SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2013 Non-Sox MLB Discussion
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 3, 2013 10:39:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 3, 2013 16:12:09 GMT -5
MLB ready to drop a 214 game suspension on A-rod, remainder of this year and all of next, and A-rod continues to say he will fight it until the bitter end.
Wonder how this plays into MFY luxury tax. If he's suspended for an entire year, does the salary come off their books, or do they just not have to pay him? If it's the former, they can get below the tax and have their tax % reset which would be bad news for the rest of the league
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 3, 2013 19:23:07 GMT -5
Iggy goes deep. Keep rolling young man.
|
|
|
Post by glassox on Aug 4, 2013 9:18:41 GMT -5
Anyone else notice the backdrop during the ARod interview for Trenton. The sponsor is Arm & Hammer motto "the standard of purity" LOL
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Aug 4, 2013 13:29:22 GMT -5
Rick Porcello ERA by year:
2009: 3.96 2010: 4.92 2011: 4.75 2012: 4.59 2013: 4.49
Rick Porcello xFIP by year:
2009: 4.27 2010: 4.24 2011: 4.02 2012: 3.89 2013: 3.24
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 4, 2013 13:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Aug 4, 2013 13:51:09 GMT -5
Rick Porcello ERA by year: 2009: 3.96 2010: 4.92 2011: 4.75 2012: 4.59 2013: 4.49 Rick Porcello xFIP by year: 2009: 4.27 2010: 4.24 2011: 4.02 2012: 3.89 2013: 3.24
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 4, 2013 14:18:28 GMT -5
Sure, but if they don't play Cabrera at third, how are they going to get Delmon Young or the burnt-out husk of Victor Martinez into the lineup?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 4, 2013 20:18:21 GMT -5
Rick Porcello ERA by year: 2009: 3.96 2010: 4.92 2011: 4.75 2012: 4.59 2013: 4.49 Rick Porcello xFIP by year: 2009: 4.27 2010: 4.24 2011: 4.02 2012: 3.89 2013: 3.24 Rick Porcello in games where Jose Iglesias is somewhere in the infield: 1.17. Anyhow, I talked myself into it being ok that Stephen Drew played SS while Iglesias played third. Sure, Iglesias was the better defensive player, but Drew is at least good, so the difference probably was negligible enough to keep Drew at a position where he's comfortable and keep his value up. Keeping Jhonny Peralta in place with Iglesias at third, though? That makes me shake my head sadly.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 4, 2013 20:35:20 GMT -5
Keeping Jhonny Peralta in place with Iglesias at third, though? That makes me shake my head sadly. That's just how baseball goes these days. Modern managers prioritize keeping players, particularly veteran players, "comfortable", above everything else. I know everyone is tired of hearing me complain about this, but hey, I'm tired of seeing it. I mean, Jhonny Peralta? Not only is he a butcher at short, but he's the guy who basically screwed your team by getting popped for PEDs and is eating a 50 game suspension tomorrow? Iglesias is playing third in deference to him?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Aug 4, 2013 20:44:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 4, 2013 20:48:48 GMT -5
I've been hearing for five months now that half of baseball is getting suspended "tomorrow." I'm more sick of this than FTHW is of suboptimal bullpen usage.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 4, 2013 21:12:37 GMT -5
I've been hearing for five months now that half of baseball is getting suspended "tomorrow." I'm more sick of this than FTHW is of suboptimal bullpen usage.Oh, I'm right there with you. I don't complain about it as much because it's so much less interesting to me than tactical matters.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 5, 2013 0:07:48 GMT -5
Just heard Jay Jaffe, late of BP now working through ESPN. He was on MLB radio speaking to the suspensions and he made a good point, that Selig and his henchman have gone overboard targeting Braun and Rodriguez while there's been hardly a peep about the others.
But this fits right in as an admittedly twisted version of the star system that MLB has nurtured forever. Its the same system that Beane has used to stock up on players who were perceived to have little of that star power but who had significant value as baseball players.
Here we have the "stars" in a new epic, The Retribution of Baseball. It rings hollow for anyone who was around for the 90s and the complete failure of MLB leadership to do anything but cheer the users on.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 5, 2013 0:36:37 GMT -5
Every time a player gets caught by testing it's held up as evidence that testing is working (as well as, illogically, the opposite). But based on the list of players in the Biogenesis case, isn't that evidence that testing catches some of the cheaters, some of the time? Are the players caught by testing just the ones that didn't cheat intelligently enough - failing the Manny Ramirez test, shall we say?
Yeah, I can't really get worked up about it, considering we'll never know for sure who used and how much, and who was really clean.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Aug 5, 2013 0:53:21 GMT -5
Every time a player gets caught by testing it's held up as evidence that testing is working (as well as, illogically, the opposite). But based on the list of players in the Biogenesis case, isn't that evidence that testing catches some of the cheaters, some of the time? Are the players caught by testing just the ones that didn't cheat intelligently enough - failing the Manny Ramirez test, shall we say? Yeah, I can't really get worked up about it, considering we'll never know for sure who used and how much, and who was really clean. I feel no one should get worked up about it for those that used before 2002... baseball didn't make it illegal til then anyway ... like Johnny Damon said greenies, cross tops, and black beauties were readily available in bowls in every clubhouse. Management as well as players all knew and made it a part of the game. After the new rules and testing then the penalties should be started heavily. But the condemning of all the stars {pre 2003} and such is really all wrong as owners, managers, agents, lawyers, writers, and clubhouse attendants were all involved.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 5, 2013 1:28:10 GMT -5
Every time a player gets caught by testing it's held up as evidence that testing is working (as well as, illogically, the opposite). But based on the list of players in the Biogenesis case, isn't that evidence that testing catches some of the cheaters, some of the time? Are the players caught by testing just the ones that didn't cheat intelligently enough - failing the Manny Ramirez test, shall we say? Yeah, I can't really get worked up about it, considering we'll never know for sure who used and how much, and who was really clean. I feel no one should get worked up about it for those that used before 2002... baseball didn't make it illegal til then anyway ... like Johnny Damon said greenies, cross tops, and black beauties were readily available in bowls in every clubhouse. Management as well as players all knew and made it a part of the game. After the new rules and testing then the penalties should be started heavily. But the condemning of all the stars {pre 2003} and such is really all wrong as owners, managers, agents, lawyers, writers, and clubhouse attendants were all involved. Condemning all stars pre 2003? It wasn't (isn't) exactly hard to determine who was users when you look at numbers many put up early in careers and after they juiced. I have been naming Brady Anderson as one for years. Saw him in the minors for Boston as am sure several Sox fans here did.. A skinny kid who grew into a massive muscular frame seemingly overnight after several years with the Orioles, several MLB seasons even and that strength didn't come from lifting weights one winter. Some fans just want to overlook how looking at numbers and physiques of players is wrong, but to me that was the telling factor.. Before and after was the giveaway..
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 5, 2013 9:34:54 GMT -5
It wasn't (isn't) exactly hard to determine who was users when you look at numbers many put up early in careers and after they juiced. ...Some fans just want to overlook how looking at numbers and physiques of players is wrong, but to me that was the telling factor.. Before and after was the giveaway.. We can guess at which players were using something, but we don't know what (HGH, steroids, something else), and to my previous point, we don't know who wasn't using something. Just because a player's head didn't double in size doesn't mean they were clean - it's not just a matter of adding massive bulk - and there's no way to determine how much impact PEDs had on each individual player's performance, and aside from some more obvious cases, it's not possible to simply look at performance over time and know who did what and who didn't.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 5, 2013 11:13:38 GMT -5
The suspension of ARod just looks fishy. The Yankees were desperate to get under the cap next year, and presto! Suddenly ARod's number is off their books for the year ... I'm no fan of ARod, but it surely works out well for the Yanks.
As for the testing, it's demonstrably ineffective in many other sports, from cycling to football. I'm actually surprised at how much baseball has changed since they implemented testing, while football players keep getting bigger, stronger, and faster. I'd guess that the vast majority of football players are juiced somehow. Maybe there's something about baseball that means the testing is more effective than in other sports (the minor league system?), but we'll have to see how it plays out. Maybe the players as a group just aren't as good at cheating yet. But I seem to recall a number of incidents in football essentially similar to the Biogenesis stuff ...
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 5, 2013 11:55:10 GMT -5
Wait, did I miss something? Why would ARod's salary of the books if he is suspended?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 5, 2013 12:00:55 GMT -5
Wait, did I miss something? Why would ARod's salary of the books if he is suspended? Players who are suspended are suspended without pay I believe. As such the Yankees are not obligated to pay his salary next season, thus not counting against the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 5, 2013 12:15:04 GMT -5
I would love to hear a lawyer for MLB argue that, even though this is a first offense for ARoid since testing was instituted that he deserved more than 50 games - i.e. more than if he was caught by the test he was beating - simply because he admitted that he used pre-testing. MLB's line so far is because he lied and conspired in attempts to not get caught. Which is basically equivalent to anyone who was using (lying/cheating) and beating the test (conspiring to avoid prosecution). I'd love it if the arbiter gives him 50 (or less).
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Aug 5, 2013 12:26:13 GMT -5
When I heard the Jordan Norberto name I thought for a moment they had me....
I hope A-Rod fights this to the end and can comeback to "help" the Yankees next year.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 5, 2013 12:30:52 GMT -5
I would love to hear a lawyer for MLB argue that, even though this is a first offense for ARoid since testing was instituted that he deserved more than 50 games - i.e. more than if he was caught by the test he was beating - simply because he admitted that he used pre-testing. MLB's line so far is because he lied and conspired in attempts to not get caught. Which is basically equivalent to anyone who was using (lying/cheating) and beating the test (conspiring to avoid prosecution). I'd love it if the arbiter gives him 50 (or less). I think it is more that a-rod tried to by and destroy the evidence before MLB got it. If he didn't do that it would be a 50
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 5, 2013 12:31:00 GMT -5
Wait, did I miss something? Why would ARod's salary of the books if he is suspended? Players who are suspended are suspended without pay I believe. As such the Yankees are not obligated to pay his salary next season, thus not counting against the cap. Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I think I was confusing not paying him next year (or during the suspension whenver that is) and getting relief from the remainder of his disastrous contract.
|
|
|