Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robinson Cano - 162-Game PED Suspension

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

  • #31
    So for one, I feel like we're shifting gears to a tangent that isn't the real issue. So I'm going to address the early part quickly and move on. Cano will keep his last two year because that is the current rules per the CBA. We all agree here. Luhnow has shot his career massively in the foot with the lawsuit, we agree there (though I'm not so sure he'll get the Kapernick treatment, but not another tangent I want to walk down).

    The real question I was answering/asking was not the literal "why does one enjoy a legal benefit" because that was already clear. But instead, the moral/ethical "should players who get contracts as long as 13 years which could hurt their unsuspecting employers for years to come benefit from being locked into that despite signing under false pretenses?"

    I gave my views of a world where everyone is accountable for their actions. The "union is strong" argument completely ignores the ethics of the conversation. Forgetting the specific scenarios of Cano, Luhnow, Cora, Altuve, etc and think of it universally with a new CBA where rules can be renegotiated, and give your opinions.

    MJJM, inferring yours based on "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?" is that you think my tact is too team friendly, so what would you change if you were at the CBA negotiating table?

    Comment


    • #32
      If I were negotiating the CBA I would put a clause in the player's contract that if they get caught using steroids the contract is void because the team agreed to said contract based on a player's performance and he may not have the same performance if he is clean. In addition to voiding the contract, any upfront bonus that was part of the negotiated contract is prorated and the player pays back the portion he didn't earn over the remaining term of the contract that was voided. The team and the player then have to renegotiate the contract. If they cannot come to an agreement the player becomes a free agent.

      Comment


      • NY FANG
        NY FANG commented
        Editing a comment
        That actually goes a step further than I would have. Maybe I'm not as aware of them, but are signing bonus's common in baseball?

      • West Coast Mets Fan
        West Coast Mets Fan commented
        Editing a comment
        I went to Cot's Baseball Contracts

        On the Mets you have deGrom, Familia, and Betances with signing bonuses. Most everyone on the team is still arbitration-eligible and therefore have not signed a long term contract.

        Here is Jake's breakdown

        Jacob deGrom rhp
        5 years/$137.5M (2019-23), plus 2024 option

        5 years/$137.5M (2019-23), plus 2024 option
        signed extension with NY Mets 3/26/19

        ***$20M signing bonus (half paid 1/2/2020, half paid 1/4/2021)***


        19:$7M, 20:$23M, 21:$33.5M, 22:$33.5M, 23:$30.5M, 24:$32.5M club option
        $52.5M is deferred ($12M in 2020, $13.5M in 2021, $15M in 2022, $12M in 2023, $15M in 2024 if club exercises buyout), to be paid 7/1 in 15th year after salary is earned (2035-2039)

    • #33
      So using Degrom as an example, the signing bonus is likely just a way to have accountants smarter than I am skirt certain luxury cap rules and/or personal taxes. Considering the payment on those bonus for all of them ended up making year 1 more on par in terms of AAV as opposed to a year 1 inflation, my guess is any proration of those bonuses wouldn't be necessary. Familia for instance received 6MM year 1 with two bonus installments in the same year giving him 10MM year 1 2 and 3.

      Comment


      • #34
        Originally posted by NY FANG View Post
        I gave my views of a world where everyone is accountable for their actions.

        MJJM, inferring yours based on "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?" is that you think my tact is too team friendly, so what would you change if you were at the CBA negotiating table?
        LOL @ this thought - the only way people are currently accountable for their actions is if they can write a tell-all confessional book with a healthy advance payment.

        Very interesting question Fang - I'll give you my thoughts off the top of my head, but I'll freely admit that I'm not sure what the best solution would be. Very open to other ideas on this.

        I would keep the current 80 game suspension for a first positive. While legitimate mistakes happen, the player is responsible for what goes into his body. The whole "by accident" thing doesn't wash. I would keep the appeals process, no process is perfect, and the ability to appeal is fundamental. That's the easy part of this.

        Second positive - seems fair that the team should have the option of canceling the contract. The PEDs were used to skew the results, enabling the player to get a contract that he otherwise might not have received. I give the team the option, rather than an automatic cancellation, for two reasons. The team was "deceived", they should have the choice of recourse. Also, I wouldn't want the player to have a "get out of jail free" card to get out of a contract.

        Another possibility is two positives, you are done. Would seem to me that, even claiming the first positive was an unintentional mistake, you would be damn sure you didn't have another "mistake" if your career depended on it. If your are not gone for cheating, you are gone for stupidity.

        As for the "they cheated, banned for life", my question is where do you draw the line? Are we only talking about PED cheaters being banned? What about gamblers like Pete Rose? How about Cora & Luhnow, who cheated by violating the rules about electronic sign stealing? Corked bats? Pitchers scuffing the baseball, using pine tar or throwing spitballs? The reason I used the whole "splitting hairs" metaphor (didn't mean to offend any - well, at least not that time 🙄) were the calls for banning the cheater Cano (which benefited the Mets) at the same time there were other calls to hire Luhnow (whose cheating hurt the Astros, but could have benefitted the Mets).

        Again, this is off the top of my head, interested to hear other viewpoints.

        Two other subjects I would like to hear other viewpoints on.

        - Cano's (and other PED users) results are considered "tainted", not necessarily representative due to the advantages of PED use. Why are the results generated by Luhnow and Cora not similarly considered tainted? "But Luhnow and Cora brought so much to the table for years even if they did cheat". So did Cano. "How do we know that all of Cano's results weren't boosted PED use that wasn't caught?" How do we know that Luhnow and Cora's results were boosted by cheating that wasn't caught? Is one party getting the benefit of the doubt because his presence would help the team, while the other party is put down because his absence would help the team?

        - Cano's positive tests - a little off topic, but an interesting side jaunt. Above I said that part of my reasoning of giving the team control over the outcome was that the player "deceived" the team to gain a better contract. Not true in Cano's case, he already had the enormous contract for years. In fact, the two suspensions cost him over $35.7M (holy $&*% Batman!!!). Did he do it to reach the Hall of Fame? Consensus around the internet seems to be that Cano likely torpedoed an excellent chance at reaching the Hall, especially after his second failed test. Best theory I've seen is that Cano's late career PED violations were to stay on the field and perform at the level he previously had. Pride goeth before a fall. So, in essence, instead of using PED to gain extra money, Cano risked major money to perform better. Aside from the obvious ethical considerations, an interesting case can be made that Cano's actions were beneficial to the Mets (and please, I'm not condoning this). All risk in the scenario was taken by Cano. Any performance improvement helped the team. None of the penalties hurt the team. And then, by getting caught, Cano saved the team $24M. And any dropoff in performance when Cano returns from would have happened anyway, on a contract we are legally obligated to anyway. Thanks Robbie????? (Please on any responses, no "moral indignation" on this one, just pointing out some curious byproducts of the situation.)

        Thoughts on all 3 subjects Fang (or anyone else)? PED penalties, other cheating and the Cano violation.



        Comment


        • #35
          how those fingers feeling? A bit tired I'm guessing

          First positive vs second. Interesting choice. For sake of simplicity, I'd probably side with your outline, but if I was able to draw up a more complicated rule, I'd prob look to involve a 3rd party review board. How to keep that board from being biased? No clue, hence sticking with you plan. I definitely wouldn't give anyone a ban for 1st offense though. Losing your contract, I'm more on the fence.

          Drawing the line for cheaters - also an interesting question - back to my review board? I probably don't punish corked bats or spitballs the same way, though if I was going to treat one harsher, corked bats is definitely a higher degree of cheating in my mind, and if cheating did move to include corked bats, I wouldn't object. Leaving Pete Rose out of this, but if someone were to go Black Sox, I'd advocate a full ban immediately.

          Lastly - taint. Cano's legacy is tainted. The Astro's WS is tainted. Hinch and Lunhow ARE tainted. No amount of soap is going to make these guys smell clean again, and if any had a chance at the HOF, probably all have blown it. But as an owner, signing him would be a risk because you don't know what you're getting, but all signings have some risk, and you have to weigh risk vs reward. Same for any player that cheated. It's why I believe the Astro's should be allowed to void his contract (with proof he cheated). And future roid users should have theirs voided as well. But if you as an owner look at the big picture and determine you think the player or exec is an asset greater than the cheating risk they pose, you should be allowed to hire them and assuming they don't cheat again, you're on the hook even if they suck.

          Giving the last one it's own box for reply as it is indeed an interesting question.

          Comment


          • #36
            Originally posted by mjjm367 View Post

            - Cano's positive tests - a little off topic, but an interesting side jaunt. Above I said that part of my reasoning of giving the team control over the outcome was that the player "deceived" the team to gain a better contract. Not true in Cano's case, he already had the enormous contract for years. In fact, the two suspensions cost him over $35.7M (holy $&*% Batman!!!). Did he do it to reach the Hall of Fame? Consensus around the internet seems to be that Cano likely torpedoed an excellent chance at reaching the Hall, especially after his second failed test. Best theory I've seen is that Cano's late career PED violations were to stay on the field and perform at the level he previously had. Pride goeth before a fall. So, in essence, instead of using PED to gain extra money, Cano risked major money to perform better. Aside from the obvious ethical considerations, an interesting case can be made that Cano's actions were beneficial to the Mets (and please, I'm not condoning this). All risk in the scenario was taken by Cano. Any performance improvement helped the team. None of the penalties hurt the team. And then, by getting caught, Cano saved the team $24M. And any dropoff in performance when Cano returns from would have happened anyway, on a contract we are legally obligated to anyway. Thanks Robbie????? (Please on any responses, no "moral indignation" on this one, just pointing out some curious byproducts of the situation.)
            So I think you are safe from the moral outrage reply as the person usually responsible for driving that train happens to have posted the question So from us posters who leave our morals at the door...

            Did Cano do the team a service or disservice by cheating? Tough question...

            I can see the argument "what did he have to gain? He was already going to get paid... He could have gone the way of other giants before him, collecting his paychecks despite not earning them with current day merits. No one would have thought twice if age 36+ Cano had regressed and was being paid for a fraction of the skill he used to have brought, and even if he had cheated prior, he would have had a clean HOF destined path.

            I can also see the argument that financial gain isn't the only thing he was interested in. So we have to ask, what drives Cano? Is it his ego? Is it the spotlight? Is it his competitive nature. Any one of those could be what fueled his need to cheat to stay relevant.

            Whatever his motives were, what I do hold as clear is that no one forced him to make that choice. Even if his intention was to cheat with the only reward to be better for his teammates, I doubt it was the Mariners or the Mets that encouraged him to put that needle in his arm (or however the kids do it now-a-days). Even if we were debating the Robin Hood - are crimes excusable if they are meant to benefit others - I would have a hard time excusing Cano in that context.

            Further, and now we are into my personal speculation:

            1) I believe Cano was driven by his ego and pride and not be some altruistic desire to make the Mets better. I think his lack of hustle is proof of that.
            2) I do believe that Cano was cheating when he was still a Yankee and his 10 year contract was based on steroid aided talent. He wasn't caught, so I can't deny him of that contract, but to me in this particular case, it simplifies it back to monetary gain AND ego.

            But definitely an interesting question and only one Cano can answer. But no matter what that answer is, I think the rules need to be rewritten to allow the team to void his contract, which may for future aging stars be the disincentive needed to keep the game clean and quietly go out when your time is come and gone.

            Comment


            • #37
              Originally posted by mjjm367 View Post



              As for the "they cheated, banned for life", my question is where do you draw the line? Are we only talking about PED cheaters being banned? What about gamblers like Pete Rose? How about Cora & Luhnow, who cheated by violating the rules about electronic sign stealing? Corked bats? Pitchers scuffing the baseball, using pine tar or throwing spitballs? The reason I used the whole "splitting hairs" metaphor (didn't mean to offend any - well, at least not that time 🙄) were the calls for banning the cheater Cano (which benefited the Mets) at the same time there were other calls to hire Luhnow (whose cheating hurt the Astros, but could have benefitted the Mets).



              Pete Rose being banned for life for gambling; received what he deserved and knew the consequences before he acted. Ever since the Black Sox Scandal, every clubhouse has a sign it it that warns players and coaches that the penalty for getting caught gambling comes with a lifetime ban. He new the rule and chose to ignore it.

              http://content.mlb.com/documents/8/2...ue_Rule_21.pdf
              Last edited by West Coast Mets Fan; 23-Nov-2020, 04:56 PM.

              Comment


              • NY FANG
                NY FANG commented
                Editing a comment
                1) I agree. 2) I'd leave him out of the discussion b/c it is believed he never made bets that directly affected the play on the field, while the rest of these items have a real field impact (instead of bad ethics)

              • West Coast Mets Fan
                West Coast Mets Fan commented
                Editing a comment
                I don't know if his bets directly did not affect play on the field is accurate. Did he ever throw a game? Not likely but who knows. How he did directly affected play on the field is in the manner in which he may have managed his team to "protect" his bet.

            • #38
              Sorry for addressing your points in a random manner, I'm just reacting as thoughts strike me.

              Totally agree that the penalty has to be consistent across the board, regardless of the motivation. Also agree that Cano's motivation was 100% ego and pride. Any benefit the Mets accrued from his behavior was an unexpected by-product, in no way was that Cano's motivation. I just found it amusing as hell that Cano's "sin" doubly benefitted the Mets. They received better 2020 production and a massive cost savings in 2021 (plus a roster spot). There was no additional downside added, the 2022-2023 contract was already there. Should we complain when Cano returns in 2022, or start a GoFundMe page for a free PED supply for him?

              I like the idea of a third party review board. Not sure who currently handles any appeals, but I thought there was some kind of 3 person panel. One from MLB, one from MLBPA and an arbitrator.

              Really liked your summation of possibly hiring Luhnow after the cheating here, you nailed it. - "But if you as an owner look at the big picture and determine you think the player or exec is an asset greater than the cheating risk they pose, you should be allowed to hire them and assuming they don't cheat again, you're on the hook even if they suck." - Fair enough, there are no secrets here, buyer beware. While I like your assessment here, very much, I still think Luhnow would have been a mistake hire. We successfully avoided the slightest association with the cheating by parting ways with Beltran. More importantly, we have gotten rid of the lingering stink of the Wilpons plus any association with Madoff. The house has been aired out, we are no longer the laughingstock, LOL Mets is history. Why bring a couch that had to get fumigated into your completely remodeled home? It's not like Luhnow is the only thing between us and success. Hell, remove the cheating taint from Luhnow. Also remove the "taking a year away from the game" from Epstein. Who would we be cheering for to be hired? Luhnow who?????


              Finally, maybe I just am reading this incorrectly - "I probably don't punish corked bats or spitballs the same way, though if I was going to treat one harsher, corked bats is definitely a higher degree of cheating in my mind, and if cheating did move to include corked bats, I wouldn't object." - Are you saying that corked bats are a higher degree of cheating than spitballs? If so, ???????, reasoning for that. If not, sorry I misread it.

              Comment


              • #39
                Originally posted by mjjm367 View Post

                Finally, maybe I just am reading this incorrectly - "I probably don't punish corked bats or spitballs the same way, though if I was going to treat one harsher, corked bats is definitely a higher degree of cheating in my mind, and if cheating did move to include corked bats, I wouldn't object." - Are you saying that corked bats are a higher degree of cheating than spitballs? If so, ???????, reasoning for that. If not, sorry I misread it.
                Disclaimer: This may be totally untrue, and if it is, then I'll walk it back and blame ignorance. 100% based on no reading whatsoever

                The reason is a corked bat adds more advantage than a spitball (1) and also more premeditation (2).

                Advantage of a Corked Bat: The ability to hit the ball further while swinging quicker (and therefore later) due to a lighter bat. IE: More exit velocity = more HRs and gappers.
                Advantage of a spitter: Ball will do more unexpected motion making solid contact harder.

                Is one better than the other? I don't know. But gut instinct always sides with offense over pitching. Maybe no logical, but that was the initial rational for higher advantage

                Premeditation: The idea of having someone in secrecy make you an illegal bat is far more premediated than licking your finger on the mound. Both have clear forethought (for example, you have to practice throwing with your fingers slick), , which may nullify my justification, but just the idea of bringing a illegal object with you just FEELS worse.

                Eithe rway, the comment was more stream of consciousness than a major point I was trying to make, so if it's wrong, I won't be upset as I still don't know where to draw the cheating line in a fair way that doesn't lump petty crime in with murder just because they are both wrong.

                Comment


                • #40
                  Originally posted by West Coast Mets Fan View Post


                  Pete Rose being banned for life for gambling; received what he deserved and knew the consequences before he acted. Ever since the Black Sox Scandal, every clubhouse has a sign it it that warns players and coaches that the penalty for getting caught gambling comes with a lifetime ban. He new the rule and chose to ignore it.

                  http://content.mlb.com/documents/8/2...ue_Rule_21.pdf
                  One million percent agree WC. The one absolute, inviolate rule of baseball, with the well know "death penalty".

                  And the fact that it is Pete Rose in particular is a little extra sour for me. My family moved to Houston in 1983. In 1984, I came to visit, first time in Houston. My father took me to a game at the Astrodome, first time I had ever been. We were both thrilled that Pete Rose was on the visiting team. Both of us commented on how much we respected Pete and the way he played baseball as the game should be played. It just was a nice moment with my Dad, now living far apart.

                  Screw ya Pete.

                  Comment


                  • #41
                    Fang - sorry if it seemed that I was trying to split hairs on the question. I know that position is already taken 🙄. (I would ask for forgiveness for that, except that it isn't deserved).

                    I'm with you on the corked bat/spitball stuff being a relatively petty crime, nothing like PEDs. But I will say that they are of equal "wrongness" to me. In both cases, you are intentionally, illegally altering a piece of equipment for an unfair advantage. The ease of said alteration shouldn't make a difference.

                    From what I've been able to find, the penalty for both seems to be in the 8-10 day range, appropriate in my eyes. Granted, a minor thing compared to the others we were talking about, but the post did give me the opportunity to use the cheesy joke I led off with 😁.

                    Comment

                    BACK TO TOP
                    Working...
                    X