By the way, did anyone else read Strauss's online chat yesterday?

Two take home messages:

"Joe Strauss: The Feb. 15 deadline will not pass without the Cardinals making an offer."

"as of today I have no information that leads me to change my opinion that Pujols is headed to free agency."

I just want to repeat what I have said several times, but more clearly: if the Cards wait, hoping for the market to drop, they may well find that $300/10 already includes a large hometown discount.  I am clinging to my one little hope that the Cards offer an 11th hour menu of options that includes something that Pujols can sign with pride.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_7f6ba918-349c-11e0-b95b-00127992bc8b.html

Last edited by Max (2/10/2011 2:03 pm)

I read it.  It also seemed to confirm what I already suspected.  The longer this lingers, the deeper the lines of division among fans will be drawn.  There are plenty who, like yourself, would argue in favor of signing Pujols to whatever he wants.  There are also plenty of others who are already calling Pujols greedy.

The more I think about it, I wonder if the February 16 deadline isn't a bit of a false deadline.  Let's assume (as does Strauss), that the Cardinals put out a reasonable, but unacceptable offer.  Would the Pujols camp really cut off negotiations during Spring Training?  That seems sort of silly to me.  Mind you, I think it's a good move to force the Cardinals into making an offer by that date, but if they do, there's no reason to stop the process just because Spring Training is underway.  Keep the negotiations going, but set a deadline of Opening Day.  If a deal isn't reached by then, I don't have a problem with breaking off talks.  Spring Training just isn't a serious enough situation that Pujols can't be bothered.  There are some days where all they do is come in, get in a work out and go home.

forsberg_us wrote:

I read it.  It also seemed to confirm what I already suspected.  The longer this lingers, the deeper the lines of division among fans will be drawn.  There are plenty who, like yourself, would argue in favor of signing Pujols to whatever he wants.  There are also plenty of others who are already calling Pujols greedy.

The more I think about it, I wonder if the February 16 deadline isn't a bit of a false deadline.  Let's assume (as does Strauss), that the Cardinals put out a reasonable, but unacceptable offer.  Would the Pujols camp really cut off negotiations during Spring Training?  That seems sort of silly to me.  Mind you, I think it's a good move to force the Cardinals into making an offer by that date, but if they do, there's no reason to stop the process just because Spring Training is underway.  Keep the negotiations going, but set a deadline of Opening Day.  If a deal isn't reached by then, I don't have a problem with breaking off talks.  Spring Training just isn't a serious enough situation that Pujols can't be bothered.  There are some days where all they do is come in, get in a work out and go home.

All true, but DeWitt has already undercut this by stating publicly that he thinks Pujols's deadline need not be seen as firm.  That's the kind of thing that is likely to piss Pujols off!

What can be said about this. Pujols is being greedy, but only after he had offered a discount to the Cardinals last season to be scoffed at. They bet on the market and economy driving down prices and lost. I posted immediately saying if you offer someone 18 million a season to protect the bat in the lineup, you're really going to have to pay the bat.... They could have, and they didn't.

Is 300 million crazy? No. Is 10 years crazy? Maybe, but I'd rather suffer through 3 years of bad Pujols contract, then lose out on 7 years of MVP Pujols. The Holliday signing is what really has me ready to crucify the ownership.

Who's right? Who knows, but ownership should lock Pujols down, because fans deserve to see the sports best player play with one team for his career. If we can't, I do not want the reason to be "well management decided to play a stupid game of economy chicken and lost". Since that seems to be the case.... Some sins are just unforgiveable to me. The Laurie's lost me from the Blues until new ownership took the team, and I have slowly come back, although I'm still not nearly as into hockey as I once was.... This will likely do the same for me with the Cardinals. I won't watch until DeWitt leaves.

It might be true that steroid use extends a players career, but that is not the way to support such a statement, IMO.  A baseball player's career is cut short most because he is DFA, not so much because he retires, and has no where to go.  "Big name" steroid users are, by definition, big names, and they retire when their body no longer allows them to perform at the ability they once had.

So I would guess that the average value you give is dragged way down by people like Bo Hart, who simply never had the talent to begin with for a long baseball career.

Max wrote:

It might be true that steroid use extends a players career, but that is not the way to support such a statement, IMO.  A baseball player's career is cut short most because he is DFA, not so much because he retires, and has no where to go.  "Big name" steroid users are, by definition, big names, and they retire when their body no longer allows them to perform at the ability they once had.

So I would guess that the average value you give is dragged way down by people like Bo Hart, who simply never had the talent to begin with for a long baseball career.

You dont think using steroid and enhancing performance keep players from being DFA?  McGwire admitted to using steroids in the early 90s to recover from injures.  For all we know his career would have been derailed then instead of a decade later.  Ankiel admitted to using to get over injuries.  Without getting over those injuries he might have never made it back into the league.  Pettitte admittedly used while in Houston, late in his career to get over injuries and went on to pitch several more years.  there is more evidence saying steroids increase the length of players career then the opposite.


1% of player put in over 20 years.  That makes a 15 year career that you claim is not long actually pretty long.

Last edited by APRTW (2/10/2011 5:40 pm)

There is very little evidence that moderate use of steroids cause any sort of problem what so ever.  In fact if a guy can use steroids to make himself see better result while exercising, keep from getting sore and recover from injuries I dont see how they are a bad thing. 

Here is a clip for wifipedia on steroid use in baseball.  I find it interesting how long PED have been in the game and just now is it considered a problem. 

Players have attempted to gain chemical advantages in baseball since the earliest days of the sport. In 1889, for example, pitcher Pud Galvin became the first baseball player to be widely known for his use of performance-enhancing substances.[6] Galvin was a user and vocal proponent of the Brown-Séquard Elixir, a testosterone supplement derived from the testicles of live animals such as dogs and guinea pigs.[6]

The book The Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book, written by Bruce Nash, Bob Smith, and Allan Zullo, includes an account of Babe Ruth administering to himself an injection of an extract from sheep testicles.[7] The experimental concoction allegedly proved ineffective, making Ruth ill and leading the Yankees to attribute his absence from the lineup to "a bellyache".[7]

According to writer Zev Chafets, Mickey Mantle's fade during his 1961 home run chase with Roger Maris was the indirect result of an attempt by Mantle to gain a substance-based edge.[8] Chafets alleges that Mantle was hampered by an abscess created by a botched injection of a chemical cocktail administered by a "quack" doctor, Max Jacobsen.[8] According to Chafets, the injection included steroids and amphetamines, among other substances.[8]

Former pitcher Tom House, drafted in 1967 and active in MLB from 1971-1978, has admitted to using "steroids they wouldn't give to horses" during his playing career.[9] According to House, the use of performance-enhancing drugs was widespread at that time.[9] He estimates that "six or seven" pitchers on every team were at least experimental users of steroids or human growth hormone, and says that after losses, players would frequently joke that they'd been "out-milligrammed" rather than beaten.[9]

During the Pittsburgh drug trials in 1985, several players testified about the use of amphetamines in baseball. Shortstop Dale Berra admitted that he had used "greenies" while playing for both the Pittsburgh Pirates and the AAA Portland Beavers, and stated that while in Pittsburgh between 1979 and 1984 he had been supplied with the drugs by teammates Bill Madlock and Willie Stargell.[10] Outfielder John Milner testified that while he was playing for the New York Mets, he had seen in the locker of teammate Willie Mays a powerful liquid amphetamine he called the "red juice".[11]

Third baseman Mike Schmidt, an active player from 1972-1989, admitted to Murray Chass in 2006 that he had used amphetamines "a couple [of] times".[12] In his book Clearing the Bases, he said that amphetamines "were widely available in major-league clubhouses" during his playing career,[12] and that "amphetamine use in baseball is both far more common and has been going on a lot longer than steroid abuse".

forsberg_us wrote:

I read it.  It also seemed to confirm what I already suspected.  The longer this lingers, the deeper the lines of division among fans will be drawn.  There are plenty who, like yourself, would argue in favor of signing Pujols to whatever he wants.  There are also plenty of others who are already calling Pujols greedy.

The more I think about it, I wonder if the February 16 deadline isn't a bit of a false deadline.  Let's assume (as does Strauss), that the Cardinals put out a reasonable, but unacceptable offer.  Would the Pujols camp really cut off negotiations during Spring Training?  That seems sort of silly to me.  Mind you, I think it's a good move to force the Cardinals into making an offer by that date, but if they do, there's no reason to stop the process just because Spring Training is underway.  Keep the negotiations going, but set a deadline of Opening Day.  If a deal isn't reached by then, I don't have a problem with breaking off talks.  Spring Training just isn't a serious enough situation that Pujols can't be bothered.  There are some days where all they do is come in, get in a work out and go home.

Forcing the Cardinals to make an offer?  You dont think they have even tabled an offer yet?  I agree about the false deadline.  Pujols can say what he wants about not listening to offers during ST or season but if the Cardinals offer him 10/300 at the all star break do you really think Pujols wouldnt listen?  No matter when the Cardinals put an offer on the table Pujols would be stupid not to listen.  Not only that but the two sides are not talking now.  the fan base wouldnt even know if they started talking again once the season started.

AP,

According to what's been reported, the Cardinals have not made an actual offer. However, according to Strauss, discussions are ongoing and have been "professional" (whatever that means).

Max, you keep talking about "long term" use. What's "long term?"  In the case of Clemens, the information is that he didn't start using until he was 34. If he used until he retired, that's only 11 years. From what I've read, that's not nearly long enough to start causing the type of breakdown you're talking about until much later in life. And keep in mind, we're talking about baseball players, not body builders or football players. I doubt most of those guys continuously cycled. Their use is probably much more sporadic.

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Steroids and PEDs are different.  Steroids are drugs based on molecules that are essentially the same as your bodies own hormones, or chemical messenger system.  PEDs can be anything thought to improve performance, such as amphetamines (mentioned in the article above). 

I have seen things that look like evidence that steroids can help you recover from injury more quickly, that they can help you build muscle mass.  I haven't seen anything to make me believe that long-term habitual use might not be dangerous and might not actually shorten a player's career.  I am not saying I am right; I am not saying there's any reason you should believe my personal speculations.

http://images.mitadmissions.org/blogpics/thecrow03.jpg

OMG, it's not like I am a flat Earth global warming denier.

Another interesting tidbit from Strauss was this:

"The Ludwick-for-Westbrook move subtracted from the offense to address pitching. The club dropped from 0.5 games in first place to 5.0 games back after the fact."

It came in the middle of an answer that AP will probably like: "Lack of organizational depth. The only year in which the team reached the playoffs (2009), it was able to parlay prospects for DeRosa and Holliday. In 2007, 2008 and 2010, the club did not make significant in-season additions. The Ludwick-for-Westbrook move subtracted from the offense to address pitching. The club dropped from 0.5 games in first place to 5.0 games back after the fact. The bench has not been nearly as deep the last four years as it was in '04-'05 and, to a lesser degree, in '06."