Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robinson Cano - 162-Game PED Suspension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    First PED violation should be 162 games and #2 should be lifetime ban. Enough of this bullshit.

    Fang, you make sense but the Players Association would not go for it I'm sure. It's the same Association who appeals and fights the suspension of meatheads like Chapman, who throws 101 at the heads of other members.

    Did BVW have any idea what he was doing as GM?? This trade alone has set us back years.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Canadian Mets Fan View Post
      First PED violation should be 162 games and #2 should be lifetime ban. Enough of this bullshit.

      Fang, you make sense but the Players Association would not go for it I'm sure. It's the same Association who appeals and fights the suspension of meatheads like Chapman, who throws 101 at the heads of other members.

      Did BVW have any idea what he was doing as GM?? This trade alone has set us back years.
      I don't know if lifetime ban....however, IMO, if a guy gets punished twice during a long term contract, his team should be allowed to cancel the contract based on "good faith" (whereas, the team shouldn't have to pay someone that signed a contract and then was found guilty of cheating twice)...however, even with that, the Mets knowingly traded for a aged guy AFTER he had already been suspended once during that overpriced, overly long crazyass contract...so who's fault is that?

      Comment


      • #18
        https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status...51155491295233

        Drew's Sig

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by saxon View Post

          I don't know if lifetime ban....however, IMO, if a guy gets punished twice during a long term contract, his team should be allowed to cancel the contract based on "good faith" (whereas, the team shouldn't have to pay someone that signed a contract and then was found guilty of cheating twice)...however, even with that, the Mets knowingly traded for a aged guy AFTER he had already been suspended once during that overpriced, overly long crazyass contract...so who's fault is that?
          It should be written in any long term contract of 5-years or more. That the contract is terminated after the 2nd suspension.
          Drew's Sig

          Comment


          • saxon
            saxon commented
            Editing a comment
            agreed...unfortunately, I believe Cano's deal predates testing though

        • #20
          I have stated in the past that I personally don't care if someone takes PEDs. I stand by that. It should be up to the person what he wants to do to his or her body. As long as the substance involved is legal, was legally obtained, and used under the direction of a licensed doctor, it's not anyone's business what someone does.

          HOWEVER, this comes with a huge caveat.

          If the sport/business involved has rules against using a substance, and you are contracted to perform/work in said business/sport, then that is a totally different story, and I am for punishment to the strongest degree negotiated.

          For example, Mark McGwire is known for using Andro. Andro at that time was legal. Hell, you could buy it over the counter at places like GNC. (Ripped Fuel was VERY popular for a long time) There was no rule in baseball against it, there was no law against it, you didn't need a prescription to obtain or use it. Actually, for most of the time of the steroid "era" there was no written rule against taking the products.

          That, IMO is NOT cheating. There was no rule against it. They may have broken a law in the case of some specific steroids, but that is a totally different angle.

          Once there was a specific rule agreed to, the whole conversation changes. We can debate whether PEDs can be used for good or whatever, but one there is a rule against it, then if you are caught using, that is that.

          Cano should not be in a Mets uniform again. He got caught once. Served his time, and got a second chance. He blew it. I'm done with him. The substance he used very well may have helped him stay on the field and perform well, and he may have no long term effects from using it. Personally, I would not hesitate to bet that he won't have too many (physical) long term effects.

          BUT, there is a rule, negotiated and agreed to by all sides, that was clearly drawn out, clearly defined, and everyone went in with eyes wide open. He decided to ignore that.

          Get. Out.

          The whole situation makes me hate BVW even more. Cano was his client, I have little doubt that the Brodester had some inkling that Robbie was onto something.

          Additionally, I think that the Owners and the Player's Association missed an opportunity to demonstrate their seriousness about the whole PED thing by not including some wording to the effect that if you are caught more than once your contract is void. I would even say that a lifetime ban is not warranted. You lose your contract, but you can still work if some team is willing to take the chance that you will get caught again. You just start off as a non-contracted free agent with no strings. The team you were on should get some type of compensation (draft pick or something), but you should be able to work if someone is willing to hire you. I don't think it's right to prevent someone from working, but that does not mean that you deserve a job, either.

          I doubt anyone would offer a guy like Cano 24 million a year. He'd be lucky to get a minimum deal now, and that would be humiliating to him. Breaking the rules should make you feel humiliated.

          Right now, it seems like you can get caught red handed and your punishment is a one year paid vacation. And a HUGE paycheck to boot.

          That is wrong.

          Comment


          • #21
            Originally posted by Brian Stark View Post

            Right now, it seems like you can get caught red handed and your punishment is a one year paid vacation. And a HUGE paycheck to boot.

            That is wrong.
            Cano will NOT get paid during his suspension. That is why everyone in the media is suggesting a run at LeMahieu with the cash windfall.

            Comment


            • #22
              Originally posted by West Coast Mets Fan View Post

              Cano will NOT get paid during his suspension. That is why everyone in the media is suggesting a run at LeMahieu with the cash windfall.
              Yeah, my bad, I let my righteous indignation blind me.

              He'll get a TWO year paid vacation when the suspension is over and his contract is bought out...

              Comment


              • #23
                Agreed with the rant

                Cheat, and get suspended following by team option of terminating contract. I don't agree with draft pick compenation portion because part of the cheating is a locker room experience, and teams shouldn't be encouraged to turn a blind eye.

                Comment


                • #24
                  Just a thought - lot's of posts about how cheaters belong out of the game, really upset.

                  Were any of the people upset about this also posting that they would be happy with hiring Luhnow, the cheater, as GM, once he had served his suspension?

                  Let the hair splitting, justifications and equivocations begin.....

                  Comment


                  • West Coast Mets Fan
                    West Coast Mets Fan commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I was not one for bringing him on and that was before he started throwing people under the bus and filing a lawsuit against the Astros and MLB

                • #25
                  This is an easy one for me, and I stand by every word I said.

                  Cheat, and get suspended with the addition of potentially having your contract voided on a team option.

                  Luhnow cheated (lets assume he knew) was suspended, was fired (contract voided) and now he has to find a team willing to give him a new one. Thanks for pointing out the consitancies of my stance

                  tag mjjm, you're up.

                  Comment


                  • #26
                    So you are OK with the cheating in either case, as long as you get to make the decision on the outcome based upon what's best for you?

                    Comment


                    • #27
                      Come in man, look at the facts without bias. You can plant either player or GM in the scenario, and my argument has rung identical for both. If you cheat and get caught, there should be a punishment,, it should be severe.. in both cases i am advocating punishment by suspension and team option on canceling your contract which is a pretty severe penalty in both cases.

                      So to answer bluntly, no, I am not ok with cheating, but if you do cheat, I do believe in consequences and then allowing that person to rebuild their livlihood based on what they can offer without cheating. If they get caught again, I'm ok with a lifetime ban of each.

                      I made that argument first with Cano, and it applied equally well to Luhnow.

                      And yes, the team who offered a lot of money based on a presumption of skill should have the right to exit the agreement of both exec and player id they find that skill was aided by breaking of rules. If an exec or player can't succeed on merit alone, the team should decide if it wants to assume the risk of sticking to the contract based on a false premise.

                      So as long as we are looking at both without bias. Why is ok for Cano after suspension to keep the remains of his contract while Luhnow has to sue for the same benefits? Talk about a double standard.
                      Last edited by NY FANG; 22-Nov-2020, 01:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #28
                        Originally posted by NY FANG View Post
                        Why is ok for Cano after suspension to keep the remains of his contract while Luhnow has to sue for the same benefits? Talk about a double standard.

                        I am not saying it is right but isn't it the same thing in the real world? The union employee always has much more protection than a non-union employee. How many incompetent teachers are out there that are safe due to the union and having tenure?

                        Was it fair to single out Beltran as the only named player simply because he was retired and no longer protected by the union?

                        The reason I don't want Luhnow is he has Pete Rose syndrome, he claims he had nothing to do with it despite evidence against him and then blames everyone but himself. I do not want that style of non-accountable leadership running my favorite team or any company that I might work for. That will not change if rehired even if he never cheats again.

                        Comment


                        • #29
                          WC, starting at end first, totally get your opinion, and there are many reasons to be for or against Luhnow, but to bring it to a more overarching statement like MJJMs saying I am treating each situation differently. Specifically, I do think the 22MM law suit stopped him from being a candidate for many teams immediately this year including the Angels and Mets. Actions have consequences and him being the only exec involved to not have a job today is proof of that.

                          As for the union bit, absolutely, in 2020, Cano's contract is 100% protected. I am not advocating anything that can change that. In 2021 they are negotiating a new player CBA, which I a believe as they now have steroid use under control should include a stiffer financial punishment for those who get caught. I believe players who want a clean game should trade that harsher penalty for something the want. Even if passed, Cano will not be affected.

                          All I was trying to say is MJJMs trying to turn our support of Luhnow as contradicting our desire to hire Luhnow is a false equivalence. I don't need to split hairs to justify as I want rules treating both identically (which I admit do not exist per today's CBA)

                          Comment


                          • #30
                            Many excellent points here, by both Fang and WC.

                            Fang's question - "Why is ok for Cano after suspension to keep the remains of his contract while Luhnow has to sue for the same benefits?" - Fair or not, it is the terms of the contract. Cano's contract had specific penalties for that specific offense, in this case a 162 game suspension for the 2nd test failure. Luhnow's contract had some specific verbiage regarding conduct detrimental to the organization, for which the penalty was termination (as is in any executive contract). I'm certain that the Astros' legal staff felt that they had very justifiable cause to enact the termination clause, or they wouldn't have risked the considerable financial consequences. No differing treatment here, just enforcement of specific conduct in two differing contracts. WC pointed out that this is the same as the real world. The higher you are on the food chain, the more your actions affect the company, the more you are held to a higher standard, both in reward and punishment.

                            Just an aside - Cano's actions hurt both him and the team. It can cost us $40M for no return if we release Cano, hurting our ability to improve our team. The sign stealing incident was crushing for the Astros. 2017 is the only championship in Astros history. It is forever tainted. Remember that it came several months after Hurricane Harvey unleashed on the area. What was the ultimate feel good story for Astros fans turned into something that they can't brag about without hearing the response "the series where you cheated". I know of several people who have cancelled season ticket plans due to it. The only thing that saved the Astros from 81 games of road abuse was the fanless, shortened season. There has been reporting that players like Springer would be happier getting to a new team to get away from it. It has also been asked if the situation might make the Astros chances to attract free agents more difficult. Not saying that the consequences of the cheating should affect the basic fairness of the penalty. I'm just pointing out the reasoning that contributed to the Astros exercising the clause in Luhnow's contract that allowed for termination, especially when MLB found sufficient grounds for the suspension. One other point on this - while this was Luhnow's first "cheating incident", MLB had issued very pointed directives on the use of electronics and sign stealing after the Apple watch incident with the Red Sox, including heightened consequences. So, while this was Luhnow's first, it received the penalty of a repeat offense.

                            So back to Fang's question - "Why is ok for Cano after suspension to keep the remains of his contract while Luhnow has to sue for the same benefits?". This is not an equal question. Cano was suspended by MLB for one year. His specific standard player contract dictates that he can return after the suspension. Luhnow was suspended by MLB for one year. His specific contract with the Astros includes language allowing termination for certain actions which the Astros chose to exercise. In both cases, they have rights and consequences written into their contracts. The fact that their contracts are different isn't inherently unfair, at all. Both have the right to sue if they feel that their contract was violated. Luhnow chose to do so, Cano did not. And Luhnow isn't suing to get his job back. The goal of his lawsuit is a settlement, show me the money. The logic behind this lawsuit is the threat of the discovery process if this goes to trial. Discovery publicly displays all of the dirty laundry that both the Astros and MLB want to keep under wraps. Luhnow doesn't have a chance at winning this. If MLB had enough evidence to suspend him, the Astros had grounds for termination. Settlements are not uncommon.

                            Let me put this quote from WC here, I really liked this. And I think it will help demonstrate there is no "unfairness" here.

                            "The reason I don't want Luhnow is he has Pete Rose syndrome, he claims he had nothing to do with it despite evidence against him and then blames everyone but himself. I do not want that style of non-accountable leadership running my favorite team or any company that I might work for. That will not change if rehired even if he never cheats again."

                            Cano is suspended for one year, and returns, in his case to the Mets. Luhnow is suspended for one year, and can return to any team. granted, not the Astros, but there are 29 other teams. (If the Mets choose to release and pay Cano, he can also return to another team post suspension.) Luhnow has quite an impressive resume, the sign stealing scandal nonwithstanding. There is nothing blocking him from returning to baseball, same as Alex Cora. In fact, if you go back to where the possible hiring of Luhnow was first discussed, you can find where I was saying that I didn't think Cohen would or should do it because I didn't think he wanted to start the team hiring a GM with the taint of scandal on him. At no point was I up in arms against it. My take - maybe I'm too close to it here in Houston, but I would prefer we didn't hire Luhnow. Not the start I want for the team. I would rather we go in a different direction. But if we had hired him, then I'm on board with it. I'm just too lazy to go back and find my posts right now.

                            So why does Luhnow have a "lifetime ban" in baseball? One word answer - Luhnow. Instead of keeping his mouth shut and getting another chance, he sues. What other ownership group will ever hire him again? Self inflicted. WC phrased it beautifully above.


                            Disclaimer: I had to step away from this mid-post (damn, looks like I am being paid by the word). My Keurig machine, after 11 years of faithful service, decided that the counter needed a good soaking. So for any posts that happened during the extended stretch I was away, sorry if I skipped over, or seemingly ignored them. Started this damn post hours ago.



                            Comment


                            • NY FANG
                              NY FANG commented
                              Editing a comment
                              saw this on my phone and was like NOPE, need a computer to read this essay
                          BACK TO TOP
                          Working...
                          X