New Drug Policy affect on Draft Card? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

New Drug Policy affect on Draft Card?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

New Drug Policy affect on Draft Card?

Postby phillibuster » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:16 pm

Is anyone else bumping up the smaller quicker type players who may not have been possibly reliant on the roids and amphetamines. I think the new policy is going to really have an impact. Thinking of it now, but spring training will actually dictate to me if I take this route. But IMO players like Figgins, Beltran, Pierre, Crawford move up, while the Sheffields, Bonds, Giambi's, the bigger guys and also guys more likely to do drugs may possibly drop a few spots.

Its really going to suck wasting a high draft pick on a player only to lose him for 50 games. I do realize that the smaller speedsters have been getting nabbed as well ala Matt Lawton, Sanchez, however it is less likely IMO.

Thoughts and opininons, anyone going to avoid certain players?
phillibuster
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 295
Joined: 1 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Amazinz » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:19 pm

A couple of the guys who were caught were small-framed dudes no one was expecting. Anyway, this is entirely a guessing game. It makes no sense to me to devalue someone because they might be juicing.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:23 pm

well, its hard for me to believe bonds was juicing last year and his power seemed fine. giambi even seemed to be back. isnt mlb now testing for greenies? maybe its the small guys you should be worried about. i wont make any changes on my draft sheet because i just dont see how to do it. how do you who was using but is now not using?
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby phillibuster » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:29 pm

Oh yeah, are the smaller players more likely to be doing the "greenies"?

I read somewhere that players in private estimated that the use of greenies was somewhere over 50%.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that i'd really appreciate players like Pujols or ARod a bit more, they have the clean cut image, and players who I would not think to be using any illegal substance.

I'm just realizing that losing an impact player for 50 games is really going to bite the big one.

HRs overall should be down in 06, possibly making the smaller speedier players more valuable. ..we shall see I guess.

j_d_mcnugent wrote:well, its hard for me to believe bonds was juicing last year and his power seemed fine. giambi even seemed to be back. isnt mlb now testing for greenies? maybe its the small guys you should be worried about. i wont make any changes on my draft sheet because i just dont see how to do it. how do you who was using but is now not using?
phillibuster
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 295
Joined: 1 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby George_Foreman » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:38 pm

j_d_mcnugent wrote:well, its hard for me to believe bonds was juicing last year and his power seemed fine. giambi even seemed to be back. isnt mlb now testing for greenies? maybe its the small guys you should be worried about. i wont make any changes on my draft sheet because i just dont see how to do it. how do you who was using but is now not using?

Ask TheYanks04, he seems to be pretty sure. ;-D

Seriously, though, I agree that there's no way of accurately assessing who was using (and more importantly, significantly benefiting) from them.

More than that, I'd try to avoid players that are, well, stupid and might keep using despite the higher penalties. Although again, I suppose figuring out which ones are the dumb ones could be kinda tough....
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"

"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
George_Foreman
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4351
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi

Postby BronXBombers51 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:48 am

I agree with everyone above. I'm not going to let this affect my draft sheets.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11949
(Past Year: 54)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby phillibuster » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:54 am

Yeah, I understand what you all are saying. No way to know really. But when that first big name player goes down for 50, most are going to think, "boy am I glad I avoided him in the draft," I want to be one of those thinking that.

BronXBombers51 wrote:I agree with everyone above. I'm not going to let this affect my draft sheets.
phillibuster
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 295
Joined: 1 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Pedantic » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:06 am

phillibuster wrote:Yeah, I understand what you all are saying. No way to know really. But when that first big name player goes down for 50, most are going to think, "boy am I glad I avoided him in the draft," I want to be one of those thinking that.

BronXBombers51 wrote:I agree with everyone above. I'm not going to let this affect my draft sheets.


You're assuming that a big name player goes down at all. Even so, those would only be a few players at most out of however many big name players, so I think the odds are significantly in your favor that you will not draft "that" player, no matter how you draft. ;-)

There are, of course, those wink-wink, nudge-nudge type players, the Sammy Sosas and Bret Boones of baseball, but I think those players are mostly covered under the general fantasy drafter's axiom, "Don't draft crappy players."
Image
Pedantic
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 6725
Joined: 5 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Funny movie quote that everyone knows

Postby BronXBombers51 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:07 am

Pedantic wrote:There are, of course, those wink-wink, nudge-nudge type players, the Sammy Sosas and Bret Boones of baseball, but I think those players are mostly covered under the general fantasy drafter's axiom, "Don't draft crappy players."


:-b Agreed.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11949
(Past Year: 54)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby phillibuster » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:34 am

Good point. One would take a very big risk to drop a big player down on their draft card, betting on the small chance they get busted.

Also, the effects of the policy on players who stop taking steroids (because of the policy) is a concern to me as well....ala IROD last year. But again, unless the player shows up 20 pounds lighter to spring training there is no way to tell.

In any event, 2006 should be a better year for pitchers IMO.

BronXBombers51 wrote:
Pedantic wrote:There are, of course, those wink-wink, nudge-nudge type players, the Sammy Sosas and Bret Boones of baseball, but I think those players are mostly covered under the general fantasy drafter's axiom, "Don't draft crappy players."


:-b Agreed.
phillibuster
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 295
Joined: 1 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Next

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact