Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jose Reyes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by mandrake View Post
    People hear names like Jeter, Wright, Piazza, Ripken and most of the time, they say "they were clean". Really, Piazza was clean ? I guess the clearasil never worked for his acne. And then when people hear Sosa, Bonds, Clemens etc..."they were guilty". Put Bonds and Clemens on the Mets and see how people on this forum do a 180. Put Wright and Reyes on the Yankees with their 2007-2008 bodies and see how people bash them.

    Baseball fever causes selective amnesia. Highly touted Mets 'can't miss' stars that were promoted here but were caught using PEDs : Fernado Martinez, Jordany Valdespin, and of course, Cesar Puello.
    There are some players I would be surprised if I found out they were using, but nobody would shock me.

    I think its pretty clear that Wright, and Piazza were using. Reyes had his name linked to the "blood spinning" doctor in Canada.

    Leave a comment:


  • mandrake
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    I am not pro steroid. I am just not as against it as most others.

    During that whole "era" I believe what Caminiti and Canseco said - that 75% of the league was using in one way or another. That's 3 out of 4. Take your 4 favorite players and 3 of them were using it. Pitchers included. Now some people blow that % off to make themselves feel better, but I think there are some teeth in that number.

    I don't think you can ignore the accomplishments of the players of that era while celebrate players of the same era because you don't "THINK" they were using.

    Personally I always felt Cal Ripken Jr. was a user. Proof? No, but when someone recovers as quickly and bounces back as quickly as he did while playing the 2nd most demanding position on the field - you have to at least ask the question. Just because a players name isn't on a list or isn't what the public wants to hear doesn't mean a damn thing.

    What I do find funny is that most people will agree a high % of players were using steroids, but when you mention certain names - they tell you that there is no way that Player X was using. Why - because they liked him.

    I agree they should make the punishment harsh, but that doesn't mean that you could/should ignore that era. Lets not forget - baseball was fully aware of what was going on both MLB and the MLBPA. Nobody did a thing because the players were get paid and the stadiums were getting filled. When it hit the fan Selig the Scumbag bailed on all of them.
    People hear names like Jeter, Wright, Piazza, Ripken and most of the time, they say "they were clean". Really, Piazza was clean ? I guess the clearasil never worked for his acne. And then when people hear Sosa, Bonds, Clemens etc..."they were guilty". Put Bonds and Clemens on the Mets and see how people on this forum do a 180. Put Wright and Reyes on the Yankees with their 2007-2008 bodies and see how people bash them.

    Baseball fever causes selective amnesia. Highly touted Mets 'can't miss' stars that were promoted here but were caught using PEDs : Fernado Martinez, Jordany Valdespin, and of course, Cesar Puello.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    The goal for the league SHOULD be the same as what it should be for steroids: to set such a harsh precedent that it'll deter as many future cases as possible. You'll never stop EVERYONE, but being banned 52 games and then blackballed by teams for the rest of the year would've set at least a semi-decent example, "Do this and you could lose a year's playing time." Granted, Reyes was on paid leave, but still, not getting to play the whole year is at least something.

    To address the elephant in the room, since Kirby Puckett's come up--much as I hate them, and I DO think a steroid user today should be kept out of the HOF, obviously steroid abuse isn't as bad as domestic abuse and harming another human being. I'm just saying that, as with steroids, the punishment for usage has to be harsh enough that it acts as a deterrent, even a little...if it stops even a few scumbags for fear of losing time and money, a heavy penalty's worth it (besides the fact that, you know, it's the right thing to do.)
    I am not pro steroid. I am just not as against it as most others.

    During that whole "era" I believe what Caminiti and Canseco said - that 75% of the league was using in one way or another. That's 3 out of 4. Take your 4 favorite players and 3 of them were using it. Pitchers included. Now some people blow that % off to make themselves feel better, but I think there are some teeth in that number.

    I don't think you can ignore the accomplishments of the players of that era while celebrate players of the same era because you don't "THINK" they were using.

    Personally I always felt Cal Ripken Jr. was a user. Proof? No, but when someone recovers as quickly and bounces back as quickly as he did while playing the 2nd most demanding position on the field - you have to at least ask the question. Just because a players name isn't on a list or isn't what the public wants to hear doesn't mean a damn thing.

    What I do find funny is that most people will agree a high % of players were using steroids, but when you mention certain names - they tell you that there is no way that Player X was using. Why - because they liked him.

    I agree they should make the punishment harsh, but that doesn't mean that you could/should ignore that era. Lets not forget - baseball was fully aware of what was going on both MLB and the MLBPA. Nobody did a thing because the players were get paid and the stadiums were getting filled. When it hit the fan Selig the Scumbag bailed on all of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Eventually I think the PED guys will get in. Every generation has its own brand of getting an edge. Steroids were just the best brand so far. They may have their own distinction or something but they cant "unrecognized" this guys with 600 homers. Especially when the pitchers were taking it at the same time.
    I think eventually a couple will get in on the "They Were 'Already' HOFers" line of reasoning...Bonds, or Clemens, or both. I don't like it, but at the very least I can accept that they were already HOFers before their bodies started to go nuts. (And while you can--fairly--argue that we can never tell who started using when...that's true to an extent, but you CAN really see Bonds' figure change by the late 90s/early 2000s...maybe not enough for a court of law, but in the court of baseball opinion it's more than enough for an educated guess concerning letting him into a glorified special clubhouse of sorts or not.)

    On the other hand, Palmeiro and Sosa are probably barred for life--it's a bad and irreversible black mark to wag your finger at Congress saying you didn't take steroids and then get caught with them (say what you will about steroids, nobody likes a liar, you could argue, right or wrong, Pete Rose might've gotten in eventually if he'd fessed up right away) and where Bonds went from already being a superstar to an outrageously roided-out late-30s Hulk, Sosa went from a skinny nothing to superstar with not much in between, so he's now the poster boy for the "Everything HOF-worthy About Me Came Out of a Bottle" argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    What is the goal after a domestic violence situation?
    Most situations never come to light.
    Of the ones that are known - I hope the goal is safety for the victim and rehabilitation for the perpetrator.

    Reyes was suspended without pay thru May 31. He's gone thru counseling and that counseling continues.
    Will he be able to never do it again? Don't know.

    Are there players today that do this and aren't known to the system? You bet.
    Which player is better off? One that is going thru counseling like Reyes or one where the situation is hidden?
    The goal for the league SHOULD be the same as what it should be for steroids: to set such a harsh precedent that it'll deter as many future cases as possible. You'll never stop EVERYONE, but being banned 52 games and then blackballed by teams for the rest of the year would've set at least a semi-decent example, "Do this and you could lose a year's playing time." Granted, Reyes was on paid leave, but still, not getting to play the whole year is at least something.

    To address the elephant in the room, since Kirby Puckett's come up--much as I hate them, and I DO think a steroid user today should be kept out of the HOF, obviously steroid abuse isn't as bad as domestic abuse and harming another human being. I'm just saying that, as with steroids, the punishment for usage has to be harsh enough that it acts as a deterrent, even a little...if it stops even a few scumbags for fear of losing time and money, a heavy penalty's worth it (besides the fact that, you know, it's the right thing to do.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I agree wife beating is far worse of an action than PEDs. But those involved in voting aren't (supposedly) ranking morality. They are considering actions that directly affect the game (gambling and PEDs) before things that don't. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying I don't think they have a morality ranking system. They are keeping gamblers and PED users out because it was connected to the game - not because they think those actions are worse.
    I am not going to dispute anything you say here, but in my opinion I much rather have Bonds in the HOF than Puckett. In fact I rather have any PED user in the HOF (assuming he had the numbers to get in) over a guy that shouldn't be in the HOF on his ability and in more so because he was well liked. Well liked, but obviously fooled a lot of people at that same time.

    Eventually I think the PED guys will get in. Every generation has its own brand of getting an edge. Steroids were just the best brand so far. They may have their own distinction or something but they cant "unrecognize" this guys with 600 homers. Especially when the pitchers were taking it at the same time.

    I find the double standard amazing that a guy like Gaylord Perry can go around and basically brag about how he cheated for decades - got away with it, and then put in the HOF. Not only is he not criticized he is revered for it. They call it gamesmanship when they speak of Perry. Never cheating - just gamesmanship as they chuckle.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 06-28-2016, 01:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Your right it is tough to say which tells you about the stupidity about voting.

    They may rather have a wife beater in the HOF over taking a guy that took steroids. In my opinion one act is reprehensible and the other one isn't.
    I agree wife beating is far worse of an action than PEDs. But those involved in voting aren't (supposedly) ranking morality. They are considering actions that directly affect the game (gambling and PEDs) before things that don't. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying I don't think they have a morality ranking system. They are keeping gamblers and PED users out because it was connected to the game - not because they think those actions are worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    In fairness, as you said, the stuff about the abuse came to light after he was elected. Just like they didn't remove him after-the-fact - they wouldn't remove some current HOFer who, say admitted using steroids while active. So in this example, it really isn't PEDs vs. abuse.

    Would they have elected him if all of the bad stuff came out prior to his election? That is tough to say.
    Your right it is tough to say which tells you about the stupidity about voting.

    They may rather have a wife beater in the HOF over taking a guy that took steroids. In my opinion one act is reprehensible and the other one isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post

    This all came out after this loving and adoring "human being" was celebrated by baseball. What a joke. He should be removed from the HOF - 1)because he isn't good enough to be there 2) we destroy people for taking roids but almost killing your wife is just fine

    .
    In fairness, as you said, the stuff about the abuse came to light after he was elected. Just like they didn't remove him after-the-fact - they wouldn't remove some current HOFer who, say admitted using steroids while active. So in this example, it really isn't PEDs vs. abuse.

    Would they have elected him if all of the bad stuff came out prior to his election? That is tough to say.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    What is the goal after a domestic violence situation?
    Most situations never come to light.
    Of the ones that are known - I hope the goal is safety for the victim and rehabilitation for the perpetrator.

    Reyes was suspended without pay thru May 31. He's gone thru counseling and that counseling continues.
    Will he be able to never do it again? Don't know.

    Are there players today that do this and aren't known to the system? You bet.
    Which player is better off? One that is going thru counseling like Reyes or one where the situation is hidden?
    Excellent point here.

    Everybody loved Kirby Puckett. He unjustly is in the HOF and was just a loveable "teddy bear" as the public was told. Google Puckett and read about him strangling his wife with an electrical cord - holding a gun to her head...etc etc.

    This all came out after this loving and adoring "human being" was celebrated by baseball. What a joke. He should be removed from the HOF - 1)because he isn't good enough to be there 2) we destroy people for taking roids but almost killing your wife is just fine

    This doesn't make Reyes' transgressions any better but the general public just has not clue what happens off the field, off camera.

    Leave a comment:


  • LI METS FAN
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    1. No, it takes an aggressor and a victim...not really a "it takes two to tango" social equivalent.

    2. I'd argue the damage isn't minimal on the macro scale for the same reason it wasn't minimal in the Ray Rice/Greg Hardy/Ray McDonald/etc. cases--signing Reyes, or any player who has committed domestic abuse, sends the message that the league and the public both value sports skills over social justice in an instance like this and therefore encourages and enables FUTURE abusers, since hey, those other guys did it and got away with it and got contracts and playing time again...so what's to stop them doing the same to their wives/girlfriends with the expectation of the same? By your own logic about supporting "systems of chaos," that's precisely what we're doing here, just with domestic abuse instead of cartels.

    3. Moreover, it sends the message overall that a man's word (Hope Solo case aside, nearly all the high-profile abuse cases in sports ARE male on female) means more to the public on this issue than a woman's, and that men will continue to be favored legally, financially, and socially...which just encourages angry John to go ahead and hit Jane, and makes Jane statistically less likely to come forward (for fear of not being taken seriously, or the abuser being favored by society or cops or the court) and less likely to win if she does, MORE likely to stay in that abusive relationship...and thus perpetuate this cycle of violence for all the untold millions of Janes experiencing it.

    4. While it's ridiculous to try and compare domestic abuse worldwide to cartels in terms of which is worse (answer: both) I WOULD say domestic abuse worldwide is as big a problem in its way as cartels and drug-related violence, and especially in this country, right now, between things like the Ray Rice case and the recent Stanford rape case, violence against women is a major problem that doesn't need an assist from any sports league.

    5. I forget the article (it might have been on Graham Greene and his Catholicism visa vi his era's Antisemitism) but it made a good if overstated point in saying if we limited who we read to the people whose morals we agree with...we'd be left with pretty much George Eliot and her monstrously-huge moralizing books. That said, you can't cut Ezra Pound, Ernest Hemingway or Norman "I Hate Women" Mailer out of literary history despite the first siding with and working for the Axis (and all the views that implies), the second having sexist views, and the latter once saying "A little bit of rape is good for a man's soul." They weren't always the best people, but you still have to teach them. You couldn't teach baseball history without Ty Cobb. Signing Reyes, by contrast, was NOWHERE NEAR that level of necessity...the Mets didn't need him on a baseball level and Reyes isn't on that level of importance to the game.
    What is the goal after a domestic violence situation?
    Most situations never come to light.
    Of the ones that are known - I hope the goal is safety for the victim and rehabilitation for the perpetrator.

    Reyes was suspended without pay thru May 31. He's gone thru counseling and that counseling continues.
    Will he be able to never do it again? Don't know.

    Are there players today that do this and aren't known to the system? You bet.
    Which player is better off? One that is going thru counseling like Reyes or one where the situation is hidden?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    That question is a non-sequitur and makes assumptions about a supposed inherent argument you think I might or might not have been making in the post you quoted.
    Ok so answer the question. How do you feel about Pete Rose? I didn't make an assumption - I asked a question. I was wondering if you think Pete Rose is the scum of the earth for supporting organized crime in which his gambling money losses also support such things as drug dealing, prostitution, and loan sharking. Which as we know all lead to many dead people for a variety of reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    What you have just given anyone who has any ability to argue or debate is a very easy strawman to demolish.

    So what you are suggesting, by not agreeing with me, is that indeed one man injuring one person is worse than many persons injuring, killing and harming many people?

    See, this is why emotions win more than logic. You can humanize the incident, because you can put a face to the victim and the aggressor - Ms. Reyes and Mr. Reyes. However, you cannot put a face on large numbers, so as odd as it might appear, the negative impact of singular events seems stronger than that of larger conglomerates of events and persons, like the overall actions and ramifications of drug cartels. In fact, not to go too tangential, but this is why genocides are allowed to escalate. When a little kid dies, you see his face in the newspaper. When a million little kids die, you the number 1,000,000. Which one is going to be more emotionally evocative? Not the number, numbers are cold.

    It should be noted that those who argue with logic and facts do not fall for emotion. For future reference, do not try the bleeding heart angles, they do not work.
    Thanks for the advice, I'd better go reevaluate my life.

    So tell me, O master debater, what is your counter argument? Why do we need Jose Reyes? Why should we welcome him to the Mets? His skills are considerably diminished. And he'll be playing a position he has never played before, at least at the MLB level. You want to argue with logic and facts, so go ahead, have at it. What is the upside to Jose Reyes, other than they got him cheap?

    And feeling a little empathy for a woman whose husband pushed her through a window is the "bleeding heart angle"?
    Last edited by ol' aches and pains; 06-27-2016, 11:07 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Did you not read what I said exactly one post before yours.

    Pushing a chick through a window involves two people. The pusher and the chick. Yes, it's bad. But its scope of damage on the macro scale is minimal.

    Doing cocaine supports systems that cause chaos and illegality the world over.
    1. No, it takes an aggressor and a victim...not really a "it takes two to tango" social equivalent.

    2. I'd argue the damage isn't minimal on the macro scale for the same reason it wasn't minimal in the Ray Rice/Greg Hardy/Ray McDonald/etc. cases--signing Reyes, or any player who has committed domestic abuse, sends the message that the league and the public both value sports skills over social justice in an instance like this and therefore encourages and enables FUTURE abusers, since hey, those other guys did it and got away with it and got contracts and playing time again...so what's to stop them doing the same to their wives/girlfriends with the expectation of the same? By your own logic about supporting "systems of chaos," that's precisely what we're doing here, just with domestic abuse instead of cartels.

    3. Moreover, it sends the message overall that a man's word (Hope Solo case aside, nearly all the high-profile abuse cases in sports ARE male on female) means more to the public on this issue than a woman's, and that men will continue to be favored legally, financially, and socially...which just encourages angry John to go ahead and hit Jane, and makes Jane statistically less likely to come forward (for fear of not being taken seriously, or the abuser being favored by society or cops or the court) and less likely to win if she does, MORE likely to stay in that abusive relationship...and thus perpetuate this cycle of violence for all the untold millions of Janes experiencing it.

    4. While it's ridiculous to try and compare domestic abuse worldwide to cartels in terms of which is worse (answer: both) I WOULD say domestic abuse worldwide is as big a problem in its way as cartels and drug-related violence, and especially in this country, right now, between things like the Ray Rice case and the recent Stanford rape case, violence against women is a major problem that doesn't need an assist from any sports league.

    5. I forget the article (it might have been on Graham Greene and his Catholicism visa vi his era's Antisemitism) but it made a good if overstated point in saying if we limited who we read to the people whose morals we agree with...we'd be left with pretty much George Eliot and her monstrously-huge moralizing books. That said, you can't cut Ezra Pound, Ernest Hemingway or Norman "I Hate Women" Mailer out of literary history despite the first siding with and working for the Axis (and all the views that implies), the second having sexist views, and the latter once saying "A little bit of rape is good for a man's soul." They weren't always the best people, but you still have to teach them. You couldn't teach baseball history without Ty Cobb. Signing Reyes, by contrast, was NOWHERE NEAR that level of necessity...the Mets didn't need him on a baseball level and Reyes isn't on that level of importance to the game.
    Last edited by Shea Knight; 06-27-2016, 12:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    So does gambling -- How do you feel about Pete Rose?
    That question is a non-sequitur and makes assumptions about a supposed inherent argument you think I might or might not have been making in the post you quoted.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X