David Ortiz: A Minnesota Retrospective

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.?

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.

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.

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.