Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Pineda Is Getting A Raw Deal If Something Doesn't Change

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Member
  • 4,879 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 06 July 2020 - 04:03 PM

 

Simple to say.Really hard to do.

 

Yet...... it takes a voluntary movement to eat. It takes no movement to not eat. Most things that are worth it are not easy. It still happens everyday, all the time. It is all in commitment.

  • Channing1964 likes this

#22 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 06 July 2020 - 05:48 PM

 

The way I look at it he was suspended for 60 games. The 60 games was based on a 162 game schedule.

MLB thought the rule he broke was worth about a third of a season (37%)

The amount of games between when he started is suspension was 21 last year and 39 this year. Now that percentage goes to 75% of the games available (81) for him to play. If MLB really thought what he did was worth 37% percent of games, they should switch his games this year to 9 games, I am pretty sure they could double that to 20 games this year and most would think that is fair.

 

But I guess that is up each person to decide.

"The 60 games was based on a 162 game schedule."

No, the 60 games was based on MLB's drug policy, which was previously agreed to in a CBA with the players union. 

 

"If MLB really thought what he did was worth 37% percent of games..."

They didn't "think" this. They determined it in an official ruling (and reduced the number in an official appeal). It's not an arbitrary number.

 

"But I guess that is up each person to decide."

Again, no. This is a binding rule from the league. It's not some ad hoc number that the commissioner threw out. People may have different opinions, but it doesn't change the rules.

  • Craig Arko, Major League Ready and Channing1964 like this

#23 Channing1964

Channing1964

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 475 posts
  • LocationPhoenix,Az

Posted 07 July 2020 - 12:31 AM

I can see your point but I am thinking that should have been something the Players Union would have negotiated. If we really needed him that bad i would probably be more upset about it. Also we knew it wasn't gonna happen because they did already reduce it once.

and i think since i post this now they have reduced it by the 3 playoff games as well. This makes it 36 more instead of 39. I am a Pineda fan of course, but if this is indeed the second one,(as a previous post suggests) he is very lucky it wasn't 162 games. I am happy he'll be back for the final 24 plus any playoffs. Let's not poke this bear anymore.

#24 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 July 2020 - 06:28 AM

 

"The 60 games was based on a 162 game schedule."

No, the 60 games was based on MLB's drug policy, which was previously agreed to in a CBA with the players union. 

 

"If MLB really thought what he did was worth 37% percent of games..."

They didn't "think" this. They determined it in an official ruling (and reduced the number in an official appeal). It's not an arbitrary number.

 

"But I guess that is up each person to decide."

Again, no. This is a binding rule from the league. It's not some ad hoc number that the commissioner threw out. People may have different opinions, but it doesn't change the rules.

So it is not an arbitrary number and is based on MLB's drug policy agreed to in a CBA with the players union.

So the original 80 games isn't arbitrary or based on a 162 games season, it just so happens to be as close to half the season? The reduction to 60 games isn't arbitrary or based on 162 games season?

And that they included the 3 playoff games to his games missed when the CBA is

"The collectively bargained Joint Drug Agreement says any player suspended for a banned substance is not eligible to play in the postseason that year. And no, postseason games do not count against toward the suspension."

 

hmm, interesting, not saying you are wrong, just saying it is interesting.


#25 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 07 July 2020 - 09:21 AM

 

So it is not an arbitrary number and is based on MLB's drug policy agreed to in a CBA with the players union.

So the original 80 games isn't arbitrary or based on a 162 games season, it just so happens to be as close to half the season? The reduction to 60 games isn't arbitrary or based on 162 games season?

And that they included the 3 playoff games to his games missed when the CBA is

"The collectively bargained Joint Drug Agreement says any player suspended for a banned substance is not eligible to play in the postseason that year. And no, postseason games do not count against toward the suspension."

 

hmm, interesting, not saying you are wrong, just saying it is interesting.

I won't pretend to be a lawyer on my comments, either.

 

These are unprecedented times. But if the #s are exact in the agreement, they aren't going to change. I'm sure 80 games is meant to be based on a half season, but if it doesn't say "50%" in the agreement, that's how the rules are written.

 

 

  • Sconnie likes this

#26 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,697 posts

Posted 09 July 2020 - 03:54 PM

 

So again, I refer to the INTENT of the rule in regard to discipline. If such things such as service time are pro-rated forward in a limited season, then why is not a suspension pro-rated backward? Pineda will now miss a larger percentage of games he was intended to miss, as well as suffer a greater financial loss than originally intended.

Very late to the thread, but there are some pretty stark differences between service time and suspensions -- first and foremost, suspensions are meant to be punitive. Also service time affects all players, while suspensions currently affect only a very small handful. All of this suggests that the two things don't have to be considered equally.

 

And while neither the MLBPA or MLB could have predicted a 60 game season when they signed the joint drug agreement a few years ago, they were very much aware of it this spring as they negotiated about how to handle a shortened 2020 season. The MLBPA likely prioritized service time and 100% prorated salary for all of their members over reduced suspensions for just a few, and it's hard to blame them for that decision. I suppose someone could ask the Twins MLBPA rep Taylor Rogers if they brought up the subject.

 

And Pineda's "greater financial loss" in 2020 is no greater than any other player in the league. His games & dollars lost to the suspension remain exactly the same -- he's just lost the same additional games and dollars as everyone else due to the cancelled games. If you reduced his suspension now, one could argue that Pineda would actually be deriving a special benefit from the public health crisis that no other non-suspended player would be getting.


#27 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,697 posts

Posted 09 July 2020 - 03:59 PM

 

And that they included the 3 playoff games to his games missed when the CBA is

"The collectively bargained Joint Drug Agreement says any player suspended for a banned substance is not eligible to play in the postseason that year. And no, postseason games do not count against toward the suspension."

Because Pineda's original suspension was reduced on appeal, he would have been eligible to play in the 2019 postseason if he had been able to complete his suspension beforehand -- that's specified in the agreement:

 

http://twinsdaily.co...tance/?p=912047

 

And because he would have been eligible to play in those postseason games, they can also count toward his suspension.

  • Tomj14 likes this

#28 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 15,071 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 09 July 2020 - 04:16 PM

 

 

 

And because he would have been eligible to play in those postseason games, they can also count toward his suspension.

 

I blame the Twins for doing him no favors.

  • spycake, DocBauer and Tomj14 like this