ago

Is this a serious question? How about because they agreed to pay him $53M over 4 years? If they thought he was a PED risk and was looking at a season-long suspension during the life of the contract they wouldn’t have installed him as their starting SS and committed a large chunk of their payroll to him.

Ruki Motomiya
Guest
Ruki Motomiya
2 years 10 months ago

Nooo, it just means they think whatever PED risk there is is worth installing Peralta at SS.

jdbolick
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

The opening poster is correct that the MLBPA can choose to make PED punishments more severe if they want to do so, which might happen but seems unlikely. Owners actually can’t collude against PED users or the players’ union would sue them for it. So teams paying a PED user isn’t substantially different than overpaying an aging player or one coming off a “lucky” season. Philadelphia will probably rue its deal with Byrd the same way that Toronto presumably does theirs with Melky Cabrera. In theory they should receive less because you’re less confident in their future performance, but it only takes one dummy for a player to cash in.

That said, Mike Petriello makes a mistake common to many fans by not understanding the distinction between offenses outside of baseball and those that affect the game itself. Drunk drivers, domestic abusers, and sexual abusers don’t threaten the existence of baseball. They can give it a black eye via bad publicity, but ultimately it’s still separate from on-field performance. Gambling and PED use fundamentally threaten the perceived integrity of the game. Fans need to believe that the performance they’re paying to see is real or they may stop paying to see it. That’s why Pete Rose is treated much more harshly than players who committed much more serious crimes, because his actions potentially undermined the sport itself. Understanding that distinction isn’t hypocritical in the slightest.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

Very well said

nada
Guest
nada
2 years 10 months ago

I can’t upvote you enough.

Tim
Guest
Tim
2 years 10 months ago

How is a performance enhanced by prohibited PEDs any less real than a performance that isn’t? There’s a big difference between this and potentially throwing games.

jdbolick
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Because PEDs allow you to achieve things you could not do without them. PEDs created Lance Armstrong’s dominance. PEDs turned Ben Johnson from a sprinter running a 10.44 to one setting a then world-record 9.79. PEDs allowed Barry Bonds to hit 26 home runs of at least 450 feet from 2000 through 2004 after having only 3 home runs of that distance in the first fourteen years of his career. Medical studies show that an anabolic-androgenic steroid regimen creates more muscle growth while doing no exercise at all than someone engaging in a rigorous workout program during the same time period.

Oh, Beepy
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

But Lance Armstrong is an excellent example of how you can be disproved, because it wasn’t just Lance Armstrong. The guys who testified against him basically built their case on “Well I was on every drug I could come up with and I still had no chance!”

Much like Barry Bonds, as much as it doesn’t fit in your nice cheaters=ruination narrative, there’s a very good chance that if the entire sport, Lance included, had been clean, that he would be the best cyclist amongst his contemporaries, because everyone was on drugs, the playing field was much more level.

Barry Bonds walked almost 200 times in a season, achieving an OBP of over .600 in his craziest year. He barrelled up the ball and hit for monster averages. These are the kind of skills that create a generational talent, and Bonds was one without drugs, the same as he was with drugs.

If PEDs make you good at baseball and not just stronger, then how come Ozzie Canseco sucked so bad?

Oh, Beepy
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

And, furthermore, if your argument is that his numbers just got too crazy and that they devalue other numbers by other guys who (for some reason) you believe weren’t on all the damn greenies they could reach, then why do we consider statistics from before they outlawed the spitball, lowered the mound, started specializing reliever usage, added the 5-man rotation, the DH, etc, etc, etc. All of these things skew the numbers in a way that is very similar to Bonds’ achievements (unfair circumstances raised the bar, and those who exploited them benefitted; but they benefitted proportionate to their existing skill) but you don’t ever hear about the court of public opinion damning anyone from the ‘greenie era.’

Fuck you all and all your white horses, Barry Bonds had a 1.422 OPS and all of your bitching and moaning can’t make that not be the highest of all time.

Stuck in a slump
Guest
Stuck in a slump
2 years 10 months ago

Oh, Beepy, Beepy, Beepy… Fuck you and your arrogance. Without PED’s Bonds would probably have looked more like Ken Griffey Jr and we’d all be celebrating his achievements.

jdbolick
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

But Lance Armstrong is an excellent example of how you can be disproved, because it wasn’t just Lance Armstrong.

Uhm … nothing you said in any way disproves anything I said. No one is disputing that Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds were the best of the cheaters, but that isn’t the issue. The question was why drug-enhanced performance isn’t real, and it’s clear that both athletes (plus many other cheaters) were taken to a much higher level of performance than they were capable of without chemical assistance. That 1.422 OPS wasn’t “real,” it was the result of cheating, just as if he’d been using a metal bat.

Also, you make yourself look quite bad when you try to equate the statistical explosion of the steroid era with those other factors you mentioned. The one and only baseball event comparable was going from the dead ball to the live ball. Nothing else comes close.

Anon
Guest
Anon
2 years 10 months ago

PED use isn’t even close to the problem gambling can be. PEDs are for trying to be better, make money, win more, etc. Gambling can be about trying to lose (to make money).

Nothing can threaten the game like players who try to lose.

nada
Guest
nada
2 years 10 months ago

see further: the Black Sox scandal, which nearly ruined baseball and possibly depressed attendance for some 20 years…

Johnston
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

Don’t forget MANAGERS trying to lose.

Bip
Guest
Bip
2 years 10 months ago

I don’t see how that in any way justifies how fans treat those two types of offenses. If I grant that PED use actually does threaten baseball, that only means that the MLB should be the one enforcing penalties. However, Mike is not saying that MLB should try to enforce justice on crimes committed that don’t directly affect baseball.

However, the fans have no problem throwing away the distinction between PED use as an operational difficulty for the MLB and PED use as an ethical and moral infraction, choosing almost exclusively to see it as the latter. Given that view, why should they not also be outraged by the acts committed by players that are much worse?

That’s why my personal stance is that I want MLB to stop PED use, but I’m not too judgmental towards players who use. I would much sooner root for a known former PED user than a known domestic abuser. Ryan Braun’s campaign of deception did much more to damage my respect for him than his PED use.

Ruki Motomiya
Guest
Ruki Motomiya
2 years 10 months ago

Well said, jdbolick.

mike
Guest
mike
2 years 10 months ago

It’s funny that you think PED use threatens the existence of baseball. It quite obviously was integral to it’s revival in the late 90s early 00s. The casual fan doesn’t give a **** if the home run they see is juice related or not. Entertainment is entertainment.

Armando Galarraga
Guest
Armando Galarraga
2 years 10 months ago

The only reason that PEDs “fundamentally threaten the perceived integrity of the game” is that people’s perceptions are completely subjective. Right now, so-called PEDs are only something that athletes use, but that will soon change. In the near future, the general public will use similar substances because they will be improved to the point that they will have significant health benefits for anyone.

As an illustrative point, why is PEDs considered wrong while no one seems to have a problem with pitchers returning from surgery with bionic arms? The reason is that the general public understands “surgery” since people have operations for many reasons, but at this point in history the average person doesn’t have a need to take so-called PEDs. When this eventually changes, this issue will disappear and we will look back at this time as a mistake.

Bottom line, we should stop trying to regulate personal choices based on subjective perceptions. It’s time to get over it.

jdbolick
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Bionic arms? We can’t build them. We don’t have the technology.

PEDs are considered wrong because they’re cheating. Contrary to popular opinion, Tommy John surgery doesn’t actually increase arm strength. Sometimes it may appear so only when comparing the post-surgery arm to pitch speed from one that already experienced fraying.

CardinalRules
Guest
CardinalRules
2 years 10 months ago

It seems like the players are in the worst position to make a complaint other than to blame themselves for the CBA. We have a pretty well-established principle of no double jeopardy, going back to the 5th Amendment. If the players want to penalize future salary, there needs to be a system of fines. There’s no way for teams to both reduce salary to the player and work in a free agent market.

PEDistribution
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

The real solution would be do anyway with banning PEDs. This way everyone could perform on the level they desire and make the sport more interesting.

NS
Guest
NS
2 years 10 months ago

Two separate leagues. PED League and Non-PED League. PED League also has robot umpires.

Preston
Guest
Preston
2 years 10 months ago

PED league with robot umpires sounds awesome!

olethros
Guest
olethros
2 years 10 months ago

Sounds like a Futurama episode.

nada
Guest
nada
2 years 9 months ago

that’s because it is: http://theinfosphere.org/Blernsball.

Still a great idea. I love it; it would bring into baseball some of the technological competition between teams that motorsports has. Could the Yankees design a bionic arm good enough to turn Daisuke into a viable pitcher?

…. no, probably not, but it would be fun to see them try.

Schlist
Guest
Schlist
2 years 10 months ago

“Baseball teams employ drunk drivers, domestic abusers, and sexual abusers” – certainly true, but unless those individuals are injuring their colleagues in their drunken car crashes, roping them in to help beat their wives or touching them up in the showers, those things are unlikely to affect other players or their ability to earn a coin.

By inflating their own achievements through PED use, they wilfully mislead to their own advantage as to their true abilities, ensuring that they can preferentially profit versus other players. They are robbing their fellow players.

eayres33
Member
eayres33
2 years 10 months ago

And your proof that their own achievements were boosted by PED use is?
MLB teams seem to think PED’s don’t have much of an impact, since they either believe the players are either still taking them, or they haven’t influenced performance.
The Cards gave Peralta his deal because they thought he would be able to perform at a level that would make the money worth it, (considering where they are as a team) and the Phillies gave Byrd his contract because they thought that would be the market.
They know they had violated the drug agreement, and they view their true talent level as being able to justify that contract, no one is being rewarded, no one is stealing other people’s money, teams are making market based decision with the information they have.
As for Ruiz he was suspended got a dr’s note an is currently playing on the drug he was reportedly suspended for. If his performance was boosted in 12 because of drugs, it didn’t help in 13.

Not Much Impact
Guest
Not Much Impact
2 years 10 months ago
Not Much Impact
Guest
Not Much Impact
2 years 10 months ago
ben
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

This is a misleading title. If you had advanced a philosophy as to why PED users should get paid this could have been an interesting article. Instead, you focus on Peralta, and advance this weak argument… “Between the money, the need, and the player, it’s a completely defensible deal.”
No one disputes that Peralta represents an improvement over Kozma for the Cardinals, nor that the Cardinals have balanced their books so effectively that they can afford him. That’s also not explaining why it is generally to pay PED users. Pointing out that a few baseball players drink and beat women does not make this case one way or the other.
One of the comments got back on track, however… “Gambling and PED use fundamentally threaten the perceived integrity of the game [in a way that drunk driving and spousal abuse do not].” The other angle I haven’t seen adequately explored is the idea that this contract continues to encourage amphetamine and steroid use among younger athletes, as the reward remains considerably greater than any punishment you might have to suffer. Increasing awareness of potential health ramifications for children has helped spur football to ‘crack down’ on concussions, and a healthy concern for young baseballers using performance-enhancers may encourage baseball to attach weightier penalties moving forward. It seems like the best/easiest first step is not letting teams off the hook when their players test positive.

DBrim
Guest
DBrim
2 years 10 months ago

So you say “Pointing out that a few baseball players drink and beat women does not make this case one way or the other.”

And then you go onto say “WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN” when you talk about PEDs in baseball.

I don’t get it.

PFP
Guest
PFP
2 years 10 months ago

Brim’d

Weston Taylor
Guest
Weston Taylor
2 years 10 months ago

#Brim’d

Spencer D
Guest
Spencer D
2 years 10 months ago

I agree with you, but isn’t that a bit of a straw man? As long as we’re still referring to the effects of steroid use within the game, his point seems relevant. Not that I think he’s right.

eayres33
Member
eayres33
2 years 10 months ago

Its only the people who haven’t done any research into the effect of PED’s that think it affect the inegrity of the game.
Actual research suggest it has as much affect as the Triton necklesses they wear, or skipping over the foul line.

The integrity of the game is put in jeopardy by crooked and agenda driven commishioner who buy witness and impede criminal investigations.

jdbolick
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Ugh. People like you who deny reality make me incredibly angry, so I’m going to censor what I would have said and instead point to this post: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-its-okay-that-ped-players-are-getting-paid/#comment-4248199

Brady Anderson
Guest
Brady Anderson
2 years 10 months ago

What’s up, fellas!

paperlions
Guest
paperlions
2 years 10 months ago

MLB teams likely better understand what (if any) effects each type of PED has on each aspect of player performance than anyone else, because they have the data, the incentive, and the resources to do more thorough analyses than anyone else does. Anyone that assumes teams don’t have a grasp of PED effects and incorporate those into their valuations in the same way they do any other variable is being naive.

Anon
Guest
Anon
2 years 10 months ago

it’s really not the job of front offices to collude against PED guys

Seems like Brad Ziegler would be in favor, but I would be interested in seeing the union response to that type of collusion.

Wobatus
Guest
Wobatus
2 years 10 months ago

I doubt he’d think of it as collusion. He seems to have had his sense of fairness offended by it and has said he will work to change things as a player rep. No matter what you think of his take, he obviously has a say.

I don’t think it is hypocritical of players or fans to inveigh against players who used PEDs and not as much against players with DUIs or domestic violence records, although I have heard fans complain about players with that type of background as well; it often isn’t as well known or well publicized. That type of behavior being worse for society at large, unquestionably, isn’t the issue. It doesn’t have anything to do with the game itself. Baseball has decided to punish PED use. If it wanted to, baseball could ban all players with a criminal record (like Ron Leflore), but the “integrity of the game” would have little to do with it. And whatever you think of PED use, that seems to be what baseball uses as justification.

And again, simply because Peralta has served his suspension under the rules doesn’t mean that other players can’t be offended by his new contract or like to see the rules changed.

It doesn’t bother me personally to see Peralta get such a big payday. I know there’s a lot to suggest it is a fair paycheck for his projected value, although I think it’s a bit of an overpay. For the Cards it makes sense probably given how their team is constituted and the availability of shortstops. But it also doesn’t bother me at all that other players are offended or some fans are offended. Me, I just wish the Mets could have signed him for 2 years 25 million.

Pirates Hurdles
Guest
Pirates Hurdles
2 years 10 months ago

I would like to hear a rationale argument for why we care about PED use so much in baseball but not in America’s current favorite game, football. If anything PED use in football would provide even greater direct benefits. The frequency of suspensions is similar in both sports, if anything its increased in the NFL with 27 suspensions in 2013. I realize that not all sports fans follow both games, but I’d wager the majority do. This is the real hypocrisy IMO.

jdbolick
Member
Member
2 years 10 months ago

Cross-era comparisons are important to baseball fans in a way that they aren’t for football or basketball fans. We’re much more statistics-oriented and analytical, so variables that muddy our ability to understand the game and the people who play it are inherently offensive. Now add in that we tend to be more self-righteous, such as with all the unwritten rules about how players are supposed to behave whereas there isn’t an outcry over the awful things that happen at the bottom of a pile in football.

It’s not that football fans don’t care (remember when the media used to insist that baseball fans didn’t either?), but rather that those sports don’t possess the characteristics that make PED use particularly troubling to us.

Johnhavok
Guest
Johnhavok
2 years 10 months ago

Agreed. Football players are probably doped to the gills, and from a personal standpoint I can understand why. Their game is far more physical and to take the physical abuse that they do and to be expected to play at the highest level possible, it’s pretty inconceivable to think that the vast majority of players in the NFL aren’t on steroids or HGH(testing for HGH currently being vigorously opposed the NFLPA under the argument that it’s unreliable).

PFP
Guest
PFP
2 years 10 months ago

The biggest problem with the MLB today is that the Dodgers haven’t already traded Ethier and Kershaw for A-Rod.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
2 years 10 months ago

wut

Gary Mugford
Guest
Gary Mugford
2 years 10 months ago

Count me amongst those that would punish proven PED users fairly strongly. BUT I would submit that there should be an A Felony and B Felony approach to the first time being caught. The initial ruling on being caught should be a year (and I wouldn’t hate two years). BUT the player could then appeal to a panel that he is deserving of only a 50-game suspension, or none at all. If he beats the rap, he keeps playing. If he PROVES (and the onus would be on the player to prove the positive test was an accidental, drive-by use of a PED, like Adderall) he wasn’t worthy of a Class A Felony, he gets the 50 game suspension and his career resumes. Failing to convince the panel of his ignorance, the player gets hit with the year(s) suspension. Of course, regardless of what kind of first-time suspension, the second positive test is forever.

That said, I also believe when the time for the crime is paid, the player comes back to whatever he has ahead of him. Completing his contract, going for a new contract, retirement. Whatever. The need to KEEP punishing players is an over-reaction. NOTE: Hall of Fame voting excepted. Keep the Injection and Pill Junkies out. Not rational, but that’s my opinion, as contradictory as it is.

Anon
Guest
Anon
2 years 10 months ago

Hall of Fame voting excepted. Keep the Injection and Pill Junkies out.

Does that include everyone who used greenies?

Pirates Hurdles
Guest
Pirates Hurdles
2 years 10 months ago

Yeah! We need to ban that Willie Mays, his legacy is awful for the game. [sarcasm]

eayres33
Member
eayres33
2 years 10 months ago

He is an admitted PED users, studies have shown Greenies to affect baseball preformance more then testerone.

I think its all crap, test suspend and then get over it. NFL has it right, you get caught you serve your time and no one cares. You have a crime and a punishment, and the crime fits. You take a drug that harms only you and has little proven benifit to your performance and you don’t get paid for 1/3 of the season. (1/4 in the NFL)

Gary Mugford
Guest
Gary Mugford
2 years 10 months ago

My favourite player and an admitted user of occasional stimulants. Yep, a dichotomy. And, to further stir the pot, does the ‘advantage’ process start with those pills or did it start with eyeglasses?

Yes, it’s a slippery slope. Do I have a double standard? Of course I do. The free love era dressing rooms often had bowls of candy right out in the open. And I guess that IS where I draw the line. Hiding away from teammates while you shoot up or quaff down a different kind of pill is MY dividing line. For better or worse.

Others are entitled to different lines. I won’t disagree with your right or that of others here to want a different line. The question then becomes one of democracy. I don’t feel strongly enough to boycott all things baseball if Bonds or Clemens eventually gets into the Hall. I won’t visit the Hall of Fame ever again, but I will respect the process that eventually enshrines them. I’ll campaign vigorously until told the battle is over.

We are supposed to be getting better as a society, not using “They did it too, back then,” as some sort of excuse for not striving to be better, for not wanting our impressionable kids (and their oft-idiotic parents) from being exposed to these things. There are all sorts of things ranging from owning slaves (and ballplayers pre-Curt Flood) to exclusionary practices that were odious even in the day to unprotected sex, that we do not do anymore. We have tried to stop those practices because the collective ‘we’ know that those sorts of things are wrong.

Just ‘cuz Say Hey did it, don’t make it right to do all that, and worse. Hiding behind that canard is intellectually dishonest, no sarcasm intended.

While I disagree with eayres33 below as to the length of the ‘deterrent’ suspension below, I repeat that I think that once a suspension is over, punishment is then over.

Bip
Guest
Bip
2 years 10 months ago

This seems like more of a response to Ziegler’s comment and other similar comments, stating that for some reason owners and GMs should have gone vigilante and refused to pay anywhere near market value a player with a PED suspension. I don’t think those comments are worthy of response; the notion is ridiculous.

But Mike, if you could change the rules to anythung you wanted, would you change them I’m a way that addresses these concerns? Would you increase penalties? Would you make a rule that a player with a PED conviction cannot sign for more AAV or total value than their biggest contract? I that to be the topic more worthy of discussion

Stringer
Guest
Stringer
2 years 10 months ago

Show the actual evidence that PEDs assist performance as much as sports writers/the general public love to push.

Pirates Hurdles
Guest
Pirates Hurdles
2 years 10 months ago

Well, you would have to blame a juiced ball for the HR totals of 1997-2007ish to plausibly deny an impact. The whole MLB ball change is another can of worms. Why do we accept those stats so easily? Even in the extreme, we are OK with dead ball vs. live ball era discrepancy in the record books.

pft
Guest
pft
2 years 10 months ago

In support of the juiced ball theory HR’s jumped suddenly the same time BABIP jumped around 15 points in 1994-1995. BABIP is still high, off only a few points, but HR’s are down primarily because of the expanded strike zone and higher K rate. The strike zone change has hurt LHB’ers, who have historically been among the most prolific HR hitters, and who always had a slightly wider zone before the change. So much so their platoon advantage relative to RHB’ers has dropped more than 50%.

NS
Guest
NS
2 years 10 months ago

Should be a cakewalk with those precisely-defined parameters.

David
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

why not punish the teams like they do in college. a team with an offending player is ineligible for the postseason. guaranteed players, coaches, executives, and owners would police the fuck out of ped’s.

NS
Guest
NS
2 years 10 months ago

Because owners don’t want that. They have a vested interest in PED use. They just want to preserve deniability.

Homer
Guest
Homer
2 years 10 months ago

Of course they need to get paid. Where else are they going to get the scratch to buy their PED’s? Look, it isn’t like St. Louis is a stranger to employing cheaters. They paid McGwire to cheat for a long time too.

Phightin21
Guest
Phightin21
2 years 10 months ago

Troy Tulowitzki is available ?

efb
Guest
efb
2 years 10 months ago

You look familiar. Have I seen you on TV?

El sidd
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

Lot of assumptions in the original article about why people are concerned about these paydays. I loathe the Peralta deal, but the article certainly doesn’t speak for me.

This is an excellent example of a PED user taking the job of one or more non-PED users that are just barely hanging on in the league. What’s the take-home message here? Mediocre bats and glove guy enjoys resurgence, is busted for PEDS, takes job of hardworking mediocre guys who are trying to latch on while staying clean. That sucks for a game trying to eliminate PEDS in the first place.

In my organization, we attempt to “grow from within”, meaning we try to develop middle managers from our entry level people, while espousing an organizational philosophy. To instead hire a more talented mid-level person who’d be been busted for plagiarism and data fudging (the parallels in my field) would be a stroke of hypocrisy and would be sending a terrible message to all the junior level folks trying to ascend to that level. “hey, guys, go ahead and cheat, it might give you the extra nudge you need to make partner!”

I hate the Peralta hire.

pft
Guest
pft
2 years 10 months ago

You equate plagiarism and data fudging with steroid use?. Steroids are a supplement that enhance your performance by helping you maximize your bodies physical potential by allowing you to work out in the gym longer and harder. Plagiarism is theft, and data fudging is a lie, and perhaps a crime if you are charging your clients for work you never did.

Also, its very likely steroid use is far more prevalent than people want to believe. Peralta never tested positive, neither did Arod. Its very likely that there are many athletes using non-Biogenesis suppliers who are also testing negative and are enhanced.

El sidd
Guest
2 years 10 months ago

The answer to your question is “no”: I’m making no claims as to the relative harm of various infractions, but, rather, telling you what an equivalent form of deception is within my profession, and how we’d be sending an inapprpriate message to staff by rewarding it. You and the original poster seem bent on trying to argue relative significance of infractions, which is a fools errand ultimately.

I see no reason to consider basebal any different than other businesses; you can embrace certain philosophies about how you want to make your money and raise your staff, or you can embrace others. I’m disappointed a whole legion of fringe minor league Cardinals are probably seeing yet another reason to consider PEDs.

eayres33
Member
eayres33
2 years 10 months ago

First PED’s is a BS term. There is no proof that in baseball they actually enhance performance. I’m still waiting for the studies that prove it. Most studies show that supposed PED’s don’t acutally enchance performance in basebal.

The Cardinals are a smart team, if they thought that this players performance was based on PED’s that he most likely won’t continue to take, (as he’d lose $12 if he got caught) then they wouldn’t sign them.

I don’t know how dumb alot of commenters think these teams are. They’ve looked at more data then we have access to and decided this was the market value, if anything past PED use would reduce, not inhance his salary.

Preston
Guest
Preston
2 years 10 months ago

Can this conversation stop already. Von Miller gets suspended for PED’s in football and nobody bats an eye. The only angle that was reported on the story was how it was going to affect Denver’s defense. Nobody got on a soapbox about it. The testing and penalties are already harsher in baseball than in any other sport. Can we just move on?

Old School
Guest
Old School
2 years 10 months ago

Ban the cheaters for life.

DodgersKings323
Guest
DodgersKings323
2 years 10 months ago

But then you’ll end up banning someone that is innocent…………..like executing someone for a murder they didn’t commit

Barack Obama
Guest
Barack Obama
2 years 10 months ago

If you like your current PED-using players, you get to keep them.

Utah Dave
Guest
Utah Dave
2 years 10 months ago

Period.

Johnston
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

Sorry. You have lied so many times and broken so many promises that we would no longer believe you if you told us that water was wet.

Signed, most of the U.S.

pft
Guest
pft
2 years 10 months ago

Here are the pertinent questions these signings bring up.

1. How much do PED’s really help players?. If the Cardinals answer is very little, that explains the Peralta signing. If the answer is “quite a bit”, move to to the next question.

2. How likely is the player to continue using PED’s to maintain his performance?. If the Cardinals answer is not likely, they don’t sign him at that price. If yes, they do, and they did, so move on.

3. How likely is the player to get caught again? The answer is probably not likely. Offseason use is virtually guaranteed to get away with it even at high dosages, especially if you train outside the country or away from your home. That muscle acquired in the offseason does not disappear overnight. Peralta and many other players caught up in Biogenesis never tested positive, and presumably they used in the regular season as well, albeit at lower dosage. Teams like the Cardinals have a pretty good idea how effective the testing program is, or ineffective. Worst case he is stupid and gets caught, but they save 100 games worth of salary.

I think the fact Peralata has never tested positive gives teams a high confidence level the player is smart enough to avoid getting caught again. Biogenesis was an unlucky break for players like Peralta as they got caught up in rift between a disgruntled employee and Bosch, a media report, and the subsequent witch hunt against Arod. There are many other suppliers, and this is unlikely to happen to them (if it does it would be like lightning striking you twice)

So the Cardinals either don’t believe steroids help players, which is unlikely, or they do. In the latter case they expect Peralata to get away with it like he did for many years, and in the unlikely worst case he gets caught again, at least they are off the hook on his salary for most of one season. Preferably the worst case happens at the end of his deal where he is expected to be least productive.

The Cardinals and most teams probably know that steroid use is far more prevalent than the fans and Congress are being led to believe, and they are as comfortable with that as they were in the official steroid era. The testing program simply gives the illusion of the game being clean.

Martin Prado
Guest
Martin Prado
2 years 10 months ago

I use beaver tranquilizer. Gives me more grit.

Sivart
Member
Sivart
2 years 10 months ago

Players caught doping should be charged, since what they’re doing is illegal – even if they’re ahead of the game and can claim they’re not cheating because they came up with something that isn’t banned yet.

The CBA should allow for MLB to turn over all positive drug tests to the authorities. It should also allow MLB to suspend players who refuse to cooperate with a relevant drug use/creation/distribution investigation.

Ryan Braun
Guest
Ryan Braun
2 years 10 months ago

fangraphs condones PED use. noted. bookmarked. saved.

Don Zimmer's jowl sweat
Member
Don Zimmer's jowl sweat
2 years 9 months ago

You can use this endorsement in your next ‘apology’.

Chaz Bono's Sweaty Gash
Guest
Chaz Bono's Sweaty Gash
2 years 9 months ago

That’s gross.

Chickensoup
Member
Member
Chickensoup
2 years 10 months ago

I still don’t really understand why anyone cares. It’s not your money that is being spent. If you disagree with a signing like Peralta, then don’t go to Cardinal games. Don’t go to Phillies games if you hate the Byrd signing because of PED use (or really because he’s just not a good player and they overpaid, PED use or not).

I firmly believe that most folks really only care because of blowhard baseball journalists who need to fill an article a couple of times a week year round. Most people have already stopped caring about Lance Armstrong. Football fans get pissed when their favorite player gets suspended for PED use, not because of some high horse moral reasoning but because he’s not going to play and their team is at a disadvantage.

The problem is that Baseball stands alone in journalists trumpeting the anti-PED thing so harshly. What’s amazing to me is that in some cases the same sports radio guy will condemn ARod or Braun as a cheater who should be kicked from the league, then gloss over players (mostly NFL) who get suspended for the exact same thing and are just glum about them missing a couple of games. It’s crazy.

I get it that baseball has a history that people really care about. I get it that statistics mean more to the average baseball fan than football, or basketball, or cycling. But so many things have changed in baseball over the years that bashing PED use because of stats in history seems disingenuous. Should we ignore all fielding stats since the implementation of a baseball glove? Should we ignore ALL stats before MLB allowed non-whites? What about all the times they changed the ball? Moved the mount height? Started checking bats for cork? The Spitball? DH? Should we penalize current players statistically for baseball having it’s own integrated minor league system (and therefor having better information about players before putting them on the field?)

Baseball has changed so much over the years that the game today resembles what it was 100 years ago in mostly just the basics. Players now are bigger, faster, stronger, and make better contact that in the past. Pitchers throw harder, with more varied pitch types than when Cy Young was throwing 9 innings 3 times a week. Most things about baseball have changed outside of 4 balls is a walk, 3 strikes you’re out, 3 outs per inning, 9 innings, most runs wins the game. Comparing stuff from a century ago to now is completely futile. Being all up in arms about PED use because some dude hit really well 100 years ago against strictly inferior pitchers is just not thinking about the reality of baseball’s past

djw
Guest
djw
2 years 10 months ago

This is all nonsense, and I can’t understand why anyone would take it seriously. The penalty for PED use is contractual, and it was imposed on these players. If these players really want to see a greater penalty than the one that currently exists, in the form of some kind of limit on future earnings, they should ask for it in their next contract negotiations. But demanding extra-contractual punishments is just ridiculous.

Jay Toppan
Guest
Jay Toppan
2 years 9 months ago

One way to stop this PED rewarding process is to have a life time ban after the second positive test. It should also be a rule that any team that signs a PED offender must do their own weekly testing and not leave it to MLB to track these people. The team would also pick up any cost for the testing. Then of course if a player then test positive the player is ban for life and the team carries said salary for the life of the contract against their cap.

fromthemachine
Guest
fromthemachine
2 years 9 months ago

The league could take 20% of all your future earnings. 40% for the second offense. MLB could use that money to set up a drug awareness program.

Players won’t stop using until the league starts abusing their pay checks.

mcnube
Member
mcnube
2 years 9 months ago

You writte: “It’s naive to expect a general manager who has certainly done his due diligence to hesitate on upgrading his team, knowing that other GMs would be all too happy to jump on that opportunity to strengthen their own roster instead”.

There are two types of fans, those that are naïve like me, and those that are not. There are also two types of GM’, the ones like the Cardinals’ and Tigers’ with Peralta and the ones like the Giants’ with Melky Cabrera.

And then there are two types of writers……………….

Noel
Guest
Noel
2 years 9 months ago

If Major League and other sports organization want PED usage stop then Owners and players association SHOULD come in a agreement that once a player is tested positive for using PED his contract is considered null and voided from the duration of his of his contract and will have to return the money earned during his time with the organization. For the NFL the player tested positive on PED should automatically not count his salary against the CAP.

Maverick Squad
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

It’s in the interest of the players’ union to stamp this out.
1. PEDs cost money to buy- this comes out of users pay packets.

2. Use of PEDs doesn’t increase overall salary of all union members- it just redistributes more salary to the cheaters. (Although maybe stronger/fitter/etc players might make game better and more profitable).

3. PEDs can have detrimental short or long-term health effects on players- it’s a workplace health and safety issue. Even for those players with legal exemptions to take stuff like Adderol- that medication isn’t completely without risk or side effects.

Mike
Guest
Mike
2 years 9 months ago

I don’t know if Petriello writes his own titles, but his article doesn’t deliver what the title offers. He hasn’t explained why it’s ok players caught using get paid. He’s only explained that it was a defensible baseball decision.

The more interesting moral question he answers with “We’re stuck with it until we’re not”.

ton fitz
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

What’s all the hype, the way you settle this is you stop buying tickets to the game. Remember, the fans pay their salary so they control all of these issues that these filthy rich bastards are creating. ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

mizzou24
Member
mizzou24
2 years 3 months ago

PED enhancement doesn’t make a player good. Everyone blows this out of proportion.. Oh a dude took testosterone and hit 20 home runs.. Gtfo… Some little stick 135 lb guy out in this world is taking testosterone and it’s not doing him any good… Hard work still has to be done regardless of what you take.. Society will never understand this because they are ignorant and read only what the media tells them.

wpDiscuz