Sticking with Buster this morning, he links to an article in which the guy who brought down BALCO — DEA/FDA agent Jeff Novitzky — is reported to be investigating PED use in cycling under a theory that cyclists were not just breaking drug laws but that, because their performance led to sponsorship deals and more money, they were also engaged in fraud. By implementing a fraud theory I assume Novitzky would be able to widen his net and get warrants for financial information and other things that have little to do with the actual drug use of the athletes involved.
I’ll save my “holy crap, government agents with a thirst for investigative power like Jeff Novitzky has scare the bejesus out of me” rant for another day. In the meantime, I’m struck by Olney’s thought on the matter:
It’s an interesting line of questioning, and you wonder if any threads
that are pulled lead to inquiries in baseball. A common refrain heard
among some baseball executives over the last five years is that, in
retrospect, some players used drugs to boost their performance in order
to improve their performance and win more money — and prizes. And some
executives have privately asked the same open-ended question: Does that
It’s an investigation into the past that baseball probably should keep
an eye on.
Perhaps. But it’s also a string that, if I were a baseball owner or executive, I wouldn’t pull. Because, yes, there is a totally legitimate argument that baseball players unfairly reaped millions because steroids gave them a bunch of home runs and strikeouts they wouldn’t have otherwise gotten. But if that’s true, there is just as legitimate an argument that baseball owners — all of whom knew steroids were everywhere — reaped billions as a result of the same behavior.
Whether it was merely a black chapter in baseball history or an out-and-out fraud, the Steroid Era was the product of many, many parties working together to make it happen. To assume that only the players would fall under such a renewed investigation is naive.
Right-hander Dale Thayer and the Orioles have agreed to a minor-league contract that includes an invitation to spring training.
Thayer had a rough 2015 season for the Padres, posting a 4.06 ERA and spending time in the minors, but he was a solid part of San Diego’s bullpen from 2012-2014 with a combined 3.02 ERA and 173/50 K/BB ratio in 188 innings.
At age 35 there’s no guarantee that Thayer will look good enough to claim a spot on the Opening Day roster, but he’s got a strong chance to wind up pitching middle relief for Baltimore.
Taylor Featherston, who was designated for assignment by the Angels last week, has been traded to the Phillies for a player to be named later or cash.
Featherston stayed in the majors with the Angels for all of last season due to being a Rule 5 pick from the Rockies organization, but the 25-year-old infielder hit just .162 in 169 plate appearances.
He’s been much better in the minors, but nothing about his track record there screams quality regular and the Phillies are likely viewing him as a defense-first bench option for now.
Flags fly forever! Hooray for The Process championship!
Ah, sorry. This is about as much rooting as I’ll get to do this year, so cut me some slack.
This is the week when ESPN’s Keith Law releases his prospect and farm system rankings. He kicks off his content this week with a top-to-bottom ranking of all 30 farm systems. As a rule he limits his analysis to players who are currently in the minors and who have not yet exhausted their rookie of the year eligibility. The top system: the Atlanta Braves. The bottom: the Los Angeles Angels, about whom Law says “I’ve been doing these rankings for eight years now, and this is by far the worst system I’ve ever seen.” Enjoy Mike Trout, though, you guys.
If you want to know the reasons and the rankings of everyone in between you’ll have to get an ESPN Insider subscription. Sorry, I know everyone hates to pay for content on the Internet, but Keith and others who do this kind of work put a lot of damn work into it and this is what pays their bills. I typically don’t like to pay for content myself, but I do pay for an ESPN Insider subscription. It’s worth it for Law’s work alone. And though he drives me crazy sometimes, Buster Olney’s daily column/notes thing is also worth the money over the course of the year.
The funny thing about that “stick to sports” stuff I was going on about the other day is that, in reality, a whole lot of the people who say “stick to sports” don’t really want to just stick to sports. They’re totally cool going on about political, social or cultural stuff as long as it fits their world view. It’s not “stick to sports.” It’s “don’t talk about the social implications of sports-related stuff in ways that upset me.” If sports and culture come together in other ways, however, they’re completely fine in grinding their axe.
For example, Beyonce is playing a concert a Citi Field this summer. The show is so popular that they added a second date. The Mets’ Twitter feed just announced that tickets will go on sale for the new show soon:
A while lotta Mets fans responded to that negatively. For political/social/cultural reasons that they are willingly bringing in to a conversation about a pop singer and a baseball stadium that will double as a concert venue:
And they go on and on.
How much do you want to bet that a whole lotta these respondents would tell you to “stick to baseball” if you wanted to bring up how race affects the sport or how, if instead of Beyonce, this was announcing a Kid Rock/Ted Nugent-headlined festival and you mused whether that was a case of the Mets somehow endorsing their messages?