CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Seconded! That plus your first comment reply up above made my day.
...And now Bard is starting after all. Can you please write an article about how that is a ridiculous and ego-driven decision, even if it makes those $13 bids slightly more defensible in retrospect?
Sorry. My emotions got the best of me right there. Now where'd I put my paper bag hyperventilator kit?
Yes, but -2.5 for choosing to reference Julia Roberts of all people when quoting from the who's-who manfest which is Ocean's Eleven 2.0
Hideki Matsui does have a little free time on his hands these days...
Point well taken: uniqueness is the new market inequality. That said, it's been statistically proven that the Groomstrosity is a virtually equivalent eyesore to a replacement-level Budweiser sign.
I'd give you a +1 for that if I could. Just be you. Not that you seem to need any encouragement on that front.
I'll creep way out on this limb and propose that APer's two major reasons are the Rainbow Brite logo and the kinetic HR sculpture disasterpiece. But hey, at least the Fish have a few more positive WARP guys on the roster this year!
Which isn't to say that high quality moves are the entire point of this article, but I agree that the Fielder signing is kinda meh. Defensive angle aside (which relates more to Miggy than to Prince anyway) I dig this article for focusing on the non-headline makers.
Fenster: You do some time, they never let you go, you know? They treat you like a criminal. I’m not a criminal.
Hockney: You are a criminal.
Fenster: Now why’d you got to go and do that? Trying to make a point.
I admit that this ISN'T why I subscribed, but dammit maybe it will have to be from now on...
Gotta say, even assuming that he can stick at C, his write-up sure doesn't come across like the glowing endorsement we usually see for 5* guys. I see power but little else beyond the catcher designation... Can you speak a bit more to what specifically has him so high on your list, and perhaps where he resides in your current catcher prospect pantheon? Thanks, and sorry for belaboring the issue.
2007 is such a rarity these days...
LOL - I bet you're correct about Bud.
Michael Bates for Sox Manager/Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse Prize for Comic Fiction Award Winner 2014!
Good question, wrong place to ask. Press the Contact Us thingy at the bottom of the page. The folks on the other end have been super helpful when I've sent them puzzlers.
Meaning if a team signs a player to less than his recommended slot, that shortfall is reapplied to the pool? That makes sense, but the teams are already over a barrel anyway. Draftees can basically say "Screw you, Team A. Pay me the full slot or I won't sign and you'll lose your pick and your allowance." I don't see much room for leftovers, somehow.
BTW, where are these guys like Callis getting their more specific insights? Is there an unabridged copy of the CBA floating around, or is it a private document that Mystery Owners will distribute at times of their own choosing, like so many Dino Laurenzi Jr. samples?
Right?! Teams will be falling over themselves in hopes of overpaying for comparative mediocrity, because at least then they'll get something out of the deal. Otherwise they lose their monopoly money AND don't get any players - though they keep their real-life cash... which they can spend on even more inflated free agents!
Not only are the slots arbitrary, but they're graduated. This has to heavily favor the later/richer teams once past the absolute cream of each crop.
What is this, a school for ants? People are going to freak out both inside and outside the sport. I can't believe that ownership agreed to five years of this.
I have trouble getting to the tails-I-tie part, though heads-I-win does happen occasionally. I have a tendency to get attached to my sleepers and hang onto them - maybe even start them! - for much longer than I should. That to me is the real art form of bottom feeding. Well, that and getting the valuable ones to begin with...
Eriq, those montages are awesome. I think you should get them printed on canvas and framed and then make them into prizes for HACKING MASS. Seriously man, they're beautiful.
Not that I'm really questioning Dustin's assertion which kmanter quotes, but can we get a confirmation of this? It seems somewhat at odds with this little bit of the CBA: "Draft picks that are forfeited by Clubs will be awarded to other Clubs through a lottery in which a Club’s odds of winning will be based on its prior season’s winning percentage and its prior season’s revenue. Only Clubs that do not exceed their Signing Bonus Pools are eligible for the lottery."
I read the combination of the two clauses resulting frequently in a team not being able to sign a player, losing a chunk of their pool regardless, and then losing the pick itself to another team which then has its pool increased to accommodate the added pick. It would seem to simply shunt picks to teams which have larger budgets and the correlative (I assume) lower picks at friendlier slots, and so a further-augmented ability to keep shy of the Overage Tax. And what then if the teams who win these lottery picks can't afford the slot?
As an added bonus it also creates a temporal hurdle by seemingly requiring teams to decide whether they'll forfeit their pick before draft day, based on the value of the slot alone and without seeing who the pick will get them. Either that, or the supplemental Overage Lottery wouldn't occur until a later date... But of course I may be misunderstanding all of this.
Anyway, it's a whirlwind of a concept. Like everyone has already said, what's the damn point? Thanks to Dustin for taking on the subject.
I wish they'd start having spring training in New England, then...
Not to be picky, KG, but a bunch of those Jays prospects can legally drink. Take it from a guy who grew up in northern Vermont: 19 is legal throughout C-eh-N-eh-D-eh (and you only gotta be 18 in Quebec and Alberta)!
Regardless, your point is taken. Anthopolous is the man.
Now can you please convince fantasy baseball hosts to stop allowing it as a possible scoring category? Thanks!
"...You that you can't always judge someone by their appearance."
I dunno man. You're describing Yankees people saying how great it would be for the Buccos if they pried Burnett away from the Yanks.
"Yeah, the guy hasn't pitched well in years, wilts under media scrutiny, and is widely perceived as a malcontent. But just think of what a great human interest story it will be when this 35 year old pitcher-with-a-heart-of-gold rediscovers his edge (and he's gonna, by gawd)! I'd hate for the great city of Pittsburgh to miss out on such a exciting and lucrative opportunity."
Frankly, the premise has the appearance of a used car sale, and I'm judging it accordingly.
That was the worst Sloth impression ever. You're supposed to say '_Hey_ you guys!'
Question being, why not the Sox? Outsize expectations for the team even in another Bridge Year? Facing ridiculous lineups night in and night out? Wicked awesome fans? Dearth of fried chicken? Too far from Mr. Pickles?
Not saying that there aren't 100000000 good reasons, just wondering which you think is most salient.
So what you're saying is that you also get to moralize about moralizing about moralizing? Sweet - free rein.
You can ridicule that 'hysterical Nazi comparison' as you see fit, BTW, but it's an 'HISTORICAL Nazi comparison' as well. They sure do sound alike, though, so I guess that's probably why you dismiss it as mere rhetoric. Anyway, detaining people based on appearance really actually occurred in Depression-era Germany, as it does in this country, in and outside of AZ. Should it one day happen to you I doubt if you'll be so blase, seeing as how it's y'know broadly guaranteed in the prologue of our constitution as well as specified in Amendments 1, 4-6, and 14 of the Bill of Rights. Being a good American, you've at least read those, I hope? If you have then you'll already know that this country doesn't define its citizenry according to ethnic origin let alone appearance, the two of which you seem to be conflating for some reason.
This is not to say that the southern borders of this country aren't in dire straits, because they clearly are (though it results in great part from America being a terrific consumer of things which it also deems illicit). But if you believe that the solution to the problem is arresting people because they're a funny color then maybe you should reconsider taking the name of the god-patron of prescience and truth. Like Ozzie suggested, hyperbolic or otherwise, soon your family will be a funny color too.
Hahaha! Somebody gave you a -1 for that! Did Rupert Murdoch buy out BP or something? Sheesh.
Anyway, you should know that it can't possibly be O'Reilly because "The Worst" anything will always have some kind of connection to the city of Boston. Viz. Frank Boston. Oh wait, looks like O'Reilly went to BU. There you have it - Dodger is correct. Bill O'Reilly is in fact the worst man in the world (his Wikipedia portrait alone obviates any argument).
I also really enjoy it when you "get down" verbally.
It is highly credible that you believe your observations to be credible. Some would say INCREDIBLY credible. I think that's why those same some say you're a verifiable virtuoso. An extant prodigy? Nah, something similar, but with fewer syllables...
Oh, you mean the country where people are allowed to say and write what they think?
As for the answer to your parting question, that's an easy one: you're the bogeyman.
I think your comparison is missing a key distinction.
Diabetes is a hormone deficiency, a mechanical problem if you will, which can be directly treated by specific medical procedures (That said, many people with diabetes still succumb to it even though they take the prescribed treatment - so it is not cut-and-dry in any case). Addiction can't be summed up so easily, as it is not just 'taking drugs.' It's also defined by a constant compulsion to take the drugs, and by suffering through depression, anxiety, etc etc as a result of NOT taking them. I don't know too many diabetics who feel compelled not to take their insulin.
The 'management' of drug addiction to which you refer consists of treating the symptoms of the disease as opposed to its cause. In other words, just because he was sober for awhile doesn't mean he was cured. He didn't relapse because his treatment suddenly slipped, he relapsed because he's an addict! He knows first hand that he can't be an effective baseball player and abuse substances at the same time. He also knows that most everything good in his life owes to his ability to play baseball and stay out of trouble. And yet he ended up drinking in a bar regardless.
If that's not helplessness in the face of an affliction then I can't imagine what is. I'm not really into passing judgement on helpless people.
Incomplete, dude. You forgot the most important part, which consists of getting paid by "beer" companies to be filmed saying incredibly stupid things. This is why Rex Ryan needs to retire yesterday: He won't need to say that stuff pro bono anymore!
I second your thesis. In my youth my parents once took me and my brother to "dogs get in free" night at Olympic Stadium. Souls would have been crushed for sure if there had actually been any present. I remember the PA being unbelievably shrill, the seats uncomfortable, and worst of all the so-called franks were kind of like summer sausage, except that they were really long and skinny and sort of red. They also came bathed in cheez wiz (which quite possibly improved them). I have no idea how I overcame this outing and ended up falling in love with baseball.
But doesn't it feel just like old times?! It's so much more fun to have them be mediocre when we expect it than when we don't. It got a little bland there in the mid-Aughties.
The Tigers will likely take 1st again so their Wild Card chances don't apply. I'm skeptical of the Angels bats even with Pujols, and they have to duke it out with the Rangers in any case. And the Rays, whose batting is almost as bad as their pitching is good, could go either way. I don't think it will be easy, but I think the Sox have as good a chance as anyone to make the postseason. Anyone other than the Yankees and Tigers, that is...
The Sox managed to score the most runs in the majors in 2011, after all. And while their pitching will likely be unsightly, I have trouble believing that it will be demonstrably worse than last year's Bataan Death March (admittedly that might be due to my rosy glasses). There are also plenty of reasons why the players would be especially motivated this season, and were especially complacent last season.
Not saying it adds up to the World Series, but I think it's reasonable to expect it to add up to more than 3rd place AGAIN [hands the mic back].
Dammit, you missed the noon deadline for the BCTBRBNOAW award! I'm going to get Molly Katchpole to petition Baseball Prospectus for a ballot recount due to widespread allegations of temporal fraud.
Hahahaha! Boomer, you should go find the Wezen-Ball post on The Kids in the Hall from a few days ago. I think you'd make a wonderful Foley-esque vaudevillian.
I firmly believe that TINKER+ should be an acronym.
Times Inveterate Niggler Knowingly Evades Runs. As for the +, I dunno...
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that this is part of why these capsules are entertaining. Apparently the lampoon has been used periodically throughout comedic history to varying degrees of success, though sadly it has fallen out of favor during the past half century. The increasing popularity of memes such as computer generated singing dogs and situational comedies involving overweight-yet-lovable middle aged men who nonetheless have hot wives has largely done away with this once celebrated technique. I hereby applaud Mr. Miller for taking the trouble to unearth this particular Snowden of yesteryear. I believe it will serve him well going forward if only we can inform the public of the rich history of his method.
Never apologize for the Iliad. It might make readers mistake this for an Ironic Column...
Would anyone want to buy the Marlins? I'm skeptical that they'll be competitive or otherwise play compelling baseball in 2012 or anytime soon thereafter. I'm skeptical of the new digs (I'm predicting a grossly humid viewing experience). I'm skeptical that Miamians will actually want to brave I-95, I-395, or the Dolphin Expressway in order to catch games. I'm skeptical of the median household income in the Miami area, and its ability to spring for frequent baseball tickets. I'm CERTAINLY skeptical that the fan base in South Florida will be any more enthusiastic that its counterpart in Tampa-St. Pete.
As for Loria's intentions, when has he ever chosen the long view when given the opportunity? Bud is sick of his antics, the government apparently feels the same way, and Miami is ambivalent at best. His dog and pony show is ending. If I were him I'd want out too, and if he hopes to turn a profit on the sale then this is probably his only path.
Seems that many Yankee fans have the taste of Kei Igawa in their mouths. Maybe that's the whole problem? Talk about succumbing to American usage patterns!
And pray tell which awe-inspiring bastions of human decency and spacious seating do you guys call home?
It's a Princess Bride reference. It is inconceivable that you didn't get the joke!
You can start here:
1/3 of revenue is spent on player salaries. The As clear more cash than the Red Sox! Good enough?
As for publicly available direct proof that they're taking a dive? Bud says no.
I dunno. While I agree that the As are possibly better run and certainly held in higher regard than Loria & Co, it doesn't mean that the premise fails.
Looking back over the past five years (with an admittedly not-very-scientific eye), both teams have had fleeting moments of success while playing in mediocre divisions, though I think the NL East trumps the AL West during that span. While the As have certainly spent more on payroll during that arbitrary period of time, both teams have routinely been in the bottom quarter of the league regarding spending. And regardless of their payrolls, Forbes has ranked both teams at the bottom when discussing the values of the teams themselves. Taken together, it's pretty indicative that they are run in similar ways.
Also worth mentioning are their respective stadium situations, with both teams kicking and screaming for new mallparks. Forget that a new stadium will not be forthcoming in the Bay Area, and forget that if the As WERE successful in getting one it would likely better their ticket sales much more than the Marlins' new digs will improve theirs. Both scenarios feature the logic that it is the stadiums, as opposed to the players on the field, which are somehow responsible for fannies in the seats. I am highly skeptical of this idea in itself, and I think it indicates that owners of both teams are far more focused on the the business of business than the business of winning.
Whew! For a second I thought that Beane's new philosophy was to find undervalued assets in other leagues, and that maybe he expected Chad Pennington to step in... That dude has a cannon, but I feel he lacks both the bat and the leather to stick at the position.
Great article, and not just because I also kicked and screamed about that call. It's exactly these kinds of minutiae which keep me coming back to BP, and to baseball in general.
Just wondering, though, if you can show me Bud's express, written consent to your posting of that animated .gif
Rupert Murdoch assured me that FOX perpetuates the truth.
Obviously you should root for the Sox. They are the only team anyone should ever root for, ever. They have an outstanding record of upholding human rights, their GDP has managed to climb in spite of the global economic malaise, and Phillies fans always drink too much in my bar and so I have to kick them out and clean up their vomit. Q.E.D.
Just wanted to thank you for introducing me to Abe Maslow. It's a wonderful idea, and fun wordplay besides, so I figure it pretty much has to be true.
Disagree. The link may lead to an article which espouses a certain political slant, but as djardine says, it's the theory behind the politics and not the politics themselves which are being discussed here. My proof? The simple fact that I didn't read the link and yet have managed to comprehend what Mr. Goldman is discussing even so.
The problem isn't that sport and politics are occasionally intermingled. Rather, it's that we treat our politics as though it were sport. Almost by definition, fans have to choose between Cards and Cubbies or Sox and Yanks as though the choices were absolutely opposed. Which is cool, because in baseball they actually are. The problem arises when we apply the same "logic" to the countless spectra which make up the U.S. political landscape.
If you think that a given political party will stand up for everything you hold to be important then you are buying into a comfort thing (awesome catchphrase, btw!). And if you are alienated by this article simply because its author has the temerity to see that a political argument has parallels in our fun little nerd world, then you should try applying the theme of said article to your life instead of the other way around.
Steven is simply encouraging us to think for ourselves. Maybe it's just MY comfort thing, but I can't imagine how anyone could find that idea offensive if they actually take the time to consider it.
I can't believe you took Grease over Midnight Cowboy in regards to Rizzo! Though, to be fair, Anthony definitely wasn't "walking here" in San Diego.
When in doubt, Google.
Can you offer some citations for your second paragraph? It's not that I doubt the thesis, namely that Japanese pitchers go about their craft differently than Americans. But the idea that pitchers (and by extension, batters as well) intentionally fill the count in the name of drama is one which I've never heard, and I'd love to read more about it.
I am not going to argue against there being fewer than thirty above-average major league shortstops. In fact, I am going to argue in favor of there being fourteen at most. I'm going to be doing it pretend-snidely, however.
Robbing Peter and Paul to pay Frank and Jamie and Drew and Travis.
I know that this is probably asking a bigger favor than I am imagining, but can you speak to how the Sox would address RF in any case? At least if the answer isn't just something spelled r-e-d-d-i-c-k. Thanks!
Besides which, since the current trend is to limit the number of pitches they throw as they climb the organizational ladder, then why would team expect the resulting major league pitchers to succeed without these limits? I guess they might not. And that might be why Wedge is going about things this way...
Through 3 of Pineda's last 4 starts he's been dominant through his first 75 or so pitches, then had his command/control desert him and been pulled in short order (usually not short enough). A few of these trouble spots have coincided with Smoak-y butchery, but either way Pineda's wall seems to materialize earlier than it used to. True, he's not yet close to the 139 innings he pitched last year, but those 139 IP were almost a 300% increase over 2009. And while I can't find pitch counts associated with any of his minor league results, I'd be willing to bet that he's operated under a pitch-count cap up until this season.
So if Pineda IS running out of steam then wouldn't it be not-stupid to apply a cap or sit him down for awhile? I can't see continuing to run him out there when it is effectively costing them games.
I laud Wedge for his open minded approach, and imagine it has something to do with the Mariners' success thus far. And it may be his plan to have Pineda push through this rough patch and learn how to handle major league adversity. But it also seems that this time thinking inside the box may have value, especially since it would be done not out of vague fear but with a specific purpose in mind.
Vazquez has led me to the opposite conclusion: The BB/9 and K/9 this month are nice, but he's allowed 19 earned runs on 39 hits (including 5 dingers) in 24 innings. He's also averaged under 5 IP in those five starts. Yes, his June BABIP is crazy, and has occurred against some freakin good lineups, but I'm still skeptical. I mean, I hope you're right as he's definitely still available in my league, but I'm not seeing the light just yet.
Maaaaaaaaan. I don't know how you can stomach those emcees...
Thanks for the supporting information about what's going on out west. If anything, though, it makes the Dodgers situation seem even more intractable. Given that Cuban will probably be encouraged to stay the hell away from MLB, is there any word as to who Selig would prefer to run the Dodgers?
Thanks, too, for the rare glimpse of what's going on behind the curtain of MLB ownership. I've always imagined that what's behind the scenes moves in accordance with what is good for the game, as seemingly everyone involved would benefit from the highest level of competition possible. And so it is horrifying to see that it doesn't, and intentionally so. Incredible, that ownership would go only to those who toe the company line, particularly in light of the situations which have therefore been allowed to occur in Miami, Houston, and wherever else the product on the field has been of secondary importance. Apparently my naivete knows no bounds.
And finally, thanks for speaking the truth - I doubt it's comfortable for someone to critique the very thing that provides him with a living. Here's to the true fourth estate!
After needling Mr. Jaffe for emphasizing off-field anecdotes last week it feels funny saying this, but what's the deal in LA? I suspect that there may be a dedicated article arriving any day now, but I'm way too impatient for that. Is this move by Selig seen as just by those of you in the know? I'm not up on the situation (wrong league, wrong coast), but my impression of McCourt as a scumbag doesn't exactly put him direct opposition to Bud when it comes to self-interest or shady business practices.
It may take me one step closer to being someone who watches TMZ, but I'd love a clinical breakdown of this sideshow.
They can't fire him. He quit: urlm.in/iauo
Nah. Toronto Blu Rays. That's why nobody's in the stands at their games: spent too much money on their home entertainment system and so can't afford tickets to The Centre.
Hey now, it's easier to shift focus to what's happening outside the lines than to cram all the great pitching and team-wide hitting of the past week into one paragraph. Just because it's ALSO easier than simply and concisely admitting that the Sox are currently better than his Yanks - that's obviously got nothing to do with it at all!
I'm curious to see how the Dempster-diving will turn out.
I tried it myself three weeks ago, with mixed results, but the prospect of him facing first the Milwaukee sluggers, then the Yankee lineup, is not that appealing to me. True, 6 of Dempster's past 8 starts have been good, and I was attracted by the opportunity to collect a full roster of players named Ryan. But, one start by Scherzer against the Indians should provide enough thrills for one week!
Speaking of which, is there any word on what Braden's deal is? All I know is that, per ESPN, the A's haven't done any imaging of the shoulder. Which strikes me as a little funny in itself.
Agreed. Wordplay of the Day contender!
Per your #7, I present W.P. Kinsella's "Reports Concerning the Death of the Seattle Albatross." Not that it was comedy from what I remember, but a bit of a Men In Black III twist on MLB mascots would probably put fannies in seats. Not, of course, that we'd want to sit through the Pixar-polished product.
You mean the Top Prospects list, or the start of spring training? I can't even decide myself...
You're MY hero for that spectacularly awful pun. Well played.
You forgot the Yankee's #2 starter.
Early returns indicate that I'd make a much better GM than Skipper. Or at least I'd bet they would if Mr. Funck would stop being coy and just give us the freakin answers (and the Glenmorangie) already!
...who clearly doesn't live in Bushwick.
Call me neuroleptic, but I look forward to the longer games. I grant that I was weaned on Sox-Yanks matchups so I'm pretty much inured to the commitment of an evening to baseball. I also reject to the imposition of a clock because, as hessshaun already pointed out, there would be unforeseen consequences. Not to mention that the savings of 4 minutes hardly seems worth the heartache.
I don't see how baseball can be effectively sped up without rendering it a different sport. Besides which, part of its beauty is its irregularity. Be it the dimensions of the fields, the wealth and commitment of the franchises, the application of the rules by different umpiring squads, or the lack of a clock, the lack of definition makes it what it is.
Oh, and I certainly don't think that TV-friendliness is a valid reason to change anything, ever. Baseball's survived this long mostly unchanged, and millions upon millions of people still love it. Invoke replays if you must, but other than that leave it the hell alone.
61-101 to 85-77 to 62-100 ain't a U-turn, but rather a chicane:
However, this type of chicanery historically results in upset fans and not calm traffic.
Well, that and the fact that apparently nobody got any Nathan's bacon cheese fries. Sacrilege.
Slamming Lupica for playing up the long ball in '98 but then acknowledging the role of steroids in defining the same era twelve years after the fact seems just a tad cheap. Not that he's been handed down from on high as a gift to sports writing or anything even close, or that he wrote what he did for any reason other than selling copy. However, it's far from invalid to bring up the fact that ARod admitted on the record that he was using steroids when he hit some of those 600 dingers for which he's being celebrated. Writing it off as mere moralizing doesn't do justice to the fact that MLB and the Yankees have been putting an avowed cheater on a pedestal. Just because Lupica's point is trite doesn't mean it's incorrect or impertinent. What DOES seem impertinent is its inclusion in the Hit List in the first place.
I'm going with Baltimore, though the Lowell Spinners sure are giving them a run.
Just wanted to give you propers for that wonderful, terrible pun you used to title this piece. Excellent stuff.
This begs for an admission of which team you happen to root for. I'm confident that after you provide it I can find plenty of examples of idiocy among the ranks of its fans and local media outlets. Doubtless it will not reflect on you as a fan or enlightened person in general, and thus won't have any place in this conversation either.
Yeah, and apparently Stephania Bell disagrees too, huh? Zing!
Might want to check Tabata's line for 2010 again - pretty sure it isn't exactly the same as Torres'...
I believe this is what is referred to as an "award cascade."
And then what about the superior middle-relief types like Affeldt, Mijares, etc., who will constantly lose out to schmoes like Brian Fuentes because of the same saves overvaluation? And also because BBWAA voters have, you know, actually heard of Brian Fuentes (Not you, Will!).
And even more importantly, who are we gonna name _their_ award after?
Shoulda used the PFM!
This is the kind of baseball reportage that once appeared in newpapers -- only better, because it's not partisan. Just pro-baseball and pro-player! Nice piece!
The premise is a little different, but apparently drops in both velocity and in arm slot are to be expected. Makes sense to me!
Whew. You scared me, D.P.
I doubt that losing 1 mph - at most - on his average fastball over the course of 7 innings of pitching is abnormal, particularly since opening-day adrenaline was involved. Given that he still notched a few at 96 late in the game, it doesn't sound like it signifies a problem. Dude was probably just cruisin' at that point, what with 2 hits allowed and a 4 run lead.
That said, I didn't actually watch the game. Was there some other reason to suspect a change in motion?
We know what was tested for, but not necessarily who was tested, by whom they were tested, or the specific methods used (unless I\'m just Googling the wrong things...). And given that amphetamines and the like were specifically not being tested for, along with the fact that it would be in the interest of both the MLB and the MLBPA to continue with the status quo as opposed to rooting out all users of PEDs and upset a golden era of professional baseball, I\'m skeptical that this testing was necessarily undertaken to uncover the whole truth.
I\'m not saying that I firmly believe in collusion on such a scale, but I have certainly not seen anything that would render it unthinkable. Given the amazing amount of foot-dragging that has accompanied this process of \"cleaning up\" I am unprepared to take much of anything on faith. I\'d like to see the facts before I make up my mind.
Just as you are saying that we should be careful not to lump in the innocent with the guilty, neither should the opposite be allowed.
I take your point. It\'s important that an entire era of baseball be written off in one stroke, and that the many un-enhanced performances of that time be appreciated for what they were.
However, I don\'t necessarily believe that 104 is the actual number of players who were using even just non-amphetamine PEDs, or that the tests were as all-encompassing as you\'ve stated they might be.
I will reserve my full optimism until the details of the tests themselves are released, and that its more or less proven that 6% is the number were actually looking at.
Yeah, I know: I\'m not gonna hold my breath.
Word, sgshaw! You take the words out of my mouth. Best SLG in the AL, best OBP in the League, crazy low RA, and winning the vaunted AL East. Am I taking crazy pills, or is all this still being predicted in spite of PECOTA\'s sadistic daydreaming regarding these aforementioned three? Where does all Mr. Goldman\'s doom and gloom about the general state of the Sox come from? It just seems a little outta whack. Yes, players age and get hurt. And yes, there is not a whole heck of a lot of organizational depth in terms of power bats. But like it or not there IS a ton of organizational wealth and intelligence, a ton of trade bait, and an obvious will to win. So why, again, look at this through poop-colored glasses?
As for the commentary on Sox fans, ekatta: When have we NOT been touchy?! You love that we\'re touchy! It gives you something to be snarky about. Besides which, to expect us not to freak out about such a pessimistic article is ludicrous. Particularly so against the backdrop of what PECOTA is predicting for the team as a whole this season.
I\'m not certain that I follow you here... You\'re saying that the feds are to blame for outing the steroid users while investigating the use of steroids in baseball? What did you think their response was going to be?
The job of the investigators is to gather information, and it is in no way their fault that the MLBPA kept the PED test results on hand along with a way to link the results to the players themselves. They have done absolutely nothing illegal in collating this information, or even in revealing it to the public.
Blaming the investigators for this mess is a case of killing the messenger, regardless of how you feel about their attempt at ridding baseball of PEDs. If you\'re going to cast blame for players being outed, look no further than the MLBPA.
Just curious, but as far as you know have there been instances of the team physicians nixing requests for TUEs? Are they held accountable if players are found to be lying about or exaggerating their conditions?
I\'d also like to know whether there has been a marked increase of requests for TUEs of ADHD (or other conditions treatable with stimulants) since the ban on greenies was enacted. And is there any record of how many players have been denied therapeutic medications?
Sorry for the kinda nitpicky questions, but this subject is rather hard to sort through as a complete outsider to the MLB. I\'d love it if you could recommend further info sources, or convince somebody to condense the current policies into a fan-friendly format. I can\'t help but feel that the lack of clarification, or even acknowledgment, of TUEs in the press covers for their potential abuse, and I\'d love to find out that my fears are unfounded.
Any idea as to what this \"rigorous waiver procedure\" actually consists of? As in, how easy is it to abuse?
Dude, that\'s Joe Torre on the jumbotron! But why\'s he wearing a Yankee cap?
I\'m happy to have a Foreword by Keith Olbermann. He was such a good first baseman for the Cards and Mets!
So what\'s the problem with the foreword? I didn\'t read it last year, and I\'m not going to read it this year even after everyone finishes throwing hissy-fits about it.
The Annual hitting shelves is is like Santa\'s sleigh touching down on the roof, and I don\'t care about Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer\'s political views.
I dunno \'bout this non-Murrican \"football\" of which y\'all speak.
All I DO know is that Faith No More kicked ass. I am, however, surely pleased that this is not an article about Mike Patton dropping deuces on stage.
If stimulants have historically been used by players, then it seems rather likely that they will continue to be used if players can gain access to them.
The only question is does it simply require a doctor\'s note to get the waiver, or are there interviews or other means of verification put in place by the MLB to differentiate between those who need the meds, and those who simply want them?
As one who went through high school as child ADD was starting to be widely diagnosed and treated with Adderall, Ritalin, Dexedrine, and other abusable stimulants, I saw first hand how easy it was to gain access to these drugs as a minor without psychological issues. I don\'t think adult ballplayers with salaries of six and seven digits, and whose future salaries hinge on their physical performance, would have a more difficult time finding a sympathetic LCSW than did my classmates.
To say that this loophole was created intentionally is cynical. To say that it was created unintentionally is to give the MLBPA (or maybe even MLB as a whole) far too little credit in arranging for what many of their members want.
The intensity of MLB oversight would seem to dictate which variety of loophole it is.