Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

this is simply not true. Yes, they didnt face black players but there was also only 16 MLB teams, not 30, so you cant say the talent is diluted. If anything its probably the opposite. Also other sports werent as popular so everyone played baseball back then.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

this is simply not true. Yes, they didnt face black players but there was also only 16 MLB teams, not 30, so you cant say the talent is diluted. If anything its probably the opposite. Also other sports werent as popular so everyone played baseball back then.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

good point about there being fewer teams. still, it doesn't quite take away from his point about mlb being lily-white until the 1947 season. the game would have had an even higher concentration of talent. one can only imagine how paige and gibson would have fared as mlb players in the 20s and 30s.

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

this is simply not true. Yes, they didnt face black players but there was also only 16 MLB teams, not 30, so you cant say the talent is diluted. If anything its probably the opposite. Also other sports werent as popular so everyone played baseball back then.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

good point about there being fewer teams. still, it doesn't quite take away from his point about mlb being lily-white until the 1947 season. the game would have had an even higher concentration of talent. one can only imagine how paige and gibson would have fared as mlb players in the 20s and 30s.

I 100% believe its relative. Maybe some sways here and there but thats going to happen regardless.

In 1927 the mound was the same, the strikezone was the same and you didnt win until you got 27 outs. Thats the magic of those stats, they hold up.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

this is simply not true. Yes, they didnt face black players but there was also only 16 MLB teams, not 30, so you cant say the talent is diluted. If anything its probably the opposite. Also other sports werent as popular so everyone played baseball back then.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

Talent was diluted at the time relative to what it would have been if everyone was allowed to play. The point is that every record needs an asterisk.

prove it. I say the opposite. More people played. Fewer teams. If the point is every record needs an asterisk then really no record does.

Its not like football or hoops where rules changes have altered style of play and tactics. What makes baseball stats great is the game has been the same for 100+ years. Its all relative.

There were still only 16 teams when Jackie broke in. Lets just say for arguements sakes that the next year baseball was flooded by talented black athletes. Hell.. throw in the hispanic ones also. Whats the impact? Better hitting? Better pictching? No.. because everyone is better. Hitters wouldnt hit better because they would be facing more quality pitching and of course vise versa.

You pitchers also juiced... its 100% relative.

We have seen some ebs and flows in terms of quality pitching vs. quality hitting but thats normal also. Every sport sees that as well

Prove what? I'm talking about talent being diluted relative to what the talent back then would have been if the game wasn't restricted to one race. I'm saying the talent in the 1910s was diluted when Ruth was playing relative to what the talent in the 1910s would have been if the game was inclusive.
You're talking about a different comparison - talent then being diluted relative to talent now. For a million reasons, it's impossible to compare the talent level across a 100 year time frame.

Are you saying that Ruth and Gehrigs #s wouldnt be as good if they had to play vs. minorities? I would agree with that, but I would also say they would still be among the best of the era, and the drop in stats for the elite guys would be marginal at best.

Here's an entertaining read on the roid hypocracy

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/12/30/5255996/mlb-baseball-drugs-peds-steroids-amphetamines-greenies-hall-fame

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

this is simply not true. Yes, they didnt face black players but there was also only 16 MLB teams, not 30, so you cant say the talent is diluted. If anything its probably the opposite. Also other sports werent as popular so everyone played baseball back then.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

Talent was diluted at the time relative to what it would have been if everyone was allowed to play. The point is that every record needs an asterisk.

prove it. I say the opposite. More people played. Fewer teams. If the point is every record needs an asterisk then really no record does.

Its not like football or hoops where rules changes have altered style of play and tactics. What makes baseball stats great is the game has been the same for 100+ years. Its all relative.

There were still only 16 teams when Jackie broke in. Lets just say for arguements sakes that the next year baseball was flooded by talented black athletes. Hell.. throw in the hispanic ones also. Whats the impact? Better hitting? Better pictching? No.. because everyone is better. Hitters wouldnt hit better because they would be facing more quality pitching and of course vise versa.

You pitchers also juiced... its 100% relative.

We have seen some ebs and flows in terms of quality pitching vs. quality hitting but thats normal also. Every sport sees that as well

Prove what? I'm talking about talent being diluted relative to what the talent back then would have been if the game wasn't restricted to one race. I'm saying the talent in the 1910s was diluted when Ruth was playing relative to what the talent in the 1910s would have been if the game was inclusive.
You're talking about a different comparison - talent then being diluted relative to talent now. For a million reasons, it's impossible to compare the talent level across a 100 year time frame.

Im saying that the talent wasnt diluted. That having half the teams pretty much cancels that arguement. Futhermore Im saying that talent being diluted (if it was) has a minimal impact on the game statistically. Its not like track and field where performances are judged vs. clock. Baseball is a two sided sport, so if one side is diluted so is the other. I dont see the difference.

Are you saying that Ruth and Gehrigs #s wouldnt be as good if they had to play vs. minorities? I would agree with that, but I would also say they would still be among the best of the era, and the drop in stats for the elite guys would be marginal at best.

Here's an entertaining read on the roid hypocracy

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/12/30/5255996/mlb-baseball-drugs-peds-steroids-amphetamines-greenies-hall-fame

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Imagine if players never had to face guys like CC Sabbathia, Pedro Martinez, & Mariano Rivera.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that would be a nice thing to do but a player should not be under an obligation or expectation to give his entire bonus to charity.

The complicated thing is both sides have a point.

If the Yankees wanted more protection, they should have included a more complex morality clause into the contract. However those kind of clauses can be problematic in nature.

On the flip side, ARod has to accept that part and parcel with chasing the home run record was that more exposure to his scandal occurs each time he gets closer to the record and will groundswell when/if he breaks it.

There's what you can do and there's what will be the path of least resistance for everyone. In my book, if you already are loaded, passing on 6 million and just taking the tax write off is a small price to pay to keep things low and calm, esp when things you've done in the past could land you in prison.

Clearly there is a lot of bad blood still from when the scandal was first announced about the PEDs.

The funniest part of all of this is Jose Canseco, the MLB pariah was right. No one wanted to believe him, but he was right.

That's why I object to the singling out of A-Rod. It's just MLB's way of distracting the public from how widespread the problem was. During the steroid era, using steroids probably just meant you were leveling the playing field.
What do you mean about prison?

a-rod arguing with the yankees over 6 million is more grist for the mill. the narcissism and compartmentalization here is breathtaking. he is bringing the attention upon himself, and that's what he wants. it would be brave of him to take ownership of his cheating and forgo the bonus, and the right thing to do.

in essence, he is singling himself out by making this an issue.

The MLBPA is the one challenging this. They will never let a $6 mil bonus go unpaid without challenging it.
Cashman has been discussing it publicly while A-Rod has kept quiet.

then arod should be telling them to stop!!! is that too much to ask?

Should people be telling Cashman to stop discussing the issue with reporters?
I'm sure the players association objects to the principle of punishing the player twice for the same behavior (suspension and loss of pay for a year and then no performance bonuses). I can understand standing up for that principle. Once someone serves their time in prison, you can't tell them there's a new punishment and they have to go back. Every decision sets a precedent for all future mlb players. The MLBPA does not want the precedent that steroid use voids contractual obligations. There already are separate punishments in place for steroid use.

yeah sure they should. but that is a separate matter and frankly it distracts from the fact that arod could put the matter to rest in one of two different ways, both of which would mean he would not get a single penny for breaking mays's record. i just think there is a larger issue here, having to do with the "spirit" of the game, bringing it back to a level of integrity. this situation is much the same in spirit as macguire, sosa, bonds, even pettitte and giambi... that is to say nauseating, and nauseating not because of the legal issues or the letter of the law, but nauseating because what gets lost is doing the right thing! so by drawing this out and hiding behind legalese he promotes ill-will.

here's a question:

did bonds really break ruth's record?
did bonds really break macguire and sosa's single season record, who in turn collectively broke maris's record?

Do you put an asterisk next to Ruth's and Maris's records since they never had to face a racial minority pitcher? They just faced a diluted pool of pitching talent from one race? Every record could have an asterisk next to it. There's no such thing as a squeaky clean record - certainly not in the game of baseball. I tend to think of baseball as a game where most players have always done as much cheating as they could get away with.

this is simply not true. Yes, they didnt face black players but there was also only 16 MLB teams, not 30, so you cant say the talent is diluted. If anything its probably the opposite. Also other sports werent as popular so everyone played baseball back then.

What makes the stats from that era so valuable is the game was the same. After 1900(ish) when they raised the mound baseball has been exactly the same for a 100ish years.

Talent was diluted at the time relative to what it would have been if everyone was allowed to play. The point is that every record needs an asterisk.

prove it. I say the opposite. More people played. Fewer teams. If the point is every record needs an asterisk then really no record does.

Its not like football or hoops where rules changes have altered style of play and tactics. What makes baseball stats great is the game has been the same for 100+ years. Its all relative.

There were still only 16 teams when Jackie broke in. Lets just say for arguements sakes that the next year baseball was flooded by talented black athletes. Hell.. throw in the hispanic ones also. Whats the impact? Better hitting? Better pictching? No.. because everyone is better. Hitters wouldnt hit better because they would be facing more quality pitching and of course vise versa.

You pitchers also juiced... its 100% relative.

We have seen some ebs and flows in terms of quality pitching vs. quality hitting but thats normal also. Every sport sees that as well

Prove what? I'm talking about talent being diluted relative to what the talent back then would have been if the game wasn't restricted to one race. I'm saying the talent in the 1910s was diluted when Ruth was playing relative to what the talent in the 1910s would have been if the game was inclusive.
You're talking about a different comparison - talent then being diluted relative to talent now. For a million reasons, it's impossible to compare the talent level across a 100 year time frame.

Im saying that the talent wasnt diluted. That having half the teams pretty much cancels that arguement. Futhermore Im saying that talent being diluted (if it was) has a minimal impact on the game statistically. Its not like track and field where performances are judged vs. clock. Baseball is a two sided sport, so if one side is diluted so is the other. I dont see the difference.

Are you saying that Ruth and Gehrigs #s wouldnt be as good if they had to play vs. minorities? I would agree with that, but I would also say they would still be among the best of the era, and the drop in stats for the elite guys would be marginal at best.

Here's an entertaining read on the roid hypocracy

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/12/30/5255996/mlb-baseball-drugs-peds-steroids-amphetamines-greenies-hall-fame

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Imagine if players never had to face guys like CC Sabbathia, Pedro Martinez, & Mariano Rivera.

Or imagine if they had to face Scherzer, Verlander or Randy Johnson twice as many times as normal. Whats the difference?

It's not just Scherzer, Verlander, etc., it's Scott Proctor, Phil Hughes (Yankees' days), David Phelps, etc. Facing all the white guys in the league more often but in a league that doesn't include Sabbathia, Martinez, and Rivera sounds easier.

The Negro National League was the premier league and regarded as comparable talent to MLB. Still there were about only 8ish teams (lots of flux), so your still working with a smaller talent pool.

The influx of minority talent follows MLB expansion, and ultimately the "colored" players didnt upgrade the talent pool, they supplemented it as the game grew.

Which is really my point about stats and why they are so important in baseball. The game hasnt changed so its great to compare the players of old vs. the modern. No astericks needed. Of course there are ebs and flows (WW2 being one of them) in terms of talent but its been pretty consistent stretched over the last 100 years or so.

gunsnewing wrote:

fishmike wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:It's amazing how much unhappiness there is here among Yankees fans. I've really enjoyed the team this year. The team was lousy for a few years but is back in first place.

+1

Welcome to the light side of the force, Bonn.

just for the record, Im not unhappy, just uninterested

I do think Girardi is an excellent manager, and since his time in Fla has shown he can really manage a staff and pen. There just isnt a single position player that interests me enough to follow. Not a single one.

I did not like Girardi but I've definitely warmed up to him some. He is great at managing the bullpen and what I love about him is he sticks up for his players. I adore Torre but Pedro & the Sox would send our guys to the hospital(Jeter, Soriano) and Torre didn't believe in retaliation. Girardi sticks up for his guys even Arod

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Who is he antagonizing? All I see is a guy hounded by the press who's saying all the right things and focused on the game. Everything you've written is from a guilty until proven innocent mindset.

The MLBPA has to make an issue of the 6 million because they have no choice. You think they want to see the entire PEDs thing get dredged up again and again while ARod closes in on the home run record?

The Yankees, even if the other owners don't agree personally, will be supported by said other owners. Do you think they want the PED's thing dredged up again and again.

ARod IMHO is not helping himself one bit here. Not one bit. Maybe you see it a different way, and that's fine too. But I'm saying its better to take your money and freedom and not risk running the gauntlet again.

I think your position seems to focus on "what's fair or not" and that's fine too. But my view is different, I don't see that "fair or not fair" matters in the end when you weigh out the risk vs reward for ARod.

But you're just saying "A-Rod's antagonizing" and "not helping himself."
What specific things is he doing that are problematic now? All I see is a guy who's keeping quite and playing his best. What else *do you see* him doing now?

Alex Rodriguez the winner in dispute with Yankees

NEW YORK -- Whether or not he gets his $6 million for tying Willie Mays -- and another $6 million for catching Babe Ruth, which no longer seems like an impossibility -- Alex Rodriguez has already won the battle, and the war, with New York Yankees management. Just the fact that in barely a month's time, Rodriguez had gone from at least a half-stadium of boos on Opening Day to one united in cheers on May 7 tells you all you need to know about whose side the fans are on in this one.

Whether it's right or wrong -- and again, only the Yankees, A-Rod and his representatives really know how the contract is written and if he has any claim to the money -- the fan perception seems to be that the Yankees have behaved badly in this matter, that their actions were forged in greed and are now colored by vindictiveness.

Add in the fact that A-Rod has refused to be dragged into the mud -- he has yet to take a verbal misstep, despite plenty of bait -- and you've got a clear win for a player who, about a year ago, had some very respected baseball writers saying that he would never step on a big league ball field again.

“I thought the reaction was incredible," Rodriguez said of the fan response to No. 661. "It was very humbling. We have the greatest fans in the world.”

jrodmc wrote:You either throw them out of the sport entirely (ala Lance Armstrong), or you let them play and stop effing around with suspensions and asterisks. And I'm not pro-Arod by any means. I've always thought he was insanely overpriced, and the WS win was just as much about Matsui as it was about Arod.

Gambling, booze, greenies, pine tar, rhoids. The sport is effing itself over by letting all these guys come back at all, if they want to be pure, and Yankee management does come off as greedy little cheap a-holes, holding back 6 mil. Maybe they could think about giving back to the paying public some of the revenue Arod generated during the '09 run, if they're so worried about marketability and purity.