Sports Illustrated is reporting that Troy Glaus received shipments of steroids in 2003 and 2004. The story notes that Glaus was recovering from shoulder surgery at that time. This is the latest name to emerge from various investigations of clinics and pharmacies in the US. It is unclear what the repercussions could be for Glaus.
Good for Troy, I'm glad they helped his shoulder.. I'm sick of hearing about people who recieved steroids years ago, the whole thing has been beat into the ground to the point where I don't think any less of anyone who recieved a shipment of them. If he's not dead, he's still productive and he hasn't tested positive, leave them alone and stop dragging their name through the dirt.
" I'm sick of hearing about people who recieved steroids years ago, the whole thing has been beat into the ground to the point where I don't think any less of anyone who recieved a shipment of them. "
This is very different from most cases though as it would have placed the time frame AFTER the substances were banned by MLB. Anyway, I do think less of players who take steroids.
It's pretty easy to understand a player who takes steriods or HGH to assist in the recovery of an injury considering millions of dollars are at stake. However, I believe it is impossible to administer a PED control that effictively recognizes the difference between injury treatment and performance enhancement as a motive. Therefore, I am in favour of the complete ban of PED's and supportive of any suspension levied by the Commissioner's office, regardless of motive for taking the substances. In fact, I am firmly in the camp that believes the MLB suspensions are far too light and a two year ban should be the first suspension.
Even our Great Steed Ben Johnson was using steriods for injury treatment, under the supervision of an MD (Dr. Jamie Astaphan), at the time he was caught.
If this story about Troy is true, then I support a suspension. I like Troy, but he rolled the dice and got caught.
It has been my personal opinion that at least half of major league players were taking something. When baseball is your career, and when the pay is so different between the minor leagues and the major leagues, players are pressured to stay competitive. If you think, if you believe, that many of your teammates, or organization mates, who you are competing with for playing time are on the juice then it's either join them or lose your job to them.
Glaus is one of the biggest names to be linked to steroids but it has been the marginal players who have received the most suspensions so far. The marginal player is looking at a salary of $50,000 in AAA or almost $400,000 in the major leagues, not to mention the perks. That is a lot of temptation right there and it takes a strong person to say no.
My own estimate is a little lower than Gerry's, probably 25-35%, but I doubt that anyone really knows.
The dates of the shipments according to the SI article were December, 2003 and May, 2004. Here are Glaus' splits for 2004. He definitely started off that season hot.
The dates of the shipments according to the SI article were December, 2003 and May, 2004. Here are Glaus' splits for 2004. He definitely started off that season hot.
given the fact that it is essentially impossible for all PEDs to be eradicated, it seems to me the only way you get a level playing field is to let players take whatever legal enhancements they want. Sure, this would inflate cumulatrive stats against players in previous eras...but everything from feild deminsions to DH rules to better training regims do that.
such is life.
Plus, I have no issue with a player using them for recupritive purposes. the improvment in his 2004 numbers would be marginal. Unless it's established he took them routinely during healthy seasons, I for one don't care.
Plus, I have no issue with a player using them for recupritive purposes. the improvment in his 2004 numbers would be marginal. Unless it's established he took them routinely during healthy seasons, I for one don't care.
But this is an indefensible position, based totally on individual definitions. You might define "recovery" as rapid recuperation from a surgery during rehab, whereas I would define it as being able to lift weights more frequently and without pain.
Taking them routinely during healthy seasons can be seen as a way to stay healthy and avoid long DL periods. You have to either have a real, defined testing program in place (including blood tests for HGH) or nothing. The current middle ground that MLB has staked out is a waste of time, for enforcement purposes.
I'll start caring when Glaus (or anyone) is taking steroids today.
And if people are in an uproar about HGH maybe they should read this article.
One of the common side effects, although far from universal, that has been seen in steroid (alleged!) users is an unusual breakdown in their bodies (Caminiti, McGwire, almost every NFL lineman for the last 25 years, etc...). Glaus does fit this profile, with injuries and soreness and seemingly on the egde of total breakdown all the time. Of course, I've never used steroids, and much of that would apply to me now at a slightly younger age...so that's only groundless speculation on my part.
So, do I think less of Glaus? Yes, yes I do. Even for injury recovery, if he had a legitimate need for steroids for injury recovery, he could have gotten a prescription from someone other than an anonymous internet doctor he likely never met. If you need steroids for that sort of thing, a regular doctor will give you a prescription, and regularly supervise their injection/dosage. More proof that athletes are not being selected for anything resembling common sense or intelligence, and making (or possibly making) millions of dollars doesn't help this.
On another note, the way in which they are catching people right now, by tracking the shady doctors, is the most promising way to do this sort of thing. The tests might be behind the drugs, but there are still people involved in the process. That's why I have no problem if Glaus is suspended just for this sort of association. It's likely the best they will do, and it's pretty hard evidence, as it goes.
So, do I think less of Glaus? Yes, yes I do. Even for injury recovery, if he had a legitimate need for steroids for injury recovery, he could have gotten a prescription from someone other than an anonymous internet doctor he likely never met. If you need steroids for that sort of thing, a regular doctor will give you a prescription, and regularly supervise their injection/dosage. More proof that athletes are not being selected for anything resembling common sense or intelligence, and making (or possibly making) millions of dollars doesn't help this.
On another note, the way in which they are catching people right now, by tracking the shady doctors, is the most promising way to do this sort of thing. The tests might be behind the drugs, but there are still people involved in the process. That's why I have no problem if Glaus is suspended just for this sort of association. It's likely the best they will do, and it's pretty hard evidence, as it goes.
From the article Pistol linked to : At the very least, treatment with HGH does seem to reduce body fat and increase muscle mass.
It basically says that no one has been able to show it helps athletic performance, despite being able to show the benefits above. They've only done a few studies on trained athletes, most not meeting the standards of conclusive research. It is most likely a very small almost undetectable benefit with a very large placebo effect (which depends, somewhat, on how much people think it will work).
But that's neither here nor there with respect to Glaus. Glaus received nandrolone and testosterone, which are very much steroids, not HGH.
It basically says that no one has been able to show it helps athletic performance, despite being able to show the benefits above. They've only done a few studies on trained athletes, most not meeting the standards of conclusive research. It is most likely a very small almost undetectable benefit with a very large placebo effect (which depends, somewhat, on how much people think it will work).
But that's neither here nor there with respect to Glaus. Glaus received nandrolone and testosterone, which are very much steroids, not HGH.
Right. But if there's steriod testing now, and HGH apparently has no real effect, I'm not really concered with something from 3 years ago.
It's funny - a couple days ago there was a Gammons blog about players being smaller now and being less HRs this year. Today in Olney's blog was the HGH entry saying that players are still big and executives are skeptical of who to sign, trade for, etc..
At the very least, treatment with HGH does seem to reduce body fat and increase muscle mass.
I could use some of that!
It's funny - a couple days ago there was a Gammons blog about players being smaller now and being less HRs this year. Today in Olney's blog was the HGH entry saying that players are still big and executives are skeptical of who to sign, trade for, etc..
At the very least, treatment with HGH does seem to reduce body fat and increase muscle mass.
I could use some of that!
Pistol, the Slate article on HGH is ignorant. There are all kinds of risks which may reasonably be associated with HGH use from diabetes to cardiac damage to cancer. The optimal use of HGH for performance enhancement purposes is likely with insulin, which is obviously widely available; there have been no studies on the combined effect of insulin and HGH on muscle mass and strength perhaps due to ethical concerns. Those athletes who take both, and I am sure that there are significant numbers, are subjecting themselves to health risk in the long-term.
so prospectus thinks Marte might be available...
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6683
i'd be interested in what ittakes to get him if for no other reason than a good backup in case of injury. he's stagnating at and messing up his ML opportunities. he needs a good dose Gordon in KC patience.
it also at least opens up the possibility of cutting ties with Glaus if a reasonable offer comes through.
thoughts?
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6683
i'd be interested in what ittakes to get him if for no other reason than a good backup in case of injury. he's stagnating at and messing up his ML opportunities. he needs a good dose Gordon in KC patience.
it also at least opens up the possibility of cutting ties with Glaus if a reasonable offer comes through.
thoughts?
I read a thorough report on HGH use in sports (I thought on Medscape) the other day, but can't find it now. It said primarily that although HGH did not increase muscle mass like a steroid, it was performance enhancing as it reduced workout recovery times in muscles.
HGH is certainly marketed as performance enhancing.
Incidentally, you can test for HGH, but a blood sample is required. The union apparently opposes the taking of blood samples. Sigh.
Let me preface this by saying steroids are nasty and are a black spot on this game. I had very mixed feelings about the whole Bonds thing and I did, at one time, want to know who did what. But I have thought about it and I have decided it is a bit ridiculous to conduct these investigations on players and publish reports based on things that happened years ago, when baseball didn't have a clear or enforced policy. It is Selig's problem for not dealing with this at the time. If Troy or Ankiel or anyone else tests positive today, suspend their asses. But if they did this years ago, maybe they should just come clean and apologize and move forward.
Baseball did have a clear, but wimpy, policy after the 2003 season.
Starting with the book Ball Four in 1980, drugs in baseball have been exposed. In that book it was amphetamines, or "greenies" which provided the artificial energy to cope with the long season. Jose Canseco blew the cover off the steroid scandal and named a lot of names with Juiced and the Examiner reporters put out Game of Shadows about the same time (2005). That book provided the details of Bonds and his complicated drug regimen, alternating steroids with HGH and adrenaline. Presumably the scientists at BALCO knew what they were doing when they designed this scheme, and knew that HGH was not simply a placebo. Since only Rafael Palmeiro has actually tested positive, and none of Bonds, Giambi, or Glaus has, we can only speculate and subtract from their career accomplishments. It will be interesting, however, to see how the Toronto fans, who loudly boo Giambi and Bonds, will treat Glaus next week when the Jays return.
The thought that occurred to me: suppose Glaus is found guilty of using steroids. He's now with a different team than the one he was with when the alleged offense took place. If he was a steroid user then, is clean now, and is suspended for his actions, the Jays will be being punished for a crime that was committed by another organization.
If retroactive suspensions become the norm, there's going to be teams who will try to offload their steroid users onto other teams, thus effectively getting something for nothing. So I don't know how you resolve this fairly.
(Needless to say, I'm opposed to the use of steroids and other artificial performance enhancers that put a player's health at risk in either the short term or the long term.)
If retroactive suspensions become the norm, there's going to be teams who will try to offload their steroid users onto other teams, thus effectively getting something for nothing. So I don't know how you resolve this fairly.
(Needless to say, I'm opposed to the use of steroids and other artificial performance enhancers that put a player's health at risk in either the short term or the long term.)
there's going to be teams who will try to offload their steroid users onto other teams
It's possible that's what Arizona did with Glaus. Of course, trading him made sense at the time so there might not be anything to it.
It's possible that's what Arizona did with Glaus. Of course, trading him made sense at the time so there might not be anything to it.
I couldn't care less about whether or not Troy Glaus used steroids three or four years ago. It's unfortunate, but steroid use was more acceptable then and some of the pitchers that the batters were facing were juicing too.
It's completely hypocritical for people to say that it doesn't matter because it happened years ago. Do you really think that the public has any way of finding out if players are taking steroids or other banned substances today? Or this season? It can take many months or years for the evidence to leak out, through diligent media investigations or other methods. We know that MLB has a conflict of interest here: they do testing, but they don't want the results to leak out because it damages the reputation of their commercial product. The baseball establishment is always going to try to suppress this information as much as it possibly can. The players union is similarly inclined to suppress the information, to the extent that it can. So it's only the media or the politicians who can dig up the truth, and it can take years of work to penetrate the cover-up.
So, let's face it, there's always going to be a lag between the drug use and the public knowledge of that drug use. That should never be an excuse for inaction.
Now, the separate question is whether a player should be suspended or punished in some way if there is evidence that he received or used a banned substance. If 25 per cent of all players are using them, it would be inconsistent and unfair to punish Troy Glaus and nobody else. But that doesn't mean that the information should be suppressed or ignored or covered up. As fans, I think we have the right to know whether some of the players are enjoying an unfair advantage over the clean players. Even if we don't have perfect knowledge of the entire sport, some information is better than no information.
It's been completely obvious ever since the "crackdown on steroids" that MLB was going to root out the problem at the minor league level.
Testing is only catching the marginal players in the MLB, Raphael Palmiero is the exception that proves the rule - a scapegoat for credibility.
MLB is only getting tough on minor leaguers and just waiting for this generation to pass on by.
It's probably not a bad idea. MLB can probably turn over its players in 10 years while who knows how long it may take to repair the reputation of MLB if it was discovered 25%+ of the players are juicing.
I can't believe Glaus would have the steroids delivered to his house in his own name.
Testing is only catching the marginal players in the MLB, Raphael Palmiero is the exception that proves the rule - a scapegoat for credibility.
MLB is only getting tough on minor leaguers and just waiting for this generation to pass on by.
It's probably not a bad idea. MLB can probably turn over its players in 10 years while who knows how long it may take to repair the reputation of MLB if it was discovered 25%+ of the players are juicing.
I can't believe Glaus would have the steroids delivered to his house in his own name.
I'll be honest, I care very little about the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in baseball.
If Bud Selig had a press conference tomorrow and said every single player on a MLB roster right now was using illegal performance enhancing drugs, I would still follow MLB. Let's be honest here, the media has shoved this "scandal" down our throats. Do baseball fans even really care if players "cheat" or not? Perhaps a better question is do they care enough where they would lose interest in the sport (i.e. boycott spending money on games, hats, t-shirts, not watch the games on tv, etc...)?
As for the Blue Jays, Vernon Wells was asked last year if he knew if any of his teammates were using steroids and he said no. He believed every player on the Jays was clean. It appears Glaus used steroids in his contract year. With all the money at stake, I can't blame him for doing it.
If Bud Selig had a press conference tomorrow and said every single player on a MLB roster right now was using illegal performance enhancing drugs, I would still follow MLB. Let's be honest here, the media has shoved this "scandal" down our throats. Do baseball fans even really care if players "cheat" or not? Perhaps a better question is do they care enough where they would lose interest in the sport (i.e. boycott spending money on games, hats, t-shirts, not watch the games on tv, etc...)?
As for the Blue Jays, Vernon Wells was asked last year if he knew if any of his teammates were using steroids and he said no. He believed every player on the Jays was clean. It appears Glaus used steroids in his contract year. With all the money at stake, I can't blame him for doing it.
So should only baseball players be allowed to break rules to get ahead in life? Or should we let everybody everywhere off the hook for illegal or unethical practices?
Let's face it, if the anti-doping movement in sport falls back at all, we'll get to a point where only enhancing (from a young age) athletes succeed in their respective sports (with the rare exception). What kind of world are we living in where this is an acceptable endpoint?
So much for the Jays being the one club that was above the fray, moral,
upstanding, representative of a nation of squares. This is the
most devastating piece of news in this long sorry season. Anyone
who excuses this--should it be proven true, which it hasn't yet--is
contributing to the destruction of this sport.
If Bud Selig had a press conference tomorrow and said every single
player on a MLB roster right now was using illegal performance
enhancing drugs, I would still follow MLB. Let's be honest here, the
media has shoved this "scandal" down our throats. Do baseball fans even
really care if players "cheat" or not?
Yeah, I agree, I don't really care at all. But there are obviously people that do care. I just think it's much, much lower than the percentage in the media and the amount of coverage that it gets.
And that coverage is much higher in baseball. Rodney Harrison and Rick Ankiel basically had the same thing come up (and Harrison's use was more recent I believe) and Ankiel had a lot more attention from what I've seen. Just look at the ESPN blogs. You can barely find anything on Harrison but just about everyone in the ESPN baseball department has written on it immediately. Stark had a column pointing out that the coverage is uneven as well (point #3).
Here's Blair's article on it.
Yeah, I agree, I don't really care at all. But there are obviously people that do care. I just think it's much, much lower than the percentage in the media and the amount of coverage that it gets.
And that coverage is much higher in baseball. Rodney Harrison and Rick Ankiel basically had the same thing come up (and Harrison's use was more recent I believe) and Ankiel had a lot more attention from what I've seen. Just look at the ESPN blogs. You can barely find anything on Harrison but just about everyone in the ESPN baseball department has written on it immediately. Stark had a column pointing out that the coverage is uneven as well (point #3).
Here's Blair's article on it.
Will someone please remind me why males are not allowed to take the hormone testosterone, when women in droves have been taking estrogen, the female sex hormone, for menopausal relief?
Will someone please remind me why males are not allowed to take the hormone testosterone, when women in droves have been taking estrogen, the female sex hormone, for menopausal relief?
Both have indicated uses in Canada and both are controlled substances. Aside from that, I fail to see what you're point could possibly be.
Yeah, I agree, I don't really care at all. But there are obviously people that do care. I just think it's much, much lower than the percentage in the media and the amount of coverage that it gets.
Well, speaking for one who cares, it's not like I go to bed crying at night or enjoy sport any less. I just don't see why we should condone people using artificial methods to succeed at sport above those who are getting by on natural talent and effort. Why condone it when you can quite easily resist it?
Aw crap, I want O-Dog back!
Baseball prospectus made a pretty good case at the time that the the Jays should not traded O-dog for Glaus (though of course they weren't the only players in the trade: Goodbye batista, welcome Santos). Baseball prospectus archives are buried (not unreasonably) behind the subscription wall, though the article was free at the time. The argument went along the lines that O-dog had huge defensive value, and that Glaus wouldn't stay uninjured and was in fact therefore more valuable than Glaus.
O-dog's WARP from 2004-2006 5.9, 5.1, 7.7
Glaus WARP from 2004-2006 2.1, 5.5, 5.9
I don't have the 2007 WARP figures, but how about the OBP/SLG and games played for 2007
O-dog: 376/441 in 139 games
Glaus: 365/479 in 111 games
With O-dog's defence, his health and his salary, I'd say baseball prospectus got it right.
Baseball prospectus made a pretty good case at the time that the the Jays should not traded O-dog for Glaus (though of course they weren't the only players in the trade: Goodbye batista, welcome Santos). Baseball prospectus archives are buried (not unreasonably) behind the subscription wall, though the article was free at the time. The argument went along the lines that O-dog had huge defensive value, and that Glaus wouldn't stay uninjured and was in fact therefore more valuable than Glaus.
O-dog's WARP from 2004-2006 5.9, 5.1, 7.7
Glaus WARP from 2004-2006 2.1, 5.5, 5.9
I don't have the 2007 WARP figures, but how about the OBP/SLG and games played for 2007
O-dog: 376/441 in 139 games
Glaus: 365/479 in 111 games
With O-dog's defence, his health and his salary, I'd say baseball prospectus got it right.
So, let's face it, there's always going to be a lag between the drug
use and the public knowledge of that drug use. That should never be an
excuse for inaction.
I agree with both points here.
The best way to catch drug use is actually to take blood samples and to store them for five years, say. That gives the detection technology time to catch up. This leaves, the problems alluded to elsewhere on this page, as to the damage being done years ago and the baggage passed off to another team. Still, knowing you are going to get caught five years down the track even if you don't get caught now, has to be a disincentive for players to cheat, and should cut down on the amount of cheating overall.
Lastly, for those who are not concerned about people cheating in sports, each to his own I suppose, but for me it lessens my enthusiasm. This year's Tour de France is an example. It has been a disaster, with lots of leading riders thrown out. The cheating has finally come home to roost.
I agree with both points here.
The best way to catch drug use is actually to take blood samples and to store them for five years, say. That gives the detection technology time to catch up. This leaves, the problems alluded to elsewhere on this page, as to the damage being done years ago and the baggage passed off to another team. Still, knowing you are going to get caught five years down the track even if you don't get caught now, has to be a disincentive for players to cheat, and should cut down on the amount of cheating overall.
Lastly, for those who are not concerned about people cheating in sports, each to his own I suppose, but for me it lessens my enthusiasm. This year's Tour de France is an example. It has been a disaster, with lots of leading riders thrown out. The cheating has finally come home to roost.
Incidentally, you can test for HGH, but a blood sample is required. The union apparently opposes the taking of blood samples. Sigh.
Sigh indeed. You'd hope that the union would do everything it could to protect its members health, given the huge pressures to abuse drugs.
Sigh indeed. You'd hope that the union would do everything it could to protect its members health, given the huge pressures to abuse drugs.
"With O-dog's defence, his health and his salary, I'd say baseball prospectus got it right."
What you fail to account for is that the Jays had a 2b ready to take over the everyday starting job, someone whose bat is not big enough for a corner infield spot. You also discuss salary, but ignore 2 key points. Firstly, Glaus at 11m is not a bad contract at all - in fact, I'd go as far as to say it's a steal for someone I consider to be probably the 6th best 3B in baseball. Secondly, the trade got Batista off our hands, who we didnt want and was making almost 5m in salary, and brought in a former first round pick who plays the position this organization has absolutely no depth at.
I'd say BP got this one wrong, and commend JP for yet another one of his good trades.
What you fail to account for is that the Jays had a 2b ready to take over the everyday starting job, someone whose bat is not big enough for a corner infield spot. You also discuss salary, but ignore 2 key points. Firstly, Glaus at 11m is not a bad contract at all - in fact, I'd go as far as to say it's a steal for someone I consider to be probably the 6th best 3B in baseball. Secondly, the trade got Batista off our hands, who we didnt want and was making almost 5m in salary, and brought in a former first round pick who plays the position this organization has absolutely no depth at.
I'd say BP got this one wrong, and commend JP for yet another one of his good trades.
With O-dog's defence, his health and his salary, I'd say baseball prospectus got it right.
I don't disagree with the premise that Hudson has been (and will be) more valuable than Glaus, but I stil don't disagree with the trade in retrospect. The Jays had other options at 2B (Adams, Hill), one of which has turned out reasonably well. What they didn't have was a decent 3B prospect (that I can recall). The Jays traded from a position of depth to acquire a starter to fill a weakness.
Keep in mind that WARP uses theoretical replacement players. But in Toronto, we know who the replacement was in Toronto, Aaron Hill. He ended up with a WARP of 5.2 in 2006, so Hudson was 2.5 WAAH (Wins Above Aaron Hill) in 2006, and probably similar this year. Glaus, meanwhile, replaced Hinske or Hillenbrand (or another unknown player), which has possibly worked out better for the Jays, in terms of wins. It's fairly close, at least. The money Glaus makes hasn't been so much an issue lately either.
This offseason, they need to try something similar: lots of young pitching, need a SS. Go to it JP.
I don't disagree with the premise that Hudson has been (and will be) more valuable than Glaus, but I stil don't disagree with the trade in retrospect. The Jays had other options at 2B (Adams, Hill), one of which has turned out reasonably well. What they didn't have was a decent 3B prospect (that I can recall). The Jays traded from a position of depth to acquire a starter to fill a weakness.
Keep in mind that WARP uses theoretical replacement players. But in Toronto, we know who the replacement was in Toronto, Aaron Hill. He ended up with a WARP of 5.2 in 2006, so Hudson was 2.5 WAAH (Wins Above Aaron Hill) in 2006, and probably similar this year. Glaus, meanwhile, replaced Hinske or Hillenbrand (or another unknown player), which has possibly worked out better for the Jays, in terms of wins. It's fairly close, at least. The money Glaus makes hasn't been so much an issue lately either.
This offseason, they need to try something similar: lots of young pitching, need a SS. Go to it JP.
I've mentioned this before I think, but the Braves mght be a very suitable trade partner. Rumour has it they were shopping YEscobar around the deadline - maybe now that they have seen what he can do (because of Renteria's injury) that puts Edgar on the block. Either way, one of them should be available, and the Braves love young pitching. Send some their way. Would Litsch and Downs get it done? I know I obviously overvalue the Jays young guys and undervalue other teams', but I think someone said they wanted Arroyo for Escobar - their demands can't be that high, and maybe Litsch's solid ERA can fool people?
maybe Litsch's solid ERA can fool people?
No doubt. But not John Schuerholz.
Why condone it when you can quite easily resist it?
That's the problem right there. Taking illegal enhancing performance drugs isn't easy to resist when there's so much money at stake. The difference between MLB money and AAA money is huge. There's also a big difference between let's say Troy Glaus's latest contract and the first 1 year contract Nomar signed with the Cubs.
When players take steroids, it's basically all financially motivated. If every player in MLB only made $50,000 a season and every player in AAA made $40,000, the use of steroids would take a nose dive.
That's the problem right there. Taking illegal enhancing performance drugs isn't easy to resist when there's so much money at stake. The difference between MLB money and AAA money is huge. There's also a big difference between let's say Troy Glaus's latest contract and the first 1 year contract Nomar signed with the Cubs.
When players take steroids, it's basically all financially motivated. If every player in MLB only made $50,000 a season and every player in AAA made $40,000, the use of steroids would take a nose dive.
The Jays had Hill, Hudson and Adams in the middle infield as 2005 ended. The loss of Hudson meant that Hill shifted to second base, with Adams at short and eventually led to the signing of Clayton. That chain of events is certainly not a high water-mark of the Ricciardi era.
Joe Cowley writes that Rentiria was offered - with a prospect - for Garland and it was turned down. He also says that Williams now wants two relievers, at least one proven, for Garland.
I sense the potential for a three way deal in which we get Renteria (and that prospect?) the Braves get Garland and the Sox get two of our relievers...how hard would that be - assuming the Braves still want Garland?
They had Hudson, Hill and Adams, but the main problem turned out to be that they were all second basemen. Hill seemed to be a below average SS at best, although he might end up there yet, and has never had a chance to "settle in" there. If you keep Hudson, Adams still can't play short well enough or, as it turns out, hit well enough to justify a below average glove/arm. JP had a bunch of players for 2B, and turned one of them into a very good (if now tainted) 3B. Unlike, say, catcher, JP has seemed almost incapable of finding a decent SS for more than a half season at a time.
The SS since 2002 (those with a reasonable amount of time there):
2002: Woodward/Lopez (who had one good year, and a few decent ones after he left)
2003: Woodward/Bordick (both had great half years for them)
2004: Gomez/Adams (remember that September for Adams that got all of our hopes up, some permanently? That was 3 years ago now)
2005: Adams/McDonald (Adams got the fielding yips, and it got worse the next year)
2006: McDonald/Hill/Adams
2007: McDonald/Clayton
Yes, John McDonald is one of two players to be the SS of record (most innings) for the Jays twice in the JP era. Adams is the only one who started 2/3 of the innings at SS for a full year. I know SS is a hard position to fill, but c'mon, I never thought the Alex Gonzalez days could be looked upon so fondly.
The SS since 2002 (those with a reasonable amount of time there):
2002: Woodward/Lopez (who had one good year, and a few decent ones after he left)
2003: Woodward/Bordick (both had great half years for them)
2004: Gomez/Adams (remember that September for Adams that got all of our hopes up, some permanently? That was 3 years ago now)
2005: Adams/McDonald (Adams got the fielding yips, and it got worse the next year)
2006: McDonald/Hill/Adams
2007: McDonald/Clayton
Yes, John McDonald is one of two players to be the SS of record (most innings) for the Jays twice in the JP era. Adams is the only one who started 2/3 of the innings at SS for a full year. I know SS is a hard position to fill, but c'mon, I never thought the Alex Gonzalez days could be looked upon so fondly.
No. Hill was at least an average defensive shortstop. He
throws well, and is excellent on the ball in the hole and coming
in. He didn't fit the image of the shortstop, the same way that Cal Ripken didn't
fit the image.
This is water under the bridge now.
This is water under the bridge now.
I think the trade was a good baseball trade. What irked me at the time was what followed with Koskie. But it important to remember that the Jays didn't have a "slugger" when they made the trade. They still don't although an argument could be made for Thomas, Wells and Rios.
Actually Mark, Stairs is the only one you could make the argument for this year. He has better numbers (in limited ABs) than Ryan Howard. That's how good he has been.
Matt Stairs .312/.384/.603
Ryan Howard .267/.385/.563
Matt Stairs .312/.384/.603
Ryan Howard .267/.385/.563
You can't talk about Troy Glaus's health without at least making a passing reference to Hudson's. For what its worth, the O-Dog, hardly an iron man when he was with the Jays, is out for the rest of the year. He almost made it to 140 games for the 3rd time in his career.
All-in-all, it was a great trade for both teams at the time and in hindsight. The Jays dealt from strength to get a big scary bat, which everyone was pining for after the 05 season. It was tough to see Hudson go, (Batista - not so much) but it takes value to get value.
After tonight's 9th inning debacle, I have decided that I'm in favour of steroid use. I will be sending B.J. Ryan a large shipment to help speed up his recovery.
I don't disagree with the premise that Hudson has been (and will be)
more valuable than Glaus, but I stil don't disagree with the trade in
retrospect.
In fairness to baseball prospectus, I may be putting words in their mouth. It's been a while since I read the article. They may not have dissed the trade as such; they gist of the article was that because of Orlando's huge advantage in defense, and the likelihood of Glaus breaking down, they felt that Hudson had more value than Glaus (backing it up with better researched statistical evidence than I provided above). Saying that Hudson has more value than Glaus is slightly different from saying the trade should not have gone ahead. As you say.
In fairness to baseball prospectus, I may be putting words in their mouth. It's been a while since I read the article. They may not have dissed the trade as such; they gist of the article was that because of Orlando's huge advantage in defense, and the likelihood of Glaus breaking down, they felt that Hudson had more value than Glaus (backing it up with better researched statistical evidence than I provided above). Saying that Hudson has more value than Glaus is slightly different from saying the trade should not have gone ahead. As you say.
The Jays had Hill, Hudson and Adams in the middle infield as 2005
ended. The loss of Hudson meant that Hill shifted to second base, with
Adams at short and eventually led to the signing of Clayton. That
chain of events is certainly not a high water-mark of the Ricciardi era.
But the Jays had Hillenbrand and/or what was left of Koskie as 2005 ended. Trading Hudson opened a hole at short, but filled a hole at third. You win some, you lose some, I guess.
If MLB decides to suspend Glaus for ingesting substances he really shouldn't have ingested, I hope that:
But the Jays had Hillenbrand and/or what was left of Koskie as 2005 ended. Trading Hudson opened a hole at short, but filled a hole at third. You win some, you lose some, I guess.
If MLB decides to suspend Glaus for ingesting substances he really shouldn't have ingested, I hope that:
- They allow the Jays to void his contract - especially since the alleged offense occurred when Glaus was not with the Jays.
- If they decide to take action, they do it quickly. If, for example, Glaus is suspended at the end of 2008 spring training, that opens a hole that J.P. won't have time to fill.
And they had Hinske, who could play third as well. The trade created for the Jays weakness at positions where talent is scarcest, with at best, a fair exchange of value and a huge difference in salaries.
If MLB decides to suspend Glaus for ingesting substances he really shouldn't have ingested
If Giambi got off with nothing I can't imagine why Glaus would be suspended. He just has to play nice with Mitchell.
If Giambi got off with nothing I can't imagine why Glaus would be suspended. He just has to play nice with Mitchell.
If George Mitchell is any relation to John Mitchell, getting tough might work too! He sure isn't related to Joni.
From my (perhaps mistaken) reading of the rules in force at the time, the penalty for the first offence of testing positive for steroids then led to a requirement for treatment. Suspension was a sanction for 2nd and later offences. It would surprise me if Glaus was suspended even if the allegations were proven.
From my (perhaps mistaken) reading of the rules in force at the time, the penalty for the first offence of testing positive for steroids then led to a requirement for treatment. Suspension was a sanction for 2nd and later offences. It would surprise me if Glaus was suspended even if the allegations were proven.
I was in Philadelphia for a conference when this story broke -- I was zipping through the channels when I passed ESPN and saw "Glaus/Ankiel" on the screen with their photos. My first, wildly excited thought, was: "They dumped Glaus! And got Ankiel in return!" And then reality intruded. I should've known that was too much to hope for.
The Glaus trade was a good one, because the Jays needed a slugger and they were making a push for a playoff berth that year. Hill could replace Hudson and, if you'll recall, Batista had failed in both roles the Jays had asked him to fill and had no part left to play on this team. If you want to win, you have to be ready to take risks.
It appears Glaus used steroids in his contract year. With all the money at stake, I can't blame him for doing it.
That is precisely why I blame him for doing it. Is greed suddenly an excuse for aberrant behaviour? Look, I'm not a steroid witch-hunter, I recognize the ridiculous double standard between baseball and football, and I understand perfectly that there were no clear written rules about performance-enhancing drugs in the game at the time. Many people's ability to enjoy baseball is not damaged by revelations that players used drugs to increase their abilities. Mine is. I don't need to explain it or justify it -- it's my choice. Seeing Glaus mumble half-hearted "no comments" to the cameras while clearly wishing he were anywhere else, getting a full-fledged "no comment" from Ricciardi and the usual spin from Godfrey, just underlines it. No player, aside from Jose Canseco, has yet stood up and said, "Yes, I took steroids, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'd do it again if I could." All the players who took steroids and other substances did so in secret, covered their tracks, deny it when accused, and slink away when presented with evidence -- "I'm not here to talk about the past," and so forth. They knew, in their hearts, they were doing something wrong that needed to be hidden. They were correct.
The risk that the club was taking was on Russ Adams being able to play an adequate shortstop over a full season. They gave up on that by May 24 the following season. Either the trade was poorly conceived or the organization lacked the strength to follow up on their opinion of Adams' capabilities despite his obvious difficulties early in 2006. My own view is the former. The view that Adams was going to be a capable shortstop was not held with any firmness in the organization, and was coloured by his draft status.
But while playing Adams at short may have been a questionable move defensively, he ultimately lost the job because his hitting fell apart, something no one really predicted.
Adams didn't lose his job in May 2006 due to his hitting. He had had a poor April, but went .306/.386/.490 in May but his fielding was so erratic that the club gave up on him.
No player, aside from Jose Canseco, has yet stood up and said, "Yes, I took steroids, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'd do it again if I could."
Clearly his book was intended as a "screw you" to the baseball establishment whom he blamed for conspiring to drum him out of the game. Were he still kicking around the majors, we'd almost certainly not have heard a word from Mr. Canseco. At least, not until he retired of his own accord, and even then, one has to wonder.
Either the trade was poorly conceived or the organization lacked the strength to follow up on their opinion of Adams' capabilities despite his obvious difficulties early in 2006. My own view is the former.
I'm with Mike on this one. The organization had no plan B were the keystone combo of Adams/Hill to prove problematic, a scenario that seemed to carry with it a strong likelihood. Ricciardi's stubborness on the Adams front, and his "big scary bat" lusting of Glaus, despite his health history, proved to be two areas where wishcasting appeared to supplant cold, sober analysis.
On a fun note, there is a wonderful picture of O-Dog on the front page of Baseball Prospectus today. Still hanging in as he turns two and watching the runner so that he can menace with his spikes as he gets out the way...
Is greed suddenly an excuse for aberrant behaviour?
No, but it's certainly a reason for it. See the stock market, or just about any other area of human activity.
No, but it's certainly a reason for it. See the stock market, or just about any other area of human activity.
Glaus, despite his health history
Actually, this has been overstated. Prior to his shoulder injury, Glaus had an excellent health record with the Angels (games played of 154, 159, 161, 156). After his injury he played 149 games with Arizona and 153 with the Jays before this season. The only health history he's had, before this year, is with his shoulder and that has not been a problem.
I tend to simplify the steroid issue as risk vs. reward. In the days of lax testing and punishment, some players chose to risk health and a slap on the wrist for the reward of money. For players in a contract year or teetering between the majors and minors, the reward could literally mean millions of dollars. Athletes are only human. To be honest, if I thought using steroids would make me millions of dollars and the only consequence for getting caught would be that I'd have to receive treatment, I'd have track marks all over my buttocks. Only now, with serious deterrents in place designed to curb steroid use, have the players stopped juicing (to a degree). It could be argued that TJ surgery is as unnatural as steroid use, yet it's permitted, so players who's bodies can no longer compete in the sport undergo the procedure regularly (risk vs. reward). The point is, I chose not to care and I don't hold it against any player who juiced during the steroid era.
"The only health history he's had, before this year, is with his shoulder and that has not been a problem."
That's not at all true. This is from December 27th 2005...from KFFL. "Glaus dealt with a strained tendon in his right knee for most of 2005, which might have hampered those numbers. It remains to be seen how Glaus' knee will hold up on the Rogers Centre's artificial turf surface. " I also remember a scout comenting on how Glaus' knees were shot. The trade didn't make any sense because the Jays then had Koskie, Hillenbrand, Hill, and Hinske who could all play 3B and no real middle infield depth.
"The trade didn't make any sense because the Jays then had Koskie, Hillenbrand, Hill, and Hinske who could all play 3B "
From a power standpoint it made sense and I'm pretty sure thats why it made sense to JP.
After 111 pitches and with a 4-1 lead entering the bottom of the ninth, Halladay should have been pulled. It's a low leverage situation and the balance between risk of injury and maximizing chance of winning the game is heavily tilted towards exercising caution.
This is Granderson vs. Lefties.
sigh, tough loss...
Something tells me Halladay decides when he comes out and not Gibbons. I'll agree that taking him out earlier would have been nice.
The Jays have found new ways to dissappoint me. I hope they can throw a wrench in the Yankees plans this week. Get Matty Stairs back in the lineup!
In some positive news, it sounds as if Bob Geren's Gold Glove vote at SS will go to John McDonald. While I think the award will go to Jeter in the end, I think McDonald's play has put him onto a short list that includes him, Betancourt, Orlando Cabrera and Jeter. I'd love to see him win, because his defense has been phenomenal this year.
If he won (or Cabrera or Betancourt won) that person would be only the fifth winner at the position in the AL since 1991.
If he won (or Cabrera or Betancourt won) that person would be only the fifth winner at the position in the AL since 1991.
According to Buster Olney the Jays are close to inking McDonald to a 2 year/4 million dollar extension.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3013400
I imagine with this extension, he will be the Jays starting SS next season. He will be 33 years old next season. How much projection does he have left in terms of his hitting? While his D has been terrific, his bat has been awful. Maybe the Jays think he can be a league average hitter for a SS next season.
I know the FA SS pool is pretty empty, but there has to be a better option out there. I don't think this signing is going to cause panic in the streets of Boston and New York.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3013400
I imagine with this extension, he will be the Jays starting SS next season. He will be 33 years old next season. How much projection does he have left in terms of his hitting? While his D has been terrific, his bat has been awful. Maybe the Jays think he can be a league average hitter for a SS next season.
I know the FA SS pool is pretty empty, but there has to be a better option out there. I don't think this signing is going to cause panic in the streets of Boston and New York.
Was it Lefty or Leigh that went on strike earlier in the year?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm on strike! Despite the fact that the Jays are clearly out of contention, Gibbons continues to have the future (Lind and Thigpen) rot on the bench, while he does everything in his power to injure Roy Halladay. The young and improving Olmedo is also sitting on the bench (even though his offensive numbers and his defense are already comparable to McDonald's), while reports indicate that the Jays are close to signing Mr. McDonald to a 2-year, $4 million contract.
Maybe I'll wake up soon and this will all just be a wierd dream. If not, see you next year.
Ron, if Ricciardi is actually holding out hope that John McDonald can be a league average SS at the plate next year, he needs to be fired now. There's just no room in the GM'ing business for risking a spot on hoping desperately that a player overcomes all evidence to the contrary and shows he's actually a major league caliber hitter at age 33.
Thankfully, I don't see things in that light. My guess is J.P. is just hedging his bets with this move, locking up his only real in-house option (I'm not an Olmedo believer) to a contract that's not going to break the bank and wouldn't really cause much harm if McDonald becomes a bench player the next two years. I still fully expect he'll be searching high and low for a legitimate SS this winter.
Thankfully, I don't see things in that light. My guess is J.P. is just hedging his bets with this move, locking up his only real in-house option (I'm not an Olmedo believer) to a contract that's not going to break the bank and wouldn't really cause much harm if McDonald becomes a bench player the next two years. I still fully expect he'll be searching high and low for a legitimate SS this winter.
Was it Lefty or Leigh that went on strike earlier in the year?
It was me.
Hopefully the idea of the extension isn't to have him start.
It was me.
Hopefully the idea of the extension isn't to have him start.
"Glaus dealt with a strained tendon in his right knee for most of 2005, which might have hampered those numbers
What numbers? His 2005 and 2006 seasons were just about exactly where you would expect them to be. Again, Glaus has never been on the DL for any other injury other than shoulder. This year's plantar fasciitis injury is not a pre-existing one. The mistake was made in assuming that Adams was capable of playing SS.
MatO is exactly right. If you have three players for two positions, it's silly to just sit there and "have depth". Especially if you can get a Glaus-calibre hitter for one of them. When did Eric Hinske suddenly become anywhere near as good as Glaus?
Now if you want to argue that the evaluation of Adams' ability to handle SS long-term was off, or that the alignment of Hill and Adams vis-a-vis 2B and SS should have been different, that's another discussion. But that wasn't the point made above.
My point in 174134 was that the organization's view that Adams was capable of being a major league shortstop was shallowly held, as appears from his demotion in May. There was good reason for that, which makes this situation not really one of dealing from depth.
Fair enough, Mike. Another aspect of that whole situation is that you're trying to catch up to the Yankees and Red Sox on a much lower budget, which means taking some chances.
I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread, so forgive me if it has been:
Can anyone provide any insight as to whether or not the Jays could try to void Glaus' contract? If they tried, how likely would it be that they would be succesfull?
I know that the Yankees were going to try it with Jiambi a few years ago and the O's are now talking about doing it with Jay Gibbons.
Banya, I think the Jays would have to prove that he was taking the meds while under his existing contract - which was signed on December 9, 2004. The player option and NTA was granted upon his trade to the Jays. A lot would depend on the language in the contract, I would think.