southsider2k5 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (Stocking @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) Nrcobl tub of goo? That's it! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I heard some guy on the radio say teams should be punished for guys who are caught. He hinted at forfeiting which is dumb but I was thinking maybe that the team cant replace the guy on the 25 man roster. So for 50 games the team has to play with 24 guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 10:41 PM) I heard some guy on the radio say teams should be punished for guys who are caught. He hinted at forfeiting which is dumb but I was thinking maybe that the team cant replace the guy on the 25 man roster. So for 50 games the team has to play with 24 guys. I'd actually be ok with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 12:01 PM) This thread means nothing if Mark Billiards doesnt post This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 10:49 PM) I'd actually be ok with this. So your screwing a franchise and 24 other people for the act of one person. They should just make it a full season ban, at least for major leaguers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The trouble with costing a roster spot is that it is likely to be of detriment to other players' health, especially pitchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The Player's union would NEVER agree to a lost roster spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 10:41 PM) I heard some guy on the radio say teams should be punished for guys who are caught. He hinted at forfeiting which is dumb but I was thinking maybe that the team cant replace the guy on the 25 man roster. So for 50 games the team has to play with 24 guys. No other sport does this, including the NFL with larger rosters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (YASNY @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 11:39 PM) The Player's union would NEVER agree to a lost roster spot. It's time for someone in baseball to say "screw the union". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 10:57 PM) So your screwing a franchise and 24 other people for the act of one person. They should just make it a full season ban, at least for major leaguers. It would make the teams more vigilant and keep them from ignoring the issue. As stated the union would not agree to it but it may be the only way to truly stop it. Maybe there could be a clause in every contract: test positive for PEDs and your entire contract is void and the player must repay the team for what they have been paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (ptatc @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) It would make the teams more vigilant and keep them from ignoring the issue. As stated the union would not agree to it but it may be the only way to truly stop it. Maybe there could be a clause in every contract: test positive for PEDs and your entire contract is void and the player must repay the team for what they have been paid. Now THAT would be a great incentive. Or if you fail a test, you become a minimum salaried player again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 10:41 PM) I heard some guy on the radio say teams should be punished for guys who are caught. He hinted at forfeiting which is dumb but I was thinking maybe that the team cant replace the guy on the 25 man roster. So for 50 games the team has to play with 24 guys. That sounds like an absolutely awful idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) That sounds like an absolutely awful idea. I agree, but the teams do have to be a part of the solution here. If SF knew about this and sat on this since before the AS break, they got a month and a half of production from a juicer, and it most likely impacted the division race significantly. I was reading that Cabrera was pretty much responsible for destroying Arizona by himself. I actually think the minimum salary idea is a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) I agree, but the teams do have to be a part of the solution here. If SF knew about this and sat on this since before the AS break, they got a month and a half of production from a juicer, and it most likely impacted the division race significantly. I was reading that Cabrera was pretty much responsible for destroying Arizona by himself. I actually think the minimum salary idea is a good one. Unless the team is supplying him the drugs, I don't know see why the whole team and other "clean" players should all be punished. They already are at a disadvantage because this "MVP" player they had is now gone and they have to replace him. Even if the team knew he was gonna get suspended for a month, it's not on them to bench him, it's on the league to get him off the roster earlier. I also agree about the salary stuff. Make it less worthwile financially for a player to juice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balfanman Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) Unless the team is supplying him the drugs, I don't know see why the whole team and other "clean" players should all be punished. They already are at a disadvantage because this "MVP" player they had is now gone and they have to replace him. Even if the team knew he was gonna get suspended for a month, it's not on them to bench him, it's on the league to get him off the roster earlier. I also agree about the salary stuff. Make it less worthwile financially for a player to juice. I'm not sure that teams shouldn't be punished somehow. To personalize this for the Sox, how would we feel if Colon had beaten the Sox in his start against us last week, or if we had played the Giants this year and we lost a game on a Melky Cabrera walk off. If we then lose the division by a game, I have a feeling that this board would go nuts. I have no idea what the head to head records are this year between the A's / Angels, Rays, Tigers; or how much Colon had to do with the results; but if my team lost out to the A's by one game for a playoff spot & Colons replacement would have gone say 9 - 10 instead of 10 - 9, I would be a little upset. Same goes for the Giants and their competitors for a playoff spot. I do not know what the solution would be, but if either the A's or the Giants make the playoffs this year by less than, let's say 2 or 3 games, someone should be upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:35 AM) Unless the team is supplying him the drugs, I don't know see why the whole team and other "clean" players should all be punished. They already are at a disadvantage because this "MVP" player they had is now gone and they have to replace him. Even if the team knew he was gonna get suspended for a month, it's not on them to bench him, it's on the league to get him off the roster earlier. I also agree about the salary stuff. Make it less worthwile financially for a player to juice. Let me make myself clear. I dont believe the team should lose a roster spot. But, somehow a team should be punished if a situation like this occurs and the team benefits from the play of a juiced player. how this punishment is levied, I do not know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balfanman Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Maybe you could do something like college football does with bowl games by banning the team from post season play that season. For example, this year the A's & Giants could not participate in post season play. I know that this still affects the other players but there is no way around that. If anything, it would encourage team mates to keep each other above board. Maybe another alternative would be to subtract wins from the team depending upon that players war. I have no idea what Cabreras war was this season, but lets say it was 3. If you take 3 wins away from the Giants it does punish the team, but doesn't totally kill their playoff chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 11:56 AM) Let me make myself clear. I dont believe the team should lose a roster spot. But, somehow a team should be punished if a situation like this occurs and the team benefits from the play of a juiced player. how this punishment is levied, I do not know Fine the team an equivalent amount to what the player loses due to his suspension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) Fine the team an equivalent amount to what the player loses due to his suspension? Maybe the team luxury tax threshold gets lowered by this amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) It's time for someone in baseball to say "screw the union". Do you actually have a point that you want to make, or is this just a political anti-union point of view? That fact remains that the union would never agree to that, and it would have to do so for it to be implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I like the repayment of contract idea. Of course, I would have the team give all that money to an MLB-approved charity -- they have to be held accountable for signing a juicer just like they would for an oft-injured player or something like that...can't bail out their finances by having the player juice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) I agree, but the teams do have to be a part of the solution here. If SF knew about this and sat on this since before the AS break, they got a month and a half of production from a juicer, and it most likely impacted the division race significantly. I was reading that Cabrera was pretty much responsible for destroying Arizona by himself. I actually think the minimum salary idea is a good one. I actually don't think minimum salary is that good of an idea. You keep high priced players from doing it for the most part, but if there's a guy who is already making the minimum salary, there is no financial risk for him to try and hit the lottery. And worse yet, if said player making the minimum (and subsequent small amounts) does get through unscathed and signs a 5/$75 million deal, he suddenly has a lot more to lose by doing PEDs, so he will stop and the team is out a large deal of money. Down the line from there, you may see teams trying to avoid signing players to the Longoria contract, because these players may very well be doing steroids to try and cash in on a quick payday whereupon they'll quit using and revert to the player they were without steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.