“It’s a league of misfortune,” said Everett

What a great name for a comic book...the League of Misfortune!

I had wondered what had become of C-Rex.

hey. that's great. they can exchange roid stoids 'til Billups Showsup.

"If the Mitchell Report hadn't come out, I believe I would be playing professional baseball," he said.

You are playing professional baseball. Do you have any idea how many people would trade places with you in a heartbeat?

If only Gibbons had taken the natural enhancement route of the York Barbell man, he could have still been wowing them back in Birdland.

BTW NTNgod might have also quoted the part of the article where it noted that Gibbons is being paid $11.9 million by the Orioles for the 2008-09 seasons. So it's not exactly Guantanamo that he's going through.

"If the Mitchell Report hadn't come out, I believe I would be playing professional baseball," he said.

Yes Mr Gibbons, baseball is just filled with injury prone, poor defensive corner OF/1B, coming off terrible offensive seasons, with bad attitudes, who couldn't even hit when (allegedly) loaded up on PEDs. Teams, like players, believe that PEDs help performance. If you couldn't perform while on them, why would they assume that you could perform without them?

It must feel bad to suck, Corky. Too bad you suck.

Ryan Jones is rapidly climbing the kevin "most favored poster" list.

Poor little guy, he looks so sad, can't we give him another shot?

Yes Mr Gibbons, baseball is just filled with injury prone, poor defensive corner OF/1B, coming off terrible offensive seasons, with bad attitudes, who couldn't even hit when (allegedly) loaded up on PEDs. Teams, like players, believe that PEDs help performance. If you couldn't perform while on them, why would they assume that you could perform without them?

Look, Gibbons isn't exactly Barry Bonds, and plenty of people end their careers on seasons like Gibbons' 2007 (as opposed to Bonds' 2007, which would be an unprecedented final season for a major leaguer).

But yes, baseball is filled with people like that, if by "baseball" we include minor league baseball. (I don't know what you mean by "bad attitudes.") In fact, that is sort of a Kevinesqe comment, in that it's piling on in a silly way. "Poor defensive" and "corner OF/1B" is sort of pointless. Poor defense does not cost a 1B/DH/COF a job. And Gibbons could hit, at least as far as baseball is concerned. (He had some good years, triple-crown wise.) GIbbons' real problem is that he's injury prone. But he'd likely have a job -- he wouldn't have been released -- if he hadn't been in the Mitchell Report.


Incidentally, Alex Sanchez -- the first major leaguer to be suspended for PED use -- is also on that team.

Look, Gibbons isn't exactly Barry Bonds, and plenty of people end their careers on seasons like Gibbons' 2007 (as opposed to Bonds' 2007, which would be an unprecedented final season for a major leaguer).

What about Ted Wiliams - 1959? I assume that you meant an unprecedented final season for a major leaguer who wanted to continue playing.

But yes, baseball is filled with people like that, if by "baseball" we include minor league baseball. (I don't know what you mean by "bad attitudes.") In fact, that is sort of a Kevinesqe comment, in that it's piling on in a silly way.

Gibbons has been known to be completely unwilling to listen to instruction, and for blowing off his managers - that's a bad attitude, and it would get someone fired from most jobs. Whether you believe it or not (and whether they should or not), teams do consider a player's attitude and personal behavior when determining whether to offer a contract or otherwise keep him on the team.

"Poor defensive" and "corner OF/1B" is sort of pointless. Poor defense does not cost a 1B/DH/COF a job. And Gibbons could hit, at least as far as baseball is concerned. (He had some good years, triple-crown wise.)

"Poor defensive" and "corner 1B/OF" isn't pointless, as defense does matter for these positions, especially when a player hits as badly as Gibbons did last year, and when he's generally a below average hitter for his defensive position (101 OPS+ career, 62 OPS+ last year). Poor defense doesn't cost a good hitting corner 1B/OF a job. It will cost a bad hitting one a job. If Eyechart fielded like Gibbons, he would have been out of the league long ago.

GIbbons' real problem is that he's injury prone.

One of Gibbons many problems is that he's injury prone.

But he'd likely have a job -- he wouldn't have been released -- if he hadn't been in the Mitchell Report.

But he was in the Mitchell Report, and was still performing at a below average level. When that was combined with all his other deficiencies (injuries, below average hitting and defense for position, bad attitude), is it really surpising that he got cut? Shea Hillenbrand is essentially the same player, without the link to PEDs, and he doesn't seem to have a job either.

Absent the Mitchell Report, Gibbons might have gotten a NRI and/or minor league contract, but he's pretty fungible. Ryan Jones is right: there are a lot of factors that make Gibbons undesirable. The Hillenbrand comp is a pretty good one.

I'd also throw out Greg Walker, a player with a similar skill set who was simply washed up at 30 as well (better attitude, though). Gibbons was the quintessential mediocrity with old player skills, and his career progressed as one would expect.

But he was in the Mitchell Report, and was still performing at a below average level.

He was in the Mitchell Report, and then he was released, in spring training. There was no "still performing."

What about Ted Wiliams - 1959? I assume that you meant an unprecedented final season for a major leaguer who wanted to continue playing.

Yes; Williams retired. You could have cited Koufax, too, if you ignore that implied caveat.

But he'd likely have a job -- he wouldn't have been released -- if he hadn't been in the Mitchell Report.

But he was in the Mitchell Report, and was still performing at a below average level. When that was combined with all his other deficiencies (injuries, below average hitting and defense for position, bad attitude), is it really surpising that he got cut? Shea Hillenbrand is essentially the same player, without the link to PEDs, and he doesn't seem to have a job either.

As I said, it's hardly unprecedented for someone to have a final season like the one Gibbons had. But the difference between Hillenbrand and Gibbons is that Hillenbrand had played out his contract and was a FA, whereas the Orioles ate $12M to release Gibbons.

But the difference between Hillenbrand and Gibbons is that Hillenbrand had played out his contract and was a FA, whereas the Orioles ate $12M to release Gibbons.

Which should make Gibbons relatively MORE attractive than Hillenbrand, all other things being equal, because Gibbons would expect his new team to only pay him the minimum.

Signing Hillenbrand to a new contract for the minimum would prove far more problematic if Hillenbrand thought that he deserved considerably more (and judging by his brief time in SF, he was quite full of himself).

He was in the Mitchell Report, and then he was released, in spring training. There was no "still performing."

To clarify, the Mitchell report alleged that Gibbson used PEDs between 2003 and 2005. In recent years, despite this ealier PED use, he was still performing at a level below average for a major leaguer at his positions.

Signing Hillenbrand to a new contract for the minimum would prove far more problematic if Hillenbrand thought that he deserved considerably more (and judging by his brief time in SF, he was quite full of himself).

Judging by his time in Boston, Arizona, Toronto, and Anahiem, I think it's safe to say that Hillenbrand is quite full of himself.

On Friday, Gibbons was the Pizza Hut K-Man of the Game, meaning that if he struck out at least once, all the fans would get a free order of breadsticks the next time they visited Pizza Hut. With the crowd chanting “breadsticks,” he fanned on three pitches.

I really hate it when teams do things like this.

One of Gibbons many problems is that he's injury prone.

Yeah, Gibbon's problems are really beyond being injury prone. If you run down the five tools, most recent version of Gibbons doesn't perform very well. Can he hit for average and power? Not really, but he could in the past. Is he quick like a bunny? Ha! Speed? Nope. Glove work? Nope, which btw, I believe he's more a OF/DH type. The O's experimented with him at 1B but they didn't trust him there. The part about Gibbons blowing his manager and hitting coach (which may be a good thing given the O's hitting coach) is new to me. I've always heard he's a good clubhouse guy.

He was in the Mitchell Report, and then he was released, in spring training. There was no "still performing."

It's only 48 ABs but Gibbons' OPS is .723 (zero HRs) for the Ducks so far.

riding a bus and playing for a few thousand dollars a month in 5,000-seat stadiums that feature such events as fans wrestling in sumo suits and a kids’ sack race between innings.

Honestly, I'm supposed to feel sorry for the guy? Who cares what they do between innings, he's making more money than I ever have, just to play baseball. Even disregarding the millions rolling his way from Baltimore for nothing. What a chump.

Who cares what they do between innings, he's making more money than I ever have, just to play baseball.

Not to mention that most major league parks feature a couple things like this. Or have I been imagining the Milwaukee Sausage Races?

By the end of the year, how many more fans than 5000 is Baltimore drawing for non-Yankee, non-Red Sox games?

Yikes. Such vitriol.

If anything I root MORE for a guy that is getting a multi-mil paycheck for NOT playing for the O's but is still trying to get a chance to play the game.
Chances are, at this point, he probably isn't playing for the money. It sounds like he just loves the game and misses the bigs. How is that a feeling worthy of scorn?

The part about Gibbons blowing his manager and hitting coach (which may be a good thing given the O's hitting coach) is new to me.

...

The part about Gibbons blowing his manager and hitting coach (which may be a good thing given the O's hitting coach) is new to me.

Blowing off his manager and hitting coach. Do I get a cookie for unintentional comedy?

The part about Gibbons blowing his manager and hitting coach (which may be a good thing given the O's hitting coach) is new to me.

If he did that, there's no way he would have been cut. Rather, it would have been the manager and hitting coach getting release.

Blowing off his manager and hitting coach. Do I get a cookie for unintentional comedy?

The other way is the only rational explanation for Jose Vidro's continued presence on the Mariners roster.

If he did that, there's no way he would have been cut. Rather, it would have been the manager and hitting coach getting release.

I don't know, didn't you read my earlier post, Gibbons has hands of stone.

The turn of phrase doesn#t suggest the use of hands...

The turn of phrase doesn#t suggest the use of hands...

Glove work, hands, maybe I was reaching (ba da bing).

Judging by his time in Boston, Arizona, Toronto, and Anahiem, I think it's safe to say that Hillenbrand is quite full of himself.

Hey, man. Shea made the AS team. Twice!

Shea was a superstar.

On Friday, Gibbons was the Pizza Hut K-Man of the Game, meaning that if he struck out at least once, all the fans would get a free order of breadsticks the next time they visited Pizza Hut. With the crowd chanting “breadsticks,” he fanned on three pitches.

So, was this a home game or away game?

To clarify, the Mitchell report alleged that Gibbson used PEDs between 2003 and 2005. In recent years, despite this ealier PED use, he was still performing at a level below average for a major leaguer at his positions.

Ok, but I don't really see what distinguishes his 2006 from the years that came before it (except for 2004). 2007 was bad, but he sucked almost as much in 2004, which was a "PED year."

It's hard to see how PEDs helped him, really. My understanding is that he was projected to be a better hitter in the majors, but his walk rate dropped more than anticipated. As such, even in his good years, he was mediocre.

On Friday, Gibbons was the Pizza Hut K-Man of the Game, meaning that if he struck out at least once, all the fans would get a free order of breadsticks the next time they visited Pizza Hut. With the crowd chanting “breadsticks,” he fanned on three pitches.

Rollicking good times...

It's hard to see how PEDs helped him, really. My understanding is that he was projected to be a better hitter in the majors, but his walk rate dropped more than anticipated. As such, even in his good years, he was mediocre.

I have no idea as to how or whether the PEDs helped him. As he said in the Mitchell report, he took HGH with the intention of rehabbing an injury, so whatever effect he might have gained performance-wise (if any) would be at least partially masked by the injury itself.

As mentioned above, the problem he faces is that both players and teams believe PEDs help performance. His performance, even with PEDs, was subpar for his position. As a result, and given that teams tend to overly weight recent performance, teams are likely to assume that his new true talent level is closer to the (allegedly, as we don't know) PED-free 2007 season than the actually with-value 2005 season. To be honest, I'm also not sure as to why you mentioned 2006, as he was below average for his position that year while being heavily platooned. It's possible that I'm just missing something.

I can't comment as to how good he was expected to be as a prospect, as I honestly don't remember what was written about him at the time.

As mentioned above, the problem he faces is that both players and teams believe PEDs help performance.

Some players do, yes, since they're using them.

As for teams, it's not clear to me at all that teams are making decisions based on the belief that PEDs help performance; some teams appear to be making decisions based on whether a player named in the Mitchell Report is now worth the trouble (Gibbons; or Bonds, assuming the fantasy of no collusion), which is not the same thing.

The Jose Guillens and Miguel Tejadas and Andy Pettittes and Greg Zauns are still playing.

Some players do, yes, since they're using them.

Even the players who don't use them believe they help performance. Why do you think that Thomas and Schilling both spoke out against them and the unfair playing field they produce? Why did the White Sox attempt to deliberately fail testing (by refusing) to ensure that more extenstive testing came into effect? Why did the players union so readily agree to increases in the scope and penalties of testing? Players believe PEDs help performance.

As for teams, it's not clear to me at all that teams are making decisions based on the belief that PEDs help performance; some teams appear to be making decisions based on whether a player named in the Mitchell Report is now worth the trouble (Gibbons; or Bonds, assuming the fantasy of no collusion), which is not the same thing.

Well, any active player known or linked to PEDs was named in the Mitchell report, so of course there's some crossover between the belief that PEDs boost performance, and whether a player named in the Mitchell Report is worth the trouble. The question becomes "Does this guy who likely received a boost in performance from PEDs have enough ability left without them to be worth the trouble of dealing with the media outfall of employing him?". If the answer is no, as in the case of Gibbons, and they have a suitable replacement, then they cut him.

As a side note, do you believe that, given his recent performance (and irrespective of the PED association), Gibbons is deserving of a regular job in MLB? I can't say that I do.

The Jose Guillens and Miguel Tejadas and Andy Pettittes and Greg Zauns are still playing.

In the case of all of the above, their teams have apparently decided that their positives outweigh their negatives. It also helps that, in all of the above cases, their teams didn't have suitable or sufficient alternatives available. Baltimore did have an available replacement for Gibbons - especially if they believe last year was close to his true level of talent.

Even the players who don't use them believe they help performance. Why do you think that Thomas and Schilling both spoke out against them and the unfair playing field they produce? Why did the White Sox attempt to deliberately fail testing (by refusing) to ensure that more extenstive testing came into effect? Why did the players union so readily agree to increases in the scope and penalties of testing? Players believe PEDs help performance.

_Some_ players, as I said. Even the majority of players. Not all. It's like when the media pretends that "the American people" are all one monolith.

As a side note, do you believe that, given his recent performance (and irrespective of the PED association), Gibbons is deserving of a regular job in MLB? I can't say that I do.

But that's not the right question; the right question is whether teams use a roster spot on the Gibbons's of the world. And it's pretty clear that they do. I give you Fernando Tatis, Marlon Anderson, Trot Nixon, Brady Clark, Andy Phillips, Angel Pagan, Chris Aguila, and Damion Easley. And those are just some of the players who have played LF for the Mets this year. (No, I'm not making that up.)

Hell, Gibbons was a league average hitter as recently as 2006. Guess the last time Fernando Tatis was a league average hitter in anything even remotely resembling regular playing time?

Eight years ago. (No, I'm not making that up.)

Guess the last time Fernando Tatis was a left fielder?

Never.

As a side note, do you believe that, given his recent performance (and irrespective of the PED association), Gibbons is deserving of a regular job in MLB? I can't say that I do.


But that's not the right question; the right question is whether teams use a roster spot on the Gibbons's of the world. And it's pretty clear that they do. I give you Fernando Tatis, Marlon Anderson, Trot Nixon, Brady Clark, Andy Phillips, Angel Pagan, Chris Aguila, and Damion Easley. And those are just some of the players who have played LF for the Mets this year. (No, I'm not making that up.)

So I take it that you don't believe Gibbons is deserving of a regular job in MLB...but general managers are stupid...so someone should have signed him anyways. Right, that makes complete sense...

Why exactly should a team waste a roster spot on a no-field, no-run, oft-injured, below-average hitter (for his position), with a history of PED use? Where is the benefit for the team? There is none. Your argument is basically this: a lot of other crappy players are in the big leagues, so why not Jay Gibbons?

In short, stop being so silly.

Yes; Williams retired. You could have cited Koufax, too, if you ignore that implied caveat.

Joe Jackson, 1920. Chris Dial would want you to add Dave Kingman, 1986.

_Some_ players, as I said.

Your context (Some players do, yes, since they're using them) implied only the users of PEDs believed that PEDs were performance enhancing. I'm sure you can see how I interpreted it differently than your apparent intention.

But that's not the right question

I agree with you. It was a simple question as to what you thought was Gibbons' current level of talent. Absent other concerns, Gibbons probably would be better than many of the horrible options that the Mets have trotted out since Alou got hurt.

The more relevant question as to whether a team should have him on the roster is the one that I've already asked which teams are also likely asking themselves: "Does this guy who likely received a boost in performance from PEDs have enough ability left without them to be worth the trouble of dealing with the media outfall of employing him?"

In the case of Gibbons who, in addition to being named in the Mitchell Report as a PED user also had surgery on his labrum late last year, I would say that the answer is no. Your position may differ.

I agree with you. It was a simple question as to what you thought was Gibbons' current level of talent.

Poor with the bat. League average, if everything breaks right. Dan had him at .265/.318/.448. That seems about right.

Plenty of players get jobs with that. Some don't.

The more relevant question as to whether a team should have him on the roster is the one that I've already asked which teams are also likely asking themselves: "Does this guy who likely received a boost in performance from PEDs have enough ability left without them to be worth the trouble of dealing with the media outfall of employing him?"

Please look at Jay Gibbons's performance record and point out which seasons he "likely received a boost in performance from PEDs." He repeated the same mediocre season year after year, with two bad ones sprinkled in and a mild peak season. He never developed. He was essentially the same player at age 28 that he was at age 24. He didn't have a huge spike. He wasn't able to stay healthy. He wasn't hitting lots of home runs. Where were the advantages from PEDs?

And since when would there be a "media outfall of employing him"? He's not Barry Bonds. He's Jose Guillen.

Shea Hillenbrand is essentially the same player, without the link to PEDs, and he doesn't seem to have a job either.

Unless you count ineffectively protecting family members from non-BTF primates.

Greg Walker had some odd and serious health issues, so he's not a good comparison. He was also a Rule 5 guy, so he wasn't a highly regarded prospect.

The part about Gibbons blowing his manager and hitting coach (which may be a good thing given the O's hitting coach) is new to me.

I thought bench coaches did that.

Please look at Jay Gibbons's performance record and point out which seasons he "likely received a boost in performance from PEDs." He repeated the same mediocre season year after year, with two bad ones sprinkled in and a mild peak season. He never developed. He was essentially the same player at age 28 that he was at age 24. He didn't have a huge spike. He wasn't able to stay healthy. He wasn't hitting lots of home runs. Where were the advantages from PEDs?

Ray, whether or not you (or I) believe that PEDs provide a performance boost isn't the question. As stated multiple times, it's whether or not the teams (and players) believe that players receive a performance boost from PEDs. Teams and players obviously do believe in this boost. As a result, it is important to evaluate their moves and transactions with this consideration in mind. Again, Gibbons purchase PEDs during (at least) the years of 2003 to 2005, and used them for a similar period. His offensive performance, even when using these substances, was only notably above average for a single season for his position. His performance, without (known) use of PEDs, cratered in 2007, in conjunction with an injury.

Given the above, including the belief of team officials that PEDs enhance performance, would it be reasonable for a team to assume that his 2007 season was more indiciative of his current proformance level than 2006 or 2005? Additionally, assuming that his 2007 performance is his new true level of performance (which would not be an unreasonable conclusion for a team to draw based on their beliefs about PEDs, in conjunction with his injury), would you expect a team to offer him a job in Major League baseball?

And since when would there be a "media outfall of employing him"?

In case you haven't noted, the general opinion (not universal) among baseball fans, and those covering the game, is that PEDs are bad. For a marginal player, which Gibbons now is, any negative attention is not worth the trouble - especially since his performance can easily be obtained from another player without an association with PEDs.

As stated many times, teams consider more than just on-field performance when considering players transactions.

Gibbons is basically an undersized, left-handed-hitting Josh Phelps, minus 50 points of career OPS, plus one year of age, plus a history of PED's, except Phelps had a 135 OPS+ last year and Gibbons had a 62 OPS+ and Gibbons made some $24M in his career. Phelps signed a minor league deal with the Cardinals this year.

Besides the fact that if i am Josh Phelps, I fire my agent for not getting me a job SOMEWHERE in the AL as a DH, i don't see that gibbons has it any rougher. I'm rooting for him, like I'm rooting for all the guys who are underdogs (except when they play against my team), but if by striking out he buys me breadsticks, i won't complain. Except that I have no idea what independant-league teams are nearby.

Besides the fact that if i am Josh Phelps, I fire my agent for not getting me a job SOMEWHERE in the AL as a DH, i don't see that gibbons has it any rougher.

Phelps is in the affiliated minors, while Gibbons is in the independent leagues after desperately looking for a job with any organization. That's what stands out here about Gibbons. Not his failure to land a major league job -- his failure to land any job. As Ray points out, Fernando freaking Tatis can get one.

Again, unlike with Bonds, at most it's something to think about; an awful lot of players have their careers ended with seasons like Gibbons' 2007. But plenty manage to stick around, too.