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

[DocBauer]

I know this was discussed previously before MLB and most of the world stopped spinning in a normal fashion. But after baseball for 2020 actually became a reality...however it ends up playing out...and we suddenly started talking about rosters and taxi squads, and odds of winning, etc, I was suddenly reminded again about Pineda's situation when I read and responded to comments in other posts.

 

Let me yet again state my personal opinion that I don't like cheating in any way! There is a funny line, that we all know, that is: "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying". And we all laugh. Various edges gained in any competition are part of the competition and not cheating. I mean, is a batter cheating if a pitcher tips himself? Of course not. But I think we can all pretty much agree what is outside the rules and what cheating really is. (Ugh, this isn't about trashcan banging)!

 

Pineda was suspended for taking a diaretic that could be used as a masking agent for other drugs. Maybe he was guilty of that, maybe he was innocent and truly looking for a way to keep his weight under control coming of knee surgery and just made a bad decision. MLB felt he made a mistake and lowered his suspension from 80 games to 60 games. Regardless,the is guilty of making a mistake. No problem here.

 

And I know there are so many factors going on here in regard to how this whole negotiation has been bungled to how the 60 game season will be played, to how rosters will be constructed. The last thing anyone is really concerned about right now is a suspended ballplayer. But something isn't right here, IMO, even if it doesn't seem like an immediate priority.

 

I don't know Pineda personally. Maybe he's a primadonna jerk, or the nicesest, sweetest guy and best teammate you could have. But he screwed up. By rule, and simple math, he was sentenced to miss 50% of a season, which was reduced to 37% of a season carried over 2 years. So he is now scheduled to miss the first 39 games of 2020. 39 plus 21 in 2019 equals 60 games, or the agreed on 37%.

 

Except now, with only a 60 game season, he is facing a suspension of 65% of the 2020 season alone! He has already served a suspension of 13% games missed in 2019. I'm sure someone could break down the math better than I can, but no matter how you factor it, his punishment will be 70%+ games missed while the original intent was 50% and reduced to 37%. Service time, unless I missed a change somewhere, is still being pro-rated for all MLB players for 2020. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

So Pineda's punishment should now be OVER pro-rated? He should now be punished for almost double the games played/missed on a percentage basis despite full positive pro-ration for everyone else?

 

This is not just about him helping the Twins in 2020. It just doesn't sound or smell right to me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Pineda is an outlier but it’s still pretty garbage that they didn’t prorate his suspension, just like they prorated lots of other things.

[Shaitan]

I have no issues with his suspension length, whatsoever. As I said in another thread, it's already been reduced in length.

 

And, from a fan perspective, he's still back for the playoffs.

[DocBauer]

I have no issues with his suspension length, whatsoever. As I said in another thread, it's already been reduced in length.

 

And, from a fan perspective, he's still back for the playoffs.

It was reduced in length, yes. But that reduction was also based on "normal" rules and "normal" parameters. That normalcy doesn't apply at this point.

 

I am also, obviously, a Twins fan. And as a Twins fan, I want him available sooner rather than later. But I am just talking about logic and fairness here. He is being punished virtually double his original sentence. How does that equate?

[h2oface]

The cancelled games should count as games of the suspension, period. Just like the off days count for a pitcher as part of a suspension. 

 

Diuretics (think of passing urine and and not the other option as in diarrhea to remember the spelling) as a plan for weight loss or control is really pretty...... not smart, anyway. It is pretty simple, really. Will power and eat less (sure, design a diet to maximize the plan) is a sure fire way. Will power.

[Dantes929]

 

The cancelled games should count as games of the suspension, period. Just like the off days count for a pitcher as part of a suspension. 

 

Diuretics (think of passing urine and and not the other option as in diarrhea to remember the spelling) as a plan for weight loss or control is really pretty...... not smart, anyway. It is pretty simple, really. Will power and eat less (sure, design a diet to maximize the plan) is a sure fire way. Will power.

Simple to say.  Really hard to do.

[Trov]

First, Doc I agree with your premise that he is being punished more than intended.  He was expected to miss a relatively small portion of this season, but due to COVID he will be missing over half the season.  So if you go by percent of season he is being punished greater than normal.  

 

However, the punishment was for games, not percent of a season.  Yes, when the punishments were written the assumption was 162 games would be played every season, and the thought of percent of season was not in the punishments.  I could be wrong, but I believe the players agreed on the punishments for violation of drug protocol.  If they would have put in percent of a season, then there would be more of an argument for a prorated reduction of his penalty.  However, that would be difficult to carry it over two seasons then, as if he was supposed to miss 37% of a season, then what he served last year in this situation he would have missed only a couple games.  Now, maybe moving forward the league and players will work into agreements what happens if season is shorted by "act of god" like other leagues have.

 

I agree he is getting a raw deal, but his penalty was games not percent of season.  He could ask the union to step in, but my guess they will not in this situation.  

[twinsfanstreif]

Except now, with only a 60 game season, he is facing a suspension of 65% of the 2020 season alone! He has already served a suspension of 13% games missed in 2019. I'm sure someone could break down the math better than I can, but no matter how you factor it, his punishment will be 70%+ games missed while the original intent was 50% and reduced to 37%. Service time, unless I missed a change somewhere, is still being pro-rated for all MLB players for 2020. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Your math is off here. You don't add percentages like that, you have to average them based on a total. A 162 game season plus a 60 game season results in 222 games or an average of 111 games per season. Since his suspension crosses over two season I will use a season average. If he misses a total of 60 games it would be a loss of 54% of games lost over two season. All that said, I hope they do the math and take into account the shortened season

[Shaitan]

 

It was reduced in length, yes. But that reduction was also based on "normal" rules and "normal" parameters. That normalcy doesn't apply at this point.

I am also, obviously, a Twins fan. And as a Twins fan, I want him available sooner rather than later. But I am just talking about logic and fairness here. He is being punished virtually double his original sentence. How does that equate?

Trov basically already made my points.

 

The simple fact here is he was given a punishment according to the rules in place. Did COVID change "normal"? Yes. But the situation sucks for everyone. Pineda isn't getting a worse deal than you or I or any other society member. He knew the penalty and he accepted it, and now life has piled more stuff on him in the meantime. Is it unfortunate? Sure. Should he "get a break" because of it? No.

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

This is the second time Pineda has been caught cheating. He’s lucky he is still allowed to be in the league IMO.

[IndianaTwin]

 

Your math is off here. You don't add percentages like that, you have to average them based on a total. A 162 game season plus a 60 game season results in 222 games or an average of 111 games per season. Since his suspension crosses over two season I will use a season average. If he misses a total of 60 games it would be a loss of 54% of games lost over two season. All that said, I hope they do the math and take into account the shortened season

 

You're partway there. You can't count games missed in part of two seasons in the numerator and use an average number of games in the denominator. He'll have missed 60 games out of 222, which is 27 percent of games lost over two seasons.

 

I'm not sure this is the best way to see it, but he missed 13 percent of last year and 65 percent of this year, the average of which is 39 percent, or pretty close to the original 37 percent.  

 

But it still gets to others' posts, which is to say that it's about games, not "percent of season." If we're talking about "percent of season," does that mean that a suspension this year should only be 30 games, since that's half a season? 

 

And at any rate, look on the bright side -- if it hadn't been reduced, he'd be missing 59 games of the 60-game season!    

 

[Darius]

You can only really argue that the substance should be removed from the list. Rules should be enforced as written.

 

You can’t start arbitrarily changing suspensions. It creates horrible precedent going forward that’s sure to be a rear-end biter. It also corrupts the whole punitive process (conflict of interest, bias, fraud, etc all come into play).

 

Also, why is it fair to reduce their suspension? It’s a benefit clean players aren’t getting. They should be losing 60 games, or whatever was handed down. The date that those games take place has no relevance.

 

Sorry, Big Mike. Gotta make sure what’s going into your body isn’t on the list. You pay the cost to be the boss.

[Channing1964]

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.

[Tomj14]

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.

 

 

[DocBauer]

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.

And that's my basic arguement. Not that he should get off, not that he shouldn't be punished, simply he ends up overly disciplined.

 

I appreciate all the counter arguement, and think Trov offered a thoughtful and detailed arguement. My counter, which Tomj14 touches on, is the INTENT of the sentence. There is NO percentage of games missed directly involved. It is a finite number of games. 80 games...reduced in this case...and an entire season for a second offense. But those games are still based on a normal 162 game season with NO-ONE ever considering a pandemic that scuttles over half of a season to be played.

 

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.

 

Again, I'm all about playing by the rules. I was very disappointed by what happened, but agreed with his suspension. And I can fully identify with the thought that you reap what you sow. All I am saying is, I believe he is now suffering from an unintended consequence due to an "act of nature" that is affecting everyone and being "over disciplined" as a result.

 

I just don't feel this is "fair" even though that word is blatantly overused in society today. Just an opinion for discussion/debate.

[strumdatjaguar]

The Twins will probably benefit from this.  The season has been delayed to a time when Rich Hill will be ready to go.  The starting staff is deep.   If there are injuries or anyone falters, then Big Mike is ready for the stretch and playoffs.  If the staff looks good, Big Mike can bolster the pen.  No problem!

[The Wise One]

Pineda made a mistake. The penalty is what it is. It was already reduced by good graces. That the season is shorter is irrelevant.  All of the players are penalized by the short season. Reducing Pineda's penalty 

only takes away from one of the few hammers the league has for discipline. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think the easy way to address the math is that he was supposed to miss roughly 24% of this season. If they were to pro-rate it, it should be off of that number meaning he he should be suspended 14.4 games... so round up to 15 and call it day. 

[jkcarew]

Pineda made a mistake. The penalty is what it is. It was already reduced by good graces. That the season is shorter is irrelevant.  All of the players are penalized by the short season. Reducing Pineda's penalty 

only takes away from one of the few hammers the league has for discipline.

 

This. The 60 game ‘reduced sentence’ came with an assumed forfeiture of 60 games-worth of salary...played and paid games. That’s the ultimate hammer. (For Pineda, that’s roughly $3.7M, against his $10M salary, and his career earnings are about $36M). The suspension and the abbreviated season couldn’t have come at a worse time for Pineda, and I feel bad for him in that regard. But no way do I see a reduction as a practical or realistic outcome.

[h2oface]

Any reports on his "shape"? Has he used this time to find a better route to his desired outcome?

[h2oface]

 

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.

[Shaitan]

 

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.

[Channing1964]

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.

[Tomj14]

 

"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.

[Shaitan]

 

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.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.com/topic/34800-front-page-michael-pineda-suspended-60-games-for-banned-substance/?p=912047

 

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

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

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.

[Linus]

The raw deal was Pineda cheating. Kind of ironic to want fairness in the punishment.