What is Buck Talking About?

[VT_Antzo]

Buck Showalter guarantees New York Yankees would sign Matt Wieters if Alex Rodriguez is suspended for 2014 season - ESPN New York

Would Wieters really consider the Yanks??

 

[gtn130]

Buck is 100% correct IMO.

There's no reason for the team to face zero accountability for their players doing PEDs, for one thing. If that's the case, well, that's a terrible precedent, and it basically encourages teams to encourage PEDs on every 35-year-old and AAAA player on the roster (aka fringe players). As long as they can find a way to temporarily not get caught, the team can only benefit from their players doing PEDs until they get suspended and their contracts voided.

And in this case, A-Rod has been linked with PEDs for a decade now, the Yankees signing him to a huge contract in the first place shows that they don't really care if he was doing PEDs or not.

 

[gtn130]

And if Wieters is offered millions more from the Yankees than anyone else, his agent will essentially mandate that he signs with them.

Buck getting ahead of this and indirectly publicly pressuring Wieters is a good move.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

I had proposed four possible harsh punishments for PEDs in another thread, but here's an addendum to take into account this issue:

5. Any team that knowingly signs a player who's guilty of using PEDs shall be liable for paying 150% of the player's remaining salary to the league as fines.

6. Clause #4 would be amended to the following: "In addition, the team would be barred from the amateur draft and free agent signings for one year for EACH guilty player."

(Basically, it's the baseball equivalent of the death penalty. If you use PEDs as a player, you're done, and your team also gets punished severely for being an accomplice.)

 

[Taz_Hokie]

Buck Showalter guarantees New York Yankees would sign Matt Wieters if Alex Rodriguez is suspended for 2014 season - ESPN New York

Would Wieters really consider the Yanks??

I'd like to think not as Wieters has been a core part of this Orioles team, but who can say. If the money is waved in front of his face like the Yankees can and will do, who knows. I mean, I never would have thought Moose would betray us and play for the Yanks either.

 

[tedman2012]

I'd like to think not as Wieters has been a core part of this Orioles team, but who can say. If the money is waved in front of his face like the Yankees can and will do, who knows. I mean, I never would have thought Moose would betray us and play for the Yanks either.

moose we betrayed him by signing erickson for more money than we offered him .

 

[jeffro151]

Weiters can be replaced, IMO.

 

[Mr. Oriole]

moose we betrayed him by signing erickson for more money than we offered him .

Absolutely.

This was typical Angelos interference. Mussina gave the O's a hometown discount in his first multi-year contract. The second time around, against the advice of his agent, Mussina offered to give the O's a discount again. But Angelos low-balled Mussina to the point that Mussina went to the free agent market. Angelos finally agreed to Mussina's discount for the O's, but it was too late then. That was all on Angelos.

 

[Mr. Oriole]

If MLB lets the Yankees out of the responsibility for the ridiculous contract they gave ARod, they will save $20M or more for the next 4 years (thru 2017).

That could help the Yankees avoid the luxury tax, and give them a lot of money to throw at a player like Wieters. And don't forget, Wieters' agent is Scott Boras.

As already stated in this thread, MLB would be doing the Yankees a favor. It would set a terrible precedent if MLB does not make the Yankees responsible the this contract.

 

[skinz2winz]

Post disappearing already huh? Nice!

 

[$500 Million]

I had proposed four possible harsh punishments for PEDs in another thread, but here's an addendum to take into account this issue:

5. Any team that knowingly signs a player who's guilty of using PEDs shall be liable for paying 150% of the player's remaining salary to the league as fines.

6. Clause #4 would be amended to the following: "In addition, the team would be barred from the amateur draft and free agent signings for one year for EACH guilty player."

(Basically, it's the baseball equivalent of the death penalty. If you use PEDs as a player, you're done, and your team also gets punished severely for being an accomplice.)

Can you provide evidence the the Yankees knew about his steroid use before they signed him to an extension?

Evidence that would hold up in court?

No you can't


They'll be relieved of his salary, which is a huge help.

 

[$500 Million]

By the way, if you do think you have evidence, send it to ESPN because THAT would be bigger news than the suspensions themselves.

 

[$500 Million]

Hmm, good point. In that case, I'll remove "knowingly" from the sentence. Clause #5 shall now read "Any team that signs a player who's guilty of using PEDs shall be liable for paying 150% of the player's remaining salary to the league as fines."

Good luck with that one




If it makes you feel any better the Yankees won't be the only ones getting salary relief.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Good luck with that one




If it makes you feel any better the Yankees won't be the only ones getting salary relief.

Well, the idea is simply to put the burden on the team to make sure that a player is clean before signing him. And no, I'm not targeting the Yankees specifically-- if you want to be fair, this has to be applied across the board. (And besides, I think Clause #6 is going to hit harder anyway... just imagine not being able to sign anyone for one year despite having the money to do so.)

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Would Wieters really consider the Yanks??

I think a better question would be "would the Yanks really consider Wieters?" Consider the following precedents:

* Keeping Jeter at SS for years for his bat despite his limited range
* Playing Granderson at CF and Gardner at LF until this year (despite that the latter is a better fielder)
* Playing Posada as the starter at C for his bat all the way into 2007

I could be wrong, but my impression is that the Yankees might be willing to sacrifice defense for offense even at CF, SS, and C. If that's the case, then Wieters would be a bad choice for them.

 

[pools]

Can you provide evidence the the Yankees knew about his steroid use before they signed him to an extension?

Evidence that would hold up in court?

No you can't


They'll be relieved of his salary, which is a huge help.

Alex Rodriguez admits taking PEDs during 3-year period - ESPN

There is your proof...... do you really think MLB didn't inform the owners in 2004 when they started penalties who was on that list..... And isn't it funny that same year Arod got traded?

 

[$500 Million]

That report is dated February 10, 2009

The Yankees gave Arod his extension in 2007.

So, that isn't proof.

Also, what people think or suspect is not proof.

Proof would be recorded conversations, email, or letters that predate Arods extension in which Yankee officials discuss his drug use.

 

[pantherfanforever11]

I had proposed four possible harsh punishments for PEDs in another thread, but here's an addendum to take into account this issue:

5. Any team that knowingly signs a player who's guilty of using PEDs shall be liable for paying 150% of the player's remaining salary to the league as fines.

6. Clause #4 would be amended to the following: "In addition, the team would be barred from the amateur draft and free agent signings for one year for EACH guilty player."

(Basically, it's the baseball equivalent of the death penalty. If you use PEDs as a player, you're done, and your team also gets punished severely for being an accomplice.)

well first, this cant happen because frankly, your kinda stepping on peoples rights by law. undr the CBA they cannot refuse a drug anyway. your second one would not hold up in a court of law which is exactly where it would go. lifetime ban? common not even the NFL does that and thier better at it than baseball and stricter.


i would amend your number 5 since you already said they should be banned forever after first offense. i would say they have to pay the Player all of his salary that they signed him too if he has already had a first offense.

and 6 is just foolish this is pro not college.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

#6 is just foolish this is pro not college.

We might have to agree to disagree on this... but my position is that the "no new signings for an entire year per guilty player" clause actually makes even more sense in pro sports. Here's why:


1. In college sports, the number of scholarships available is limited. In pro sports, the only limiting factor is money (and a salary cap if applicable), and even the smallest-market pro teams can offer far better incentives to players than a college team can. Thus, one could argue that not being able to sign new players would hit pro teams harder-- in the sense that it removes a larger amount of purchasing power.


2. With the current system, only the player gets punished for using PEDs. Teams would actually benefit from juiced players for several reasons:

a) As long as the player doesn't get caught, the team benefits by getting improved performance out of a player.

b) If the player does get caught, the team benefits by not having to pay the player while he's suspended.

c) In fact, teams have an incentive to encourage overpaid, underperforming veterans to start using PEDs since they would have nothing to lose. (In fact, they might have a chance of getting out of a bad contract.) And they can do this with impunity since it would be nearly impossible to find court-admissible proof.

 

[pantherfanforever11]

your suggesting the the teams who run the MLB to put punishthemslves by putting that clause in the CBA, it wont happen.

and even if it did, you havce to prove the team knew about thier player doping, and or enouraged. if you dont you are vialating antitrust laws that not even the MLB's anti-trust exception can protect them from