Jump to content
Greg Pappas

ESPN is reporting...

Recommended Posts

The Mitchell report is already written. It's as if the committee has some agreement with Selig not to release this now as it could detract from the playoffs and world series. The irony is by waiting to release the names, it only serves to stir up what will already be an enormous media frenzy.

I would be extraordinarily surprised if the timing of the report's release wasn't a main topic of discussion during that conference call.

The championships and World Series generates a lot of money for a lot of people and if those three series are overshadowed by this story, a lot of revenue could be lost.

I will be interested to see what the story becomes if there are players in any of these series named. Even if their PED use was in the past, that would add a new ugly dimension to an already ugly story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mitchell report is already written. It's as if the committee has some agreement with Selig not to release this now as it could detract from the playoffs and world series.

I agree with both of these 2 statements.

The irony is by waiting to release the names, it only serves to stir up what will already be an enormous media frenzy.

I don't know...

Do you really think this is stirring up something huge right now? I don't. I think that for 99.9% of people, and for 99.9% of the media, the focus is very much on the postseason and not-yet on this. I hope/expect/pray it will stay this way until after the WS is over. The media attention to it might ramp up a wee bit, but I don't think it will become the primary baseball story until after the WS is over. If it somehow becomes a big media thing before the WS is over, then I will be PO'd at the media for providing Yet Another Case of showing bad judgment. There's nothing wrong with waiting. Just waiting for a couple weeks ain't like a cover-up or anything else that's bad.

I think it would be colossally dumb of MLB to not-wait until after the WS. When the crap hits the fan, it will drown-out a lot of stuff. I think MB is wrong about various things, but I think they're absolutely right for letting the WS happen first. IMO, the World Series is the absolute king of American sports events (not only because of tradition, but also because it has way more Actual Sport and way less Hype than do the comparable football events). Regardless of people's differing opinions about the whole 'roids mess, I would think that we'd all want it to not screw up the World Series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think this is stirring up something huge right now? I don't. I think that for 99.9% of people, and for 99.9% of the media, the focus is very much on the postseason and not-yet on this.

This is the build-up:
According to those familiar with the conference call, Tom Carlucci, a lawyer for MLB, told the team representatives on the conference call that the report is going to be "salacious."

Said one source familiar with what was said on the conference call, "This is going to be enormous ... it's going to be a huge story when these names come out."

Source - Buster Olney

It may not be a bigger story than e.g. the Rockies run but it is a dark ominous cloud hanging over baseball. This won't go away until Halloween. I'll bet someone "leaks" some of the information in advance and the media is in heavy competition mode to be the first with the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the build-up:

Source - Buster Olney

It may not be a bigger story than e.g. the Rockies run but it is a dark ominous cloud hanging over baseball. This won't go away until Halloween. I'll bet someone "leaks" some of the information in advance and the media is in heavy competition mode to be the first with the story.

I agree that whatever they said on the conference call will be leaked.

I agree that the media will show no restraint whatsoever.

I think what happens will be determined by 2 things:

1. Whether MLB was smart enough to not give any particulars in the conference call.

2. Whether MLB has been smart enough to keep knowledge of the details within a small circle of people who can keep their mouths shut.

It sounds like they did Number 1.

I think we're about to find out if they did Number 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buster Olney reports:

According to those familiar with the conference call, Tom Carlucci, a lawyer for MLB, told the team representatives on the conference call that the report is going to be "salacious."

According the the American Heritage Dictionary:

Salacious

1. Appealing to or stimulating sexual desire; lascivious.

2. Lustful; bawdy.

Well, this throws an entirely different light on things, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you want to know about the past because you want to restore lost credibility to a game where many fans/ex-fans think the game is just a step above WWE when it comes to the integrity of the competition and its records.

There is also value in knowing what happened in the past simply for no other reason than the historical record.

What there is no value in is sweeping it all under the rug.

I agree. Sweeping it under the rug will raise far more questions. With Mitchell releasing the names it proves baseball isn't trying to hide. The IRS can't catch everyone who cheats on their taxes but that shouldn't stop them for trying to catch people that do. Consumers have a right to know what players used PED's. Selig had nothing to do with this investigation either, it is all Mitchell. The report would have no value if the names were covered up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it matters much....These guys are getting tested now and are showing to be clean.

I don't think it hurts Miggy's trade value if it turns out he was roiding back in 2004.

Not exactly. Clean as in they're not taking anything that can be detected by MLB's testing system, but we all know that the tests don't detect what a lot of guys are using.

Concerning your second point, if he was using steroids then, and isn't now, then that should hurt his value quite a bit actually. His power has dropped a lot over the last year and a half, so it would just be assumed that it's because he's no longer using, not because he's tired of playing for a loser or swinging for contact or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not exactly. Clean as in they're not taking anything that can be detected by MLB's testing system, but we all know that the tests don't detect what a lot of guys are using.

Concerning your second point, if he was using steroids then, and isn't now, then that should hurt his value quite a bit actually. His power has dropped a lot over the last year and a half, so it would just be assumed that it's because he's no longer using, not because he's tired of playing for a loser or swinging for contact or whatever.

Doesn't matter...Even if he isn't viewed as a 900 OPS/30 homer guy, he can still be viewed as a 800-850 OPS/20-25 homer guy.

If he is named in this report, i doubt his value is any different between now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, SG, his value will be different. You can't slap a stat on it, but no one wants someone who's perceived as a roider, doesn't matter how long ago they did it.

It's negative PR for a team that'd be picking him up. No one wants that.

Look back at the cocaine days in the 80's, some players from then still have that stigma....and this promises to be way bigger than that.

He'll be viewed as tarnished goods and his trade value will take a ding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't matter...Even if he isn't viewed as a 900 OPS/30 homer guy, he can still be viewed as a 800-850 OPS/20-25 homer guy.

If he is named in this report, i doubt his value is any different between now and then.

Well I think that's wrong because teams would rather not deal with the bad press from adding prominent players from this list. Of course they would, but if they have the choice of a guy from the list, and a guy who hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing, they'll take the latter.

That along with the point I just mentioned hurts his value imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is basically a perceived roider or HGHer it seems.

Do you think if it came out that Pujols was/is using HGH, that teams would trade less for him?

I just don't think teams care as much about this as many think. Seeing as so many are doing it, it would be hard to have a team full of guys who aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, SG, his value will be different. You can't slap a stat on it, but no one wants someone who's perceived as a roider, doesn't matter how long ago they did it.

It's negative PR for a team that'd be picking him up. No one wants that.

Look back at the cocaine days in the 80's, some players from then still have that stigma....and this promises to be way bigger than that.

He'll be viewed as tarnished goods and his trade value will take a ding.

You've nailed it IMO. If he's on the list I still think we can get a decent package for him considering how little there will be available but he'll be a plan C or D for teams whereas he might be a plan A or B for teams w/o being tagged as a cheater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you guys are making too big of a deal about steroids in baseball, but I've made that point before, so I guess there's no need to get back into it again. I'd prefer steroids to be totally eliminated from the sport, and wish they were never in it, but I'm not going to come down on these guys that much for using, it's very understandable why they did.

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

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I would put not trading Britton, Manny and Brach after 2016 above all of these though.
    • As moronic as the Britton decision was, that team wasn’t all that great, so they don’t go far anyway. Manny could have made a huge difference.  Who knows?  McLouth homer could change the series but they still would have likely lost in the playoffs and probably that series.  
    • I take yellow, because that would have had positive ramifications for several years, whereas blue, which is second place, maybe gets us past KC (maybe, as w were swept) and maybe gives us a chance against the Giants in the WS.  Yellow for me.
    • Orioles did offer Cruz a contract, IIRC.  I believe they offered him a 3-year deal, which seemed reasonable considering his age.  It was a bit of a surprise that he got a 4-year deal from Seattle.  There really wasn't much of an outcry over the Orioles not going 4 years.  It seemed like a prudent decision at the time.
    • I understand.  I just think he was decent here in 1990 and decent in Houston in 1991, I'm not sure why he wasn't more highly regarded by both teams.  I agree he wasn't an obvious HoFer until his late 20s.   I think Finley was great.  An OF of Brady, Devo and Finley in the 90s would have been borderline elite defensively.  But he, too, really didn't kick into gear until his late 20s and early 30s.  And while I don't think he was ever named in the Mitchell report, it wouldn't have surprised me if he was using. Glenn Davis was very good, probably tied with Will Clark and Jack Clark as the preeminent slugging first baseman in the NL in the late 80s.   
    • I don't think Schilling is a deranged lunatic.  He has some unpopular opinions that he does a poor job of expressing.  IMO, a deranged lunatic is someone who's dangerous to himself and others in society, I don't see Schilling being that guy. That said, I'd gladly have whatever "stain" Schilling has over Davis.  I'd take 26 Ty Cobbs (cue @DrungoHazewood "He wasn't that bad of a guy!  The Al Stump book was lies!") on this team if it meant we would win.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...