New Drug Policy affect on Draft Card?

[phillibuster]

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?

[Amazinz]

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.

[j_d_mcnugent]

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]

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.

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?

[George_Foreman]

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.

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....

[BronXBombers51]

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

[phillibuster]

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.

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

[Pedantic]

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.

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."

[BronXBombers51]

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."

Agreed.

[phillibuster]

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.

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."

Agreed.