FanNation - The Republic of Sport

DJTG_2010 said 12/16, 11:07 AM
Well first of all, those two examples you give are somewhat flawed. Tejada has been on his way out of Baltimore for a long, long time. He was almost traded to the Astros a few years ago and has been the subject of trade rumors for a while. If he was going to be in the Mitchell Report and the Astros were deathly afraid of it, they wouldn't have given up five prospects for him.

It was also obvious Clemens was on his way out. The Yankees are the only team that could afford him and with the emergence of Hughes, Chamberlain, and Kennedy, and possibly Santana, it is obvious that his services are not that important to the Yankees. And it doesn't seem he would want to take a pay cut either. Why pay him nearly $30 million for a half a season? No one else wants to either.

The perfect example of how it has not effected the market as much as you say is Jose Guillen. The Royals signed him to a 3-year, $36 million deal days before the Mitchell Report came out. If the Mitchell Report was having as much of an impact as you say, Guillen would be out of work. But no, Guillen got a big pay day.

Also, this whole thing is "hearsay," which I'll address in my next argument.

DJTG_2010 said 12/16, 03:39 PM
Tejada has been part of trade rumors for the past two years. Yes, of course the Mitchell Report has influenced transactions, but it will not influence them to the scope you say they will. There probably weren't that many other teams that were willing to pay that much for Clemens. I mean, who would pay around $20 million for a 45-year old who will pitch half of a season? No. For Clemens, the steroid implications do not make that much of a difference.

For Bonds, before the Mitchell Report, there almost zilch chance he was going to get signed. Major League Baseball was "thinking of him as a former player" so I feel it would be unlikely he would sign and that any team would sign a player facing perjury charges.

And finally, Guillen was already a suspected user. I remember reading articles that day he was signed questioning why the Royals would sign him the day before the Mitchell Report when it was extremely likely he would be named. That didn't deter the Royals.

You have to address the fact that a lot of these players have had steroid accusations hanging over their heads for a long time. Gagne was suspected as well. These suspicions haven't stopped teams.

DJTG_2010 said 12/16, 06:05 PM
These teams knew that these guys would most likely be named in the report. It was common knowledge that they were suspected users. Being named in the Mitchell Report only confirms it.

You're talking about PR hits and such. PR matters little when you're winning (look at New England). Transactions will not be affected that much. A few million here and there, but in the grand scheme, they can still play, so sign them. A team's number one goal is to win. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some reputation to do that.

And besides, we don't know for sure if all the players mentioned in the report did anything. Most if it, such as the Brian Roberts implication, is hearsay, which cannot be trusted at all.

And guys mentioned in the report will find teams. LoDuca signed with the Nationals. They'll still get signed and such. It isn't a totally lost cause.