iamshack

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) I despise the idea of playing Fields at 1b, as you're taking away a year of development at the position he'll be at for 2009. Crede would be such a mediocre player at 1b. Why not just move Fields to 1b permanently, and find a third basemen after the 08' season or at the deadline?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) Hmm... Roster expansion only covers a short part of the season, and most teams don't call up more than a handful of players, so I thought 26 was reasonable. It's NOT right (for example) to use the total number of players who play for a team during a year -- those players with short careers bring down the average career length, so that's already accounted for. I was thinking of a world where every player has exactly the average-length career, and then the roster rolls over completely. Obviously this isn't what happens, but because we're only concerned with the total number of players, that shouldn't change the calculation. I think your equation is incorrect then. I am not a mathematician, so I can't even begin to create a new equation for you, but I can guarantee you, of every player who made it to the big leagues for 1 day from 1994-2007, this list does not encompass 4.8% of those names. I think you should throw out the career average, and instead, try to find the total number of players on major league rosters from those respective years. That would seem to be far more accurate. My guess would be 2.5-3 % of all players during the respective time period were listed in the report. After reading the report, my guess of all players to have ever tried steroids or hgh during that time period to enhance performance would be 15-20%.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) Ah, okay, I was treating them all as major leaguers. But if we replace the numerator with the number of named players who ever played in the majors, should be correct, right? I thought 5% was too high, too. But the calculation looks right... Edit: Are you sure some of these guys were career minor leaguers (as in, never even sniffed the majors)? I was looking at the NYTimes list, which calls them "former and active Major League Baseball players". I counted 78 names (quickly). No, what I am saying is that some were "mostly career minor leaguers," meaning that many of them were guys who spent the majority of their careers in the minor leagues. What I was getting at was that you used 26 as an average for players per team. Yet many of these guys were players who had "short stints" in the major leagues, with many different teams, which implies that they were called-up when someone hit the DL, or after the September 1 expansion to the 40-man roster. I think that 26 is not a high enough number considering the expansion of rosters in September. Considering the number of these guys that were primarily career minor leaguers, I think many of them were not steady guys on the 25-man roster. I don't know what a better number would be to use for players/team, but I would think it should be higher than 26.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) Yup - that's about it. Well, except that they didn't KNOW, in some cases probably. But other than that, yeah. NO matter how competitive the environment or how much money is at stake, unless the managerial staff was breaking the law or telling others to do so, I put most of the blame on the people who DID break the rules or laws. Its really quite simple. Some more tidbits from the Dodgers' meetings of 03'. 1) In regards to Kevin Brown "Steroids speculated by GM." 2) In regards to Eric Gagne "He probably takes medications and tendons and ligaments don't build up just the muscle." And from the Red Sox when considering trading for Gagne: 3) From Theo Epstein to a colleague "Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his medical?" And his colleague's response: "Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues. Lacks the poise and committment to stay healthy, maintain body, and re-invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max effort plus stuff...Mentality without the plus weapons and steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back durability and ability to throw average while allowing the change-up to play as it once did...Personally, durability (or lack of) will follow Gagne." Still think they don't know?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) Yup - that's about it. Well, except that they didn't KNOW, in some cases probably. But other than that, yeah. NO matter how competitive the environment or how much money is at stake, unless the managerial staff was breaking the law or telling others to do so, I put most of the blame on the people who DID break the rules or laws. Its really quite simple. Yeah, I agree with you. The way you are looking at this is amazingly simple. Too simple.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:00 PM) Someone critique this math -- About 80 players named. Average career length is 5.6 years (headline from a google search). 30 teams, about 12 years covered (since the strike), average of about 26 players on a team at a team (considering roster expansions). So the list represents roughly 80/(30*26*(12/5.6)) = 4.8% of all players during the era Is that calculation accurate? I can't critique your math, but i bet 4.8% is too high. Considering the call-ups, etc., and the fact that many of these players were mostly career minor leaguers, I'd bet the number is lower. But in terms of players that actaully did test positive in 03' when mlb first began testing, I believe the number was 5-7%.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) I have no doubt that some GM's were aware of what was going on. Doesn't change anything - the criminal actors have most of the blame themselves. Then as a secondary issue, one should look at the system and the other moving parts, and make changes as necessary. But unless GM's or others somehow directed or told or asked players to break the law (or the rules), then they bear only a very small part of the blame. Its all about personal responsibility, plain and simple. Did they not do this by directly rewarding some of these players with mega-contracts and other individual perks (think Sosa, Clemens) when they knew full-well that these players' outrageous success was directly caused by performance-enhancing drugs? You're saying that unless a GM or manager or owner said "take steroids or be cut," they bear a very small part of the blame? You don't believe that they were de facto telling certain players that by awarding them these contracts or DFA'ing them when they knew full-well exactly why those players' performances were what they were?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Bogus. Let's look at a similarly big money, highly competitive field - trading. Now, at times, "rogue" traders have been so motivated by the huge money and ultra-competitive lifestyle, that they crossed the line and ended up breaking the law to get ahead. Sometimes they get caught. Now, have you ever heard anyone say they felt that "the worst part" was that the IB's pushed them to make money? I'm sorry but having a competitive environment, and rewarding performance, are not excuses for breaking the law - and they are certainly not reasons to blame "management", unless "management was SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING them to do so. Are you kidding me? So unless you do something which is explicitly in violation of "the law," it isn't the same? Do you know some of the unethical behavior that goes on in trading? Often times because other people are behaving unlawfully? It isn't always a clear-cut violation of the law, but it is certainly unethical. And otherwise good people break that code of ethics every day. Should they be all painted with the same brush that says "cheater"? Because they want to provide for their family? I think you're oversimplifying the issue far too much. It isn't simply that the environment is ultra-competitve. It's about the field not being level. And it's one thing for Frank to stand-up against those using performance-enhancing drugs- his natural ability allowed him to still compete quite favorably in the marketplace (I know, he was often injured, and he has had money problems)- but imagine the guys who weren't as naturally gifted as him, imagine those pressures. I'm not saying that the players who used are to be completely absolved of any blame whatsoever, but I, for one, would not rush to judge any of them. And I certainly will not overlook the role that so many others had in this entire situation.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) So because they were "motivated" to cheat, by peers cheating or because they could make more money, that someone makes them less to blame? Or because management fostered an environment where performance was key, that someone made them partly to blame? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. It would carry no water in any other line of business either. Have you had a chance to read the report? Did you read what was said about LoDuca by the Dodgers in 2003? They were concerned that he would not hit as many hard line-drives because he was not on steroids anymore. That maybe he should be dealt because he had some trade value. That the Marlins might be interested. Obviously, he was traded to the Marlins at the deadline in 04'. You don't think that management is more to blame because they fostered an environment where "performance was key"? How about an environment where you might be traded because you were no longer taking steroids and they thought your performance would decline soon?

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) So if you're the GM of a championship team, you should have your job for life? Sorry, I can't get on board with that one. Where do you see that position advocated?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) Maybe because Jerry Reinsdorff wasn't injecting himself with steroids. Obviously, most of us blame the people actually cheating and committing crimes. I am sure that others deserve blame too, for letting it happen. But clearly the larger burden of guilt lies with the actors, not the bystanders. But honestly, ask yourself these questions: 1) Why were some players cheating? 2) What would motivate a player to do so? 3) If I could do something in the context of my profession (in terms of HGH), in which I would not immediately be caught (or caught at all), and could very likely result in a drastic pay raise, could result in my family and friends being financially taken care of for life, would I do so? 4) If others in my profession were "cheating," thereby making it more difficult (or even in some cases impossible) for me to be compensated according to my true value, would I be tempted to cheat as well? Would I cheat? This is far more complex than merely blaming the players for cheating. So much more was at stake- and that which was at stake was because of the fault of the managers, the GM's, the Owners, etc. I find it overly simplistic to simply cast the majority of the blame on the players. The entire baseball industry deserves to be blamed equally, IMO. Certainly players such as Frank Thomas and others deserve praise. But I don't believe that the players who used steroids or HGH should be the only ones cast in the spotlight created by the Mitchell Report.

I think it's interesting that nearly everyone who has posted thus far has implied a very negative reaction or stance towards the players who have used steroids. I've commented several times in this thread that the owners, upper-level execs, and managers were fully aware of exactly what was going on in most instances. And yet I've not commented positively or negatively regarding the players. And I won't, because I think this subject is enormously complex. Why are the players the one's taking such a huge hit here? Why not the rest of the baseball industry? Why so harsh to judge the players, and no one else?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) For the third time... as I have posted, there are exceptions. Those are superstar players. Since its obvious you are just going to go to the extremes on this, missing the general point, there isn't much purpose discussing it with you further. Well, first of all, I stated that the owners knew "in the vast majority" of cases. I'm not trying to argue that all owners knew that players lesser in stature were doing steroids. But the superstars and mvp's are what this is all about. They are the ones who bring in the money. And to the original point, I would assume most owners would not seek to revoke contracts for minor players who don't make much money. If you're talking about what makes this entire scandal newsworthy, it's that Roger Clemens, Albert Pujols, Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, Andy Petitte, etc., were using performance-enhancing drugs. Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, etc., these are the guys that have made individual owners, and the owners collectively, a LOT of money throughout the past 10 years or so. And to claim their ownership was not entirely aware of what was going on seems absolutely naive to me. Secondly, obviously I did not have factual information within my possession which stated these players had clinically tested positively for steroids. But there was enough information available both through investigative reporting, criminal investigations, on-field performance, and the plain physical appearance of some of these players which made it blatantly obvious that something was not right. Did I know whether Barry Bonds was using conventional steroids or designer HGH such as "the clear and the cream"? No. I did not (well, not until "Game of Shadows" was published). But it was obvious to even the most casual of fan that certain players were taking some kind of unnatural performance enhancer. Thirdly, the owners, GM's, Managers, high-level executives certainly had the wherewithall to find the answers to these questions, or acquire "proof" so they could "know" exactly what was going on. Do you mean to argue that these people, being that their livelihood is their baseball team, did not ask others "what the hell is going on here?" Why are these players suddenly obliterating their career norms, sometimes at advanced ages? Why are we seeing so many home runs hit? You don't think they would inquire as to what was happening? Why this was happening? I just don't believe that.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) I think you are overestimating the relationship. Owners dictate what money to spend, how much, and when - but I'd bet they only rarely talk to the player-related staff about specific players on a casual, high-level basis most of the time. On occasion, maybe, they might talk about some specific star player, if its relevant. Ok, so I knew Giambi, Sosa, McGuire, and many other players were doing roids. But the owners of the teams they played for had no idea?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:36 PM) Note what I actually said - most owners aren't familiar with most of the day-to-day of their players. And that is true. But there are cetainly exceptions. Yes, I am sure that some teams like Texas signing Sosa knew what they were getting. But depending on your take on the words "Cubs brass", they may not have known what Sammy was doing. And if they suspected, I'd bet that the further away from the baseball field they were on the org chart, the less they wanted to know. Well, certain clubs like the Cubs and Cardinals are more difficult to discuss, because they are owned by multi-billion dollar corporations. So insert whomever takes on the role of the owner in those cases. My guess is it would be Team President. Do you believe Andy McPhail had no idea Sammy Sosa was doing roids when he suddenly began hitting 60+ home runs in successive seasons? Come on...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:31 PM) I think you are confusing owners with GM's and managers. I'd bet the GM/manager types knew plenty. A lot of owners though, I'd bet, just weren't that tight with how their players behaved. And you don't think the manager talks to the GM, who then talks to the owner? I understand what you're saying- that most owners don't interact personally much with their players. But their managers do. And where do you think GM's go for advice on a player they have, or wish to acquire? And where do you think the GM's then go to get permission to spend the money to acquire a player or to re-sign a player? To the owner. I think you're underestimating the amount of involvement alot of these owners have with their teams, or perhaps how much knowledge they have of their own players.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) I think you are way off on this. Most owners don't know that much detail of the day to day lives of their players, I'd bet. They probably all had the GENERAL idea that they were out there and prevalent - but I doubt they had much info about specific players. So you're going to argue George Steinbrenner had no idea that Jason Giambi was a steroid user when he signed him? The Cubs brass had no idea Sammy Sosa was using them? The Cardinals no clue with McGuire, who openly displayed creatine in his locker? Many of these players had the drugs DELIVERED to THE CLUBHOUSE! You're going to say these owners had no idea? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that every owner was keeping tabs on every one of his players. But they are usually astute businessmen for a reason. They keep tabs on their investments and their fingers on everything.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) If any owner was smart enough after 2002-2003 to start writing a clause into a contract that would allow termination for steroid use, perhaps. But think about Giambi...the Yankees had him with his body falling apart and they still never made a move to get out of that contract. If the Yankees didn't move on that, then I'm pretty sure there's a legal reason why they didn't. Well, you guys are missing the boat here. To claim that these owners didn't know exactly what was going on with the vast majority of these players is nonsense. Many of these owners signed players knowing fully well that the player was using steroids, which led to their improvement in performance. For the owners to then go back and try to void a contract would be absolute horsesh*t. It can be argued that it's the owners who benefitted the most from the widespread steroid use by players. Many of these contracts contain clauses which can void the contract if the player, for instance, engages in some sort of dangerous off-field activity (riding motorcycles) without the team's consent. I'm sure the Yankees attempted to form an argument that steroid use by Giambi equated to such, but ultimately they decided not to pursue such an argument. However, this also happened to coincide with Jason's productive return to the field.

I'd honestly love to sign him, but I'd be willing to bet you'd have to go way over the Padres' offer to get him to sign here. Additionally, there are some conflicting reports about his health (shocking, I know). Bruce Levine is saying the Cubs are not sure whether he'll even pitch again this year, while Dr. James Andrews is claiming he should be ready to roll by May. So I'm a little confused on whether he will even be physically able to pitch in the major leagues this season. Another thing, is that this would be one way of grabbing a little attention back from the Cubs- signing their messiah to a cheap, incentive-laden deal to pitch on the South Side.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 11:17 PM) It's almost embarrassing, if the article is to believed, that Williams had enough faith in acquiring Hunter and M.Cabrera that he first picked up O.Cabrera and Linebrick. If anything, of those four players Hunter and M.Cabrera should have been the top priorities. We miss out? Fine. We're not committed to competing in 2008. How do you figure simply because Hunter was not signed and MCabrera was not traded until after OCabrera and Linebrink were acquired that Hunter and MCabrera were not the top priorities? It's abundantly clear that the White Sox were on Torii Hunter IMMEDIATELY after the World Series ended, and he WAS their top priority. Secondly, with Ozzie's connections to MCab, I'm pretty certain that they were in on MCab from the start as well. Obviously you can't force a player to sign anywhere or a team to trade you a player. KW was held to their timelines, so he went about acquiring the other pieces he had envisioned. Now if you want to argue that he should have never acquired OCabrera and Linebrink UNTIL Hunter and MCabrera were already officially acquired, than that is a different argument entirely, and one I would be very inclined to agree with.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) Its quite possible to be intelligent and just not have people skills or negotiating skills. I believe thats what we have here Once again, I doubt he lacks negotiation skills. Everything we read about Kenny from other players and gm's paints him as a very intelligent, driven, decisive and passionate guy. Now obviously I recognize that his detractors are not as likely to make negative comments about him publicly (such as what was written in the book "Moneyball"), however, KW seems to be held in pretty high regard amongst his peers. And he does make more deals than most GM's, so it's difficult to say he lacks people skills or negotiating skills. I think the fundamental flaw in the premise of this entire KW bashing lies in the fact that these major wholesale changes take time. And I know some are willing to be patient, as long as the process of making these changes begins now. However, I think (and believe Kenny thinks) it is only fair to give the core group of this team another chance at reaching the playoffs. 18 months ago, the overwhelming majority of posters at this forum were fairly delighted with Kenny's philosophy and direction. Then the performance of the players began to suddenly deteriorate to levels which were, for the most part, inexplicable. Suddenly, we have many revisionist historians here who claim Kenny was foolish to make the moves he made prior to the ASB in 06', and that this rapid deterioration in the team's performance was entirely forseeable. Well, go back and look at the threads and posts, folks. That just wasn't the case.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) The list is real. Per Rotoworld The following names are expected to be named in the Mitchell report, according to WNBC: Brady Anderson, Manny Alexander, Rick Ankiel, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Aaron Boone, Rafaeil Bettancourt, Bret Boone, Milton Bradley, David Bell, Dante Bichette, Albert Belle, Paul Byrd, Wil Cordero, Ken Caminiti, Mike Cameron, Ramon Castro, Jose and Ozzie Canseco, Roger Clemens, Paxton Crawford, Wilson Delgado, Lenn y Dykstra, Johnny Damon, Carl Everett, Kyle Farnsoworth, Ryan Franklin, Troy Glaus, Rich Garces, Jason Grimsley, Troy Glaus, Juan Gonzalez, Eric Gagne, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Jose Guillen, Jay Gibbons, Juan Gonzalez, Clay Hensley, Jerry Hairston, Felix Heredia, Jr., Darren Holmes, Wally Joyner, Darryl Kile, Matt Lawton, Raul Mondesi, Mark McGwire, Guillermo Mota, Robert Machado, Damian Moss, Abraham Nunez, Trot Nixon, Jose Offerman, Andy Pettitte, Mark Prior, Neifi Perez, Rafael Palmiero, Albert Pujols, Brian Roberts, Juan Rincon, John Rocker, Pudge Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Scott Sc hoenweiis, David Segui, Alex Sanchez, Gary Sheffield, Miguel Tejada, Julian Tavarez, Fernando Tatis, Maurice Vaughn, Jason Varitek, Ismael Valdez, Matt Williams and Kerry Wood. Well, while I believe the list is accurate, that doesn't mean it is real. CNBC may be using the same list as the rest of us are seeing. Or should I say the same "source" that the rest of us are seeing.

QUOTE(rockren @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) KW comes across as immature or silly just about once a year it seems. That whole negative rant on Frank was a joke. I would characterize him as extremely passionate about his job and our organization. I think it's a fresh approach, to be honest with you. When someone doesn't follow the ridiculous level of politcal correctness these days, it's often viewed as "immaturity." I happen to disagree with that assessment.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:53 AM) Just don't refer to him as "the Stanford guy" as evidence of immense intelligence. Maybe if he received a degree you may have a point. I'll refer to him as attending Stanford because as one previous poster pointed out, admission standards for athletes at Stanford, as well as some other universities (Ivy League schools, other California schools, Notre Dame, etc.,) are far more stringent than your run-of-the-mill public university. Obviously I am not privy to standardized test scores or anything, but when you hear the man speak, or read quotes in the paper, it is immediately apparent that he is an articulate, intelligent person.

QUOTE(rockren @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) Do you remember the press conference after the Mike Sirotka trade? KW acted like a 6 year old. Can you imagine how many moments there would be of you appearing immature or silly if you were always being filmed? I can only imagine, if I was to be filmed during many of the important moments of my life, how incredibly lame and stupid I would appear to be. How one appears on television has little to do with one's actual intelligence.