PEDs

I told myself that I was going to avoid the PED talk for awhile and just enjoy sports for what they are. The Twins recent performances made that a little easier.

But the dominant headlines on ESPN everyday continue to be about players and possible PED use. Los Angeles Angels superstar, Mike Trout, brought up the subject again yesterday. A big and muscular slugger himself, he said he thinks players should be banned for life if they fail even ONE drug test. He says the league isn't doing enough to get PEDs out of the game. He said IF they are really serious about the problem, there should be no tolerance of their use at all. He then went on to say that the "overwhelming majority" of players are clean and want those type of stricter penalties imposed.

You know what? I don't quite believe him. I don't think he's deliberately lying, I just think he's ignorant of how the system really works. You see, the player's union REPRESENTS the players and its wishes. IF the overwhelming majority of players really wanted stricter penalties for PED use, they would already be in place. The problem is baseball doesn't work that way. The league officials would love to have stricter rules concerning PED use. It's the players AND THEIR UNION that have STOPPED the possibility of stricter rules.

The problem is that  escalating SALARIES and current mega-contracts in baseball are directly attributable to the success of players who have used PEDs in the past. The homeruns of Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire made it possible for A-Rod to sign his first quarter of a billion dollar deal. THAT deal made it possible for guys like Mauer and Sabathia, and Pujols to sign THIER quarter-billion dollar deals.

The UNION, above everything else, wants players salaries to continue to climb. Without "dirty" players getting their megolithic long-term deals, other players would not be getting them either. The union simply will not allow those quarter billion dollar deals to go away. And if you think about it, Trout wants HIS quarter-billion dollar contract when he's eligible in a couple of years as well.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was PEDs that allowed players to have 60 and 70 home run seasons.  If players today are back to the 40-45 home run totals of yesteryear are they WORTH as much to their teams, or baseball in general, if they AREN'T hitting 70 homeruns in their careers? The simple answer to that question is NO.

Looking at it another way. If Alex Rodriquez is worth a quarter of a billion because he may hit 700 home runs in his career, would/should Mike Trout be worth as much if he is probably only going to get 500 without the drugs?

The simple answer to that is also no.

And I think we are starting to see that. Joe Mauer's batting average is not worth $23 million a year. That's why Twins fans are booing Mauer more often even though he's having a good "Joe Mauer" type year.

You see, without the drugs, players are not worth as much, and should not be paid as much, as players who have had great success because of the PEDS.

If the drugs caused the current salary measuring-stick to rise, players without the drugs, should say they are willing to take much less money than their drug-produced counter parts.

Unless of course they PERFORM like their drug-produced counter parts.

And they won't. And they won't take less money. The union won't let them, and they want to make as much as the "big boys" even though they won't have the stats that deserve it.

You see, it is, and always has been, about the money. Players who took the drugs did it to get bigger contracts. Players who wish that the drug-use would go away don't want to settle for less money with their poorer performances.

You really can't have it both ways. Homeruns equal GREEN. That's why it's called moneyball.