<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Talking Baseball

Your weekday baseball fix. Some days.



Posted by Ben K. on Tuesday, February 22, 2005

The Class of 2006: Top Ten Free Agents to Watch During 2005

This column is posted at 360 The Pitch. You can read it all here, but I'd prefer if you clicked here to check out the new site.

The free agent class of 2004-2005 did well for itself. Big signings — some of the biggest since the early 2000s — dominated the headlines, and players from Pedro Martinez to Carlos Beltran to Carlos Delgado ended up in unexpected places.

While teams are getting into shape and pitchers are beginning to air out their arms in Florida and Arizona, it's never too early to examine those who will be free agents come next November. Who's primed for a big contract and who needs to play well to land the big bucks?

Hitters

1. Lance Berkman

Berkman's free agent campaign got off to a rocky start when he injured his ACL this winter. While the Astros' All-Star outfielder thinks he'll be ready by Opening Day, team doctors believe he'll be set to go by May 1. Either way, Berkman's primed to land a big contract next year. With a career on-base percentage of .416, he's been an offensive machine the last four years in Houston. Averaging 32 home runs and 113 RBIs since 2001, Berkman is a better offensive version of Magglio Ordoñez. Considering that Berkman signed a one-year $10.5-million deal to avoid arbitration, he should land a comparable contract with another solid season in 2005.

2. Nomar Garciaparra

While Berkman has his future set, Nomar has a lot to prove this year. Nomar, who turns 32 in July, has to reassert himself as a superstar in order to land an Edgar Renteria-type deal. He'll also have to play more than 81 games. Playing in Wrigley away from the glare of the Boston media, Garciaparra will have his chance to sit back and drive the ball just like he should. If he can hit 40 doubles and 25 home runs, he'll end up with a nice four-years at $10-$12 million a season. If he's injured and can't produce anywhere near his peak, he may end up with another one-year, prove-yourself contract.

3. Johnny Damon

Damon stated publicly that he wants to finish up his career in Boston. At the same time, the Yankees will be looking for a center fielder younger than Bernie Williams in eight months. If Damon's intent on staying in Boston, he may have to resist the lure of George Steinbrenner's wallet. Damon's had some hit-or-miss seasons over the last four years. He was a bust in Oakland and signed for $8 million a year with the Sox in 2001. After a mediocre 2003, Damon had a break-out season last year, hitting 20 home runs with 94 RBIs and a .380 OBP. He also scored 123 runs out of the lead-off spot. If he keeps up that level of production, King George will be drooling in anticipation of a bidding war.

4. Bret Boone

Will the real Bret Boone please stand up? Boone's contract will depend upon whether he follows his 2001/2003 model or his 2002/2004 model. If he hits close to .300 with 35 home runs and 120 RBIs, he'll have numerous suitors looking for a great second baseman. If he hits .265 with an OBP below .320, he'll draw considerably less attention. Additionally, now that his name has been publicly associated with steroids, teams may be scrutinizing Boone's performance a little closer this year. Boone has age working against him as well. He turns 36 this season and probably shouldn't get more than a two or three year deal.

5. Erubiel Durazo

In a weak free agent class, Durazo is a sleeper pick. He's an on-base machine with a career OBP of .387, but he's never hit more than 22 home runs or driven in more than 88. He's also a liability in the field, and his walk totals decreased by nearly 50 percent between 2003 and 2004. Yet, if Durazo finally has that breakout year many in baseball have been waiting for, he could land a decent contract. He's just a few months older than Damon and Garciaparra. So if he comes into his own this year, he may land a nice deal from a team in need of a Designated Hitter.

Pitchers

1. Tim Hudson

Health, health, health, health, and health are the five issues (or is it just one?) facing the top five free-agent-to-be pitchers, and none of them embody that more than Tim Hudson. There's no doubt that the Braves' latest ace is the real deal. In Oakland, he was arguably the best pitcher among the Big Three. His ERA is constantly well below the league average, and until last year, he was a workhouse, placing in the top three for innings pitched in 2001, 2002, and 2003. But questions surround Hudson's health as he lost his effectiveness last season after an oblique muscle injury. Hudson's also had a declining strike out rate over the last few years which is often a warning sign of a pitcher losing his effectiveness. It will be interesting to see how a switch to a new league and an idolized pitching coach affects Hudson's season.

2. A.J. Burnett

Of all the players on this list, Burnett has the best upside. He'll be 29 by Opening Day 2006 and could be one of the game's premiere power pitchers. However, he's never had an injury-free season and has started just 23 games over the last two years. If he's healthy and can maintain his strike out rate of nine per nine innings, expect the boys from Boston and New York to woo A.J. Burnett until he's sick of steak dinners, limo rides, and visits from Derek Jeter, Curt Schilling, and everyone in between.

3. Kevin Millwood

Kevin Millwood's name has appeared on everyone's list of free agent pitchers for the past few seasons, and every year, he's been a disappointment. It's becoming more and more obvious that he's break-out season of 1999 may just have been a fluke. He struggled last year, giving up more hits than innings pitched for the first time since 2000. His 4.85 ERA was inflated due to the tight new park in Philadelphia, but even his park-adjusted ERA was a career high. If Millwood doesn't show some more consistency, he may just end up signing one-year, $7-million deals until he retires.

4. Matt Morris

Before the 2004 season, Morris would have been number two or three on this list, but injuries and an off-season shoulder surgery have dropped him down a few spots. If Morris can get his ERA back to the 3.40 range and reestablish himself the strike-out pitcher he was in 2001 and 2002, he'll be in a position to draw big bucks. However, if his arm acts up and his K/9 IP ratio continues to drop, teams will be very wary to approach him.

5. Billy Wagner

Early last year, Wagner delighted the fans in Philadelphia by lighting up the radar gun at Citizen's Bank Park with his 100 mph heater. In the summer, he left the fans high and dry as injuries limited him to a four-year low of only 48.1 innings pitched. While he still managed to record 59 strike outs, an injured Billy Wagner may not get more than the $8 million the Phillies are paying him. If he has another dominating season, teams will be lined up down the block to secure the services of one of the hardest throwing lefty relievers in the game.


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###



Posted by Ben K. on Thursday, February 17, 2005

Steroid Scandal Shows Major League Disconnect

This column is posted at 360 The Pitch. You can read it all here, but I'd prefer if you clicked here to check out the new site.

I really care about baseball’s steroid issue. I’ve found, however, that I am among the minority and that disturbs me.

Most passionate fans care about the steroid issue because it affects the integrity of the game and it sullies the reputations of players who have been idolized by their fans. For me, the issue comes down to something as basic as cheating. Taking steroids is cheating by using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to one-up your competition. Just like corking your bat is cheating. Just like throwing a game is cheating. The fact that Major League Baseball had not explicitly outlawed steroid use before the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement does not validate any steroid use before 2002. It’s all cheating.

To understand this steroid phenomenon, it’s necessary to explore just how baseball, its fans and the media have built up a system where drug use is acceptable and encouraged. The deepest root of this evil — like many — is the promise of more money, more home runs, more fans. Would a steroid-less Giambi received a $120 million contract offer? Would Jose Canseco have received his own overvalued $25 million contract back in the late 1980s without his steroid-fueled MVP campaign? Of course not. The drive for greed has led many players to drugs that will mess them up later in life.

But it’s not just the players who are to blame. The owners, managers and general managers can’t walk away scot-free. Tony La Russa says he knew that Jose Canseco was juicing up. The Yankees supposedly removed the word steroid from Jason Giambi’s contract. This is nothing new. In 1976, according to Wednesday’s New York Times, then-Twins executive Clark Griffith wanted a mandatory drug testing program and mandatory treatment for players abusing drugs and alcohol. The general managers voted it down, and as they told Griffith, they wouldn’t report a player without first checking out his stats.

Can this really come as a surprise to anyone? Of course not. Baseball managers and general managers are not oblivious to what goes on in the clubhouse, and they’re not blind either. When a player looks different physically and hits the ball with a little more pop in his bat without hitting the gym, something isn’t natural. But the game is about winning. Why would you rat out your best players?

Then, there is the media, possibly the guiltiest party in the entire scandal. The media is having a field day with the steroid scandal. CBS garnered high ratings from the Canseco interview; the story is splashed across tabloids across the country; and columnists on the web are audaciously suggesting that Barry Bonds retire before he further sullies some of baseball’s exalted records. Self-righteousness reigns supreme in the press.

But something’s not right because these are same sports commentators who lapped up the McGwire-Sosa 1998 home run race. These are the same sports commentators who were enthralled by Bonds’ 2001 pursuit of the home run record and are eagerly counting down the at-bats until he reaches 715, 756, and beyond. The media once trumpeted the offensive age of baseball as they applauded the game for drawing in fans to fill the seats after the strike of 1994-1995 saw a decline in baseball popularity.

If more home runs means more coverage and more coverage means more revenue, then the press — the Fourth Estate of American life — is just as guilty for encouraging steroid use as managers are for ignoring a drug problem in baseball’s clubhouses.

Furthermore, the media loves everything that sells. They love home runs; they love steroids. It’s the great hypocrisy of the press. One season, they’ll tout the great summer home runs; the next winter, Murray Chass will wax poetic about the pressures of the new drug policy. And that’s where the fans come into play.

This is the trickiest piece of the puzzle. Are the fans to blame? Yes, but not for the obvious reasons. The fans are to blame because they don’t care enough about the steroid scandal and how it affects the integrity of the game. In a recent unscientific SportsNation poll on ESPN, more fans by a 51-49 margin, said that competitive balance was the biggest problem facing the game, not steroids. And this comes after a five-year stretch in which five different teams won the World Series. Drug use, folks, is now more acceptable than having five out of six divisions feature wide-open races this season. (Only the AL East will be a two-team dog fight.) If these SportsNation voters are only those interested enough to seek out the poll to vote, I can only imagine the apathy the rest of baseball’s more casual fans feel about steroids.

But the fans do care about the publicity. Canseco’s book was the number three seller on Amazon the day it was released. Millions of people eat up steroid news everyday. These fans, however, only seem to want more names and more details. They want gossip and innuendo. They want to know who has done what and how.

All of this stems from one overarching belief that many fans share: As long as their team’s players produce on the field, it doesn’t matter what happens off the field. This isn’t to say that everyone feels this way; I know plenty of people who are highly disappointed that players would stoop to steroid use. But these sentiments can be found everywhere among baseball fans.

I, for one, do not approve. We baseball fans should care about what baseball players do in the locker room. We should care what players who are admired by young and old alike do with their bodies. We should care about the fact that cheating is becoming a socially acceptable phenomenon in the game called America’s Pastime. While many baseball fans want to leave the steroid issue behind and just focus on the games, it’s time for baseball fans to demand accountability and integrity from the greatest game on Earth.


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###



Posted by Ben K. on Monday, February 07, 2005

Canseco's Steroid Revelations Put MLB in a Tough Spot

This column is posted at 360 The Pitch. You can read it all here, but I'd prefer if you clicked here to check out the new site.

The story no one in baseball wants to hear — rumors about steroid use — reared its ugly head once again this weekend.

With little more than a week left before pitchers and catchers report to training camps in warm locales, the steroid scandal is once again splashed across the sports pages of newspapers across the country. This weekend’s revelations focused around former Major Leaguer Jose Canseco and his upcoming book entitled Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant ’Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big.

According to the New York Daily News, Canseco delivered on his promise to name names and point fingers. He accuses former teammates Mark McGwire and Jason Giambi of shooting up. He reportedly implicates famous sluggers who played with him on the Texas Rangers and even goes so far as to take a swipe at President George W. Bush, claiming that Bush knew that his players were using performance-enhancing drugs when he owned the Rangers in the 1990s.

Players, managers, and agents have of course already begun their damage control. Tony La Russa and Dave McKay, two coaches who led the A’s during Canseco’s time with the team, disputed the leaked material from the book. In The New York Times, La Russa stuck up for his former star slugger. “He's hurting for money and he needs to make a score. What's a more sensational thing to say, and who's a more sensational target to pick than Mark?” he said.

Meanwhile, the Daily News claims that the leaked book, set to hit stores right at the start of Spring Training on Feb. 21, is already creating a stir among the higher-ups in Major League Baseball and the Players Association as they prepare for the worst. Yet, the issue is not a clear cut one, and it will only become further complicated as more information about the book is released. In the end, baseball could use this latest diversion to leave steroid use firmly in the past.

First, as La Russa pointed out, there’s the issue of Jose Canseco’s credibility. Truth be told, Canseco is not the most reliable of sources. He’s always had a tumultuous relationship with the media and has been into and out of trouble more often than he’s been traded. Anything he says should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

However, since Ken Caminiti’s 2002 admission to steroid use during his MVP season and the BALCO testimony that rocked the baseball world this winter, more people have been willing to listen to these steroid allegations. As ESPN contributor Mark Kriedler wrote back in 2002, “But what Ken Caminiti is saying, if you’ll take the time to find his words, is that the Jose Cansecos of the baseball world are far more right than wrong.”

Second, compounded with the issue of Canseco’s credibility is the unfortunate (for the author, at least) timing of the book. This winter saw more than its fair share of steroid stories. Leaked Grand Jury testimony sealed the fates of certain sluggers while the development of a new steroid policy showed that baseball was ready to address a serious problem. Now, Canseco’s book really does seem like the icing on the cake. By releasing the book now, it is as though Canseco just wants to cash in on a public itching to hear more about what All Stars, what future Hall of Famers, and what average players juiced up during the past 15 years.

In response, already embattled Major League coaches such as La Russa and McKay are vehemently backing their players. But is that the right move to make? I don’t think Canseco’s book should be taken for much more than a gossipmonger trying to pick up a quick buck, but that’s only in terms of the namedropping. The real message of Canseco’s warnings — that, at one point, 80 percent of Major Leaguers used steroids — is much more likely to be true, and this isn’t something Major League Baseball can sweep under the rug .

It’s admirable that managers stand behind their superstars, but that is not the right move to make anymore. With a public that grows increasingly skeptical anytime a La Russa says that a Mark McGwire, a known user of Androstenodione, is completely innocent of using performing enhancing drugs, it’s time for Major League Baseball to reassess its responses to these steroid revelations no matter how dubious the source may be.

This raises a sticky question: Should Major League Baseball and the Players’ Association out steroid users in an effort to reclaim the purity of the game? If players stepped forward or were outed by their peers, the argument goes, the public would begin to believe those who claimed not to be users. These moves would also restore confidence in the integrity of today’s game. But considering the strength of the Players’ Association and the delicate nature of the controversy, it’s probably not the best idea for players to out their peers and thus alienate what could be a large percentage of the union. However, coaches and teammates could be better off if they remained silent on this issue instead of rushing to the defense of every nice guy or hard-working player implicated in the scandal.

In the end, Major League Baseball is in a Catch-22 situation. They shouldn’t publicly out those who used steroids during the Juiced Era, but those involved in the game shouldn’t be turning a blind eye to reality. This isn’t to say that Mark McGwire is definitely guilty and that Jose Canseco is telling the truth. But if Major League Baseball is truly intent on leaving the steroid scandal in the past, the iron wall of support for all players should come down.

Records and personal achievements of superstars from the past 15 years will always be in doubt in the public mind. Here’s to hoping that the next 15 years won’t produce an environment for any more asterisks, suspicions, syringes, or gossip-driven books.


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###



Posted by Ben K. on Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Twins Show Santana a Lack of Faith, Committment

What would you do with the opportunity to lock up the best young pitchers in baseball to a long-term deal? Would you throw as much money as you could at him or would you do almost everything possible to make sure he leaves to free agency?

If you were the Minnesota Twins, the second option sounds surprisingly appealing, and it's exactly how they’ve handled their efforts at securing the services of 25-year-old Johan Santana for the next few season and beyond. This is, however, nothing new in the way the team has handled Santana as he has developed into a Cy Young winner and one of the best lefty arms in the Bigs...

This column is posted at 360 The Pitch. To read the rest of it, please click here.


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###



Posted by Ben K. on Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Arbitrary Arbitration

But first: Recently, this blog passed it's one-year anniversary with very little fanfare. Those of you who are our loyal readers have probably caught on to the fact that we're not posting with any sort of regularity anymore. Yet, you may also have noticed that over the past few weeks, I've thrown up some new columns on a somewhat regular basis. That's because these columsn are for a different site. I'm writing a regular column for a new baseball site called 360 The Pitch. This new site features podcasting, a new form of blogging focusing on the audio component. But it also has a written aspect, and I'm one of their three regular columnists. So check it out. For now, I'll post the entire content of my columns here, but I may stop doing that soon. And now back to the column...

Salary arbitration stands alone in the world of baseball transactions. Free agent pursuits are the best part of the Hot Stove League. Baseball’s collective bargaining sessions are covered religiously. Yet salary arbitration stands as the last bastion to secrecy in the baseball world. What goes on during arbitration stays in arbitration leaving fans to wonder what exactly happens in an arbitration case.

From the start, arbitration is clearly not the desirable ends for a contract negotiation session. As the arbitration panel must choose between either the player’s request or the club’s offer, the arbitration session consists of the player proclaiming his greatness and the team attempting to show how that player is not worth as much as he thinks he is. No matter the result, there’s bound to be some ill will between the team and his club after the case. I know I wouldn’t feel too good if a boss of mine tried to convince me I wasn’t worth as much as I thought.

As far as the public is concerned, that’s about all there is to it; these hearings are, after all, confidential. Yet the arbitration process is a lot more involved than just the outcome, and it seems to me that Major League Baseball’s salary arbitration may be quite arbitrary.

Baseball’s Collective Bargaining Agreement provides the most information a fan can hope to gather about the arbitration process. In it, there are a whopping five and a half pages devoted to salary arbitration. This may not seem like too many, but Article IV, Section F is actually one of the longest entries on a single topic in the 2002 agreement.

While much of the section involves filing dates and contract legalese, a few passages deserve some analysis. First, every arbitration case is heard by a three-member panel made up of “prominent, professional arbitrators” recommended by the American Arbitration Association. This association is one specializing in alternative dispute resolution through arbitration or mediation, as their Web site proclaimed.

While those hearing the panel are highly qualified as dispute resolution, their knowledge of baseball may not be as comprehensive. If you think the battle over traditional scouting vs. sabermetrics is a tense one within baseball, imagine trying to explain the advantages of Runs Saved Above Average to an arbitrator with only a passing knowledge of baseball. And there’s a time limit to boot; each side gets only one hour for an initial presentation and 30 minutes for a rebuttal and a closing statement. My fantasy draft routinely lasts twice as long, and it doesn’t determine anyone’s salary for next season.

The other interesting part of Article IV, Section F is subsection 12. In this subsection, the CBA dissects those criteria which can be used as admissible evidence during the hearing and those facts that must be left outside the room. First, the agreement allows for the broad statement of “the quality of the Player’s contribution to his Club during the past season.” This includes — but is not limited to — his overall on-field performance, his leadership abilities, and his public appeal. Clubs and players can also mention the length and consistency of the player’s career contributions and the comparative baseball salaries of the day.

With these criteria in mind, the arbitration panelists are instructed to give weight to the evidence as they deem appropriate under the circumstances. Furthermore, the arbitration panel is asked to pay careful attention to the contracts and salaries of those players with similar playing time to the player in question. This is a review of the player’s ability at its rawest. He has to justify his worth in relation to his peers in a tough process, and the CBA does not allow any press comments that may provide some more insight into how the player compares to those on his team and those against whom he competes.

That’s a lot of stuff to cram into a 90-minute session, and it’s quite clear to me why teams, players and agents work their hardest to avoid arbitration. It’s not comfortable for any of the parties involved in arbitration. Furthermore, as we’ll see over the next few weeks, there’s no real way to tell who will win and who will lose. It’s the luck of the draw in terms of the knowledge of those panelists, and it all depends on which side clearly and cleverly manipulates those statistics.

Personally, if I were making an arbitration case, I would rely on the current market to deliver me a win. After an off-season in which free agents struck it big, a panel instructed to pay attention to current salary levels would be hard pressed to deny many players a significant raise in today’s market.

Finally, what I see as one of the biggest flaws in the salary arbitration process is the reliance on what the player has already accomplished in his career. Because the player’s past performance is admissible evidence, it is quite possible for a player to win a massive salary increase based upon what he’s already done regardless of what he is likely to do in the upcoming season.

Don’t believe me? Take last week’s column. Roger Clemens’ $18 million salary is certainly based on those seven Cy Youngs. Because he’s put together a Hall of Fame career and an unprecedented seven Cy Young victories, it’s not unreasonable to assume that an arbitration panel would have awarded him $22 million even if any 42-year-old pitcher is unlikely to deliver a season worth $18 million let alone $22 million.


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###



Posted by Ben K. on Thursday, January 20, 2005

Future History: The Unique Arbitration Case of Roger Clemens

As pitchers and catchers report for Spring Training in 25 days and the Carlos Delgado free agent chase draws to a close, the last remaining loose threads of the off-season are the arbitration cases scheduled for the next few weeks. While these are usually mundane hearings that determine how much of a raise a player will get, this year, Roger Clemens’ record-setting filing brings a new level scrutiny to the salary arbitration process.

As my fellow columnist Susan Kelly noted yesterday, Roger Clemens’ request for $22 million is an arbitration record, toppling the previous high-water mark of Derek Jeter’s $18.5 million request in 2001. The Astros offered Clemens a reasonable offer of $13.5 million. The difference between the two figures — a cool $8.5 million — is also an arbitration record.

My first reaction to this news was to categorize this as a Classic Roger Clemens Event. Somewhere along the lines of slacking off during his last year in Boston and confusing a baseball bat with who knows what during the 2000 World Series, this is Roger Clemens at his finest. A year after pitching for the Astros at a hometown discount of $5 million, Clemens has clearly decided that his seventh Cy Young Award might be worth more than what Esteban Loaiza made last year while compiling one awful season.

It seems that in Clemens’ mind, the $5 million was a mistake. He got the Astros one game away from the World Series, and he won that Cy Young Award. For that, he figures he should have gotten that $13.5 million. So why not correct it next year? By making $22 million in 2005 and $5 million in 2004, he gets the equivalence of $13.5 million per year for two years. So much for that hometown discount. Mr. Nice-Guy Clemens only lasted for so long.

My second thought was a meditation on the nature of arbitration. In the case of Clemens, a 42-year-old clearly at the very end of his career, how would an arbiter decide this case? Does Clemens’ case get judged based on what he’s likely to do during 2005 or does he get paid based on what he has already accomplished? Clearly, the two outcomes could be vastly different.

First, based on what he has accomplished in 21 seasons at the Major League level, Clemens probably deserves to become the highest paid pitcher in the history of the game. (And at the mid-point of the two offers — $17.5 million — Clemens would be just that, breaking the $17.5 million record held by Pedro Martinez.) The Rocket has won the Cy Young Award in one-third of the seasons in which he has pitched. That’s simply incredible. He’s won 328 games, tied for 10th all-time, and he has over 4000 strike outs. Simply put, if any pitcher in the game ever deserved $22 for what he has accomplished, Roger Clemens is it.

There is, however, the other side of the equation. Should Clemens get paid based on what he will probably do next season? If so, the numbers look a bit different. Using Baseball-Reference’s Similarity Scores that they provide on every player page, I examined those few pitchers whose careers were similar to Clemens through age 41. The results were quite mixed. First up was Tom Seaver with a similarity score of 865. However, age 41 was Seaver’s last year pitching. Steve Carlton, Warren Spahn, and Don Sutton were the three other pitchers with scores over 800. Of the three, only Spahn improved from age 41 to age 42. At 42, Warren Spahn tied his career-high in wins with 23 and threw 22 complete games. But he struck out only 102 batters. He was a must different pitcher than Clemens is, and it’s tough to draw any conclusions from that comparison.

Looking at Carlton and Sutton, two pitchers who were power pitchers in the vein of the Rocket, a clearer picture begins to emerge. By 42, Carlton had already seen a significant decline in his effectiveness. While his ERA at age 41 was nearly 2 runs above his career average, his ERA at age 42 was even worse at 5.74. He won only 6 games compared to 14 losses and struck out just 91 in 150 innings. Considering that he’s third on the all-time strike out list, those are shocking numbers. Sutton, seventh on the strike out list, saw a similar decline. His ERA rose by a whole run in between ages 41 and 42. He struck out just 99 and gave up more hits than innings pitched for just the second time in his career. Those years past 40 have not been kind to the game’s best power pitchers.

So what does this say about Roger Clemens’ current situation? Based on how other power pitchers have fared at the age of 42, Clemens may actually deserve just $5 million for his 2005 season. It does not seem unreasonable to believe that the Rocket’s ERA will jump up from 2.98, a six-year low. He probably won’t strike out 218 batters either. Nor will he win 18 games when his offense is missing Jeff Kent, Carlos Beltran, and probably Lance Berkman for a few months. Plus, it’s his second season in the NL. He may have enjoyed a honeymoon of sorts last year, but it just gets tougher the second time, even more so at age 42.

Yet, there is another argument: Roger Clemens is not like other pitchers. Sutton, Seaver, and Carlton had already seen significantly performance declines by the time they all hit 40. Clemens has yet to suffer the same fate. Maybe he is a bionic man. Maybe he could turn in another Cy Young performance and turn 42 at the same time. History is not on his side, but then again, Roger Clemens stands alone in baseball history.

In the end, I think the point is moot. Over the next few days, we’ll find out if Clemens is set on returning to Minute Maid Park next season. If he decides that retirement is not for him, it’s pretty unlikely that his case would end up in arbitration. It’s much more likely that Houston and the Rocket would settle for amount that would guarantee Clemens more money than any pitcher in history. But in the very rare event that the case actually went to the arbitration, I would hate to be the arbiter having to decide between Clemens’ remarkable career accomplishments and the precarious perch of 42-year-old pitchers in the Major Leagues. How do you decide between baseball history and Clemens’ Hall of Fame qualifications or baseball future and the likelihood of an off year for a man at the end of his career?


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###



Posted by Ben K. on Friday, January 14, 2005

The Hidden Impact of the Steroid Policy

By now, it’s no secret that Major League Baseball and the Players Association has beefed up baseball’s drug-testing program. On the heels of the BALCO scandal and calls from prominent politicians, baseball’s new policy is a major step in the right direction. While some people still believe that the policy is lacking in regards to the issue of amphetamine use, one facet of this new agreement should be highly effectively in curbing drug use in the clubhouse.

Under the terms of the old agreement — the one without any teeth — players received the proverbial slap on the wrist albeit an anonymous one. First-time offenders were given drug counseling. That’s it. No public shaming. No suspension. Just counseling. Repeat offenders were suspended, and a fifth-time offender would receive a year off from the game.

It’s been said to death over the past couple of years, but this was not a policy designed to lend faith to the institution. While the penalties were far from harsh, the policy called for just one test a year. The incentive to stop steroid use just wasn’t there; as long as a player was clean for that one test, it wouldn’t matter what they did the rest of the time. As the BALCO case exploded this winter, and Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds became the poster children for steroid use in the Major Leagues, MLB and the Players’ Association knew they had to come up with a new agreement, one with more bite. They unveiled this new deal on Thursday.

Under the terms of the latest agreement — which is to be in place until 2008, well past the end of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement — first-time offenders will receive a suspension of 10 games. Second-time offenders get a 30-day vacation, third-timers get 60 days, and four-time repeat users who get caught get one year. If a player gets nabbed five times, his fate is left in the hands of Commissioner Bud Selig, and it’s doubtful that Bud would be lenient.

Another big improvement in the new policy is the frequency of the tests. As ESPN reported on Thursday, “Players will be randomly selected for additional tests, with no limit on the number, and for the first time will be subject to random tests during the offseason.” This new stipulation gives the drug policy much more weight. Players will have to clean up their acts year-round because a test could come at any day or even on consecutive days. They will be at the whim of the randomly-generated number system MLB will have in place for the start of the season.

Finally, Major League Baseball has done something positive to address a problem with the game. They’ve put in place a drug-testing program that should discourage the players. In my opinion, this program will work because of the public stigma associated with steroid use. As Jayson Stark wrote yesterday:
“The worst part of testing positive would be getting that label Steroid User stamped on your forehead. That's a scarlet letter that these players would have to wear for the rest of their lives. If you don't believe their reputations will be tainted forever, just ask Jason Giambi -- if you can find him.

For a high-profile player, that means not just a life sentence of boos and insults. It means having everything he ever accomplished thoroughly discredited.”
Now, under the new deal, players’ offenses will be a matter of public record from the first time on through their lifetime ban, if that’s the punishment Selig chooses. While some commentators feel that fans will react to what the players do on the field only, I think the fans will not forgive their favorite, or former favorite, players for cheating. Not only with the fans be unforgiving, but the suspensions will forever tarnish the reputation that player. Players who may have been idolized by youngsters will instead become the symbols of cheating in the game. Star players will become outcasts. In addition to an institutionalized punishment system, players will now be subjected to judgment by the media and the fans, and those two groups are among the first to point fingers and the last to forgive and forget.

Despite these strides, however, I still am a favor of a stricter testing policy. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how taking steroids is just as bad, if not worse, than betting on baseball games. It’s illegal, and it’s cheating. Players should not get second chances, let alone a fourth or fifth chance. If a player gets caught once, his reputation is in tatters, but he still gets to play the game. If a player is caught betting on baseball, he gets suspended for life even if he’s betting for his own team to win. If the point of these rules is for baseball to set a moral example, than the penalty for first-time offenders in both cases should be the same. Those who cheat should not be allowed to play the game.

I will applaud Major League Baseball and the Players’ Association for addressing this problem in the span of about six weeks since the BALCO story broke. But this should not be the end of it. Baseball should seriously consider banning amphetamines, and those running the game and the union should be willing to accept harsher penalties for steroid users. Baseball is, after all, America’s game, and baseball should be teaching Americans that cheating gets you no where.

Announcements

While we've been on and off with this blog for the past few months, there will be constant posts from me at least twice a week. These posts will be running simultaneously on a new baseball site that will launch on Monday. I'll give you all the details and a few links on Monday morning. There's another announcement heading down the road too. But it's not quite yet the time for that.


### So what do you think? We want to know. | | E-mail us ###