Red Sox Nation!

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Chacifer, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. G-man17

    G-man17 The Devil Drives!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    2,532
    Here is the rule

    I don't know how Gagne is classified.

    A player with six or more years of major-league service (on the team's 40-man roster) who is not under contract for the following season is eligible to file for free agency.
    Teams can receive compensation for the player with a draft pick in the following year's draft in June. To receive compensation, the team must offer the player salary arbitration.
    It is then up to the player to either accept arbitration or sign with another team. The team must offer salary arbitration to the player by early December or the team will not be allowed to negotiate with or sign the player until the following May 1. After arbitration is offered, the player has two weeks to accept or refuse salary arbitration. If it is refused, the player can only negotiate with the club until Jan. 7. after which no more negotiation can take place until May 1.
    Top free agents are classified as Type A (the top 20 percent at their position as determined by the Elias Sports Bureau), Type B (between 21 and 40 percent at his position). If a Type A free agent who had been offered arbitration signs with another team, the team receives two first-round draft picks the following June – either a first- or second-round pick of the new team (depending on a team's record the previous season) and a “sandwich” pick between the first and second rounds. Type B free agents earn just a “sandwich” pick.
    If there are 14 or fewer Type A or Type B free agents available, no team can sign more than one type A or B player. If there are between 15-38, no team can sign more than two. If there are between 39 and 62, there's a limit of three. However, teams can sign as many Type A or B free agents as they've lost, regardless of the limits above.
  2. AllanC

    AllanC Exception to the Rule

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,193
    Location:
    Austin
    I wonder how Gagne's prominent appearance in the Mitchell report on baseball doping will affect his marketability.

    And I also wonder if it will have any effect on Clemens. Will he get an asterisk?
  3. G-man17

    G-man17 The Devil Drives!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    2,532
    I hate the whole steroid thing. I can't stand the use of any drugs--in sports or in every day life. (I think everyone knows what I mean and I am not talking about caffeine or alcohol.) That said, I believe this commission just sucks. Twenty million to raise suspsicions about peopleand ruin peoples names. What makes me angriest--and it is appropriate here in this forum--is that they used an individual with ties to a particular baseball team. Mitchell is on the Board of the Sox. Funny, about all those active Red Sox players being named. BTW, there have been rumors about Big Poppy floating around for years and what has caused his knees to break down. I say that not to tarnish his image but to piss you off--because you should be pissed off. You shold be pissed at the way this was handled. It is now all about the rumor and innuendo. Not even new rumors but ones that have been thrown around for years. The baseball owners did nothing to enforce the law and the players union protected players by fighting testing for as long as they could, the losers were us the fans. But now they have both gotten religion and so they cough up a few players and say we never knew. BS they new and they more than looked the other way--both the owners and union put pressure on the players to continually up the ante. Now they hire someone to gather blog rumors and have a new witch trial--perhaps, it is not a coincidence that Mitchell is from N.E. Why would they ever have a public airing of the players names? How will these players ever respond? What if one is innocent? How will they get their reputations back? Why were Sosa and Mcguire left of the list of names? I am more disgusted by this farce than I was by the steroid use. I am all for the testing, random testing, testing in the morning, testing in the middle of the night, testing in the off season and testing for any reason and anything, but I am opposed to any trial that does not have a jury and the accused an opportunity to confront their accuser. This just suck!
  4. Jurgen

    Jurgen Trolljegeren Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Oddometer:
    43,548
    Location:
    Sandoval, Nuevo Mexico
    If Baseball truly wants to end the use of Steroids/Hgh etc it has but one choice. No Cooperstown for any implicated. The IOC has the balls to strip medals. I doubt that MLB will have the cojones to strip induction. :deal

    Jurgen
  5. G-man17

    G-man17 The Devil Drives!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    2,532
    Jurgen I don't disagree with your conclusion. The same in cycling you are stripped of your victories. However, in both cases the accused gets a chance to challenge the evidence and the testing. Here no such challenge is possible. The evidence was proferred by people who were granted immunity to rat others out. I don't care if the rumors are 100% true, this is not how it should be done.
  6. RichBeBe

    RichBeBe All Hail Seitan!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    6,343
    Location:
    NYC
    I think the whole steroid thing totally sucks and I am not making excuses for anyone. But how can we make rules about steroids after the fact. As George Mitchell said, we can't punish someone for something they did before there were rules against it.
    Not that he will be a hall of famer, but what about Pettite? According to the report he used steroids for treating tendinitis. I have tendinitis in my elbow and my physical therapist mentioned talking to my doctor about taking steroids. I did some research and it is common practice. So if Pettite it did it for that reason should he be banned?
    The IOC has very clear rules and enforces them. When baseball makes some clear rules let the punishments begin and be harsh. As it was said everyone was at fault.
  7. Ritalin Boy

    Ritalin Boy Petroconsumptivitius

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Oddometer:
    5,271
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    What were the exact words? "A culture of steroid abuse permeated MLB for the last 10 years" or something to this effect.

    Culture?

    I think it sucks big time. Imagine a prospect coming up though the farm system in the last 10 years. Along the way he finds out that "everyone" at the top is doping. Now this prospect is saddled with the decision about weather or not to dope up to give himself a "fair" shot at achieving his goals.

    I say you put an asterisk on all of MLB for the last decade or so, from the commissioner on down.

    I do note that our favorite player to hate (A-Rod) did not appear on any list. :clap
  8. DoctorIt

    DoctorIt vrooom!

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Oddometer:
    5,674
    Location:
    Springfield, MA
    Hi guys :wave how's the snow treating you? :D

    Can you believe the report was big enough news to make it down under? The world series? Not even a mention. Controversial report? 1/2 hour special report and they specially aired the Jim Lehrer New Hour in it's entirety.

    Ironic, as Selig mentioned in his press conference, baseball revenue/fan following/popularity have never been better. By any objective metric, drugs have helped baseball. It's only subjectively that we disapprove...
  9. Odysseus

    Odysseus Stoic Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Oddometer:
    4,154
    Location:
    Aurora, CO
    I find it curious that the only prominent Red Sox player named in the Mitchell report was Mo Vaughn, a guy who hasn't played for the team since 1998 Unless you want to count the Rocket, who hasn't played in Boston since 1996, and most people associate with the Yankess these days. That and the fact that Paul Byrd's name was leaked to the media prematurely during the playoffs, at exactly the time the Indians had Boston on the ropes, and lots of former and current Yankees are all over this 409 page tome...

    It might have been better to appoint an investigator who was a little less partisan.
  10. G-man17

    G-man17 The Devil Drives!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    2,532
    I made a similar piont above. In addition, information about the Indiams pitcher just happened to be leaked prior to his game against the sox during the playoffs. There are actually a number of sox players that would have been very high on the list--most prominently David Ortiz. Besides the rumors Ortiz exhibits the classic symptoms of someone who has used steroids, in terms of his body wearing down. My point is the innuendo and rumor mill that Mitchell used as his evidence for public disclosure is compeltely wrong. If they aren't going to bring criminal charges no names should have been provided.
  11. Mercury264

    Mercury264 Once you go Triple...

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Oddometer:
    22,420
    Location:
    Masshole
    I too have bad knees. What do I have in common with Ortiz I hear you ask ? We're both fat bastards. I think that is the reason for his bad knees - have you seen the size of the guy :huh
  12. Ray of Sunshine

    Ray of Sunshine Meat Donut 2 Some

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    16,864
    Location:
    42deg 40' 3"N 73deg 46' 54"W
    The argument about steroids hinged on the "marginal" players who were juiced to stay in The Show. Now it is revealed that the top players were using steroids.

    In almost every sport, performance enhancing drugs are used as part of the ability to be competitive. Track is juiced tot he point that even the craziest East German coaches of the 80s couldn't imagine.

    Cycling? Always one step ahead of the judges.

    I joke with some of my musician friends about doping and they tell me that classical artists use beta blockers to "expand time".

    Who is going to stop this? How could you stop it? What peak performer wouldn't try something to make him or her perform better? Working harder doesn't help that much. Natural talent is leveled off, to the point where the pressure to succeed a search for that edge.

    Try to stop it, I dare you. Stop the tide, Canute, stop the tide.
  13. Ray of Sunshine

    Ray of Sunshine Meat Donut 2 Some

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    16,864
    Location:
    42deg 40' 3"N 73deg 46' 54"W
    Rich- many kudos on manning up and flying the greatest logo in sports history. I also took up your bet, if fact, if memory serves me well, I was the first.

    It is too bad that you choose to stop on the 31st. Maybe you can get a bet going on the Pats- Jets game. :lol3
  14. Gary in Indiana

    Gary in Indiana Big Bike Rider

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Oddometer:
    580
    Location:
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Two things come to mind here. The first had to do with Clemens.

    When Clemens was in his last year in Boston, it certainly looked like he was trailing off as a pitcher. I was OK with it when we didn't resign him in 1996. He went to Toronto where he hooked up with the major witness in these hearings who became his and Andy Petite's personal trainer. Not coincidentally, that's when his revitalization as a pitcher began. Certainly, he started training more than he had at Fenway and that begs the question of what truly prompted that. The possibility that he had something helping him train more and harder and recover faster would certainly fit in.

    The second point that comes to mind is the apparent inequity in having a Red Sox board member involved in this whole investigation. I'm a huge Sox fan as anyone here can see, but that was wrong. As much as I'd like to believe there was no information available about any current Sox player, I find it difficult to believe that a Sox board member wouldn't have been in a position to steer the focus of this investigation.s
  15. Chacifer

    Chacifer sui generis

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Oddometer:
    6,663
    Location:
    Rogue Island
    :nod I've been thinking the same thing.
  16. Ray of Sunshine

    Ray of Sunshine Meat Donut 2 Some

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    16,864
    Location:
    42deg 40' 3"N 73deg 46' 54"W
    You lawyers are such cynics.
  17. Gary in Indiana

    Gary in Indiana Big Bike Rider

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Oddometer:
    580
    Location:
    Fort Wayne, IN
    As are we fathers of lawyers, apparently... :wink:
  18. Emoto

    Emoto Sure, why not?

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Oddometer:
    19,963
    Location:
    SE Mass
    I think George Mitchell is a man of integrity.
  19. Gary in Indiana

    Gary in Indiana Big Bike Rider

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Oddometer:
    580
    Location:
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Please understand that I'm not questioning George Mitchell's integrity here. I'm simply asking that we consider that everyone involved with the investigation knew of his association/affiliation with the Red Sox. That alone may have been enough to cause one of the many people involved at the grass roots level to turn their attention to other players on other teams rather than following up things regarding the Sox as thoroughly as they might have had this investigation been headed up by someone else. I doubt that the results would have been the same if this were spearheaded by someone on the Yankee's board of directors, for example.

    My beliefs aside, this, to me, is a clear example of why it is not enough to simply avoid impropriety. One must avoid even the appearance of impropriety or the possibility of impropriety. Regardless of his personal abilities or level of integrity, no one with any affiliation with any team should have been involved in this investigation, much less acting as the head of it.
  20. G-man17

    G-man17 The Devil Drives!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    2,532
    Mr. Mitchell has spent his life as a partisan and I do not believe he leaves that role easily. He is on the board of the Sox and has a fiduciary duty to protect the team, this is not just the appearance of a conflict it is an actual conflict. Why one would believe Mitchell over Clemens, I do not know. Does one have a more demonstrable history of credibility? I don't believe so. I do know that the people talking to Mitchell ratted to get immunity and I do believe that history is replete with examples of people fabricating out of whole clothe stories to get themselves out of trouble. I prefer to believe Clemens until proof has been provided otherwise.

    As to Mithcell this will become a deserved blotch on his career.