Jump to content
interloper

O's claim Travis Lakins, DFA Stevie Wilkerson

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I love to bring this up every time someone starts spouting nonsense about how amphetamines aren't as bad as steroids.  If they stop, I'll stop.

I guess we all have our pet causes.    I just hate to see a discussion of a somewhat marginal player get derailed by our 73rd discussion of the topic of amphetamines vs. steroids.    Not that Wilkerson is that exciting of a topic, either.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Are you against Red Bull.   Players use it today to enhance their focus and reflexes.   I don't than any idea why Stevie didn't take a Red Bull instead of the a greenie.  But one is a bad as the other except one is legal and the other is not.    Well, until the ban caffeine.

Red Bull isn't Adderall, that isn't a realistic comparison.  Taking greenies isn't the same as taking caffeine and Taurine.  

Why don't they just tell kids with ADHD to drink coffee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Can_of_corn said:

So?  It says 6-7 guys per pitching staff were using.  The congressional study from 1973 agrees.  Guys were using, they just weren't getting as large a result as guys using later.

I don't disagree.  It wasn't apparent who was "cheating" then.  The advantages weren't obvious.  Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, etc., made it obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

But doesn't the term "as bad as" pretty much imply that it's a subjective opinion?  Not "as illegal as", but "as bad as".  Kind of implying a level of moral judgement which is always going to be subjective.  So basically if someone is bothered more by one than the other that is their opinion, and your need to constantly point out that their opinion is, in your eyes, wrong is futile.  You are welcome to keep tilting at the windmill, that is your right, but it's like arguing politics has become in the US today...two sides talking past each other, getting cheers for their opinion from people who agree with them but never changing a single mind on The Other Side.

Not in this case.  I was going by what I have read and studies and first hand accounts indicate that they conveyed a similar level of competitive advantage.

And honestly, if someone thinks Adderall and Red Bull are the same thing isn't it our duty to educate them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Red Bull isn't Adderall, that isn't a realistic comparison.  Taking greenies isn't the same as taking caffeine and Taurine.  

Why don't they just tell kids with ADHD to drink coffee?

Red Bull is a stimulant.  Amphetamines are stimulants.   Both are meant to improve focus and reflexes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Red Bull is a stimulant.  Amphetamines are stimulants.   Both are meant to improve focus and reflexes.

Motrin is a pain killer.  Fentanyl is a pain killer.  Should Fentanyl be sold OTC?  Both are meant to alleviate pain right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Red Bull is a stimulant.  Amphetamines are stimulants.   Both are meant to improve focus and reflexes.

Shouldn’t we assume that since the FDA regulates one and not the other, they are substantively different?    I’m not a chemist but that is certainly my understanding.    

More to your point, amphetamines were viewed differently in the 1960’s than they are today.    They were passed out to combatants during WWII without prescriptions, and very commonly used thereafter.     It was only with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that the government really started clamping down on their use and warning of the dangers.    Here’s a good discussion of the topic:  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/speedy-history-americas-addiction-amphetamine-180966989/

So, I do think that context has to be considered when equating amphetamine use in the 1960’s with steroid use in the late ‘80’s and thereafter.    But I think today, it’s clear that both are prohibited and I don’t excuse Wilkerson in any way for violating the league’s policies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, REDMAN said:

Same as me reaching the age of 65, I qualified for Medicare, but I still have to pay for it, qualified doesn't mean I get it free.

I am fully vested in my union’s pension, which is kind of laughable because of many reasons. Not being fully vested just means you don’t get the full value. If you qualify You don’t get the same amount that a fully vested member of the plan would get(How many players actually have a career of 10 years?) but you still get something, so after one day these guys get healthcare and after 43 or 43 days, they get their pension. The minimum pension is $34,000. I don’t know when a player is eligible to receive that pension. I haven’t been able to find out whether they start getting it when they officially retire or when they reach the age of 62 or 65. I don’t know. It’s possible that you and I are both correct and we are differing only in degree.

Edited by Philip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Lakins still doesn’t show in MLB.coms top 30. Which I’m sure would’ve been updated by now. It’s hard to he doesn’t rate higher than Dillon Tate, J Ortiz, or JC Encarcion

 

 

From what I've seen and read of him he rates above them for me. Probably close to Tate though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this seem questionable to people:

Player A from 31-34 years old

.297 .364 .542 .906

Player A from 35-38 years old

.298 .395 .593 .988

How many players become a better hitter from 35-38 years old playing in the same home stadium (Note: fences were brought in 10 feet  in power alleys during the second span)?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Lakins still doesn’t show in MLB.coms top 30. Which I’m sure would’ve been updated by now. It’s hard to he doesn’t rate higher than Dillon Tate, J Ortiz, or JC Encarcion

 

8 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

From what I've seen and read of him he rates above them for me. Probably close to Tate though.

The mlb.com top 30 list for the O’s is pretty dubious.   Neither Encarnacion nor Ortiz is on the OH list.     Ortiz was dropped from the 40-man roster and not invited to spring training, so the O’s almost certainly regard Lakins more highly since they deemed him worthy of a 40-man roster spot.    Tate was 26 on the OH list, so if Tony is saying that Lakins probably would be close to Tate, that’s saying he’d be near the bottom of our top 30.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philip said:

I am fully vested in my union’s pension, which is kind of laughable because of many reasons. Not being fully vested just means you don’t get the full value. If you qualify You don’t get the same amount that a fully vested member of the plan would get(How many players actually have a career of 10 years?) but you still get something, so after one day these guys get healthcare and after 43 or 43 days, they get their pension. The minimum pension is $34,000. I don’t know when a player is eligible to receive that pension. I haven’t been able to find out whether they start getting it when they officially retire or when they reach the age of 62 or 65. I don’t know. It’s possible that you and I are both correct and we are differing only in degree.

We both are missing a relative point, just like the NFL, the pensions are grandfather to certain points in time, I would bet that Johnson pension is far less than current players with 3 1/2 years. I remember this because of John Unitas problem before his death. The CBA changes every time it comes up, players formally in it sometimes don't apply to the new rules.

 

Edited by REDMAN
added content
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not on topic, but I play golf with someone who has the same disorder as Chris Davis, I have worked with many players to help them improve, many getting them down in the low 80, I have tried everything with him to help, nothing works, he even went to the doctors who gave him the drug Davis used after Adderell, it didn't work. I can get him to play well for 3/4 holes at a time, but not 18, and he doesn't want to change, I changed my swing to the Chamblee swing, probably the easiest swing to use and I have great results, he refuses to try it. It is very hard to change people who have this disorder like Davis.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frobby said:

I guess we all have our pet causes.    I just hate to see a discussion of a somewhat marginal player get derailed by our 73rd discussion of the topic of amphetamines vs. steroids.    Not that Wilkerson is that exciting of a topic, either.   

You aren’t excited talking about a 28 year old ,well below replacement level player without a position?  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...