Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you ask me, Cano just punched his ticket to the Hall of Shame. Well, maybe not that severe, but his chances are poor now.
He would have been one of those borderline candidates, but this incident probably shoves him south of the border.
While still on the subject....what do you think of the idea of crafting a rule which states that suspensions cannot run concurrent with time on the disabled list? It would not change things for Cano because there is no such rule at the moment, but he seems to be getting away with a fast one on this and my feeling is that they should close this escape hatch for the future.
67.5 WAR for a second baseman at age 35? Eight All Star selections and five times finishing within the top five for MVP? That 67.5 WAR is the 83rd highest ever for any position, the 9th highest for any second baseman ever. And he is still playing, still compiling WAR.
But he hasn't done anything to qualify for the Hall? I suppose that you don't see it if you decide not to look.
The problem with Canó is him playing on bad teams after the 2009 New York Yankees World Series championship team. Could his numbers and production be higher on winning teams?
The problem with Canó is him playing on bad teams after the 2009 New York Yankees World Series championship team. Could his numbers and production be higher on winning teams?
Evaluating Cano should be based on the things which Cano did or failed to do, not what his teammates did or failed to do. Cano should neither be rewarded nor penalized for things which were beyond his control.
While still on the subject....what do you think of the idea of crafting a rule which states that suspensions cannot run concurrent with time on the disabled list? It would not change things for Cano because there is no such rule at the moment, but he seems to be getting away with a fast one on this and my feeling is that they should close this escape hatch for the future.
As a fan, I do feel he is getting away with a fast one. However, things aren't driven by what fans think. Things are commonly driven by money.
If this rule comes into play, it will doublespeak - publicly, it is for the fans. But, in reality, it is for the team owners.
Observe:
If Cano serves out his suspension while on the DL - he simply isn't paid for the duration of the suspension. Even if he could be removed from the DL earlier than the suspension, owners pay $0 for those 80 days. And then the owners pick up the last 40 days of the season to the tune of a quarter of his contract, or $6M.
Now, if Cano could not serve the suspension while on the DL - some reports said they expect him to be out for 8 weeks. There's 26 weeks in the baseball season (roughly). So, about 30% of the season is lost to injury that is likely covered by insurance. That's means Cano gets about $7.5M in salary, but it costs the team owners $0. After those 8 weeks, he'd serve out his suspension. That would take him roughly through the end of the season. The owners would pay... $0M.
Essentially, they'll escape the season paying only Cano's first 40 games of salary. While I'm sure they will miss the production, he'd likely come back from that injury (without suspension) too early. They'd have an overpriced 2B for the rest of 2018.
In either case, Cano gets to come back with 80 or more days to heal up and maybe provide some production. Yet, if they added a rule (the Cano Rule?), owners would save some money.
The problem with Canó is him playing on bad teams after the 2009 New York Yankees World Series championship team. Could his numbers and production be higher on winning teams?
Sure they could have been higher. The problem is that HoF voters aren't robots. They aren't necessarily hard and fast rules for who to vote for. If there were, we wouldn't need the BBWAA to announce the winners. We'd already know. Similar to how in some other sports, like hockey, certain awards are handed out for most goals and points. There's no doubt who will win those.
Anyway, I made the case earlier that Cano and Jeff Kent have very similar career, and Kent is struggling to break even 20% on the HoF ballot. Albeit, it is a crowded ballot. However, the idea of the HoF is to select the best of the generation. So, maybe Kent simply won't make the cut.
Kent and Cano have similar "hardware." Kent won the MVP, Cano won a WS. Otherwise, their All-Star showings are pretty much a wash. One thing Kent has up on Cano... winning the MVP doesn't require being on a good team (it helps of course!). Cano won a WS. That's big, but there a lot of players with WS rings that are terrible.
If Kent doesn't make it in, neither will Cano. And Cano has the PED cloud now. I don't think there have been any players to be elected to the HoF with ties to PEDs. Yet.
If Kent doesn't make it in, neither will Cano. And Cano has the PED cloud now. I don't think there have been any players to be elected to the HoF with ties to PEDs. Yet.
A few years back I constructed a list of the ways a player could be stigmatized by PEDs accusations.
1. Caught with positive test which is announced to public
2. Caught in positive test during periods without official announcements (2003, 2008, 2009)
3. Name appears in the Mitchell report
4. Ties to PEDs dealers revealed
5. Named by Jose Canseco in one of his wretchedly written, but retroactively accurate books
The only one elected so far who qualifies under any of the above criteria is Ivan Rodriguez, and his was the weakest of the five....named by Jose Canseco who was his teammate in Texas.
Piazza and Bagwell were both under suspicion because of their muscle mass and high production, but neither fell foul of the big five.
There are plenty of players I suspect on the basis of unusual performance...Albert Belle, Ellis Burks, Brady Anderson, Greg Vaughn ....and there was Andres Gallaraga whose head was so swelled up by the time he played for the Giants that I think he had to bobby pin his batting helmet to the top of his head. But none of them were caught under the five criteria above.
Basically the sportswrtiters seem to have settled on a formula where those in the five criteria class are held accountable, but those outside of it, no matter how suspicious, get a pass.
I highly suspect that the first violator of the five criteria to get elected will be Slap Happy Big Papi who is guilty under # 3 but still gets treated like Mr. Goodwill Baseball Ambassador by the media.
As a fan, I do feel he is getting away with a fast one. However, things aren't driven by what fans think. Things are commonly driven by money.
If this rule comes into play, it will doublespeak - publicly, it is for the fans. But, in reality, it is for the team owners.
Observe:
If Cano serves out his suspension while on the DL - he simply isn't paid for the duration of the suspension. Even if he could be removed from the DL earlier than the suspension, owners pay $0 for those 80 days. And then the owners pick up the last 40 days of the season to the tune of a quarter of his contract, or $6M.
Now, if Cano could not serve the suspension while on the DL - some reports said they expect him to be out for 8 weeks. There's 26 weeks in the baseball season (roughly). So, about 30% of the season is lost to injury that is likely covered by insurance. That's means Cano gets about $7.5M in salary, but it costs the team owners $0. After those 8 weeks, he'd serve out his suspension. That would take him roughly through the end of the season. The owners would pay... $0M.
Essentially, they'll escape the season paying only Cano's first 40 games of salary. While I'm sure they will miss the production, he'd likely come back from that injury (without suspension) too early. They'd have an overpriced 2B for the rest of 2018.
In either case, Cano gets to come back with 80 or more days to heal up and maybe provide some production. Yet, if they added a rule (the Cano Rule?), owners would save some money.
And it's all about the money.
Well thought out, I embrace all of it save for your statement that having insurance means that the owners pay 0 dollars. They have to pay premiums for the insurance policies and while I don't know what the rates are, in that the payout could be millions, they must be quite pricey.
Cano trotted out the boiler plate statement about how shocked he was and how he had never before tested positive and he had no idea his doctor was giving him a banned substance.....the same bullbleep we always hear. The positive test took place during Spring Training and Cano had appealed. When he found that he was going to miss time on the DL, he dropped the appeal and accepted an immediate start to the suspension.
It is too late in this case, the MLB rules make no distinction about the DL when it comes to suspension time, so Cano's suspension will be a defacto 20 games. Should this situation be addressed and a rule enacted where a player's suspension cannot begin until he is on the active roster?
Cano may well have wrecked his HoF chances with this.
I can't speak for everyone, and I'm sure everyone has different opinions on the matter, but I know, at least in my case I would respect the guy a lot more if he came out , put the blame on himself, and said something to the effect of "I screwed up. I thought I was taking something legal to heal from an injury, but it turns out under the law it is illegal, and I take ownership for something I should have found out before I took it whether it was a legal supplement." No matter what these athletes get busted for: DUI, drug suspension, assault the statements they make it always seems like they blame everyone BUT themselves for what happened. "The guy I hit shouldn't have been on the road when I was" "I didn't realize what the doctor was giving me" "The lady seduced me" blah blah blah! Just admit you screwed and I think people would respect you more. When I used to work early mornings if I ended up being late I never made an excuse "Oh my phone died so the alarm didn't go off" "I forgot to set an alarm clock" "The dog was sick so I couldn't get to sleep until late" I just called in and said "Yup, I screwed up this morning and overslept, I'll be in as soon as I can." They aren't going to be happy anyways, so you may as well just be honest, and I look at athletes in the same right. And Grandstander I 150% agree about how the suspension shouldn't start until AFTER Cano returns to the active roster from his injury. I find it highly ironic that the suspension was announced less than 48 hours after Cano was put on the shelf.
Well thought out, I embrace all of it save for your statement that having insurance means that the owners pay 0 dollars. They have to pay premiums for the insurance policies and while I don't know what the rates are, in that the payout could be millions, they must be quite pricey.
I'm talking about net. The policy is already bought and paid for by the owner. Whether a player gets injured or not, they've already shelled out that money. At the beginning of the season, an owner expects to pay out let's say, $2M for the policy and $24M in player salary - so $26M total. Player is injured on Day 1 of the season and is out 162 games. Owner pays $0 in player salary - so $2M total. A difference of $24M.
But yes, the policy isn't free but is likely the cost of doing business.
I can't speak for everyone, and I'm sure everyone has different opinions on the matter, but I know, at least in my case I would respect the guy a lot more if he came out , put the blame on himself, and said something to the effect of "I screwed up. I thought I was taking something legal to heal from an injury, but it turns out under the law it is illegal, and I take ownership for something I should have found out before I took it whether it was a legal supplement."
Case in point: Bartolo Colon.
He tested positive in 2012. He owned up to it. He said he did it. He said he was sorry to the fans and teammates, etc. He might not be the first player to say those things... but he didn't even fight the suspension. No appeals process in the background. Nothing.
Why did Colon get a pass from ridicule?
It could be that he is a fun player to watch. And I mean this in the kindest way, but I think a lot of regular Joes look at Colon and his size and say "Hah, I could play this sport!" It makes baseball more relatable to the average spectator to see someone that doesn't appear to be in superhuman shape to be competing at age 45.
However, I bet a lot of people looking the other way about Colon's PED infraction has to do with how Colon is not in the Hall of Fame discussion. That list that Grandstander put up is spot on. But it likely only applies to players in that conversation to start with. Your Rafael Palmeiros, your Barry Bonds, your David Ortizes.
And speaking of David Ortiz:
Quote:
I highly suspect that the first violator of the five criteria to get elected will be Slap Happy Big Papi who is guilty under # 3 but still gets treated like Mr. Goodwill Baseball Ambassador by the media.
I suspect you'll be right. And I think it may soften the stance of BBWAA to allow in other PED violators. I don't recall the backlash against Ortiz like there was against other PED figures. I'm not quite sure why either, but I bet the BBWAA will key off of that lack of outrage against Ortiz and he'll get elected one day. Maybe they'll have him sweat out a few ballots as punishment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
