CheeryO

Yeah, and I haven't been to a game there in a couple years. I see the O's play the Angels in Anaheim every now and then. Once I saw the O's against the Padres at Petco. All nice stadiums, though Dodger games used to be sometimes kind of scary depending on where you sat.

This article suggest that in Urias' case it is kind of unique. Terrible he'll be out of action for a year or more, but the people involved sound optimistic. http://dodgerblue.com/dodgers-news-andrew-friedman-optimistic-julio-urias-anterior-capsule-surgery-full-recovery/2017/06/24/

Yeah, it sounds like his injury is pretty unique. Of course it's bad news. I wasn't suggesting it isn't. I live in L.A. and the Dodgers are kind of my second favorite team.

I live in L.A. Dodgers fans are feeling very good these days playing so well and with the Cubs, Cards and Giants having down years. Now if they could just shake those pesky DBacks. More than any year in recent memory this feels like their year, but it does feel like the year for Houston and Washington too.

That would have been risky but could have still ended up making sense. Despite the injury Urias is still only 20 or 21. Sounds like his injury is pretty unique.

Of course they can what? The Dodgers sent Urias to AAA because he's been struggling, and then he got hurt. Yeah it's tough break but my point is that they haven't needed him at all this year. Dodgers are on fire, and Alex Wood and Brandon McCarthy effectively bumped Urias from the rotation.

Not good, but it's not like Urias has been a major factor in the Dodgers' success year. Can you imagine if Urias was a starter for the O's? We would all be talking about him like he were already HOF worthy and blame the O's coaching for ruining his arm. The Dodgers are the opposite of the O's in that they have become deep in talent and patient. They are built to absorb bad luck here and there.

Yes, I see what you're saying, but we're talking about grown men who play a game that, on some level, has always tolerated a certain level of cheating. There's that line in the sand of what's acceptable cheating and what's not, but you're the only person I know of that cites a failed attempt at cheating as being as bad effective cheating and getting away with it. Even murder is worse than attempted murder; but again we're talking about grown men playing a game with some level, however small or big, of cheating in it. Someone who is ingesting sugar pills is not hitting more home runs or striking out more batters. He's trying to gain an advantage but failing. Of course the effective cheater who actually gains an advantage over other players is the one committing the real offense.

Do you really think the PEDs guys were taking twenty years ago -- or even the designer ones today -- have the mere side effects of aspirin? I don't know how much info there is on this on Google but it is an interesting topic.

Of course I wasn't saying that athletes A, B and C would never cheat if they were the best in the game. In fact, one of my other points stated why these some of these same players might cheat -- mainly their bodies and skills start to decline. I was pointing out the best have far less incentive to cheat, especially when you consider the drawbacks. For every Barry Bonds and ARod, how many others are there at the top of the game that were never suspected of cheating? How man Griffeys, Pujols, Trouts, Frank Thomas's, Jim Thomes, etc. were there? I can only assume that the great players who presumably never did cheat didn't do so because of the point I originally made. I'm already better than everyone else, so why take the chance damaging my body and my legacy? The lesser players have more incentive to cheat because they have a better chance of losing their job -- or losing the big payday -- without that extra boost in performance. You are right that I can't prove this statement, but I'm making an argument, not a proof.

I suspect there's really no drug without any side effects, but I'm no expert.

It makes every difference how it effective cheating is. Who would care if Lance Armstrong tried to cheat -- failed -- and then fell outside of the top 10 in ten straight Tours de France? Nobody would have ever cared enough to investigate the failed cheatings of a cyclist nobody ever heard of. If Babe Ruth tried to cheat and failed, then that's a completely different conversation with a completely different point -- especially because it pretty much proves his game never needed a boost from doping.

Evidence? It's not an episode of CSI. Ask them or their doctors and maybe they will tell you or they won't. And even if they do have some symptoms, linking them to doping may not be provable. I'm not saying that long-term side effects of doping are a given, but I am saying it would be hard to believe that there wouldn't be some players that wouldn't have any. Hard drug use -- whether it's alcohol or heroin or something else -- so often leave lasting effects.

True, or maybe they're already living with them.

You're such a troll. Where did I imply that any of these guys weren't talented? That said, even if was amazingly talented, how was Lance Armstrong not a hack? He's the poster child for a career made by doping. What is the source that Babe Ruth doped? And even if he did, how effective could they have been back in his day relative to any other kitchen sink concoction any other player used? Barry Bonds is the guy that really rides the line. Would he have been at the league of Mantle, Aaron, Mays and Pujols had he not cheated? I doubt it, but maybe. ARod is another case. He's so insecure that even if he had twice the talent of Ruth he still would have maybe doped.

1) The fact that they were so talented that they probably wouldnt't need them to beat the competition, 2) The immediate and short-term side-effects, 3) The long-term side-effects

If Chen had a better ERA than David Price (over a certain period) it's because Chen doesn't have to go beyond six innings, where Price can often easily make it to the 8th. Elite pitchers like Price are frequently trusted to clean up their own messes later in the game where with Chen, if he gets into trouble in the 5th or 6th, he's gone. With Chen your bullpen better be ready even on his best days. And yes, better to bench him when facing Toronto, Detroit and now when facing Baltimore too.

[video=youtube;wf4c-LMJeeA] Only Gene Kelly could tap dance on roller skates.

[video=youtube;vsMUPbAma6s]

Mark Reynolds had an excellent defensive game today at third believe it or not. But I have little doubt he will go ice cold at the plate for at least a 2 month stretch at some point this season.

[video=youtube;orhf_Xv6HCA]

I don't know about that, but I do think the Blue Jays this past year were one of the unluckiest teams of all time. At the present time, I don't think it would take that much for the most of the teams in the AL East to fall to the bottom of the division or rise to the top. Even though the Rays have so much consistency and depth because they are so well managed, they could fall to the bottom if they trade away Price or not re-sign someone like Loney and not find way to replace their production. The Red Sox could find themselves in a similar position since they seem to be shying away from big free agent contracts at the moment. On the opposite end of the spectrum the Yankees could wind up as the Blue Jays if even more high priced players get hurt or just tail off. In some way the O's are in the most precarious position because they don't have that much depth, their management has a mixed track record, and they obviously cannot spend with New York, Boston and Toronto. There is a great deal of parity in the AL East right now but the reasons why, team by team, is fascinating. It's hard to see any of these teams being dominant any time soon and predicting failure or disappointment for any of them seems pointless too.