Buck Goes Off on Bud. Calls him Out by Name.

[Can_of_corn]

Fine, but that's not what the CBA says, nor should it. The CBA can't distinguish between the teams you like and the ones you don't, the players you like and the ones you don't, or the situations where a team has benefitted a long time from the player using PEDs and the situations where it hasn't. Let's say the O's signed Manny to a 10 year $120mm deal this offseason and then he was found to have done something warranting a lifetime ban, how would you feel about it then?

I didn't say it should only be for Arod. I said that is how it should have been from the start. As long as a salary cap like device is in place teams should have to live with the consequences of the contract they give out.

[waroriole]

I still don't see any way they're going to suspend him for life.

[Can_of_corn]

I still don't see any way they're going to suspend him for life.

The aren't. Arod's folks are back at the negotiating table. It was a ploy.

[Going Underground]

The Orioles can sign Wieters if they want. The Orioles sign him and he does not go to the Yanks. Also who said the Yanks can't afford him anyhow. Jeter comes off the books this year or next. Sabathia and Texeria come off in 2016. Teams try to keep their home grown players and if the O's can't it says more about the Orioles then the Yankees.

[SeaBird]

Note to Showalter. Shut up, stop about the NYY's and worry about getting beat up by Houston.

His statement about Wieters makes it sound like Wieters is counting the days until he can do pinstripes.

I've never read anything that says Wieters wants to be a NYY or that the NYY's Want Wieters.

[Can_of_corn]

The Orioles can sign Wieters if they want. The Orioles sign him and he does not go to the Yanks. Also who said the Yanks can't afford him anyhow. Jeter comes off the books this year or next. Sabathia and Texeria come off in 2016. Teams try to keep their home grown players and if the O's can't it says more about the Orioles then the Yankees.

You do realize that Buck wasn't specifically talking about Wieters right? He was just an example.

[DrungoHazewood]

Have no fear, Showalter and Wieters are as thick as thieves. Matt is his leader, and I have no doubt that Matt knows that Buck wasn't trying to blast him in that quote. I don't think for one minute that Matt is going to feel slighted, he knows Buck well, and I honestly doubt that anyone in baseball respects Matt as much as Buck does.

I agree. They're fine, Wieters knows what Buck buck meant. I'm sure the whole team is fine with skewering a system that lets the Yanks benefit from rampant PED use then get out free and clear from what might be the most ridiculous contract in the sport, and then obviously use that money to buy a bunch of new talent. Some of whom are probably enhancing... then rinse and repeat.

[wildcard]

We all should know the the Yankees are going to spend again at some point. That the Yankees have to not spend in 2013-14 to get down to the 189M salary limit that they have stated they will get to is just details. Point is the O's need to win now and next year while the window is open.

The structure of baseball has favored the Yankees for my entire life time. Its not a surprise. And it will not stop. The O's have to take advantage of the opening that is offer to them. Win now.

Buck should be smarter than to make a comment like this as if it is going to change the structure of baseball. It won't. And what he just said is something more for one of this key players has to deal with in a pennant race. Not smart at all.

[DrungoHazewood]

Buck plays the payroll card a lot. He's constantly referring to other teams "resources" in interviews. There's a lot of truth to it but it comes off poorly, to me, when he repeatedly does it. Comes off as whiny and excuse making.

I like that he's not afraid to at least infer that baseball has a system that massively rewards (or punishes) teams for happening to exist where they exist, and also that he manages for an owner who can't or won't spend anything like some of the Orioles' direct competition. It's not whining to state as fact that the Orioles are in a race where they start 100 yards behind the Sox and Yanks.

[DrungoHazewood]

Buck should be smarter than to make a comment like this as if it is going to change the structure of baseball. It won't. And what he just said is something more for one of this key players has to deal with in a pennant race. Not smart at all.

I'd much rather he do a little minor agitation and prodding than just sit back and take it and pretend everything is on the up-and-up. I prefer honesty and openness and transparency to smiling and nodding and pretending.

[wildcard]

I'd much rather he do a little minor agitation and prodding than just sit back and take it and pretend everything is on the up-and-up. I prefer honesty and openness and transparency to smiling and nodding and pretending.

Prefer away. Its not going to change anything. The Rays have devised a method to deal with baseball's structure. The O's have to devise their own method. Throwing a tantrum will not change baseball.

[blid]

I don't know what to think about Buck's comment. It can be taken many ways and perhaps he was just making a point.

However, methinks that MLB and the Yankees will be in for a nasty lawsuit by Boras if the suspension goes through without actual blood test results. My guess is 1-2 billion dollar suit based on not only lost salary but lost lifetime revenue.

Why would they need test results? The CBA explicitly allows for suspending without test results, and all indications are they have mountains of evidence against ARod.

As for Frobby's comment, about what else is the MLB supposed to do, and how it's not their fault it would give the Yankees cap relief, well, to a point. If they banned him for life, which is going way off the drug policy part of the CBA over into the commissioner's nuclear option (which can only be appealed to the commissioner), that's their choice and that's what would really wipe out even more salary for the Yankees.

One amazing thing is the gap between the two punishments: 150 games, as they're currently offering, and life (and a pissed off players' union) if he fights it. Why is there that big a gap between the two penalties? I mean, obviously it's to leverage him into taking the deal, but the threat is very over the top compared to what everyone else got and what A-Rod would get. Why are they so afraid of an appeal? Still spooked by the Braun debacle? Desperate to set a precedent of over 50 games suspended for "first" offenses? (Because that's where I think ARod has a case; it sounds like they've got him caught dead to rights, but I could see an arbitrator ruling it down to 50 games.)

[Roll Tide]

Yeah that puts Matt in an awkward position. I'd expect Buck to show a little more restraint there.

I personally would hate to see and ex oriole in a Yankee uniform. That said Wieters has been a major disappointment offensively IMO and if the Yankees want to waste $20 million per on Wieters more power to them. Matt is not worth the contract Boras will get for him Yankees or not...there's still LA, the Braves , the Mets, and at very least a few others,

[Frobby]

Fine, but that's not what the CBA says, nor should it. The CBA can't distinguish between the teams you like and the ones you don't, the players you like and the ones you don't, or the situations where a team has benefitted a long time from the player using PEDs and the situations where it hasn't. Let's say the O's signed Manny to a 10 year $120mm deal this offseason and then he was found to have done something warranting a lifetime ban, how would you feel about it then?

I didn't say it should only be for Arod. I said that is how it should have been from the start. As long as a salary cap like device is in place teams should have to live with the consequences of the contract they give out.

I think you are missing my point. A rule like the one you propose would unfairly punish teams that were smaller market but signed a player to an expensive long term deal who hadn't played for them for a long time. They get no benefit from the contract they signed, but all of the burden, and that could cripple a smaller market team. And since the CBA can't distinguish between that situation and the Yankee/ARod situation, the more fair rule is the one that punishes the player, not the team.

[Can_of_corn]

I think you are missing my point. A rule like the one you propose would unfairly punish teams that were smaller market but signed a player to an expensive long term deal who hadn't played for them for a long time. They get no benefit from the contract they signed, but all of the burden, and that could cripple a smaller market team. And since the CBA can't distinguish between that situation and the Yankee/ARod situation, the more fair rule is the one that punishes the player, not the team.

I don't agree. You sign a player to the guaranteed contract you should be responsible.