Ervin Santana banned for the playoffs?

[Jham]

Interesting article in the Strib.  

 

http://www.startribune.com/with-twins-start-santanas-playoff-ban-is-no-longer-a-joke/305167191/

 

I'd completely forgotten any post-season ban as part of Santana's suspension for PED's.  Or maybe it didn't seem like a big deal anyway.  Now that we're contending 1/4th of the way in, does the potential post-season ban change the way we handle our roster?  Does it limit trade opportunity?  At any rate, we'd have to make it first, and any dreams of winning the division are probably predicated upon him making a big return second half.  I'd feel reluctant to trade any starting pitching depth, because of the ban.  I'd also consider bringing Santana back as a reliever if our current rotation keeps shutting teams down.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's a terrible rule.

 

If a guy is cleared to play and served his time, let him play.

[nicksaviking]

MLB probably has little desire for the broadcasters and media to have prime time playoff games be filled with talk about steroid cheats, which of course would happen when Santana takes the mound in October.

[SwainZag]

 

It's a terrible rule.

 

If a guy is cleared to play and served his time, let him play.

 

It's punishing the team more than player at that point and that just does seem terrible.

[DaveW]

The most Minnesota sports thing ever would be Santana coming back and pitching like an ace the 2nd half of the season, I am talking sub 2.50 ERA, leads us to the playoffs etc. Then he is not allowed to play in the playoffs obviously and the Twins lose game in 7 in the ALCS by the score of 14-0 because Santana wasn't on the mound.

 

It will all happen, book it.

[Shane Wahl]

 

MLB probably has little desire for the broadcasters and media to have prime time playoff games be filled with talk about steroid cheats, which of course would happen when Santana takes the mound in October.

 

And will happen anyway when he is suddenly absent from the roster.

[Craig Arko]

When did Roger Goodell become the baseball commissioner too?

[70charger]

 

The most Minnesota sports thing ever would be Santana coming back and pitching like an ace the 2nd half of the season, I am talking sub 2.50 ERA, leads us to the playoffs etc. Then he is not allowed to play in the playoffs obviously and the Twins lose game in 7 in the ALCS by the score of 14-0 because Santana wasn't on the mound.

 

It will all happen, book it.

Woo! Division title, baby!

[RealTwinsFan357]

The most Minnesota sports thing ever would be Santana coming back and pitching like an ace the 2nd half of the season, I am talking sub 2.50 ERA, leads us to the playoffs etc. Then he is not allowed to play in the playoffs obviously and the Twins lose game in 7 in the ALCS by the score of 14-0 because Santana wasn't on the mound.

 

It will all happen, book it.

I like the idea, but I'll go even further and say we lose 14-13, since scoring zero runs is a loss regardless of who pitches

[nicksaviking]

 

It's punishing the team more than player at that point and that just does seem terrible.

 

Yes, this kind of rule should only be in place if they change the CBA so teams have the ability to void the contract of these guys.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's a terrible rule.

 

If a guy is cleared to play and served his time, let him play.

Without this rule, though, you get some really sticky situations, like in 2012 when Melky Cabrera technically became eligible to return during the postseason.  The Giants simply decided not to activate him.  I am guessing most teams appreciate not having to make such a decision anymore.

 

Or in 2013 when Jhonny Peralta missed the last two months of the season but was back just in time for the playoffs.  In that case, the Tigers welcomed him back, but not at his previous position where he had already been replaced.

 

And now that the first-time penalty is 80 games rather than 50, this issue is going to crop up even more.

 

Maybe the postseason eligibility cut-off should be when postseason rosters are technically in place, on September 1st, although that might invite some edge case controversy.  It could effectively force some players to accept the suspension rather than appeal just to meet the deadline, etc.  (Actually I think that was at play in Peralta's quick resolution of his Biogenesis suspension.)  I really see no problem with the current version of the rule -- no real gray area involved.

[Boom Boom]

Punishing the team more than the player?

 

I think you could argue that the 80 game suspension also punishes the team more than the player.

 

The rule is what it is and I don't have a problem with it. Players get a pay bonus for playing in the postseason, and cheaters don't deserve that.

[Kwak]

My, how poster's attitudes have changed!  When the Santana story broke there were several lynch mobs on TD. Now that the Twins are winning and might be in post-season play, the attitude is "unfair! Now we are being punished".  Tchh, Tchh.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Punishing the team more than the player?

I think you could argue that the 80 game suspension also punishes the team more than the player.

The rule is what it is and I don't have a problem with it. Players get a pay bonus for playing in the postseason, and cheaters don't deserve that.

Then make the suspension one year long and disqualify the player from playing baseball the entire season. I don't really care about the suspension length, what I care about is the inconsistency of the rule. Either a player is cleared to play baseball or he isn't. None of this "you can play baseball on X day but not Y day" garbage.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Maybe the postseason eligibility cut-off should be when postseason rosters are technically in place, on September 1st

This is the most obvious solution. Make the player meet the standard deadline for postseason play, just like everybody else.

[Doubles]

 

It's a terrible rule.

 

If a guy is cleared to play and served his time, let him play.

Completely disagree. 

 

We can argue all day about how many games a guy should be suspended for PEDs.    Nothing hurts / impacts a player more than missing the post-season.   

 

I am totally on-board with any deterrents put in place to stamp out PED use.

[Boom Boom]

Then make the suspension one year long and disqualify the player from playing baseball the entire season. I don't really care about the suspension length, what I care about is the inconsistency of the rule. Either a player is cleared to play baseball or he isn't. None of this "you can play baseball on X day but not Y day" garbage.

I don't disagree about making the suspension for a full year, but if it's 80 games, it still makes sense to me to bar the player from appearing in the playoffs and making an extra wad of money for it.

[Blackjack]

Counting chickens before they hatch comes to mind. 

 

It'll be a nice problem to have providing we actually do make the playoffs.

[bird]

 

Yes, this kind of rule should only be in place if they change the CBA so teams have the ability to void the contract of these guys.

 

Exactly this. Ervin Santana caused so much damage. Loss of a supplemental pick, possibly a couple/few regular season wins, ticket sales, and maybe more, and I don't recall hearing anything from his agent about what he plans to do to make up for his "mistake". The man just gets to step right back in practically as if he did nothing wrong. Grrrr.

[Loosey]

 

And will happen anyway when he is suddenly absent from the roster.

Especially will happen if he pitches lights out the 2nd half and is part of the reason they make the playoffs.

[bird]

 

My, how poster's attitudes have changed!  When the Santana story broke there were several lynch mobs on TD. Now that the Twins are winning and might be in post-season play, the attitude is "unfair! Now we are being punished".  Tchh, Tchh.

 

 

I might be a mob of one, but Ervin Santana and every cheater like him is loathesome to me. I will not enjoy his return to the team.

[Shane Wahl]

I predict that J.O. Berrios will for sure be up with the Twins before September, then, for playoff potential reasons.

[Shane Wahl]

 

 

I might be a mob of one, but Ervin Santana and every cheater like him is loathesome to me. I will not enjoy his return to the team.

 

I understand that, but if they do the time for the crime, what else is supposed to happen? Hate the guy forever?

[mikecgrimes]

We have to get past the 1 game playoff for it to matter at all.  His signing was to me more about having solid pitching at the end of the rotation and considering you cut back to 4 starters in the playoffs that aspect doesn't change.  If somehow he has an under 3.00 ERA and wins the majority of his starts sure he'll be missed in the playoffs, but I'm just looking for rotation depth and adding one of the starters to the bullpen.

[formerly33]

I don't understand the purpose of renewing the ban after they've already come back. What's so special about the playoffs anyway? The team. Not a single player. But the fact of the matter is that we're doing really good without Ervin Santana...so should we worry too much? I don't know. But he's still going to be suspended, and that's wrong, whether it helps or hurts the team. Imagine somebody who served time in prison for whatever, got out, got their life back on track...and then had to serve "playoffs" time to remind them that they had to behave. How ridiculous would that be?!

[amjgt]

 

We have to get past the 1 game playoff for it to matter at all.  His signing was to me more about having solid pitching at the end of the rotation and considering you cut back to 4 starters in the playoffs that aspect doesn't change.  If somehow he has an under 3.00 ERA and wins the majority of his starts sure he'll be missed in the playoffs, but I'm just looking for rotation depth and adding one of the starters to the bullpen.

 

He's not eligible for game 163 either, which is double-stupid since they count it as a regular season game for the record books.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't disagree about making the suspension for a full year, but if it's 80 games, it still makes sense to me to bar the player from appearing in the playoffs and making an extra wad of money for it.

Not me. I'm a firm believer in one punishment term. You slap the guy with whatever punishment fits the "crime", let him do his time, and then he is treated just like anyone else in the game.

 

Otherwise you get absurdity like the Peterson situation, where the penalty term is undisclosed and everyone wanders around confused for close to a year. It's a bad solution. Set the punishment length however long you like but once a guy is done with his punishment, he's done with his punishment.

 

Santana already lost a pile of cash during the regular season punishment term. Making him lose a few playoff bonuses are nothing in comparison to half a season's pay.

[spinowner]

I can understand why the postseason ban is in place, but I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not. But I want to say this: The fact that players are still being caught using PED's tells me the current penalties are not a sufficient deterrent. In addition to an unpaid suspension I think the player's contract should revert to the major league minimum upon reinstatement. Further, I think the player should lose all service time and the benefits associated with it, including arbitration and free agency rights. That would address the valid criticism of the current system that once a player is elegible for free agency he could juice and improve his performance enough to sign a big contract. Melky Cabrera did exactly that, and he still gets to keep every dollar except what he lost during the suspension. IMHO, he came out way ahead of where he would have been without PED's.

[Mike Sixel]

Not sure why we are debating the rule, it is the rule.......the OP has a great question, "should this change the roster construction/trade decisions?". It's a great question, and I think the answer is "no". With Berrios and others in the wings, I think they should role with Santana and not worry about other players on or off the roster. I think.

 

That said, it is does beg the question "does Berrios need to come up sooner, to see if he's ready for the playoffs" than they otherwise would plan.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This is the most obvious solution. Make the player meet the standard deadline for postseason play, just like everybody else.

I don't think September 1st is so obvious a solution, though.  What about a player who fails a test on June 10th and is not eligible to return until, say, Sep. 2nd -- should he be penalized more than a player who fails on June 8th?  And for that matter, should the player who fails June 8th be unable to contest the suspension lest he risk his postseason eligibility?

 

With this new rule, MLB is simply treating a failed test in the offseason or early season the same as a failed test mid- to late-season.  Maybe a full calendar year suspension would be more elegant, but that's not for MLB to impose without MLBPA consent.  If the first time suspension is going to be less than a year, I think the current rule is necessary.