Would anyone be willing to give Melky Cabrera a 1 year deal?

[Il BuonO]

I would give him a chance on a 1 year. McClouth sucks, but everyone is excited about the last 50 games he played. He is a career .260ish batter. You would be loving a left fielder that was batting .310 and hitting 50 doubles. It is discussed many times before, the players that get caught using arent the only players using. If you wanted an absolutely clean sport, they would have to change their drug testing.

Now McLouth sucks. I remember him as the only guy who brought his bat to the playoffs. And here's some truth for ya, the Melkster's big numbers with the Yankees before the let him walk(because that franchise is known for letting talented players just walk on out the door) are 269/331/716 average slash line and an average OPS+ of 86. Blowing you away yet? Cause the Yankees weren't impressed. Neither am I. Unless of course they change the rules and they let everybody start juicing.

[MurphDogg]

Now McLouth sucks. I remember him as the only guy who brought his bat to the playoffs. And here's some truth for ya, the Melkster's big numbers with the Yankees before the let him walk(because that franchise is known for letting talented players just walk on out the door) are 269/331/716 average slash line and an average OPS+ of 86. Blowing you away yet? Cause the Yankees weren't impressed. Neither am I. Unless of course they change the rules and they let everybody start juicing.

He left the Yankees when he was 24. A lot of players get significantly better after age 24. Also he didn't just walk out the door, they traded him for a starting pitcher who had a sub 3 ERA the previous season.

[El Gordo]

I think there were some issues with Melky's bad influence on Cano as well. Not real interested in Melky. Prefer the "sucky" McLouth.

[MurphDogg]

I'd much rather root for McLouth to be the player he was over the last 2 months than to root for Cabrera to be the player he was last year.

What does that even mean?

[SrMeowMeow]

I'd give basically anybody a one year deal.

[Number5]

Arod said he was sorry too, after he got caught. It just bugs me, that some guys get a free pass (Roberts), because there nice guys. And others get slammed, because there jerks. They all got caught doing the same thing, and they all knew it was cheating. I understand your sentiment, and im not saying your opinion is wrong, so please dont take my response as an attack on you.

If I recall correctly, Brian Roberts was not "caught." He has never tested positive. No one has ever said that they have seen him using PEDs. Unless I'm mistaken, he was mentioned in the Mitchell Report based on hearsay of telling a team-mate that he had once tried it. When the report came out, he admitted that the team-mate had told the truth about that, and he had indeed tried it once, and had told the team-mate about it. He could easily have denied it and claimed either that his ex team-mate had "mis-remembered" or said that "I didn't inhale." He didn't. To me, there is indeed a big difference there.

[MurphDogg]

If I recall correctly, Brian Roberts was not "caught." He has never tested positive. No one has ever said that they have seen him using PEDs. Unless I'm mistaken, he was mentioned in the Mitchell Report based on hearsay of telling a team-mate that he had once tried it. When the report came out, he admitted that the team-mate had told the truth about that, and he had indeed tried it once, and had told the team-mate about it. He could easily have denied it and claimed either that his ex team-mate had "mis-remembered" or said that "I didn't inhale." He didn't. To me, there is indeed a big difference there.

No there isn't. Because if he hadn't said he tried it once, it would have followed him for the rest of his career. You can't just stonewall and deny and hope it goes away. Yes, it came out because Larry Bigbie threw him under the bus but he sure as heck wasn't coming out with it on his own.

[Number5]

No there isn't. Because if he hadn't said he tried it once, it would have followed him for the rest of his career. You can't just stonewall and deny and hope it goes away. Yes, it came out because Larry Bigbie threw him under the bus but he sure as heck wasn't coming out with it on his own.

Actually, it seems to me that you are the one "stonewalling" here. Bigbie quoted Roberts as having told him that he tried it once. Bigbie never said he had personal knowledge of Roberts using, or even that Roberts told him he tried it numerous times. Bigbie said Roberts told him that he had once tried it. I was surprised that Mitchell had even included that in his report, since it was clearly complete hearsay, as opposed to the other situations in the report. Of all of the named players, Roberts had the least chance of having it "follow him the rest of his career" because in his case it was absolute hearsay, coming from a player who had been caught himself. He did, in fact, "come out with it on his own." He volunteered it to Bigbie in the first place. He never denied or tried to cover up anything.

Roberts owned up to it. He made a mistake and was totally honest and upfront about it. Looking at the way Roberts handled his indiscretion versus how other players, entertainers, and politicians, even Presidents, have handled theirs is like night and day. People make mistakes. My sons have grown up being taught to take responsibility for their own actions, and owning up to them. Roberts has done that. If you treat those that do so exactly the same as those that try to cover-up, lie, or weasel their way out, you are sending the wrong message in my book.

That is not to say that Roberts is innocent. What I am saying is that there is a big difference in how he handled himself, not that he was innocent.

[MurphDogg]

Actually, it seems to me that you are the one "stonewalling" here. Bigbie quoted Roberts as having told him that he tried it once. Bigbie never said he had personal knowledge of Roberts using, or even that Roberts told him he tried it numerous times. Bigbie said Roberts told him that he had once tried it. I was surprised that Mitchell had even included that in his report, since it was clearly complete hearsay, as opposed to the other situations in the report. Of all of the named players, Roberts had the least chance of having it "follow him the rest of his career" because in his case it was absolute hearsay, coming from a player who had been caught himself. He did, in fact, "come out with it on his own." He volunteered it to Bigbie in the first place. He never denied or tried to cover up anything.

I agree with you that Roberts handled himself well in the aftermath of the Mitchell Report. Compare his response to Jerry Hairston's and the contrast is stark. My point is merely that he didn't volunteer it, he was mentioned in the report and came clean to the bare minimum that the report implicated him. Perhaps it wouldn't follow him the rest of his career, but if you think that he would have come clean if he hadn't been mentioned in the report, I have a bridge to sell you. No player voluntarily came clean, that is all I meant by it.

[Roll Tide]

I personally have no interest in Melky ... I'd rather have Bourn or McLouth.

[Number5]

I agree with you that Roberts handled himself well in the aftermath of the Mitchell Report. Compare his response to Jerry Hairston's and the contrast is stark. My point is merely that he didn't volunteer it, he was mentioned in the report and came clean to the bare minimum that the report implicated him. Perhaps it wouldn't follow him the rest of his career, but if you think that he would have come clean if he hadn't been mentioned in the report, I have a bridge to sell you. No player voluntarily came clean, that is all I meant by it.

I think this is a poor choice of words and is misleading. Are you saying that you have reason to believe that Roberts lied to Bigbie for no reason, out of the blue, long before the Mitchell report was ever dreamed of, and that he had used PEDs extensively, rather than once? If so, what are you basing that on? You could just as easily say that Roberts admitted to the absolute maximum implied by the report as to say he admitted only to the bare minimum.

Seriously, I think you should look at this on its face. Bigbie was caught, and agreed to tell all. He told what he saw and knew about. In Roberts' case - and only in Roberts' case - Bigbie knew nothing about Roberts' PED use other than remembering a conversation in which Roberts told Bigbie that he had once tried it. That's it - and Bigbie had first-hand knowledge of quite a bit that was going on. Given that, it seems to me that we have little reason to think otherwise of Roberts - no matter how much you may want to paint him and all others with the same broad stroke. Roberts has never tested positive. Every indication is that Roberts told Bigbie that he had once tried PEDs and was not, in fact, using them with Bigbie or any of the other Orioles at the time. When the Mitchell Report came out and Bigbie's remembering that conversation was included, Roberts immediately confirmed that Bigbie remembered the conversation correctly and that he had, indeed tried a PED at one time. I don't see any reason to assume or imply that there was any more to it that that. Do you?

[SrMeowMeow]

Steroids: the argument that never gets unboring.

Anyway, Melky would be a good buy low.

[MurphDogg]

I think this is a poor choice of words and is misleading. Are you saying that you have reason to believe that Roberts lied to Bigbie for no reason, out of the blue, long before the Mitchell report was ever dreamed of, and that he had used PEDs extensively, rather than once? If so, what are you basing that on? You could just as easily say that Roberts admitted to the absolute maximum implied by the report as to say he admitted only to the bare minimum.

Seriously, I think you should look at this on its face. Bigbie was caught, and agreed to tell all. He told what he saw and knew about. In Roberts' case - and only in Roberts' case - Bigbie knew nothing about Roberts' PED use other than remembering a conversation in which Roberts told Bigbie that he had once tried it. That's it - and Bigbie had first-hand knowledge of quite a bit that was going on. Given that, it seems to me that we have little reason to think otherwise of Roberts - no matter how much you may want to paint him and all others with the same broad stroke. Roberts has never tested positive. Every indication is that Roberts told Bigbie that he had once tried PEDs and was not, in fact, using them with Bigbie or any of the other Orioles at the time. When the Mitchell Report came out and Bigbie's remembering that conversation was included, Roberts immediately confirmed that Bigbie remembered the conversation correctly and that he had, indeed tried a PED at one time. I don't see any reason to assume or imply that there was any more to it that that. Do you?

I think that someone who has admitted to using steroids once is more likely to have used steroids twice than someone who hasn't had to admit using them at all.

Here is a thought experiment, there are two 16-year-olds, the first told his Mom that he tried pot once after his best friend was caught smoking pot and his friend said that he also tried it once. We have no information on the second 16-year old. Which of the two is more likely to have smoked pot twice?

I like Brian Roberts and if he did only try steroids once, then it really sucks that he was mentioned in the Mitchell Report. I just don't think he is necessarily a huge hero for admitting to something that Larry Bigbie said at a time when he had no reason to embellish fellow players' steroid use and a reason (loyalty, friendship) to de-emphasize it.

Also, I don't know who tested positive in 2003, the list of 104 players who did was never released.

[Blizzard1090]

Before he started using PEDS,he was on his way out the door in MLB. Thanks but no thanks.

[MurphDogg]

Before he started using PEDS,he was on his way out the door in MLB. Thanks but no thanks.

First, you have no idea when he started using PEDs. Second, if you are assuming that he started using PEDs at his statistical nadir, he was a 26 year-old coming off a single terrible season in a new league, who had previously shown some promise at a young age. He still got a big league contract. There was no reason to expect him to repeat such a terrible year when he had previously been a 4th outfielder or low-level starter at an age before most players are at their peak.