Article: David Ortiz: A Minnesota Retrospective

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

We know that Manny and Ortiz were taking things that would later be banned by the sport in 2003 and that Manny continued to take them.  Giambi was taking them.  Millar, Muehler, Varitek, and Nixon had career home run hitting years.  Damon's power numbers spiked the next year.  Mark freaking Bellhorn in 2004. 

Millar had a raw HR high in Boston, but it was a function of playing time -- his HR rate was no different that year than an earlier year with Florida.  Varitek's "career high" was only by 3 HR, amid a long career of pretty consistent power hitting.  Nixon hit 27, 24, and 28 HR from 2001-2003 in his age 27-29 seasons -- which one of those stands out as the "career HR hitting year"?  Damon's HR rate in Boston was basically the same as in Kansas City.  Mark Bellhorn hit 27 HR for the Cubs in 2002 -- not sure how hitting 17 HR for Boston two years later is key evidence for PED use...

 

PED witch hunts based on relatively minor changes in HR totals went out of fashion some years ago, I think.

[TheLeviathan]

The point was flukey play coinciding along with known users is about as damning as you can find without administering the tests yourself.  We KNOW Ortiz was on what would eventually be PEDs in 2003, so I'm not sure what the mystery is.  There's a better than decent chance that expanded with his introduction to Manny Ramirez.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

We KNOW Ortiz was on what would eventually be PEDs in 2003, so I'm not sure what the mystery is.  There's a better than decent chance that expanded with his introduction to Manny Ramirez.  

Huh?  Ramirez started with Boston in 2001.  Ortiz was introduced to him before his 2003 test. Continuing to playing loose with facts like this seems rather irresponsible given the severity of these accusations.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Huh?  Ramirez started with Boston in 2001.  Ortiz was introduced to him before his 2003 test. Continuing to playing loose with facts like this seems rather irresponsible given the severity of these accusations.

 

I'm sure they knew each other.  I also don't really care since it's not important.  

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that being teammates day in and day out may substantially change a relationship.  We'll never know what he was doing, when he was doing it, or how much Boston influenced that.

 

What we know is that he was, in fact, on drugs that would've qualified for a PED test failure in 2003.

[Boom Boom]

I think it's naive to believe Ortiz started doping only after going to Boston. I'm sure he had friends in the Red Sox organization long before he played there.

 

And cheating among Twins players, I'm sure, was much more rampant than we would like to believe. If Ortiz was the kind of guy to juice as a Red Sawk, he was also the kind of guy to juice as a Twin.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think it's naive to believe Ortiz started doping only after going to Boston. I'm sure he had friends in the Red Sox organization long before he played there.

And cheating among Twins players, I'm sure, was much more rampant than we would like to believe. If Ortiz was the kind of guy to juice as a Red Sawk, he was also the kind of guy to juice as a Twin.

 

What might have changed is his exposure to what worked, where to find it, and other factors that made it more effective.  But I have no delusions that the Twins had juicers too. 

 

I believe the biggest boost he got going to Boston was freedom to be himself as a hitter.

[tobi0040]

Okay, this is just factually incorrect. Millar didn't have a "career year" in Boston, in fact his career OPS+ was 127 before he ever came to Boston, and his peak with the Red Sox was 117. His is almost the perfect theoretical aging curve.

 

Nixon and Mueller had career years there in 2003, but that's about it for "career years" from Boston regulars in those years, so I'm not sure what your "etc" means. Nixon's in particular doesn't seem that out of line considering he was only 29 years old and had other good years too.

 

Also, there was only one guy on that team who was "caught later", Manny Ramirez in 2009:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs#Players_who_were_on_major_league_rosters

 

Jeremy Giambi admitted PED use in connection with BALCO, although he was barely a footnote in Red Sox history -- he didn't even last the 2003 season on the active roster.

 

I have no doubt there were PED users in that clubhouse, particularly prior to 2004, but I have serious doubts whether it was as widespread as you claim, or whether it was particularly more egregious in that clubhouse as compared to the rest of the league. Particularly as it relates to Ortiz, who has a long history of clean tests and consistent performance.

Rincon is 2005 and Ervin in 2015 are the only Twins MLB players to fail a test that I can remember. I have no illusions that we have none, but our HR totals had to be well under the league average during that time.

 

I am guessing Colabello picked up the habit after he left

Edited June 1, 2016 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What we know is that he was, in fact, on drugs that would've qualified for a PED test failure in 2003.

I won't push this tangent too much further, but there are a whole bunch of issues with those 2003 tests.  They were done anonymously, for the purpose of gauging overall PED use in the sport, and individual results were never meant to be tied to specific players.  And in fact they weren't.  But then in 2004 government agents investigating BALCO seized data from companies which did the 2003 tests, which they believed could link the specimens/results with individual players.  Various courts and judges then determined this was quite illegal and unnecessary, and required the BALCO investigators to return the data.  However, after that, someone allegedly with knowledge of the results leaked a handful of names in 2009.

 

It doesn't take any kind of conspiracy theory to see all kinds of problems with this.  Since the purpose of the test was to be anonymous, how carefully were the original records kept to link individual players to results?  Even assuming the separate records of the players and samples were perfectly kept in 2003, the "person with knowledge" who leaked a handful of names in 2009 -- did they connect the dots themselves to come up with those names?  If so, was there anybody who was even able to double-check they connected the dots correctly?  If not, did the data and/or names go through various permutations of the "telephone game"?

 

Here's a little blurb that illustrates that and some of the other problems with those tests:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/court-ruling-03-mlb-drug-tests-article-1.401138

 

Right now, only Alex Rodriguez, accused of testing positive for anabolic steroids, has admitted taking them in 2003 and was believed to have been told he was on the list. Beyond that, it's unclear what substances triggered these positive tests and what levels were found in the samples. With all the contaminated nutritional supplements on the market in 2003, it's possible that some players tested positive without knowingly ingesting steroids. That's a convenient excuse, and it seemed to be the impression Ortiz wanted us to have during his press conference last month, but he might actually have a legitimate explanation. According to MLB and the union, there were 96 positives, at the most, under the terms of the Joint Drug Agreement, not 104. The union also disputed the results of 13 other players, so it is possible that a player's name might be in the hands of the government even though he did not test positive under baseball's policy.

 

Simply put, the only "fact" is that someone leaked Ortiz's name in regards to the 2003 tests.  It's somewhat less of a "fact" that he actually failed a test, and much less of a "fact" that any 2003 test he may have failed was equivalent to the testing which began in 2004.

 

If the limited 2003 test result leak is your primary piece of evidence, you have a very weak case.  Especially in Ortiz's case, where you have 13 years and counting of properly administered and documented (and increasingly expansive) passed tests since then, all while he's maintained his same excellent standard of performance.  Even HGH, the more "advanced" PED, has had testing in MLB since 2012, and Ortiz has not failed a test in that time and has posted a 155 OPS+, actually greater than his mark from his first 9 years in Boston (145 OPS+).

 

Even giving the 2003 test leak perhaps more credence than it deserves, I think the worst one can conclude about Ortiz is that he perhaps used very early in his career, but it probably didn't have a material effect.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It doesn't take any kind of conspiracy theory 

 

That's what your entire post was.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That's what your entire post was.

So, let me get this straight: not 100% trusting a conclusion based on an unverifiable, anonymous, selective leak of a name allegedly derived from incomplete data illegally obtained 5 years earlier qualifies as a "conspiracy theory."

 

But using Kevin Millar's 5 extra raw HR at age 31 with Boston, hit at the same rate as he did at age 29 with Florida, is totally valid evidence for supporting PED speculation?  Got it.

 

Obviously this discussion has devolved to pointless even by internet standards, so I'm done.

[TheLeviathan]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.  Generating a list of shaky reasons to call it a chicken doesn't make it a chicken.

[Loosey]

I can't wait for 10 years from now when we are having this same conversation about Danny Valencia . . . .

[Loosey]

 

Rincon is 2005 and Ervin in 2015 are the only Twins MLB players to fail a test that I can remember. I have no illusions that we have none, but our HR totals had to be well under the league average during that time.

I am guessing Colabello picked up the habit after he left

Was Matt Lawton on the Twins when he got busted?

[Otto von Ballpark]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Generating a list of shaky reasons to call it a chicken doesn't make it a chicken.

Generating a list of shaky assertions like Ortiz failing the equivalent of a post-2004 test with penalties, or Kevin Millar's "career year" in Boston, is hardly evidence equivalent to observing the sound and gait of a species of waterfowl you are trying to determine.

 

More like, an anonymous, unverifiable source once named it as a duck, and it once frolicked alongside another waterfowl named Kevin Millar who we don't know was a duck, but had feathers...

 

I know I said I'd stop, but what I meant was, I will only continue the discussion in animal metaphors.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Was Matt Lawton on the Twins when he got busted?

No. Testing with penalties didn't begin until Lawton's third year out of Minnesota (although for what it's worth, he was busted in that first year of testing).

[Monkeypaws]

Here's more fuel for the fires of regret, Big league shtew's all stars: NL catcher hurts ... always hated that deal.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/roundtable--which-player-deserves-more-all-star-votes-173342031.html

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's more fuel for the fires of regret, Big league shtew's all stars: NL catcher hurts ... always hated that deal.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/roundtable--which-player-deserves-more-all-star-votes-173342031.html

A.J.?

[jlknapp]

 

Ortiz couldn't stay on the field, and the turf at the Dome killed his knees. Sure would have been nice to get his production, but his career wouldn't have been anything close to what it has become had he stayed. He probably wouldn't have been able to walk by now. 

 

Sure, in hindsight, it goes down as one of the biggest blunders in the team's history, but at the time, it made a ton of sense. 

Seth - didn't make sense then or now.  Who fed you the line about the Dome killing his knees?  Tom Kelly?  Certainly wasn't an original thought on your part.

 

[jlknapp]

 

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

From looking at the Fien/Milone waiver situations, it appears the Twins could have done better with Ortiz too by applying similar logic.

 

Had they offered Ortiz arbitration, they would have been on the hook for ~$1.9 mil (although like all arbitration awards, only 1/6 of it was guaranteed before March 15), BUT they could have waived him at any point later to remove him from the roster.  If he cleared outright assignment waivers (likely, since he cleared release waivers anyway), with less than 5 years service time, Ortiz would have had to accept the assignment or forfeit his salary.

 

Either way, it would have had benefit for the Twins -- they would have cheaply bought some extra time to evaluate their options and continue to try to trade one of them.  Then if he accepted the assignment, they would have been able to stash Ortiz in AAA while they got a longer look at LeCroy (and also delayed Ortiz's free agency, and kept his next year's arb salary from rising).  Or, if Ortiz elected free agency, by forfeiting his contract, the Twins would have again saved his ~$1.9 mil arbitration salary.

 

Why a team needing to conserve assets like the 2002-2003 Twins didn't do that again suggests a decision that was driven more by personality and hubris than money, performance, etc.

[Otto von Ballpark]

To those that think releasing Ortiz was justified: has any healthy player coming off a performance like a 120 OPS+ season ever been released in MLB history?

 

Not just non-tendered, which means his team could re-sign him at a lower rate like Oakland did with Jack Cust, but actually released, precluding him from being re-signed to a MLB deal.

 

I'm genuinely curious.  My guess is that it is rare enough to suggest the Twins decision was very much a mistake in real-time.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not to pile on, but another thought occurred to me while pondering transactions recently: I think Ortiz still had a minor league option available when we released him.  Best as I can tell, he was added to the 40-man after the 1996 season, and was subsequently optioned in only two years, 1997 and 1999.  (In 1998 and 2001, his minor league appearances were only for rehab while he was on the 60-day DL.)

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/david-ortiz-player-transactions

 

Teams get at least 3 option years on players, though, and Ortiz was still short of 5 years service time so he couldn't refuse an optional assignment.  I don't think those rules have changed since 2003 -- I know 3 option years was still the standard at the time because LeCroy was out of options (having used them in 2000-2002), and not long after the Twins optioned Rivas and Lohse in 2005 and 2006, respectively, when both players had over 4 but under 5 years of service time like Ortiz circa 2003 and couldn't refuse the assignment.

 

Even accepting that the 2003 Twins were on a tighter budget in the Metrodome era, Ortiz's projected arbitration salary in 2003 was not a materially larger portion of our 2003 opening day payroll than, say, Milone's salary relative to our 2015 payroll.  So it appears this was another path to retain him.  (Also, the fact that Ortiz won a MLB roster spot on a contending club in Boston, despite having a minor league option remaining, implies his value was a touch higher than his part-time role in Boston originally suggested.)

 

Regardless of budget, it has been exceedingly rare for TR and the Twins to cast aside a healthy pre-FA player for absolutely nothing when they are meeting an average performance threshold (which Ortiz was clearly doing).  TR and the Twins have always viewed such players as potential assets, even if they have to get a little creative to retain them near the end, like Lohse, Rivas, and Milone.

 

It appears the decision to release Ortiz, when we still had $2 mil to spend later on Kenny Rogers, and to release rather than non-tender so we couldn't even try to re-sign him at a lower rate -- it appears it was influenced more by culture and personality than the Twins have ever admitted.  And it's probably related to the trouble the Twins had in Latin American markets prior to Sano, and difficulties developing such players and sluggers in general that seem to persist to this day.