Why PEDs aren't good for the A's

by bear88 on Jul 31, 2009 12:56 AM PDT Comment 9 comments

Everybody has their opinion about performance enhancing drugs, but yesterday's unsurprising David Ortiz reminded me of something that tends to go unmentioned in the discussion. Despite the A's history, from Jose Canseco to Jason Giambi, the team - going forward - would be much better off if steroids and HGH are kept out of baseball.

Why? It's all about the money.

Every discussion of an A's baseball move revolves around the team's payroll. Young, cost-controlled talent is the coin of the realm. The A's simply cannot afford to sign big-money free agents, or even keep their own. And when Billy Beane takes the occasional plunge, it has tended not to work out all that well.

When I think of 2003, I think of that awful division series against the Red Sox. Who were the offensive stars of that team, one with such punch they would win the World Series the following year? It was Manny and Big Papi. And Ortiz was a revelation that season, transforming himself from an ordinary hitter in Minnesota to a fearsome slugger in Boston. Manny Ramirez was always a good hitter, but he's been in another realm - "the best right-handed hitter in baseball" - during his time in Boston and, now, Los Angeles. It turns out they were Boston's version of Canseco and McGwire.

But I won't dwell on what might have been in that 2003 series, one that pitted an A's team without Giambi and Tejada against Boston's steroid-fueled sluggers. I'll talk economics.

People who talk PEDs can agree on one thing. They allow elite players to stay elite long after their skills should have faded. Barry Bonds is the classic example, a great player who turned superhuman in his late 30s. But there are numerous other examples, and it tells me one thing. These drugs make a difference, and they help players the A's can no longer afford.

The small-market success story is a team built on a strong foundation of good, young players who don't cost much. That can be augmented with trades and an occasional free agent. Once the players' clock has run out, the team must - in almost every case - wave goodbye.

We like to mock teams that overpay for past performance, but the steroid era has turned that flaw into a virtue. You could pay big bucks for an aging slugger, one whose performance should never justify his salary, and get a solid return. It's one thing to sign a free agent in his prime. The big-money teams could always do that. It's another to "gamble" that a guy in his mid-30s would continue to perform well, or even improve. The A's have had success in that area once, with Frank Thomas in 2006, but that is the exception that proves the rule. The big-money teams have been able to sign players like that, ones who aren't as clean as Thomas, and reap the benefits.

It's hard enough for the A's to compete with their payroll and other disadvantages. Without PEDs, teams that pay too much for past performance will get the declining player they deserve. And the A's, who rely on young players, will have a much better chance.

6 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

adam piatt was on the a's for part of 2003

STERIODZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111 THE RED SOX WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO DID IT AHHHHHHHHHHHH WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Jul 31, 2009 2:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Intresting hypothesise...but deserving of a rant...I think the premise might overlook a thing or two and is acually off base

one could argue the A’s get to zero world series and win zero world series, without steroids, in the 88-90 realm. Those 88-90 A’s teams may have had many more guys on roids than any other team in baseball at the time with what we know about Canseco introducing it like candy to the A’s clubhouse and showing them the ropes on how to use it effectively. With many more players using on our team, other teams were at a huge disadvantage.

one could also argue that all the A’s teams from then to now would have got to zero and won zero W.S. if roids had been under control in the interim.
.
the playoff teams in the 2000’s were 1) very unlucky, 2) had all the calls go against them when it mattered, 3) had great relief pitching all year that utterly failed them in the playoffs, 4) stupid.

From Dye’s never seen anything like it he’s our best player noooooo freak break,
to the " why arn’t you pinch running for the slow guy? what the hell happened- I still think to this day it was 50/50 he was safe" never seen anything like it non-slide,
to the ref’s award interference to one team because they can not score but not to the other team never seen anything like it non score,
to the let me push you and pick a fight never seen anything like it rather than look down and step on the plate.
I mean WTF? those teams were fking oddly cursed and would have found another way to get screwed over, unlucky or be stupid.

(my sabermetric explanation proving curses in baseball will follow at the end of this rant)
; ) kidding..
.
And all of those were just the first round. We still could have lost some of those games if some of those things don’t happen and we still could have lost the next series or the world. The chances were always slim to win a world series then, more expensive roided players on the Sox/Yank’s than on our team notwithstanding.

As for the money argument. Instead of paying for the expensive superstar on roids, we brought cheap roided stars up from the minors. There clock was going to run out anyways and they were going to leave, anyways. If for example, they cost 10 million not on roids, instead of 20 million on roids, we still can’t afford more than one of them and we still need to pick the right one. This made the rich teams spend even more money on a few players we didn’t have much chance of resigning anyways, which may have helped the A’s compete with secondary FA signings if they choose to enter that market.

So they they were a good thing for the A’s in ~90’s, didn’t matter/ or a wash to the A’s between then and now, and as for the future….

I may be wrong, but steroids and P.E.D’s in 2009 moving forward, for the most part, is a thing of the past. Your going to get caught. If you do manage to get away with it, its not going to be for long and your not going to have enough time on them, before you get caught. And if you are caught there is an effective punishment in place with teeth that makes everyone think they will get caught. And it’s probably so stringent, that even if you don’t do them or don’t have any intention to do them, there is going to be some substance’s some players come across in some weird food or diet program that makes them seem to have got caught which will make the punishment even more harsh because it will catch some innocents also.

If I was going to guess a % of players on roids per year if would go something like this.

1980 1% someone got them at the gym one day.
1985- 1-5% a few do them but there a big secret and are ineffective
1990- 5-10% Players that know what they are doing start introducing them around
1995 20-30% Most players know all they need to know. Some do, some think about it
2000 40-50% Everyone’s doing them. half think they should too.
2003 20-30% The public is taking notice, testing is starting.
2005 5-10% You’ve think you have a good doctor and can get away with it, and your right
2008 1-5% You think you have a good doctor and can get away with it and your wrong
2010 1% The penalty is now harsh enough. the testing is now good enough.

I have no sabermetric data to back these percentages up as I am just finishing up this talk out my axx. Please don’t make me think about steroids and the A’s again because unfortunately, steroids have probably helped the A’s team out as much or more, than any team in baseball. And ex A’s players, as much as any team baseball, are probably liable for the proliferation of them .

This concludes my rant on your post

"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"

by OmahaHi on Jul 31, 2009 4:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Boo

First, the A’s “pay for past performance” all the time. In fact they’re often lambasted for signing so many ex-stars past their prime. Beane has said about a million times, “the best predictor of future performance is past performance,” which, if you think about it, is kind of obvious. And if steroids made a huge difference, wouldn’t that make performance more volatile from year to year? Based on your assumptions you’d think small market teams could succeed simply by finding the players who’ve just started taking steroids.

Second, it’s not like only the good players use steroids. It’s just that only the good players have their names illegally leaked from anonymous testing, have hoards of reporters hounding them etc. etc. Adam Piatt, Randy Velarde, Jeremy Giambi, Benito Santiago, Armando Rios, Marvin Benard, Bobby Estelella (just to name some A’s and Giants from the early 2000s) have been linked to steroids in the Mitchell Report and elsewhere. The idea that only the best MLers use steroids is absurd and I’d guess the correlation might even be the other way.

Also, the idea that steroid use has abated seems absurd as well. Manny Ramirez didn’t even test positive for steroids. He tested positive for a fertility drug that’s taken in concert with steroids. If he were more careful, there’s no way he’d have been caught and I’m confident many, many players use without detection. Cycling and track and field have much stricter testing than MLB, yet steroid use is rampant in both sports.

by swatnick on Aug 1, 2009 1:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting thoughts...

But the idea that steroids extend one’s career isn’t necessarily completely valid—at a certain point, the increased risk of injuries has to outweigh the benefits of quicker recovery time and whatnot. It seems like we’d need a study which examines whether players in their mid-to-late 30’s really are doing markedly better than in past eras, before any such statement could be ‘the one thing that we all agree upon’.

That said, if it holds up under empirical scrutiny, this is a really cool look at some of the monetary implications of the steroid era.

by harenshair on Aug 1, 2009 3:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are out in the waiting room.

They’d like a word with you.

A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy

by Leopold Bloom on Aug 1, 2009 4:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unusual

I don’t ever think I have seen a recommended post (by four different people) that’s drawn a grand total of five comments (not including this one). And of the commenters, a majority seems to disagree with me anyway.

Now that it’s gone this far, I wouldn’t mind getting more recommendations than comments. Because that would be different. I’m screwing things up by adding a comment, but come on folks, add some recommendations. You don’t have to write a thing.

by bear88 on Aug 2, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Fishing for more rec'd seems worthless once you've made it to the recomended fanposts

it is unusual but I would think your goal would be to create more debate if your going to write something controversial in the first place. As such, maybe you should intelligently refute some counterarguments made as a way to get more.

"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"

by OmahaHi on Aug 2, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The recommendations thing was a joke...

It was meant as a bit of self-mockery about the lack of comments. When I write “fanposts,” as they’re now known, I tend to stay out of the way and not spend too much time arguing about the merits of my point. If people are interested, the conversation will take on a life of its own without me trying to stir the pot by quibbling with others’ reactions. If people aren’t all that interested, then nothing happens – and I’m not going to try to force it.

by bear88 on Aug 2, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs