Over at The Hardball Times, Jon Roegele breaks down some interesting data on Tommy John surgeries. The number of UCL replacements was a big story this year, of course. Roegele’s research suggests that, while the overall rate of return for pitchers who have undergone the procedure has not improved much since it was invented, the recovery time has been shortened significantly.
Here’s the latest from out west:
- Referring to a report that Mariners ownership had killed a deal that would have brought in free agent Nelson Cruz, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports that Seattle’s ownership had in fact determined before the offseason that it would not sign any players linked to PED use. The details of the situation remain hazy, but Heyman indicates that Cruz’s Biogenesis-related suspension was the root of the decision.
- The Rangers are looking for a manager in the mold of Terry Francona and Clint Hurdle, writes Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News. Indeed, every one of the five external candidates under consideration have links to one of those two skippers, as does candidate and interim manager Tim Bogar. Texas is expected to whittle its search down to three finalists in the coming week, says Grant.
- Giants starter Jake Peavy thought at one point that he would be traded to the team he is now facing in the NLCS, the Cardinals, as Henry Schulman of the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The veteran righty could still end up in St. Louis next year, as Andrew Baggarly of CSNBayArea.com reports. Peavy speaks very highly of the club and city, and could make some sense for the Cards if the team decides another established arm is needed for 2015.
Funny, the 2 teams that had no scruples about signing a PED player are both playing in the LCS, while the teams with scruples are sitting at home in October
And they got bargain contracts.
If you are referring to Peralta… that was NOT a bargain contract.
A 5 WIN SS for ~$13.5MM a year? Yes please!
It’s a bargain now, but that was hardly a given at the time. He was coming off a 3.3 win season, but his previous numbers were all over the place. It wouldn’t have been the biggest shock in the world if he completely dropped off. The Cardinals had the spare money to take the risk, not much else to spend it on, and now it looks great.
He was on pace to have over a 4 WAR season last year before the suspension. He’s only had one “down” year which was largely BABIP driven. There wasn’t much question he was going to provide good value at $13.5MM a year.
He’s had more than one recent season where that wouldn’t have been the case. His defense has never been an issue, but age + PEDs doesn’t exactly paint the most comforting picture for a SS.
There wasn’t much risk for it being an albatross, but it wasn’t a surefire slam dunk.
I guess if 2009-10 is “recent” then yes.
I’d say 2010 is somewhat relevant considering we’re looking at pre 2014 numbers. It plays into the fact that he hadn’t put together back to back stellar years until 2013-14.
I still think penalizing teams is the answer. If a player is caught using PEDs they forfeit their salary and the teams get to pretend their shocked. If the teams are then forced to give the player’s salary to a charity then they’ll be more wary.
i’ve been of the opinion that if a team signs a player previously linked to PEDs, if that player gets caught again the full value of the contract should count against that team’s luxury tax for the life of the deal. whether or not the player is active, suspended or even retired.
The way the rules stand now they penalizes players and not teams. Teams need a penalty to sign these players if they screw up… its simple as that.
i largely agree with you, the rules as they stand now do nothing but reward the owners and GMs that reward the dopers… if he gets caught, the teams get payroll relief, so why not tell your aging superstar to hit the needle?
Teams pay in bad contracts when some of these guys fall off. If a player quits once he has a long term guaranteed deal and then struggles the team is still paying for the glory years and getting a dud in return. And since masking has stayed ahead of testing (Biogenesis situation reaffirms that) we can never know how many players that suddenly fall apart did that.
So if a company hires an employee that was once busted for drugs, then you think that company should be held responsible for that employee’s actions? I hope you are never in a real position of power because that is some very dangerous thinking. These are grown men that make choices. The teams should not have to hire babysitters for them or be held responsible for their actions.
Not even remotely a valid analogy. You’re talking about an employee doing drugs either outside of work or in a manner that would likely impede their work, not an employee using a banned substance to give his company an unfair competitive edge. There are plenty of laws out there that hold companies responsible for their employees’ actions when those employees violate regulations to get an unfair competitive advantage.
In a normal corporate setting, I’d agree with you. But if a company profited from their employees using a drug that gave them an unfair competitive edge over their competitive, the employer should be held accountable in some degree.
The “luxury tax” idea is just a shot at the handful of teams who pay luxury tax. You want to give a pass to a team with a $150M payroll? Employers are not the police. If you can link a team to a player’s PED use that’s one thing, but any player can use. There’s no special place for virtue.
their shocked what?
I used to very firmly hold this view, but people have made the good point that doing so could spur teams to support players’ PED use and help them hide it to avoid penalty. There’s gotta be some sort of middle ground somewhere
No. The problem with that viewpoint is that in the end the team has absolutely no control or exact information over whether a player is using, or even a way to stop them. It’s one thing if they provide it, but if the player goes out and acquires it themselves why should the team be liable for that?
I agree, the Giants should forfeit their 2012 WS champ.
Makes a mockery of the old “cheaters never prosper” line eh?
Wasn’t Cano’s associate/spokeswoman of his foundation on the Biogenesis report? I call that suspiciously being linked to PEDS. I wonder how a team would react if Barry Bonds’ spokesperson was on any PED related reports.
Double standard I guess, right Seattle?
Wrong. Next time read the story instead of just the headline.
Sonia Cruz, Cano’s associate, was billed for a weight loss regimen, not performance enhancing drugs. Furthermore, Bosch, who had no trouble naming names, has never mentioned Cano.
Re-read the article, MLBtraderumors doesn’t allow me to quote the article.
Her story sounds pretty weak, she states she was prescribed pills she didn’t take. Also, Biogenesis was prescribing people growth hormones to clients on dieting regiments. Something she happened to be on.
Right. So where in that does it say anything about Cano?
Both MLB and Outside the Lines did their own investigation, and both came up with the same answer: that he was not involved.
You, however, think Cano was involved. Enlighten us.
Okay, the glove doesn’t fit yet the millions of irregularities of being best friends with A-Rod/Melky Cabrera, having his his spokeswoman change her story 2-3 times after talking to Scott Boras, saying she doesn’t remember who perscribed her the stuff saying it involved pills that she allegedly never took and that those pills were not of the dieting variety.
I’m sorry if that doesn’t ring any bells in your head, you can’t convict someone on suspicion but you’re clearly defending someone that has had a lot of suspicion in the matter. You probably defended Ryan Braun initially didn’t you? It took the NFL 7 years to test LaRon Landry positive for steroids, I’m sure guys like Chris Davis have bigger arms than Landry and you just don’t see it because of people in MLB wear baggy clothing. People know how to cheat the system, people aren’t stupid, you get paid regardless if you get caught nowadays.
I’m American. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I cannot say someone is guilty just because he was friends with someone who was guilty. That’s absurd.
I’m also a fan of common sense, therefore, I believe the MLB and the reporters who broke this story, rather than someone on the internet. (you)
You can try to hijack the topic with Ryan Braun and Chris Davis all you want. The point remains: Cano was and is innocent.
Sonia Cruz may be guilty of buying dieting pills from Bosch. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING connects Bosch or BioGenesis to Cano.
And if it did, MLB would be all over it. Outside the Lines would be all over it. Why would they call out everyone but Cano? It doesn’t makes sense.
You can believe what you want based on speculation and gut feelings. I’ll opt to believe the facts. That’s just how I roll.
I’d love to but MLBTraderumors keeps blocking my comments. Take my word for it, it took guys in the NFL years to get caught when they had 25+ inch arms IE: LaRon Landry. Everyone in sports should be taking PEDS, you get paid regardless nowadays if you’re caught or not.
Right. But MLB already busted the guys that needed to be busted. Stop trying so hard to connect Cano to the story. It reeks of desperation. Let it go man, just let it go. There are people WAY more qualified and smarter than you already on the job, and their say was he is not guilty.
and here i thought “look at the size of his head” was weak reasoning to declare someone a doper…
So does that mean we can firmly assume Nelson Cruz won’t be heading to Seattle this offseason? I feel like committing to never signing a PED-suspended player is just closing unnecessary doors.
One thing for sure is that Cruz will not be a Met, he’s too rich for their blood.
Why would the Cardinals need another established starter like Peavy? While anything they get from Garcia next year would be a bonus, they’ll still have Wainwright, Lynn, Lackey, Wacha, and Miller, with Marco Gonzales and Carlos Martinez as extra depth.
I think a rule change in regard to Cruz’s current contract is in order. Good for the Orioles that they got a bargain, but teams shouldn’t be allowed to sign players for less than the qualifying offers they receive from their former teams: teams should be forced to match or exceed the QO. IMO
I disagree. Why punish a team because a player turned down a QO by forcing them to give up a draft pick and pay a QO? Players know the risk when they turn down a QO.
Who benefits from that? That would just hurt midtier players even more. It also makes no sense from an economic standpoint. By declining the QO, you take a chance to get a better deal. If there’s no better deal to be had, you shouldn’t have a safety net. Why would anyone accept the QO if that were the case?
The only way it would work is if the QO was required to stand for a period of time, but then it could further take apart smaller market budgets.
Why should the rangers reconsidered Cruz
3/5’s of the Sox starting rotation made the playoffs and two are in the NLCS. Guess it goes to show that while things didn’t go our way this year, it wasn’t like there wasn’t any hope to begin with.
the Roegele piece is worth reading. It’s intriguing that the success rate hasn’t gone up much in the last few decades, which implies some limits to the procedure. What is also surprising is some of the cross-tabs on age. Some very young arms in the sample.
Gossip, gossip, gossip. That’s all Baggarly reports. Might as well be reading the National Enquirer.
Sure would be nice to have the Ms acquire a RH hitter who can test the “new” fences in LF at Safeco. I say “new” because it’s been two years now since they moved them in and they’ve had Mike Morse battle injuries then get traded, Corey Hart struggle to return from an injury, and Jesus Montero struggle just generally speaking.
I’d love to see them dangle Taijuan Walker or James Paxton in front of the Cubs to see about Jorge Soler.
I’d pass on that, as the Cubs. Soler is already a real player. I’d assume his baseline for next season is about 2.5 WAR, with upside for both next year and for the future. Fangraphs seems to back up that assumption, even accounting for an ISO dip and a BABIP dip.
Walker and Paxton both look like #3 or #4 type guys.
You don’t trade a dollar for 4 quarters.
Walker easily projects as a frontline starter, and Paxton ain’t far behind. I wasn’t talking straight up either, just as primary pieces in a deal. Ms would likely have to add something extra as RH power is at a premium. Considering the Cubs are young and just traded away two SPs at this past deadline I have to think they’d be open to listening about Walker or Paxton.
As much as I hate to say it, baseball is a lot more boring without PEDs and Amphetamines. The latter were the main reason hitters maintained their averages though a long season.