Article on Fangraphs about this and how it would actually benefit a team like the Phillies to get Ryan Howard to use PEDs. Either he gets better or they get our of paying him.

Should teams be punished and if so, what should the punishment be?

They obviously get punished by losing a player, but they get that money and can often replace that player. Some suggestions by Cameron would be that players salary is divided and paid to the other teams or loss of draft picks.

Thoughts?

I think if a player is caught using PEDs then the team is issued a warning if the same or another player is caught then the team is banned from post season play.

It is a double edged sword... A-Rod could spend $5M to get a bubble guy to sabotage the Yanks.

If you felt a team had done you wrong... you could really invoke some serious pain.

quote:

---

I think if a player is caught using PEDs then the team is issued a warning if the same or another player is caught then the team is banned from post season play.

---

Wow. That'll never happen

I do think there should be a team punishment. I wouldn't penalize them games or eliminate them from post-season, but I would make it a very severe $$$ penalty. Then you have teams playing a lot closer attention to what is going on in their clubhouse, on road trips, etc. Things that simple, predictable drug tests do not pick up on.

Limit their spring training in some way? Force a later starting date, prohibit them from playing other teams, something like that.

They gained a competitive advantage from the PED, so penalizing them in the Spring could cause a disadvantage, without directly vacating games or banning them from the playoffs.

It should work like hockey power plays, but the punishment should be equivalent to the number of games that the PED user played while using. For example, let's say ARod was caught using PEDs for the past 3 seasons, and in those 3 seasons he started 300 games at 3B for the NYY. Now, over the next 3 seasons, the NYY have to play without a 3B at all for a total of 300 games.

Dan

The problem is most of the guys caught using PEDs claim it was just to help recovery from injury ... OR an accident and wasn't on-going ... OR, just a one-time use.

Nobody admits it is on-going, even though their performance suddenly takes for extended time, once the were caught.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think if a player is caught using PEDs then the team is issued a warning if the same or another player is caught then the team is banned from post season play.

---

Wow. That'll never happen

---

You're probably right, but it would end the use pretty quick if the people writing the check were held accountable as well.

quote:

---

You're probably right, but it would end the use pretty quick if the people writing the check were held accountable as well.

---

False. You would get exactly what someone else mentioned above. People paying some scrub to sabotage another team. What's 5 million to some uber-rich friend of an owner? Nothing. What is it to a bullpen guy that grew up in a 3rd world country at the end of his career? A whole hell of a lot.

I think that something involving the luxury tax should be done so that a team like the Yankees don't benefit from having a player suspended.


The problem with that is that it still doesn't take away the incentive for a small market team to allow PEDs to run rampant

Terminate the guaranteed contracts of the players once tested positive, but require that money to still count towards the luxury tax?

That may reduce the length of current contracts, but would penalize the player (termination of current guaranteed deal) and punish team (their contract still counts toward luxury tax until the contract is up). Who knows what will work, but I think the only way to really incentivize teams to actively keep players clean is to penalize both parties to an extent.

You sign guys who do PEDs, you face risk. You do PEDs, you face risk.

I don't think just luxury tax is smart as that only affects a few teams.

I think I'm a big fan of the money is distributed to the other teams instead of the player.

Take away draft picks

quote:

---

I don't think just luxury tax is smart as that only affects a few teams.

I think I'm a big fan of the money is distributed to the other teams instead of the player.

---

I 100% agree. I was thinking something along the lines of the amount of money paid (or, as I originally proposed, the amount of money 'eaten' by the team) would still count against their total salary until the contract was 'up'. That way, a small market team that signs a guy who tests positive for PEDs would continue to count that players salary, and would thus recieve less luxury tax money (if that makes any sense).

I was trying to keep it where the teams are hurt by signing guys who do PEDs, whether that be by paying more in luxury tax or by getting less in luxury tax payments.

Just throwing ideas out!