Is a 50 Game Suspension Enough for PED Users?

The short answer is yes. If you ask some other people, especially in the last week, they would say no. Jhonny Peralta signed a 4 year deal with the Cardinals worth $52 million and there are some people, and current players, squawking about the "injustice". Brad Ziegler, pitcher for Arizona, and David Aardsma, free agent pitcher, were some of the more outspoken complaining that a player who cheated gets a raise. Come on now, if he Peralta wasn't a free agent this would not even be an issue. There were other players suspended and no one is saying they should take a pay cut for the remaining years on their contracts.

Peralta served his suspension for the investigation into Biogenesis but, as far as I can remember, did NOT fail a drug test. This isn't a situation where he tested positive during the 2013 season and was suspended. I believe that if a player serves his suspension that he should be given a clean slate. If he fails a drug test during his tenure with the Cardinals then things will be different. The contract is not outrageous, based on current money paid to players, especially in a shallow shortstop market. Peralta is not the greatest shortstop, but he plays decent defense, can swing the bat well and fills a need at a crucial position for the Cardinals.

If Peralta does not preform than this argument can be revisited and there will be valid points that he doesn't deserve this money. If he goes out and performs well then I don't see any issue with the money. I also wonder that if Aardsma or Ziegler commanded contracts in the $12-15 million range if they would be saying anything at all. It seems that the guys who "only" make a couple of million are the most upset at this. My problem isn't whether a person who was suspended for suspected PED use gets a large contract, it's that all of theses guys make ridiculous amounts of money to play a game.

What is the difference is Peralta signed for the same amount of money he made the last few years? Is it only because he got a raise that people are upset? If he made the same then the argument would still apply. Would people be saying "He cheated and doesn't have to take a pay cut..."? My guess is no. If these players are to be prevented from getting pay raises, is there to be a set range of numbers that their contracts have to fall under?

Should we also look at players giving back individual awards, no matter when they won it? If Peralta has a career year and wins an award, should he be prevented from winning it? Should teams who won championships be forced to vacate those victories just like NCAA teams do? After a player is suspended, should his team be forced to resign him for the same contract for a set number of years? How far do we take these punishments?

The fact is, it seems that the when players have issues with their fellow union members getting pay raises after a suspension that they are jealous they don't make that kind of money. If anyone should be prevented from making the kind of money they make it should be the guys like Prince Fielder, who made about $23 million and had a career low 25 home runs this year and ended up with a single RBI in 2 postseason trips with the Tigers. There is a lot of injustice when athletes make millions to play a game. Until all of these contracts are brought back to a reasonable amount, then there should be no issue with a guy getting a pay raise after he served his punishment.

No comments:

Post a Comment