So once again any claim that the so called "steroid era" is a thing of the past dwindles as a major story breaks in Miami linking more baseball players to steroid use. It comes as no surprise to this fan. It reminds me why trying to draw lines in the sand about who is in/out on awards, who should be rewarded/penalized because of the steroid era just is too blurry of a line to draw. And as a sport writer (I believe from Boston) put it in regards to this last year's Hall of Fame vote, all you may really be doing is rewarding those who were better at covering it up.
It is no secret from past blogs of mine that I don't think the BWAA should be trying to sort out the steroid problem, by voting against those they deem guilty, even those who are, since it just makes the whole thing a joke.
That said, what they see is that the suspension and testing system is not deterring players enough. And they want something more to be done. My problem is in part they are essentially imposing not only unequally (past eras of baseball have used things considered cheating today with no consequences to HoF, past eras have used steroids with no reprimand), but also under suspicion, and with no real say/rights of the players. The player has no voice in the BWAA. Take Ryan Braun, who has a voice/chance to appeal in the MLB system. That gets his ruling overturned. But it does not matter in the BWAA's court. He has no say there. The other issue is the players not only have no voice in their defense against suspicions, accusations, or whatever else, but they have no say in the system. The MLBPA has a place in the drug testing system, approved it, they have a rep on the appeal for drug tests. They have rights. They have voice. They are part of the process. They agree to it and willingly take part in it. This is where further discipline or new means to curbing drug use must come from. Not from as I regularly call it BWAA vigilante justice...but from inside the game.
Perhaps there is a new place for this too. The idea comes from what the Yankees are reportedly trying to do now to Alex Rodriguez. Basically, now that ARod has been associated with ARoids again, the Yankees are trying to use that to void his contract, trying to find some kind of breach in the language to not have to pay the other $114 million they owe him. Now I should be clear up front: what the Yankees are doing here is wrong. What I particularly do not like is it really has nothing to do with steroids, they simply made a mistake by signing ARod to this crazy long contract for crazy lots of dollars and now they don't want to pay for it, as they have watched his skills and health deteriorate rapidly these last few years. I don't think it will work what they are doing, I don't think the MLBPA will let it happen. I believe ARod already missed out on a lot of money owed to him when the Rangers were allowed to declare bankruptcy and did not have to cover some money on his contract that was to be deferred. I don't think MLBPA would stand for MLB robbing him again, particularly because we all know that steroids really has nothing to do with why the Yankees want to void the contract.
The other reason is there is neither precedence or agreement on this kind of "punishment" for revealed/alleged steroid use. However, perhaps there should be. I don't think it should be imposed ex post facto on players, like trying to suspend a player today for steroid use in 1999 before the suspension for drug use system was in place. I think it needs to be something agreed upon, either MLB wide with the MLBPA or between teams and players when they sign free agent deals. If you want your guaranteed money and guaranteed years, you play clean. If you are suspended, the team can without penalty void the rest of the contract and grant your outright release. Like the current suspension system it won't stop the problem, but may curb it, particularly among the game's biggest names - which is currently where it is most embarrassing to the sport. But ask yourself, if Alex Rodriguez did in fact juice, would he if his $114 million were on the line? If his contract stated the team then can also impose drug tests (not just the random MLB ones) whenever it has suspicion, and the consequences meant more than some missed games, and two months' salary, but instead could mean your entire deal, would you do it? Now this does not mean the team has to release the player, they may decide to eat the bad press, they may think the performance was not linked to steroids (after all, there is a rather large school of thought that argues steroids have little real impact on most players' performance), whatever the reason the team may want to keep that player. But if using gives the team the option to back out, it will especially keep big name players or struggling players from trying to juice to stay/approach the star level of the game.
Also, this would be something either in accord with the current drug system (thus the decision based on successful/unsuccessful appeal) or could be appealed legally. In some way the player would have a chance to fight the ruling because again, voice and a part matters. But the player will also have a voice by either the entire MLBPA signing on similar to how they did with the previous testing system, or by it being a player-team agreement on free agent contracts, in which case the player himself individually signs and agrees to this system. Call me western democratic type, but I think having a voice in this matters.
But I think it would work, that is, help the game. I think Ryan Brauns and Alex Rodriguezes of the world would have a lot more to lose. I think it would help the teams get their own houses in order here. It would give a nasty consequence.
If Alex Rodriguez had his contract voided today, what would he sign for? Maybe a 1-2 year deal, 5-10 million?
Maybe the one problem with this is good players could still get good deals (but as Melky Cabrera showed this year, they won't get nearly as big or nearly as long, and guaranteed years is a big thing in the sports industry). Teams would also probably be hesitant to test/release their stars (but maybe more eager to test aging players on the end of large contracts). But the added risk gives players perhaps 100 million reasons to not juice. Those with lots of money, or aging and with a limited market left, getting paid now far more than they are worth will not try to live up to their contract or return from injury faster by taking shortcuts.
Then maybe the stars and future hall of famers won't show up on other reports of steroid use or other positive tests. Oh wait, they won't be future hall of famers either. Man I hate the BWAA...
No comments:
Post a Comment