2007 Baseball Season is about to start--talk about anything you want

[pilferk]

Not to nitpick, but I don't think Clemens ever threw 97-99.  He was more in the mid nineties.  Granted he was a great pitcher before the alleged use.  All the guys on the list were great players.  You can't make it to the majors just by simply taking steroids.  But Roger did hit a career low at the end of his tenure with the Sox and had a sudden resurgence with the Blue Jays when the alleged use began.  Coincidence?  You decide.  Apparently he began using in 1998, a year after he won the Cy Young.  But then his first year with the Yanks was subpar and apparently used again and had a bounceback 2000 season.  Seems to fit.

From the on line info I can find, while with the sox, his velocity topped out in the 97 to 99 mph range.  There's an article on askmen.com that says the same thing (states he topped out around 98 mph). 

I think the disconnnect here is that you're thinking his AVERAGE speed on his fastball (which probably was 95 to 96 mph) and I'm thinking top speed.

His top speed, now, is about 95, with his average speed being about 91 to 92.

If you look at Roger's actual career stats, you'll notice that he's up and down on ERA, strikeouts, wins, etc  You can't point to the 10-13 record his last year in Boston and say it was a "bad year" because his ERA, strikeouts, etc were all still respectable.  He led the league in strikeouts. And remember the team he was pitching for, here.  You're talking about the '96 Boston Red Sox, here.  They were 85-77, third in the AL East, and a mediocre team at best.  He was also unhappy in Boston, unhappy with the teams direction, unhappy with the teams management, etc, etc, etc.

Also realize that what issues he DID have in '96 were control related.  He walked 106 batters, a career high, and one of the highest totals for a SP in the majors that year.  All his other stats are well in line with his career totals.  Control issues are not going to be fixed by 'roids or HGH...unless they're caused by an injury and healing that injury "fixes" your mechanics.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong.  But it's not quite as cut and dried as you make it seem.  You're looking at ONE possilble reason/explanation and saying that it fits.  But there are other, equally likely, equally simple explanations too.....all fitting in with his career stats, etc.

[freedom78]

Not to nitpick, but I don't think Clemens ever threw 97-99.  He was more in the mid nineties.  Granted he was a great pitcher before the alleged use.  All the guys on the list were great players.  You can't make it to the majors just by simply taking steroids.  But Roger did hit a career low at the end of his tenure with the Sox and had a sudden resurgence with the Blue Jays when the alleged use began.  Coincidence?  You decide.  Apparently he began using in 1998, a year after he won the Cy Young.  But then his first year with the Yanks was subpar and apparently used again and had a bounceback 2000 season.  Seems to fit.

I know next to nothing about steroids...let me start by saying that. 

But is it possible to use a substance to help build muscle/increase endurance, and then to maintain that muscle once you've stopped?  I'm assuming this is the case, though I don't know for certain. 

So, Clemens (or any player) could use for an offseason, get a boost, and if he keeps working out, he'll stay at that level without further use. 

Is this correct?  Because, if so, I think it makes it much more difficult to really nail down guys for their use.  One offseason every four years or so is very different from steady and constant use over those same four years. 

[The Dog]

interesting comments in this thread...

for me it all boils down to this:

if any ball player used HGH or steroids, even at a time when it was "legal" according to MLB rules, it in some way shape or form gave them an edge over players who were NOT using these substances.  Whether its healing faster from an injury, or staying healthier - its cheating.  it takes away from records from the past.  it makes us fans question would a world series have turned out different if guys weren't on the juice or using HGH.  If everyone isn't using HGH or roids than its not an even playing field.  you could argue that players today eat better, work out better, training science is better, the equipment is better than guys 40-50 years ago, etc... but ALL of the players today have access to that.  its all relative to the era.  if not everyone is using or has access to these drugs than its not.  simple as that.

drugs of any kind ruin the whole sport.

anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves and/or being biased b/c their team/players have been called out.

any of these guys found to be "guilty" should not be allowed in the HOF.  if bonds ever gets in, I will stop watching baseball.

[Axl4Prez2004]

^Butters, I hate Bonds with a passion...but I'd say Bonds should be in for being what he was before the 'roids.  He was undeniably the best player in baseball in the '90's before he started juicing.  Yeah, it sucks that he got greedy and wanted to be even greater than great, but oh well, I'd vote him in...and then let him comment on it from his jail-cell. 

I guess I would make the same argument for Clemens.  Before the (I'll say alleged, but I do believe he did) drug use, he was a Hall of Famer.

I'll agree with everything else Butters said.

Big Mac, no HOF, no way.  He's not a HOF player in my eyes.  Nope.  No McGwire, no Palmeiro...and I'd have to grit my teeth and say Sosa dammit, since the goods haven't been found on him, he'd probably get in.

By the way GeorgeSteele, I thought the drug test proved that Tom Cruise was gay, no?   

[freedom78]

interesting comments in this thread...

for me it all boils down to this:

if any ball player used HGH or steroids, even at a time when it was "legal" according to MLB rules, it in some way shape or form gave them an edge over players who were NOT using these substances.  Whether its healing faster from an injury, or staying healthier - its cheating.  it takes away from records from the past.  it makes us fans question would a world series have turned out different if guys weren't on the juice or using HGH.  If everyone isn't using HGH or roids than its not an even playing field.  you could argue that players today eat better, work out better, training science is better, the equipment is better than guys 40-50 years ago, etc... but ALL of the players today have access to that.  its all relative to the era.  if not everyone is using or has access to these drugs than its not.  simple as that.

drugs of any kind ruin the whole sport.

anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves and/or being biased b/c their team/players have been called out.

Banned substances are allowed when prescribed by a doctor for a legitimate medical reason, and the player has to make it known to MLB...I don't know the rules specifically, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.  For example, when John Kruk had cancer, there's a decent chance he was taking some sort of steroid, albeit a mild one.

^Butters, I hate Bonds with a passion...but I'd say Bonds should be in for being what he was before the 'roids.  He was undeniably the best player in baseball in the '90's before he started juicing.  Yeah, it sucks that he got greedy and wanted to be even greater than great, but oh well, I'd vote him in...and then let him comment on it from his jail-cell. 

I guess I would make the same argument for Clemens.  Before the (I'll say alleged, but I do believe he did) drug use, he was a Hall of Famer.

I'll agree with everything else Butters said.

Big Mac, no HOF, no way.  He's not a HOF player in my eyes.  Nope.  No McGwire, no Palmeiro...and I'd have to grit my teeth and say Sosa dammit, since the goods haven't been found on him, he'd probably get in.

By the way GeorgeSteele, I thought the drug test proved that Tom Cruise was gay, no?   

I don't think Bonds sullied the game...it was already that way...but he and McGwire certainly shit all over the record book.  But there's no question that Bonds was a hall of famer if, instead of taking roids and bulking up, he simply retires or plays a few years and his play falls off.  The question, then, is whether we assess him based on his pre-suspected roid numbers, which are still super impressive, or if the use somehow subtracts even from those accomplishments.  Of course, it's a question that each voter has to answer for himself, though if he loses his case or accepts a plea deal or something like that, it'll really hurt his chances. 

It's sad, really.  An asshole, but still a great player who didn't need the juice to be great...he just needed it to be the greatest ever, but in doing so he killed any chance to be considered the greatest ever, because everyone believes he was cheating. 

And, yes, the exact same goes for Clemens, though I don't think he did it to be the best ever (pitching records are untouchable in many categories) but because he's uber-competitive and couldn't bear to give it up or to slip, physically. 

RE: Sosa...his numbers are better than McGwire's, and the evidence him is much thinner.  Probably not first ballot, but he's got a pretty good chance, unless all sluggers from the era get blackballed, indiscriminately. 

any of these guys found to be "guilty" should not be allowed in the HOF.  if bonds ever gets in, I will stop watching baseball.

Please don't let Bonds take away your enjoyment.  Remember, it's not MLB that picks who gets in, but the Baseball writers.  So, if he's voted in, just stop reading the newspaper.  That'll show 'em! 

[The Dog]

Stop reading the paper? you mean like George Bush? 

a4p, freedom, i've heard the "well they were good BEFORE the juice" argument before - I don't buy it.  I'm a HUGE Buccos fan and loved Bonds back in the day.  I'll admit I'm biased with my hate for him when he left us (and we've been under .500 since, haha) but the truth is you can't just focus on one part of a guys career when you're talking about HOF acceptance.  Its less about the numbers and more about the cheating - he tainted his own career and also the game.  how many games did bonds change the outcome of by hitting a monster homer or getting a free pass at the plate b/c he was so feared.  would they have gotten to the WS if he wasn't on the juice? 

all these guys should be banned for life, their records stripped and made an example to the rest of the league.  be a nice message to the fans too.

[pilferk]

all these guys should be banned for life, their records stripped and made an example to the rest of the league.  be a nice message to the fans too.

Thanks for so convincingly proving my point about why names should not have been named considering the limited scope of the sources.

[pilferk]

interesting comments in this thread...

for me it all boils down to this:

if any ball player used HGH or steroids, even at a time when it was "legal" according to MLB rules, it in some way shape or form gave them an edge over players who were NOT using these substances.  Whether its healing faster from an injury, or staying healthier - its cheating.  it takes away from records from the past.  it makes us fans question would a world series have turned out different if guys weren't on the juice or using HGH.  If everyone isn't using HGH or roids than its not an even playing field.  you could argue that players today eat better, work out better, training science is better, the equipment is better than guys 40-50 years ago, etc... but ALL of the players today have access to that.  its all relative to the era.  if not everyone is using or has access to these drugs than its not.  simple as that.

drugs of any kind ruin the whole sport.

anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves and/or being biased b/c their team/players have been called out.

any of these guys found to be "guilty" should not be allowed in the HOF.  if bonds ever gets in, I will stop watching baseball.

I agree with lots of the sentiment.

I don't agree with some of the specifics.

You can't penalize someone for doing something before there was a rule preventing it.  You just can't.  It'd be like arresting people 10 years from now for committing a "crime" that was legal, today.  I agree what they were doing was unethical, and they probably should have known better, but the fact is this: HGH wasn't banned by MLB when some of these players were using it.  There was no provision for it, at all.  You can punish them in the press, you can call into question their ethics and professionalism, but MLB simply can't punish them.  It would be unfair....almost as unfair, unprofessional, and unethical as what the players using did.

As for being allowed in the HOF....I think every player should be looked at on a case by case basis.  Allegations, or even admissions, of using banned substances should certainly be a consideration when voting, and I'm sure the writers will take it into account.  But I don't think there should be a red line litmus test saying "everyone named in the Mitchell Report is automatically DQ'd from the HOF".  I think that's shortsighted, unfair, and not a good solution.  Simply trying to "expunge" the drug use from MLB's history isn't going to work....and the HOF is baseball's meuseum/history book. 

And, again, you're holding up THESE players, from a VERY limited set, and penalizing them....what about those not named because they weren't related to McNamee or Radomski in some way?  You either need to get a comprehensive (or nearly so) list of ALL MLB players using, and punish them all, or slap the very few on the wrist and tell them not to do it again....because if they do, they're in BIG trouble.

Keep in mind, that's only for those using PRIOR to the rule going into effect.  Anyone found violating the MLB substance abuse/use policy should have the book thrown at them.  If what they were doing was against the ACTUAL RULES in effect at the time......MLB should take whatever action they feel is necessary, if they can prove the use beyond simple allegations.

[GeorgeSteele]

What about all the non-juicers?  How come nobody ever blew the whistle?  Apparently the clubhouse code of silence was more important to them then doing something about the "unfair advantage" of the other players. 

So then my main question is, if those guys didn't care enough, why should we?

[The Dog]

I think MLB at this point HAS to do SOMETHING.  Pilferk, you make excellent points about when things were legal and you can't punish someone for not breaking a rule that didn't exist.  i largely agree with you, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that these guys cheated.

your other point about a FULL investigation, 110% agree with you.  i don't think MLB has the balls - they won't like what they find.  this runs very very deep I'm sure.

[pilferk]

I think MLB at this point HAS to do SOMETHING.  Pilferk, you make excellent points about when things were legal and you can't punish someone for not breaking a rule that didn't exist.  i largely agree with you, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that these guys cheated.

your other point about a FULL investigation, 110% agree with you.  i don't think MLB has the balls - they won't like what they find.  this runs very very deep I'm sure.

I think "doing something" means embracing the problem, accepting that it exists, and finding a mutally agreeable, feasible, practical drug testing program/policy to ensure it doesn't happen again.

IMHO, that's the most productive use of resources, to start.  Getting that done. 

Then, offer an amnesty to players who are willing to admit their use, against the rules or not....but make that offer of amnesty limited in duration.  Something like "You have 6 months to admit wrongdoing and adivse the MLBPA and MLB offices of the specifics of that wrongdoing".   They'd have to work out a deal with the feds first, obviously, with similar amnesty provisions...since if the feds won't offer amnesty....and any admission would be discoverable evidence that the feds could use to charge players with.  That would lead to the most complete, comprehensive list possible.  And by offering an amnesty program, you could extend the "rule" back further in time, retroactively....so you could essentially make HGH use against the rules from, say, 2000 and forward, by offering amnesty based on full disclosure to anyone coming forward who used HGH during that time frame.  It's a "fair" way to try to protect the sport's legacy, at least a bit....though I doubt the MLBPA would bite on that last bit.

After the amnesty deal expires, anything MLB and the MLBPA (or authorized independant agnecy) find out is fair game for disciplinary actions (considering when the rules went into effect, etc).. A division of the sport, jointly run, should be set up to be the drug monitoring arm of the MLB.  They should contract an outside, reputable agency to do the testing.  The testing agency turns it's results over to the joint division.  MLB AND the MLBPA are advised, at the same time, of findings that way...and MLB can begin disciplinary actions while the MLBPA can advise the players and, if necessary, "defend" them.

IMHO, they should enact mandatory monthly testing in season, and random sample, random date testing in the off season.  With the random test, you get one opt out per contract term, but if you test positive at any time AFTER that opt out, during your contract term, you get a harsher penalty.

[GeorgeSteele]

Bully Clemens not talking; you surprised?
Mark Kriegel / FOXSports.com
Posted: 34 minutes ago

It should surprise absolutely no one that Roger Clemens won't be answering questions regarding performance-enhancing drugs.
"I'm not talking to y'all about it," he told reporters Monday. "We'll handle this our way."

Once again, he's looking for an edge. Roger Clemens isn't interested in a fair fight. Never was. For all his 354 wins, there was always a whiff of something fraudulent about him, as evidenced by his woeful record in elimination games. He was a bully on the mound. And like most bullies, he wanted to be feared, but needed to be protected.

For all its shortcomings, the Mitchell Report ? five solid reporters, members of the much-maligned media, could have come up with a lot more for about $20 million less ? seems proof enough of Clemens' true character.


While other ballplayers did their admitting or denying on their own, Clemens sent his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, into the fray. The lawyer emphasized that Clemens had never failed a drug test. This, of course, is the Marion Jones defense. What's more, the lawyer called the accusations of steroid use "slanderous." This was a big mistake, as Clemens will never sue for slander. The last thing a bully wants is to be called on his bluff.

For years, Barry Bonds has faced armies of inquisitors. To his credit, at least he wasn't two-faced, remaining as surly to the many as he was to the few. No one mounted a credible but-Barry's-really-a-nice-guy defense.

By contrast, Clemens' unnatural longevity as a power pitcher was advertised as proof of his virtue, his holy work ethic. Hence, the speech he was scheduled to deliver next month before the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association: "My Vigorous Workout: How I Played So Long."

Now it's believed that his long life as a power pitcher owes much to his association with Brian McNamee, a former New York City cop. McNamee told Mitchell and his investigators that he injected Clemens ? at the pitcher's request ? four times with Winstrol during the '98 season. In 2000, after being traded to the Yankees, Clemens convinced his new employers to hire McNamee.

From the Mitchell Report: "During the later part of the regular season, McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin. ... McNamee stated that during this same time period he also injected Clemens four to six times with human growth hormone. ... On each occasion, McNamee administered the injections at Clemens' apartment in New York City."

McNamee ? who last summer cut a deal with the Feds compelling his testimony for Mitchel ? is a bad guy. Required reading on this subject is Luke Cyphers' piece "Clubbies Gone Wild" in ESPN magazine last May. In October of 2001, Clemens' workout guru "was found naked in a hotel pool, having sex with a woman rendered nearly comatose by the date rape drug GHB. Had security not dialed 911, the woman could well have died." McNamee, found to have lied to police in his initial interview, was declared a suspect. And though the Yankees got rid of him after the case eventually fell apart, Clemens stood by his man, keeping him on his personal payroll. When asked about McNamee last spring, Clemens said: "I'll train with him anytime."

Now, suddenly, after the release of the Mitchell Report, the pitcher has his lawyer portraying McNamee ? suspended once by the NYPD for reasons unknown ? as "a troubled and unreliable witness who came up with names after being threatened with possible prison time."

You think? Actually, the two of them sound like an exceedingly dark indie version of a buddy flick, what with The Rocket dropping trou for the Bad Lieutenant. Then again, bullies will do anything to get that edge.

Consider the night of Oct. 22, 2000, the second game of the World Series at Yankee Stadium, Clemens vs. Mike Piazza, who always hit him hard. Earlier that season, Clemens had beaned him right in the helmet. Unable to beat Piazza in a fair fight, the bully tried to intimidate. Piazza was blessed to have left the ballpark that day with only a concussion.

Now, months later, they met again in the Series. It's worth noting that Joe Torre opted to have Clemens pitch at Yankee Stadium rather than Shea, a National League park where he would've had to assume the position in the batter's box. Again, bullies must be protected.

This time, Clemens shattered Piazza's bat. Piazza began running toward first as the ball went foul. Meanwhile, Clemens in a full fury, picked up a sharp shard of wood and flung it toward Piazza.

There was a moment of stunned silence, as 56,059 people tried to comprehend what they had just seen. Maybe it was 'roid rage. Or maybe, the juice had put a man's true nature on display, the inner bully of Roger Clemens.

[freedom78]

By contrast, Clemens' unnatural longevity as a power pitcher was advertised as proof of his virtue, his holy work ethic. Hence, the speech he was scheduled to deliver next month before the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association: "My Vigorous Workout: How I Played So Long."

Hilarious timing! 

[GypsySoul]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3160063

Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Clemens fires back, denies taking steroids or HGH

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Roger Clemens denied allegations by his former trainer that he took performance-enhancing drugs, calling them "a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.''

The accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner from his former trainer, Brian McNamee, were contained in last week's Mitchell Report. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said McNamee said he injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001, while with the New York Yankees.

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life,'' Clemens said Tuesday in a statement issued through his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment.''

Another McNamee client, Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, said last weekend that he took HGH twice while rehabbing from an injury in 2002. Mitchell said McNamee told him he injected Pettitte with HGH two-to-four times that year.

Baseball players and owners didn't have an agreement banning steroids until September 2002. They banned HGH in January 2005.

[D]

I have always felt that 80 percent of Athletes take steroids, so nothing surprises me.

It doesn't bother me either.

I think NBA has people on steroids, every sport basically.

[The Dog]

I have always felt that 80 percent of Athletes take steroids, so nothing surprises me.

It doesn't bother me either.

I think NBA has people on steroids, every sport basically.

c'mon - if you found out Michael Jordan was on roids - I think A LOT of people would care...

if some douche who sits on the bench is on roids, nobody would care.

These are BIG names who have been linked to steroid/HGH usage in MLB.

[The Dog]

I think MLB at this point HAS to do SOMETHING.  Pilferk, you make excellent points about when things were legal and you can't punish someone for not breaking a rule that didn't exist.  i largely agree with you, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that these guys cheated.

your other point about a FULL investigation, 110% agree with you.  i don't think MLB has the balls - they won't like what they find.  this runs very very deep I'm sure.

I think "doing something" means embracing the problem, accepting that it exists, and finding a mutally agreeable, feasible, practical drug testing program/policy to ensure it doesn't happen again.

IMHO, that's the most productive use of resources, to start.  Getting that done. 

Then, offer an amnesty to players who are willing to admit their use, against the rules or not....but make that offer of amnesty limited in duration.  Something like "You have 6 months to admit wrongdoing and adivse the MLBPA and MLB offices of the specifics of that wrongdoing".   They'd have to work out a deal with the feds first, obviously, with similar amnesty provisions...since if the feds won't offer amnesty....and any admission would be discoverable evidence that the feds could use to charge players with.  That would lead to the most complete, comprehensive list possible.  And by offering an amnesty program, you could extend the "rule" back further in time, retroactively....so you could essentially make HGH use against the rules from, say, 2000 and forward, by offering amnesty based on full disclosure to anyone coming forward who used HGH during that time frame.  It's a "fair" way to try to protect the sport's legacy, at least a bit....though I doubt the MLBPA would bite on that last bit.

After the amnesty deal expires, anything MLB and the MLBPA (or authorized independant agnecy) find out is fair game for disciplinary actions (considering when the rules went into effect, etc).. A division of the sport, jointly run, should be set up to be the drug monitoring arm of the MLB.  They should contract an outside, reputable agency to do the testing.  The testing agency turns it's results over to the joint division.  MLB AND the MLBPA are advised, at the same time, of findings that way...and MLB can begin disciplinary actions while the MLBPA can advise the players and, if necessary, "defend" them.

IMHO, they should enact mandatory monthly testing in season, and random sample, random date testing in the off season.  With the random test, you get one opt out per contract term, but if you test positive at any time AFTER that opt out, during your contract term, you get a harsher penalty.

Amnesty?  people don't even want that for illegal immigrants - no way they'll stand for that for our athletes! 

all jokes aside, i think EVERYONE from the fans to the owners has let too much slide as it is.  As a fan, I want to see the hammer come down b/c if all they get is a slap on the wrist then they'll simply find another way to cheat.  These guys knew there were doing shady stuff - I don't feel bad for them.

They've tainted a great game, disenchanted a lot of fans and made some of the most amazing, honored records in sports meaningless.  There will be more * in the HOF than players.. 

Lastly - guys like Clemens should REALLY have the book thrown at them.  Does anyone really believe he wasn't on something?  Categorically denying it this way just smacks of Palmiero and Mac at those hearings.  Had Bonds admitted it from the get go as well people would be more likely to forgive.  Give it up Roger, we'll respect you more if you own up to it. 

[faldor]

What I don't get about this whole thing is the guys who were "named" in the report ALL had the opportunity to tell their side of the story.  They all denied, except for Giambi.  If the guys claim they're innocent, why wouldn't they come out and protect their name?  Clemens now says he'll speak when the time is right.  When is the time gonna be right?  Does he need to build a case, fabricate some stories, come up with alibis?  If you're innocent, you're innocent, you shouldn't have to worry about anything, just tell the truth.

[The Dog]

just tell the truth.

whats that?

 

[Axl4Prez2004]

If that's Clemens' wife in that cellphone commercial, I've got dibs if that marriage goes south!   

Seriously, unless other facts can back up the accusations, we're probably not looking at much of a penalty much less asterisks.  For example, it is now well-established that the 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers Iron Curtain defense was heavy into 'roids and one of the first groups to do so.  Not surprisingly, they kicked ass and took home 4 Super Bowl trophies.  Any asterisks?  No.  But, the NFL did something about the problem when it became highly prevalent.  It started slowly, but it has been built up over time to become a respected model for drug testing. 

My prediction.  Baseball will adopt an Olympics-like drug-screening program that will utilize an independent drug testing company or companies.  Samples will be tested and stored for future screenings in case masking agents not known by the testers are found in the coming years.  Those who violate the program will be punished severely, revocation of salaries, present and past, and ex-communication from the game.  This will be a great addition to baseball and the fans will love it.

Unfortunately, all that would be more likely to happen if baseball wasn't doing so well financially.  There's less motivation to change when times are good.  Oh well, I'm hopeful.