Master Index of Archived Threads


krod out for the year

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 16 2010 03:25 PM

hand injury sustained beating his kids grandfather. wow, and hooray

themetfairy Aug 16 2010 03:29 PM Re: krod out for the year

Seriously?

bmfc1 Aug 16 2010 03:30 PM Re: krod out for the year

Will the Mets have to pay him since he hurt himself in an illegal activity?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 16 2010 03:31 PM Re: krod out for the year

no joke. He will need surgery for torn ligament. What a professional disgrace.

Fman99 Aug 16 2010 03:31 PM Re: krod out for the year

Wow, he's made the Kevin Brown All-Star team. The dummy.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 16 2010 03:32 PM Re: krod out for the year

Incredible. And yet, they'll have to pay him.

Ashie62 Aug 16 2010 03:34 PM Re: krod out for the year

Craptastic! he gets paid? Sue him.

metirish Aug 16 2010 03:36 PM Re: krod out for the year

Wow, what a disgrace you are.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 16 2010 03:36 PM Re: krod out for the year

this is the best result, actually. It probably increases the chances the Mets seek to void the deal, it takes away a major douchefriut on the team, and it firces them to confront how 'difficult' it will be to get by without a 12 million closer. Also, makes the option a harder get in the worst case.

Ashie62 Aug 16 2010 03:37 PM Re: krod out for the year

metirish wrote: Wow, what a disgrace you are. Who me?

metirish Aug 16 2010 03:39 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ashie62 wrote: metirish wrote: Wow, what a disgrace you are. Who me? If you are Francisco Rodriguez then yes you, if your just Ashie then no.

Ashie62 Aug 16 2010 03:41 PM Re: krod out for the year

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbn_mets_rodriguez

Gwreck Aug 16 2010 03:47 PM Re: krod out for the year

Rodriguez finished 46 games this year for the Mets. Accordingly, he needs to finish at least 55 next year (for whomever he plays for) in order for his option for 2012 to vest.

Gwreck Aug 16 2010 03:48 PM Re: krod out for the year

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Incredible. And yet, they'll have to pay him. One would think the best-case scenario for the Mets (financially) would be for him to be convicted of assault which would only bolster an attempt to void the contract. I would also think that Worker's Compensation would want to deny any claim for the medical bills for the surgery as the injury didn't occur during the course of his employment.

attgig Aug 16 2010 03:50 PM Re: krod out for the year

so, the question rears its head again... who's our closer?

Gwreck Aug 16 2010 03:56 PM Re: krod out for the year

2:1 Parnell 4:1 Takahashi 6:1 Feliciano 10:1 Igarashi 20:1 Field

themetfairy Aug 16 2010 03:58 PM Re: krod out for the year

Unbefreakinleivable!

Ashie62 Aug 16 2010 04:01 PM Re: krod out for the year

Elmer Dessens?

duan Aug 16 2010 04:03 PM Re: krod out for the year

seriously, I'm glad, I just hope the mets tell him to go fuck himself while giving his poor partner plenty of support.

Zvon Aug 16 2010 04:13 PM Re: krod out for the year

Wait. He did this during the beat down? And he pitched since then? Last night I saw him in the bullpen laughing it up with a few other players. Over what, I don't know. But he was actually laughing pretty hard and then he was patting down a picture that was on the wall (or bulletin board) in the bullpen. From the angle I could not see what this picture was of. I was very curious. I did hope the ESPN guys would pick up on it and show what that picture was. But they didn't. Did anyone else see this during the game(on ESPN)? I'm not saying this has anything to do with anything but I'm still very curious. And yes, this is totally unfreakinbelievablyfuckedup. Like we needed this, ...the team was looking like a joke already.

Frayed Knot Aug 16 2010 04:14 PM Re: krod out for the year

I don't think this has any effect on the contract situation. Maybe it allows them to get out of part of this year's bill (approx 1/4 of 1 year) but the real test comes if and when the legal process gives them an opportunity to explore an out in the remainder of the deal. I doubt it ever will, but even if it does that won't be for a while yet and the injury really has no effect there. attgig wrote: so, the question rears its head again... who's our closer? If they're smart, the answer is, whoever is most rested/available for that night and/or matches up with the upcoming hitters best. What they most likely WILL do is designate a specific someone and 'save' him for closer spots unless and until he botches one or two at which point they'll designate a different guy and start the whole process over again.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 16 2010 04:16 PM Re: krod out for the year

K-Rod's 2010 IP/WAR (26.83) is 4th all time best in Mets franchise history.

Centerfield Aug 16 2010 04:17 PM Re: krod out for the year

Gwreck wrote: Rodriguez finished 46 games this year for the Mets. Accordingly, he needs to finish at least 55 next year (for whomever he plays for) in order for his option for 2012 to vest. Wow. If he finished 46 in a portion of a year, it seems almost automatic that he'd hit that number next year.

SteveJRogers Aug 16 2010 04:21 PM Re: krod out for the year

attgig wrote: so, the question rears its head again... who's our closer? To paraphrase Yoda, who closes at this point matters not!

attgig Aug 16 2010 04:32 PM Re: krod out for the year

oh, and at this point, this is only good if the mets take action and get his contract voided. What's going to be difficult is if the mets try to void his contract, publicity goes all bad, and krod is mad at the mets, and then in the end, mlb/playersunion/arbitrators decide we can't void the contract. then, we're just stuck with a guy who hates his club.

attgig Aug 16 2010 04:34 PM Re: krod out for the year

attgig wrote: oh, and at this point, this is only good if the mets take action and get his contract voided. What's going to be difficult is if the mets try to void his contract, publicity goes all bad, and krod is mad at the mets, and then in the end, mlb/playersunion/arbitrators decide we can't void the contract. then, we're just stuck with a guy who hates his club. speak of the devil... http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/08/m ... ade+Rumors)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 16 2010 04:38 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: K-Rod's 2010 IP/WAR (26.83) is 4th all time best in Mets franchise history. That and $8.50 will get him a cold beer at CitiField.

smg58 Aug 16 2010 04:51 PM Re: krod out for the year

The contract mandates lost pay for an off-the-field injury, so at least the Mets save money. It's poetic justice, if nothing else.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 16 2010 04:56 PM Re: krod out for the year

K-Rod's girlfriend said she'd leave him if the Mets void his contract.

metsmarathon Aug 16 2010 05:04 PM Re: krod out for the year

i worry they'll make a trade to bring in a 'closer' now

Edgy DC Aug 16 2010 05:34 PM Re: krod out for the year

attgig wrote: so, the question rears its head again... who's our closer? Anybubby or nobubby. Closers are a frivolous luxury and an excuse for overplayed heavy metal sampling. I'm sorry it took the guy getting hurt for this to shake out so well. But it's a best-case scenario.

Edgy DC Aug 16 2010 05:41 PM Re: krod out for the year

Gwreck wrote: 2:1 Parnell 4:1 Takahashi 6:1 Feliciano 10:1 Igarashi 20:1 Field I'd like to hear what Paddy Power is offering on Cordero, Dessens, and Perez before I put my money down. I also see Mejia re-entering the picture in September if the Mets somehow play their way back into the race.

seawolf17 Aug 16 2010 06:26 PM Re: krod out for the year

I want Ollie to close.

Zvon Aug 16 2010 06:31 PM Re: krod out for the year

seawolf17 wrote: I want Ollie to close. Why not? Being that he seems to have ADD, lets see if he can focus for an inning with one simple goal.

seawolf17 Aug 16 2010 06:34 PM Re: krod out for the year

Zvon wrote: Why not? Being that he seems to have ADD, lets see if he can focus for an inning with one simple goal. Exactly. Maybe this is what he needs; a new role. Just let him go out there and let it fly.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 16 2010 06:45 PM Re: krod out for the year

I kinda like that idea too as a kind of last-resort redemption and to prove that (almost) anyone can be an adequate closer given the right opportunity. Might also help the Mets save some face (their accountants at least) by justifying Ollie's $$ as a bargain given what they typically waste on a closer.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 16 2010 07:23 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ollie's shot. His fast ball tops out at 87 MPH. He's never had any success without his mid 90's fastball. And Manuel and Warthen have both said publicly that Ollie's no better now than a few months ago when the Mets finally took him out of the starting rotation. He hasn't had a single appearance this season without walking at least one batter. They might as well ask me to pitch the 9th innings. The last place this guy belongs is on the 25 man roster. (Although two weeks from now, the major league rosters expand).

Zvon Aug 16 2010 07:43 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ollie's shot. His fast ball tops out at 87 MPH. He's never had any success without his mid 90's fastball. And Manuel and Warthen have both said publicly that Ollie's no better now than a few months ago when the Mets finally took him out of the starting rotation. He hasn't had a single appearance this season without walking at least one batter. They might as well ask me to pitch the 9th innings. The last place this guy belongs is on the 25 man roster. (Although two weeks from now, the major league rosters expand). I said last night they should fire someone just to shake things up. Upon thinking about this I think the malaise starts from the very top and spreads down like a cancer. So don't fire a coach or manager (can't say Jerry doesn't try to keep things positive) because it really won't make any difference for right now. If they are not gonna use Perez for anything like the start vs the Phils Saturday night, or out of the pen when it counts, especially since it seems the organization has given up on this season, then YES, release him, please. Start there.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 16 2010 07:56 PM Re: krod out for the year

seawolf17 wrote: I want Ollie to close. "Vote for me-- the 'Fuck It' Candidate!"

Edgy DC Aug 16 2010 08:07 PM Re: krod out for the year

The downside to this is that Rodriguez can't be traded or released while he's on the DL. So while the Mets spend what promises to be at least a partially protracted battle trying to effect the voiding of the contract, he'll remain on the roster until Spring Training at least.

Nymr83 Aug 16 2010 08:08 PM Re: krod out for the year

I'd like to see all the guys in the bullpen pitch based on matchups, not innings. So if lefty-righty-lefty-lefty are the 4 guys due up in the 6th, or the 9th, feliciano gets the call. if the 3-4-5 hitters are due up in the 8th, you put your best reliever (whoever you think that is at the time) in for the 8th, instead of saving him for the 9th oh and i would LOVE to see the mets push the contract issue, even if it ends poorly (him still getting paid)

batmagadanleadoff Aug 16 2010 08:16 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: The downside to this is that Rodriguez can't be traded or released while he's on the DL. So while the Mets spend what promises to be at least a partially protracted battle trying to effect the voiding of the contract, he'll remain on the roster until Spring Training at least. The Mets could do whatever the hell they wanna do. They're holding the money. Advantage Mets. They could, for example, announce that they're cutting K-Rod effective immediately and withholding the rest of whatever money he's owed, on grounds that he injured himself by engaging in conduct prohibited by his contract (assuming there is such a clause in the contract, as a prerequisite), and that K-Rod is no longer the player the Mets bargained for when they signed him. Then K-Rod'll sue, and the system (whether a court of law or arbitration, depending on the contract) will determine whether the Mets were justified or not.

Edgy DC Aug 16 2010 08:19 PM Re: krod out for the year

I'm pretty certain he'd remain on the roster until the legality of their voiding the deal is sorted out.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 16 2010 08:21 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: I'm pretty certain he'd remain on the roster until the legality of their voiding the deal is sorted out. Maybe. But often, you don't know for sure until you try. Anyway, I'm just theorizing, and blindly at that, insofar as I have no idea what's in K-Rod's contract.

metirish Aug 16 2010 08:36 PM Re: krod out for the year

@KBurkhardtSNY: On Krod Mets front office spokesman statement "we are exploring all of our options"

A Boy Named Seo Aug 16 2010 08:37 PM Re: krod out for the year

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: seawolf17 wrote: I want Ollie to close. "Vote for me-- the 'Fuck It' Candidate!" LOL'ing.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 16 2010 11:39 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The downside to this is that Rodriguez can't be traded or released while he's on the DL. So while the Mets spend what promises to be at least a partially protracted battle trying to effect the voiding of the contract, he'll remain on the roster until Spring Training at least. The Mets could do whatever the hell they wanna do. They're holding the money. Advantage Mets. They could, for example, announce that they're cutting K-Rod effective immediately and withholding the rest of whatever money he's owed, on grounds that he injured himself by engaging in conduct prohibited by his contract (assuming there is such a clause in the contract, as a prerequisite), and that K-Rod is no longer the player the Mets bargained for when they signed him. Then K-Rod'll sue, and the system (whether a court of law or arbitration, depending on the contract) will determine whether the Mets were justified or not. According to the ESPN Sportscenter ticker crawl, the Mets will attempt to void the remainder of K-Rod's contract. No further news as of yet. If so, the Mets will have decided that K-Rod breached the contract when he engaged in a physical altercation with his common law father in law.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 17 2010 04:28 AM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: According to the ESPN Sportscenter ticker crawl, the Mets will attempt to void the remainder of K-Rod's contract. No further news as of yet. Good for them! I wonder how much of a chance this has. Has it ever been attempted before? I seem to remember something with Jeff Kent a few years ago, but nothing ever came of it. (Was it something to do with a motorcycle? Or basketball? The details escape me.)

G-Fafif Aug 17 2010 04:35 AM Re: krod out for the year

seawolf17 wrote: I want Ollie to close. ...the door behind him after it hits him in the ass on his way out of town.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 17 2010 04:45 AM Re: krod out for the year

Jon Heyman wrote: The Mets are looking into the possibility of voiding closer Francisco Rodriguez's contract, SI.com has learned. If the team is successful in doing so, they could save at least $17 million, and potentially more. They are looking into whether the contract, for $37 million over three years, can be voided based on Rodriguez injuring himself outside the course of play. Rodriguez suffered torn thumb ligaments during a fight with his girlfriend's father. Rodriguez has been charged with assault in the case. Rodriguez has apologized for the incident, but that might not get him off the hook. Team sources suggest the voiding of the contract is something that's on the table for team higher-ups. Rodriguez's salary is $11.5 million in 2010 and also in 2011. He has a $17.5 million vesting option for 2012 with a $3.5 million buyout. That option vests with 100 games finished in 2010 and 2011 combined or 55 games finished in '11, so it's unlikely the option would go into affect anyway. The players union might have a position on this though, as the Mets were only able to suspend Rodriguez initially for two games due to the power of the players union. General manager Omar Minaya said publicly the team didn't regret the contract. But perhaps behind the scenes, there are different thoughts being discussed.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 05:34 AM Re: krod out for the year Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 17 2010 05:36 AM

General manager Omar Minaya said publicly the team didn't regret the contract. But perhaps behind the scenes, there are different thoughts being discussed. Yeah, perhaps.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 05:35 AM Re: krod out for the year

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: According to the ESPN Sportscenter ticker crawl, the Mets will attempt to void the remainder of K-Rod's contract. No further news as of yet. Good for them! I wonder how much of a chance this has. Has it ever been attempted before? I seem to remember something with Jeff Kent a few years ago, but nothing ever came of it. (Was it something to do with a motorcycle? Or basketball? The details escape me.) It was rumored that Kent injured himself while riding a motorcycle. I don't remember if the Giants opted to forgive Kent, or if the team lacked the evidence it would need to succesfully void Kent's contract. A team might decide to look the other way for fear of some future backlash from free agents or players with the right to veto a trade.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 05:37 AM Re: krod out for the year

The O's tried to release Sidney Ponson a few years back for repeated drunk-driving and battery of a police officer, and wound up with a fight on the hands from the union. I don't recall who won.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 05:46 AM Re: krod out for the year

I'd like to know how the "behavior" or "morals" clause is written. Does a player simply have to engage in the prohibited activity for his actions to constitute a breach, or does the action have to result in a serious and permanent injury? Or something else?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 05:48 AM Re: krod out for the year

Can't find the results of the Ponson thing. What happened was, the O's voided the deal and released Ponson citing the "uniform player contract" stating a player may be terminated if he shall "fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey to the club's training rules." The ensuing union grievance went to an arbitrator who was to decide how much $$ if any was owed to Ponson So, it looks like if the Mets don;t mind a fight they can excuse themselves of his salary at least for now. Jay Horwitz says more info on their course of action today, which signals to me a decision on how to proceed was already made. Hit the road, Frank.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 06:51 AM Re: krod out for the year

The O's tried to release Sidney Ponson a few years back for repeated drunk-driving and battery of a police officer, and wound up with a fight on the hands from the union. I don't recall who won. Actually, a judge. Anyhow: Free-agent pitcher Sidney Ponson recently settled with the Orioles over a grievance after being released by the club in 2005, according to a report by The Associated Press. Ponson had one season left on a three-year deal that would have paid him $10 million in 2006, before he was released by the club as Orioles owner Peter Angelos contended the contract was void because of Ponson's conduct and problems with alcohol. Ponson asserted that the Orioles owed him $10.1 million, but the amount of the settlement reached on Dec. 17 was subject to a confidentiality agreement, Ponson's agent, Barry Praver, told the AP. However, a report by FOXSports.com said that Ponson received nearly all of the money he was seeking and that the Orioles also paid for it with luxury tax dollars.

HahnSolo Aug 17 2010 06:59 AM Re: krod out for the year

Astros voided Shawn Chacon's contract after he hit Ed Wade last year, and they won. I think this is just talk from the Mets. I don't think they have the stomach for the fight.

Frayed Knot Aug 17 2010 07:05 AM Re: krod out for the year

I was just about to mention the Astros winning a judgement against Chacon so maybe that gives the Mets some hope on this front. But the bottom line is that there's not a lot of precedence on this one way or the other so most of what we're going to hear about how this eventually turns out will be 99% guess-work at this point.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 07:41 AM Re: krod out for the year

HahnSolo wrote: Astros voided Shawn Chacon's contract after he hit Ed Wade last year, and they won. Carlos Pena for GM!

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 07:44 AM Re: krod out for the year

I can't see any scenario where voiding his contract would be a good thing. Sure, he is and is going to be overpaid, but if we voide it, we'll have a lesser bullpen going forward. and that's bad.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 17 2010 07:48 AM Re: krod out for the year

I think the lesser guy will be at least 90 per cent as good as Rodriguez, and the Mets will have another $17 million to spend on players who can provide more help than a relief pitcher can.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 07:50 AM Re: krod out for the year

Yeah, I can't see any scenario where it's a bad thing. There're a dozen better things to do with that money than give it to a good --- but not great --- pitcher who abilities are hardly being put to top effect.

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 07:57 AM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, I can't see any scenario where it's a bad thing. There're a dozen better things to do with that money than give it to a good --- but not great --- pitcher who abilities are hardly being put to top effect. That depends on if A. you can get someone nearly as good (and given that you wanted to upgrade the bullpen some anyway, so now that'd be yet another good to great reliever that you're looking for) and B. if that money was keeping the Mets from doing something they need to do, which would be a bigger problem anyway.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 08:07 AM Re: krod out for the year

No it doesn't depend on any of those things. The Mets have a half dozen other good relievers, and the sooner they find that Rodriguez's talent isn't nearly so rare as all that --- and stop paying accordingly --- the better.

themetfairy Aug 17 2010 08:12 AM Re: krod out for the year

I'm in favor of voiding the contract. If for no other reason than to send a message that the organization won't tolerate players who commit criminal assaults within the stadium.

attgig Aug 17 2010 08:47 AM Re: krod out for the year

If the voiding thing doesn't work because players union, etc, and we have to keep krod.... I can only hope that takahashi is amazing as a closer through the end of the year. that way, come spring next year, it's declared that krod and takahashi share the closer's role (or takahashi wins it straight out) so that krod doesn't hit is 54 games for that option.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 08:59 AM Re: krod out for the year

Oh, they can release him anytime, it's whether they can also avoid paying him, it would surely go to an NLRB mediator. On a separate note, not cool and probably also a collective bargaining no-no to hire an employee with an easy to achieve option then deny him the chance to get it, so I doubt it would come to that.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 09:32 AM Re: krod out for the year

Boy I'm so sick about reading the union this and the union that as if the union is some omnipotent entity that doesn't have to do anything more than walk into court in order to win K-Rod's case. Of course this matter will be contested heavily if the Mets try to void K-Rod's contract. So what?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 09:38 AM Re: krod out for the year

And another thing: The Wilpons supposedly won't have the stomach for the battle that will surely ensue if they void K-Rod's contract? This is an idiotic thought. The K-Rod battle should be a relative walk in the park for the funeral parlor owner's son who became a billionaire real estate magnate and owner of the Mets.

G-Fafif Aug 17 2010 09:42 AM Re: krod out for the year

Someday the Mets will have a closer who, when he is lost for the year, won't generate from me a shrug or a no-pun-intended sigh of relief.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 09:47 AM Re: krod out for the year

I think you're misunderstanding the tenor here. I think what the Mets lack the stomach for isn't the "battle" but the possibility of having to pay a guy they've released.

MFS62 Aug 17 2010 10:30 AM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It was rumored that Kent injured himself while riding a motorcycle. I don't remember if the Giants opted to forgive Kent, or if the team lacked the evidence it would need to succesfully void Kent's contract. A team might decide to look the other way for fear of some future backlash from free agents or players with the right to veto a trade. IIRC there was a clause in his contract that specifically prohibited him from riding one. I don't recall if his contract was challenged based on it. If they didn't pursue it, maybe it was because: * They couldn't prove it. * He was a very good player, for whom they had no suitable replacement * They wanted someone to duke it out with Bonds in the clubhouse. Later

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 11:34 AM Re: krod out for the year

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think you're misunderstanding the tenor here. I think what the Mets lack the stomach for isn't the "battle" but the possibility of having to pay a guy they've released. That stomach, I could see. If the Mets do void his contract without justification, their penalty (or damages) would be offset by the value of K-Rod's new contract. And if K-Rod doesn't sign another contract, or signs another contract for less than he would've gotten under the current one, the Mets could use that to prove the permanence of K-Rod's injury and/or the diminishment of his abilities as a result of the "incident".

Ashie62 Aug 17 2010 12:48 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, I can't see any scenario where it's a bad thing. There're a dozen better things to do with that money than give it to a good --- but not great --- pitcher who abilities are hardly being put to top effect. I'm with you and Grimm on this one. The days of the inning "uber" closer may be nearing an end. Pabelbon is being pushed out by Daniel Bard already. Maybe some money could be saved for eventual resignings of Reyes and david.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 17 2010 02:03 PM Re: krod out for the year

Wouldn't the fact that Frankie pitched for them after the in-law brouhaha sorta muddy up the diagnosis/their claims that he's entirely at fault for the injury?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 02:11 PM Re: krod out for the year

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wouldn't the fact that Frankie pitched for them after the in-law brouhaha sorta muddy up the diagnosis/their claims that he's entirely at fault for the injury? K-Rod's representatives will certainly argue that. I re-read the Ponson behavior clause that JCL cited earlier in this thread. If that's a standard MLB clause, and the controlling clause in K-Rod's contract, then it would appear from a plain reading, that the player's behavior is what constitutes a breach, and not whether the behavior resulted in an injury. So I wonder if the injury is even relevant? What about a player that, hypothetically, sexually molests a child? Does the team need to prove that the player injured himself in the act in order to void the contract?

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 02:18 PM Re: krod out for the year

The problem, like Hamlet's, is the law's delay. Until a court rules otherwise, an arbitrator can rule that whether Rodriguez violoated the clause by unjustifiably beating on a man remains an open matter.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 02:21 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: The problem, like Hamlet's, is the law's delay. Until a court rules otherwise, an arbitrator can rule that whether Rodriguez violoated the clause by unjustifiably beating on a man remains an open matter. I don't know about that. What's the burden of proof in an arbitration? It's beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. If the burden of proof is anything less in a civil arbitration, then it's possible for K-Rod to prevail in a criminal trial but not in a civil proceeding. Also, what happens if no witnesses want to testify in a criminal trial? Does that mean that the Mets are without remedy?

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 02:23 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The problem, like Hamlet's, is the law's delay. Until a court rules otherwise, an arbitrator can rule that whether Rodriguez violoated the clause by unjustifiably beating on a man remains an open matter. I don't know about that. What's the burden of proof in an arbitration? It's beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. Also, what happens if no witnesses want to testify in a criminal trial? Does that mean that the Mets are without remedy? The other inquiry would be why is he still on the active roster? i know they've all but publicly given up and Jerry will just work a random reliever extra hard, but..roster move?

Gwreck Aug 17 2010 02:25 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know about that. What's the burden of proof in an arbitration? Most arbitrations have the same rules re: burden as the civil courts, which is "by preponderance of the evidence."

seawolf17 Aug 17 2010 02:26 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ceetar wrote: i know they've all but publicly given up and Jerry will just work a random reliever extra hard, but..roster move? I'm wondering this too. Maybe they'll announce it before tonight's game?

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 02:27 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The problem, like Hamlet's, is the law's delay. Until a court rules otherwise, an arbitrator can rule that whether Rodriguez violoated the clause by unjustifiably beating on a man remains an open matter. I don't know about that. What's the burden of proof in an arbitration? It's beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. If the burden of proof is anything less in a civil arbitration, then it's possible for K-Rod to prevail in a criminal trial but not in a civil proceeding. Also, what happens if no witnesses want to testify in a criminal trial? Does that mean that the Mets are without remedy? Well, I said one can rule that way, not necessarily that they will. I certainly don't claim to know what the burden of proof is to a labor arbitrator.

bmfc1 Aug 17 2010 03:52 PM Re: krod out for the year

Igarashi recalled, not Green.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 05:04 PM Re: krod out for the year

The relevant clauses: Paragraph 7(b)(1) of the general agreement authorizes a team to terminate a contract if a player "fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the club's training rules." Paragraph 7(b)(3) similarly lets teams terminate a contract if a player "fails, refuses or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any manner materially breach this contract."

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 05:24 PM Re: krod out for the year

Frankie not paid for the rest of this year. Contracted converted to a non guarenteed contract. someone with more lawyer smarts than me can explain that. I maintain that I want him back, because I think the Mets can spend the money they need to get better without needing to find ways to void guys, would probably 'waste' money on a lesser reliever to close next year, and it's just not a winning strategy to let talented players walk away when it's definitely not a given that you'll get similiar quality from other guys, never mind opening up the possibility that he goes to Philadelphia.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 05:34 PM Re: krod out for the year

I don't understand. It's not a given. Well, nothing is a given. You don't trust that they can spend the money saved on the contract well, but you want them to spend more money. What's the point then? What matters is if he's worth $11.5 million in 2011 and a probable $17.5 million in 2012. I say, with the general overvaluation of name-brand relievers, his performance, his conduct, and now the injury he's carrying forth, he's certainly not. With virtually all multi-year deals, it is worth getting out of the tail end if you can. But you usually can't and that's the medicine you usually swallow for the value of the deal working in your favor in the front end. In giving a man near twice his age a brutal drubbing (and keep in mind the three alteracations in uniform before this), the silver lining is the gift he's given the Mets. Good for them that they have the courage to take it.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 05:37 PM Re: krod out for the year

Do you really want to root for a team who has so lost their bearings that their players are threatening to beat their coaches and eventually committing assault in their stadium and continuing to collect ridiculous sums of money? Really?

Frayed Knot Aug 17 2010 05:39 PM Re: krod out for the year

The statement -- The Mets today announced that they have placed pitcher Francisco Rodriguez on the Disqualified List for conduct in violation of his Uniform Player’s Contract. In addition, the Mets notified the player, his agent, and the MLB Players Association that it has exercised its right to convert Rodriguez’s contract with the club to a non-guaranteed contract. Additionally: - The Mets’ decision follows the season-ending injury to the thumb on Rodriguez’s right pitching hand as a result of an altercation following last Wednesday night’s game at Citi Field. - Rodriguez will not be paid or accrue major-league service time while on the Disqualified List. - Dr. Andrew Weiland of the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan this afternoon performed successful surgery to repair the torn ligament in Rodriguez’s thumb this afternoon.

metirish Aug 17 2010 05:45 PM Re: krod out for the year

Great news , get the process started. I want nothing to do with him, if the Mets see this thing out and he ends up in Philly , I could give a fiddlers fuck. I'm done with him. Booby Ojeda on the pre-game is great , he's gotten better and has grown on me, rarely pulls punches.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 05:47 PM Re: krod out for the year

The statement -- The Mets today announced that they have placed pitcher Francisco Rodriguez on the Disqualified List for conduct in violation of his Uniform Player’s Contract. In addition, the Mets notified the player, his agent, and the MLB Players Association that it has exercised its right to convert Rodriguez’s contract with the club to a non-guaranteed contract. Additionally: - The Mets’ decision follows the season-ending injury to the thumb on Rodriguez’s right pitching hand as a result of an altercation following last Wednesday night’s game at Citi Field. - Rodriguez will not be paid or accrue major-league service time while on the Disqualified List. - Dr. Andrew Weiland of the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan this afternoon performed successful surgery to repair the torn ligament in Rodriguez’s thumb this afternoon. A Freudian would have a lot of fun with irish. It's like he can't try to type "Bobby" without "Booby" coming out of his keyboard.

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 05:54 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: Do you really want to root for a team who has so lost their bearings that their players are threatening to beat their coaches and eventually committing assault in their stadium and continuing to collect ridiculous sums of money? Really? I really just don't care. really. Obviously, I don't want guys out of control so much that they injure themselves off the field. But he's hardly the first to do it. Madsen did it with the Phillies. Kevin Brown did it with the Yankees, etc etc. The reasons behind it are irrelevant. some guys are assholes (and the father in law isn't a saint here either, not that that matters) some are nice. I like reading about David Wright being truly happy helping out kids. But in the end, they're both just pawns. Sure, I grow more attached to some. I wouldn't be disappointed if KRod was voided like I would be devasted if Reyes or Wright left, but... I'm fairly confident that the Mets are a better team with Rodriguez on it next year, than without him. I think it's hard to say that the Mets are going to find 7 relievers that perform as well as he will. We can get into budget debates, etc, but really I just don't know what to say about how much the budget is and how much they can afford to spend on acquisitions nor how much they need to. Yes, if the Mets are a better team by voiding his contract and redistributing the money in a way they couldn't otherwise to get better in multiple areas, then for sure do it. I'd say the same about things like trading Jason Bay or even Beltran at this point. But right now as it stands, simply K-Rod or no K-Rod, I'd rather he was here.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 05:59 PM Re: krod out for the year

Regards paragraph one, I really think you should care, and that we'd all be better off if more people did. I like having better conduct from my team than other teams. Madsen and Brown behaved like horror shows and I'm pleased as punch they didn't do it on my dime. I use enough time rooting for the Mets, so I'd like to see them stand for better things than the opposition. Regarding paragraph two, whatever the coming budget is, if this holds, it's about $32 million bigger over the next two years and six weeks than it was yesterday. YES! Do you really think there is any way under the pink Queens sky that the Mets can get out of their salary obligations to Jason Bay and Carlos Beltran. Why is that brought up except to confuse the issue?

attgig Aug 17 2010 06:07 PM Re: krod out for the year

and players union will challenge.

metirish Aug 17 2010 06:12 PM Re: krod out for the year

@Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away

Gwreck Aug 17 2010 06:17 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ceetar wrote: I maintain that I want him back, because I think the Mets can spend the money they need to get better without needing to find ways to void guys, would probably 'waste' money on a lesser reliever to close next year, and it's just not a winning strategy to let talented players walk away when it's definitely not a given that you'll get similiar quality from other guys, never mind opening up the possibility that he goes to Philadelphia. Wow. Where to begin? 1. The Mets are not "finding ways to void guys;" Rodriguez brought this on himself. 2. They would "probably" waste money? I need your crystal ball to "probably" tell me the lottery numbers tomorrow, please. 2a. Some might suggest that Frankie himself is overpaid. 2b. Assume his contract is successfully voided. On what free agent reliever would the Mets spend *more* money that what they would've spent on Frankie? 3. I'm pretty sure voiding his contract isn't "letting talented players walk away." It's called booting his ass out the door for conduct that is totally unacceptable. 3a. Who's to say paying $12M to a guy who pitches 65-70 innings a year is a "winning strategy?" 4. He goes to Philadelphia? Good for them. Would fit right in on the team that refused to cut Brett Myers.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 06:21 PM Re: krod out for the year

In two days, your good soldier Mets have become renegades, going up against MLB by going over salary slot and going up against the MLBPA by exercising their contractual rights.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 06:29 PM Re: krod out for the year

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wouldn't the fact that Frankie pitched for them after the in-law brouhaha sorta muddy up the diagnosis/their claims that he's entirely at fault for the injury? On tonight's SNY pre-game show, Kevin Burkhardt reported that K-Rod already admitted injuring himself during his altercation with his girlfriend's father.

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 07:11 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: Regards paragraph one, I really think you should care, and that we'd all be better off if more people did. I like having better conduct from my team than other teams. Madsen and Brown behaved like horror shows and I'm pleased as punch they didn't do it on my dime. I use enough time rooting for the Mets, so I'd like to see them stand for better things than the opposition. Regarding paragraph two, whatever the coming budget is, if this holds, it's about $32 million bigger over the next two years and six weeks than it was yesterday. YES! Do you really think there is any way under the pink Queens sky that the Mets can get out of their salary obligations to Jason Bay and Carlos Beltran. Why is that brought up except to confuse the issue? I wasn't trying to confuse the issue. And no, given the concussion and injuries, no one's trading for these guys. But say Fernando Martinez were to play amazingly and suggest he's ready to be the everyday LF next year? It'd be an interesting decision to trade Bay if they could better utilize the money by trading him. To me, the reason to void K-Rod's contract is to make use of that money to make the team better than 70IP by a good reliever does. We'd all be better off if more people cared. But I have no control over the team anyway. I'm going to root for them regardless. I want my team to do whatever it takes to win a championship, and if that means not getting rid of a player that can help them do so, then so be it. It's one thing if it was Ollie that was getting into fights, but it's not. Basically, these team is not as good if they're using Octavio Dotel as a closer instead of Frankie. Even if he's making half as much. You never know where the other half of the money goes, or how much what it goes towards would help. Will it go to Dickey's arbitration? or a guy like Bay who underperforms?

Nymr83 Aug 17 2010 07:13 PM Re: krod out for the year

metirish wrote: @Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away Leave it to Sherman to regurgitate the union's crap against the Mets. If the Yankees had tried to void Juan Rivera for stealing Jeter's glove he would have been applauding them for it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 17 2010 07:18 PM Re: krod out for the year

Nymr83 wrote: @Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away Leave it to Sherman to regurgitate the union's crap against the Mets. If the Yankees had tried to void Juan Rivera for stealing Jeter's glove he would have been applauding them for it. He's a reporter. What, would you prefer he withheld this news from us?

Frayed Knot Aug 17 2010 07:19 PM Re: krod out for the year

metirish wrote: @Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away I'm sure they will, but I think the team going the restricted list route rather than preemptively trying to void the entire contract now is a kind of intermediate step which makes it more likely that they'll get away with it.

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 07:21 PM Re: krod out for the year

Nymr83 wrote: @Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away Leave it to Sherman to regurgitate the union's crap against the Mets. If the Yankees had tried to void Juan Rivera for stealing Jeter's glove he would have been applauding them for it. Or when Cervilli stole David Wright's glove last night?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 07:34 PM Re: krod out for the year

Frayed Knot wrote: @Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away I'm sure they will, but I think the team going the restricted list route rather than preemptively trying to void the entire contract now is a kind of intermediate step which makes it more likely that they'll get away with it. It seems to me that, in essence, the contract has been voided. K-Rod's on the disqualified list and the contract is no longer guaranteed. As of now, the Mets no longer have any obligations to the pitcher. They don't have to pay him unless K-Rod makes the team; but the Mets, as of now, aren't obligated to create a roster spot for K-Rod, either.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 07:48 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ceetar wrote: We'd all be better off if more people cared. But I have no control over the team anyway. Condoning behavior perpetuates it. That's sociologically proven. In a capitlist society even more so. The values we chase with our dollars are those we establish, and eventually reinforce. Ceetar wrote: I'm going to root for them regardless. I want my team to do whatever it takes to win a championship, and if that means not getting rid of a player that can help them do so, then so be it. Well the team that suits this sensiblity is doing very well for themselves in the Bronx, jockeying for first and defending their championship. Ceetar wrote: It's one thing if it was Ollie that was getting into fights, but it's not. No, it's exactly the same thing. Ceetar wrote: Basically, these team is not as good if they're using Octavio Dotel as a closer instead of Frankie. Even if he's making half as much. You never know where the other half of the money goes, or how much what it goes towards would help. Will it go to Dickey's arbitration? or a guy like Bay who underperforms? Listen, if you think there's no point in giving the Mets money because they're incapable of spending it, I don't know why you bother a lick. If the guy isn't worth it, they're better off not paying it. They're too stupid to do any better anyway just isn't going to get you anywhere, certainly not to your win-at-all-cossts championship.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 07:57 PM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: @Joelsherman1: Union head Mike Weiner on K-Rod: The #Mets actions are without basis and I expect the union will challenge them right away I'm sure they will, but I think the team going the restricted list route rather than preemptively trying to void the entire contract now is a kind of intermediate step which makes it more likely that they'll get away with it. It seems to me that, in essence, the contract has been voided. K-Rod's on the disqualified list and the contract is no longer guaranteed. As of now, the Mets no longer have any obligations to the pitcher. They don't have to pay him unless K-Rod makes the team; but the Mets, as of now, aren't obligated to create a roster spot for K-Rod, either. One more thought: It's impossible to come up with a reasonable prediction for how this will all shake out without knowing exactly what's in K-Rod's contract. But whether or not the Mets succeed in voiding the pitcher's contract will likely depend on whether K-Rod's actions constituted a breach, and not on how the Mets went about enforcing their own contractual rights. (Although it is possible that the contract also regulates what the Mets must do to terminate the contract, at the expense of the team forfeiting its rights for moving improperly).

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 08:08 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: We'd all be better off if more people cared. But I have no control over the team anyway. Condoning behavior perpetuates it. That's sociologically proven. In a capitlist society even more so. The values we chase with our dollars are those we establish, and eventually reinforce. Ceetar wrote: I'm going to root for them regardless. I want my team to do whatever it takes to win a championship, and if that means not getting rid of a player that can help them do so, then so be it. Well the team that suits this sensiblity is doing very well for themselves in the Bronx, jockeying for first and defending their championship. Ceetar wrote: It's one thing if it was Ollie that was getting into fights, but it's not. No, it's exactly the same thing. Ceetar wrote: Basically, these team is not as good if they're using Octavio Dotel as a closer instead of Frankie. Even if he's making half as much. You never know where the other half of the money goes, or how much what it goes towards would help. Will it go to Dickey's arbitration? or a guy like Bay who underperforms? Listen, if you think there's no point in giving the Mets money because they're incapable of spending it, I don't know why you bother a lick. If the guy isn't worth it, they're better off not paying it. They're too stupid to do any better anyway just isn't going to get you anywhere, certainly not to your win-at-all-cossts championship. I'm not trying to say they're too stupid to use it correctly, if there is even any specific need for the extra money, just that It's my opinion that the Mets are a better team _with_ K-Rod, and that he's more of a 'sure thing' than money spent on a free agent, however wisely.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 08:17 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ceetar wrote: Basically, these team is not as good if they're using Octavio Dotel as a closer instead of Frankie. Even if he's making half as much. You never know where the other half of the money goes, or how much what it goes towards would help. Will it go to Dickey's arbitration? or a guy like Bay who underperforms? I don't know how else to read that. You never know how they're going to spend the money. Got it. You also never know how he's going to pitch. But based on what that money is worth on the open market and what he can be expected to bring, he's not worth it. $32 million!

Ceetar Aug 17 2010 08:19 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: Basically, these team is not as good if they're using Octavio Dotel as a closer instead of Frankie. Even if he's making half as much. You never know where the other half of the money goes, or how much what it goes towards would help. Will it go to Dickey's arbitration? or a guy like Bay who underperforms? I don't know how else to read that. You never know how they're going to spend the money. Got it. You also never know how he's going to pitch. But based on what that money is worth on the open market and what he brings, he's not worth it. We simply disagree on how much he's worth. I don't think it's a black and white issue, and I definitely don't think it's an automatic or easy choice to just dismiss him. It's not like a trade where you specifically get X back. You have to hunt and pay and outbid and sign guys to replace him.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 08:23 PM Re: krod out for the year

Yeah, that's baseball, and it's true of every offseason. And he's behaved like an enormous child. $32 million for two years of a beastly, wild, modestly consistent closer coming off an injury. I tell you they're falling out of trees.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 09:30 PM Re: krod out for the year

Mets Alter Rodriguez’s Contract By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT Published: August 17, 2010 “Right now, we plan on bringing him back next year,” Minaya said of Rodriguez. Acting aggressively, and setting up an immediate battle with the players union, the Mets said Tuesday that they would not pay Francisco Rodriguez while he recovered from his torn thumb ligament and that they would no longer guarantee the remainder of his three-year contract, which runs through 2011. The Mets declared closer Francisco Rodriguez’s contract nonguaranteed. The announcement came in a conference call in which the Mets said they were placing Rodriguez on the disqualified list and would not pay him until he was capable of pitching. After Rodriguez, the Mets’ closer, was injured in a fight, many people in baseball thought the team would simply attempt to penalize him by not paying him for the remainder of this season and would start fresh with him in spring training next season. Instead, the team took a tougher and more provocative approach by converting Rodriguez’s guaranteed contract — $11.5 million next season, with a $17.5 million option in 2012 — into a nonguaranteed one. The move, which has little if any precedent in Major League Baseball, gives the Mets far more flexibility if they want to release Rodriguez at any point in the coming months. Under a nonguaranteed contract, Rodriguez, in 2011, would be paid a relatively minor portion of his contract during spring training, assuming he was still on the roster. Eventually, on a cutoff date before the season began, the Mets would have to either release Rodriguez and terminate the remainder of his contract or guarantee all the money that remained. The Mets took their action Tuesday without negotiating with Rodriguez’s agent or the players union, although they informed them of their intent. They clearly seemed to want to show their discontent with Rodriguez, who hurt himself last Wednesday in a brawl with the father of his common-law wife and now faces two misdemeanor assault charges. In response to the Mets’ steps, Michael Weiner, the head of the players union, said Tuesday night that the union would immediately contest everything the Mets were trying to do. “The Mets’ actions are without basis, and the union will grieve them right away,” Weiner said. He said he said expected the grievance to go before an arbitrator by this fall. Before then, there will be probably be a face-to-face meeting between the Mets, the union and Rodriguez’s agent, and it is conceivable that a deal could be worked out under which the Mets settle for the union’s not contesting Rodriguez’s loss of pay in 2010 and in exchange for agreeing to guarantee his salary for 2011. During a conference call in which the Mets announced the actions they were taking, Jeff Wilpon, the chief operating officer, and General Manager Omar Minaya clearly seemed to differ in their feelings about Rodriguez’s future with the team. Wilpon, looking ahead to next season, raised a situation in which someone in the Mets’ bullpen “steps up” in the final 45 games of this season and demonstrates he can do Rodriguez’s job as closer. In that case, Wilpon implied, there may not be a need to bring back Rodriguez in 2011. However, Wilpon was speaking on the assumption that the money still owed Rodriguez would not be guaranteed, which the union will do everything to prevent. Meanwhile, Minaya, who signed Rodriguez to a three-year contract before the 2009 season, had a more optimistic tone about his embattled closer. “Right now, we plan on bringing him back next year,” Minaya said of Rodriguez. During the conference call, Wilpon disclosed that Rodriguez had surgery on the thumb Tuesday afternoon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan. “The doctors are hopeful he will recover and will be ready for spring training,” Wilpon said. Because Rodriguez pitched once after Wednesday’s altercation — a mop-up inning in Saturday night’s game against the Phillies — there was speculation that the pitcher’s representatives, either his agent or the union or both, would contend that he actually hurt himself pitching and not during the fight. But Wilpon said he was not concerned that such a claim would be made, saying that “there’s strong evidence and witnesses” that Rodriguez hurt his thumb during the altercation and that Rodriguez “told our trainer that is when it happened.” Wilpon also said that in the wake of Wednesday’s incident, the Mets wanted to place Rodriguez on the restricted list for more than two games but settled on that amount after discussions with the union. Now, however, the Mets seem intent on doing exactly what they want to do, as unrealistic as it may turn out to be. Indeed, Gabe Feldman, the head of the sports law department at Tulane University, said he could not recall a previous instance in which a team converted a player’s contract to a nonguaranteed one. “What the Mets did is not as aggressive as voiding the entire contract, but it doesn’t lock them in to paying him the millions of dollars they owe,” Feldman said. “It gives the team an out if the eventually want to get rid of him. “The players union is going to do everything they can to uphold the sanctity of contracts,” he said. “They fight hard to make sure they get guaranteed contracts for their players. What the Mets did is something that is buried in major league rules. It’s rare to void contracts and even more rare to convert to nonguaranteed contracts, particularly with a star player.” Ken Belson and David Waldstein contributed reporting. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/sport ... tract.html

batmagadanleadoff Aug 17 2010 09:49 PM Re: krod out for the year

Could Mets void K-Rod contract? Yes, but it wouldn't be easy: SPORTS LAW Francisco Rodriguez may have worn a New York Mets uniform for the last time. Could the New York Mets terminate the lucrative contract of closer Francisco Rodriguez, who was charged with assault by law enforcement officials and also suspended two games by the Mets for an embarrassing and injurious post-game fight with his girlfriend's father? The answer is yes, although it would be a bold move and one likely to elicit a grievance filing by the Major League Baseball Players' Association. During the fight, Rodriguez, a right-handed pitcher, tore ligaments in his right thumb. He is expected to have season-ending surgery. Voiding the remainder of the three-year, $37 million contract Rodriguez signed with the Mets before the 2009 season would be of considerable value to the club, as K-Rod is still owed at least $17 million on the deal, which runs through 2011 and has an option for 2012. The Uniform Player Contract in Baseball contains at least two clauses that would empower the Mets to void Rodriguez's deal. Paragraph 7(b)(1) authorizes a team to terminate a contract if a player "fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the club's training rules." Paragraph 7(b)(3) similarly lets teams terminate a contract if a player "fails, refuses or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any manner materially breach this contract." While those loosely-worded clauses would seem to provide the Mets with clear justification to void Rodriguez's contract, teams rarely void contracts. And in the rare instances when they try, they typically either reach a financial settlement that is favorable to the player or outright lose a grievance proceeding, thereby having to pay the player his contract. The strength of the Players' Association is the main reason for the lack of voided contracts. Under baseball's collective bargaining agreement, the Players' Association can file a grievance when it disagrees with the league's interpretation of a collectively-bargained condition. One such condition is a clause in the Uniform Player Contract. Grievance proceedings are heard by an impartial arbitrator and are often fact-intensive, costly and lengthy, lasting weeks if not months. Players have enjoyed success in grievance proceedings when they concern contractual terminations. In 1987, for instance, the San Diego Padres voided the contract of pitcher Lamarr Hoyt for what appeared to be solid grounds: Hoyt had been sentenced to jail time because of multiple drug charges, including intent to distribute cocaine and attempting to smuggle drugs from Mexico into the U.S. As a drug smuggler, it would seem that Hoyt did not "conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship." Nonetheless, the Players' Association filed a grievance and an arbitrator, George Nicolau, deemed the punishment excessive and restored Hoyt's contract. Keep in mind, the Players' Association has a duty to protect the fiduciary interests of all players. It must therefore protect against precedent-setting outcomes, such as the voiding of a guaranteed contract. In the context of Rodriguez, if his guaranteed contract can be voided for getting injured in a fist fight, what else could trigger a voidance? Could the very essence of guaranteed contracts be jeopardized? The fear of the so called "slippery slope" often supplies motivation to the Players' Association to fight a team, even if the public finds a particular player's behavior reprehensible. Instead of voiding Rodriguez's contract, the Mets could try to reach a financial settlement that ends Rodriguez's affiliation with the team. A settlement, which would necessitate approval from Rodriguez and the Mets, along with support from commissioner Bud Selig and the Players' Association, could work to everyone's advantage. Rodriguez would likely obtain a significant portion of the remainder of his contract and become a free agent. Given that he is one of the best closers in the game and still only 28 years old, he would probably attract significant interest from other clubs. For their part, the Mets would rid themselves of a controversial and injured player who let his team down. The team would also save significant money in the process. A settlement, however, may prove complicated and acrimonious, and also be skewed in favor of Rodriguez. That is because contract-ending settlements between big league teams and players are usually preceded by a grievance filing and also end up being tilted in favor of the player. Take the Colorado Rockies' attempt to void the contract of pitcher Denny Neagle in 2004 after he was charged with soliciting a prostitute. The Players' Association quickly filed a grievance and the Rockies chose not to take a chance with an arbitrator. Instead, the team and Neagle agreed to a settlement that largely favored Neagle: the Rockies would pay him $16 million on the remainder of a contract that owed him $19.5 million. Getting rid of a player with a guaranteed contract can be quite expensive. The Baltimore Orioles know that all too well. It took three years for the team to reach a settlement with pitcher Sidney Ponson after it voided his contract in 2005 for an assortment of irresponsible actions, including driving while intoxicated. While the terms of the settlement were not made public, Ponson received a significant portion of the $11.2 million contractually owed to him. Many teams decide it's simply not worth the effort to void a player's contract, even when a player is charged with a serious offense, such as domestic violence. In 1997, the Boston Red Sox declined to void the contract of infielder Wil Cordero after he was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Cordero, who would later plead guilty to criminal charges, beat his wife and threatened to kill her. Oddly enough, had Rodriguez injured his hand in an organized fistfight, as opposed to an impromptu one, the Mets would have stronger grounds to void his contract. Paragraph 5(b) of the Uniform Player Contract states that a big league player agrees that his "participation in certain other sports may impair or destroy his ability and skill as a baseball player. Accordingly, the Player agrees that he will not engage in professional boxing or wrestling." Paragraph 5(b), which lists other prohibited sports, including "professional league basketball", was used by the New York Yankees in 2005 to void the contract of Aaron Boone after he tore his anterior cruciate ligament while playing pick-up basketball. Neither Boone -- who received settlement pay from the Yankees and who would sign with the Cleveland Indians -- nor the Players' Association raised an objection, even though Boone was injured while playing pick-up basketball instead of "professional league basketball." Don't expect Rodriguez's potential departure from the Mets to be as smooth, unless the Mets are willing to pay him many millions of dollars to go away. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... .contract/

MFS62 Aug 17 2010 09:51 PM Re: krod out for the year

I would like to see the specific wording in the contract that allowed them to unilaterally change the nature of it to non-guaranteed. Later

Edgy DC Aug 17 2010 10:30 PM Re: krod out for the year

Freakin' Hoyt.

Gwreck Aug 17 2010 10:56 PM Re: krod out for the year

Not mentioned is that just in the past couple days, the Astros won their arbitration hearing when they voided Shawn Chacon's contract after he assaulted general manager Ed Wade.

Frayed Knot Aug 18 2010 07:05 AM Re: krod out for the year

MFS62 wrote: I would like to see the specific wording in the contract that allowed them to unilaterally change the nature of it to non-guaranteed. Well, the specific wording seems to give them the power to unilaterally void the thing altogether - although history tells them that things aren't always as they seem. By going at it the way they are: DQ-ing him while he's hurt and claiming the right to decide his fate in the future, they are, in effect, inviting a grievance process which is "expected to be this fall" and will get their answer on whether they actually have the power to do so prior to spring training which would be the time for them to use if they choose to go that route. If they were to try for the whole enchilada now they'd risk getting slam-dunked and have to pay him his entire deal, possibly even including the 2012 option, and would be stuck with a contract and a player who they've effectively told to get lost. By taking this thing in smaller bites they'll at least know in advance if they're on the hook for the loot and I suspect that if they're going to be forced to pay him they'd prefer to pay him to pitch for them rather than do so while he's pitching elsewhere. I think this is probably their most sensible strategy even if it's not the ideal one in the minds of a lot of fans.

seawolf17 Aug 18 2010 07:25 AM Re: krod out for the year

I wonder how this impacts potential future free agent signings. Let's say you're an agent with a player with a little craziness in his history; do you steer your client away from the Mets because maybe the Wilpons are more likely to play fast and loose with guaranteed contract obligations? I don't know.

Frayed Knot Aug 18 2010 07:30 AM Re: krod out for the year

I doubt it means a thing. Are potential FAs really likely to steer clear of the Mets because they believe the other 29 ownerships will let them punch guys in the head in family room and do nothing? No matter how this turns out it'll be viewed as an isolated incident, not a trend.

Centerfield Aug 18 2010 07:38 AM Re: krod out for the year

Smart move by the Mets. Ultimately, I'd be fine if they just paid out the guaranteed years on the contract and voided the option. I hope that's where they settle it.

metirish Aug 18 2010 07:39 AM Re: krod out for the year

I don't think it means anything to future free agents , I guess we might not see any resolution until next year. As a fan I certainly have more respect for my team when they take this measure, which of course meana feck all in the big picture.

MFS62 Aug 18 2010 07:52 AM Re: krod out for the year

Frayed Knot wrote: MFS62 wrote: I would like to see the specific wording in the contract that allowed them to unilaterally change the nature of it to non-guaranteed. Well, the specific wording seems to give them the power to unilaterally void the thing altogether - although history tells them that things aren't always as they seem. I think this is probably their most sensible strategy even if it's not the ideal one in the minds of a lot of fans. I agree. "Seems to" isn't a " definitely can". And who knows how an arbitrator might interpret it? This could get interesting. Later

Nymr83 Aug 18 2010 08:36 AM Re: krod out for the year

I doubt it means a thing. Are potential FAs really likely to steer clear of the Mets because they believe the other 29 ownerships will let them punch guys in the head in family room and do nothing? No matter how this turns out it'll be viewed as an isolated incident, not a trend. Agreed, its not like they are trying to void him for a reason that other players might be sympathetic too like showing up at camp 50 lbs. overweight or even playing basketball (Aaron Boone). The Boone incident hasn't stopped free agents from taking the Yankees' money.

metirish Aug 18 2010 09:25 AM Re: krod out for the year

Mugshot

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 18 2010 09:39 AM Re: krod out for the year

Interesting that it seems like Jeff is all "this guy is dead to me" because unless I interpreted it all wrong, it was Jeff who really telegraphed the Mets' awful 2008 offseason when they signed this POS and traded for that other fat POS, in an attempt to distance the org from its shoddy pen work that year. It was definitely Jeff who suggested after that season that there would be "addition by subtraction" foreshadowing the giveaways of Schoeneweis and Heilman; the latter going in the idiotic trade for Putz. Then with the Krod signing, so little else to actually help the team. Omar will of course be hung out to dry and deservedly so but I always wondered how much of his work that year was strongly encouraged by Jeff.

metirish Aug 18 2010 09:45 AM Re: krod out for the year

How normal is it for an owner to meddle( if that's the correct word in this case) in affairs of the GM, if what bucket is saying is correct , and I do believe he has a good memory , then did Jeff discourage Minaya from trading away youth at the trading deadline?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 18 2010 11:45 AM Re: krod out for the year

Another interpretation: A high-ranking baseball official told ESPN's Pedro Gomez on Tuesday that the Mets' decision to put him on the disqualified list will be "next to impossible" to enforce because he already has been disciplined once with a two-day suspension. But .... After last week's incident, the Mets initially suspended Rodriguez for two days without pay. Wilpon indicated the revised, harsher punishment is the result of the thumb injury coming to light four days after the original incident, and after the closer had returned to game action. Wilpon said no team personnel was aware of Rodriguez's thumb injury until the pitcher returned to game action the previous day. "There was more evidence now and more information that we didn't have before that allowed us to make this second determination on punishment and what to do," Wilpon said. http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/ ... id=5471769

batmagadanleadoff Aug 18 2010 12:12 PM Re: krod out for the year

Gwreck wrote: Not mentioned is that just in the past couple days, the Astros won their arbitration hearing when they voided Shawn Chacon's contract after he assaulted general manager Ed Wade. Also, this incident is closer to the Aaron Boone case: his contract was successfully voided after he injured himself while engaging in prohibited activity. Hoyt and Neagle weren't injured. (Although I'm also surprised that a conviction for drug smuggling alone wouldn't qualify as contract terminating conduct).

batmagadanleadoff Aug 18 2010 12:37 PM Re: krod out for the year

With K-Rod, Mets will fight union, precedent August, 18, 2010 Aug 18 1:52 PM ET By Rob Neyer A reader named Anthony asks a really good question: I have a question regarding your recent story on K-Rod and his injury. You wrote that you "don't think closers are worth (almost) $12 million per season," and neither do I. But are you aware that K-Rod has a vesting option for $17.5 million in 2012 if he (1) finishes 55 games in 2011, and (2) finishes a combined 100 games between 2010 and 2011? I am surprised that if you think (almost) $12 million for a closer is offensive, you don't even mention that the Mets might be allocating more than $5 million more than that amount to the closer position in 2012! If the Mets can void his contract, they should. The inclusion of that option was a terrible mistake, and if K-Rod's idiotic behavior provides them with the ability to get out from under that deal, they should jump all over the opportunity. I don't think (almost) $12 million for a closer is offensive, but it's just too much money for the great majority of closers, who don't pitch enough innings or influence the outcomes of enough games to justify that sort of expense. But $17(.5) million is a wholly different thing. I wasn't aware of that vesting option. Frankly, the idea is so ridiculous that I simply didn't bother to check. No relief pitcher has ever earned $17.5 million in one season, and no relief pitcher has ever been worth $17.5 million. I did recall having been somewhat surprised by Rodriguez's contract when he signed it. I didn't recall that 2012 option. I should have, if only because it's a compelling piece of the evidence that the Mets' front office is incompetent. At least when it comes to properly valuing relief pitchers. Or maybe Rodriguez's recent contretemps have inspired a sudden bout of competency. Today, I suspect the Mets would love to get out from under that contract. First they're going to try to avoid paying him for the rest of this season and won't guarantee his contract in 2011; without a guarantee in 2011, they can cut Rodriguez and thus avoid any worries about 2012, too. In response to the Mets’ steps, Michael Weiner, the head of the players union, said Tuesday night that the union would challenge what the Mets are trying to do. “The Mets’ actions are without basis, and the union will grieve them right away,” he said. He said he expected the grievance to go before an arbitrator by this fall. Before then, there will be probably be a face-to-face meeting between the Mets, the union and Rodriguez’s agent. In such a setting, it is conceivable a deal could be worked out under which the Mets would settle for the union’s not contesting Rodriguez’s loss of pay in 2010 and the Mets, in exchange, agreeing to guarantee Rodriguez’s salary for 2011. --snip-- For now, though, the move to make Rodriguez’s contract nonguaranteed will get attention. Gabe Feldman, the head of the sports law department at Tulane University, said he could not recall an instance in which a team had attempted such a step. “The players union is going to do everything they can to uphold the sanctity of contracts,” he said. “They fight hard to make sure they get guaranteed contracts for their players. What the Mets did is something that is buried in major league rules. It’s rare to void contracts and even more rare to convert to nonguaranteed contracts, particularly with a star player." What's buried, specifically, is Section 7 (b) (1) of the Uniform Player Contract, which states a team can void a player's contract if he shall "fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship ..." The only problem is that there's essentially no precedent for actually doing that. And these things are all about precedent. The Rockies know, because they tried it with Denny Neagle after he got hurt and got busted. At the time, the Rockies owed Neagle $19.5 million. Before the case went before an arbitrator, the Rockies agreed to pay Neagle $16 million. The same thing is going to happen to the Mets, should they carry through with this. Ultimately, they'll probably be faced with two lousy alternatives: Paying Rodriguez a lot of money to go away, or paying Rodriguez a lot of money to stay. Again: Really, really nice work here, guys. Kudos to everyone involved. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/ ... -precedent

smg58 Aug 18 2010 01:12 PM Re: krod out for the year

It would seem that some sort of objective definition of what a player needs to do to "fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship" ought to be established.

Gwreck Aug 18 2010 01:47 PM Re: krod out for the year

A poor choice of title by Neyer's editor, as the Neagle case he discusses isn't necessarily precedent for this matter. A player-inflicted season-ending injury while committing criminal action hasn't happened before.

Frayed Knot Aug 18 2010 01:51 PM Re: krod out for the year

smg58 wrote: It would seem that some sort of objective definition of what a player needs to do to "fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship" ought to be established. That, presumably, is what arbiters are there to determine. And, for the most part, they've determined that there aren't any standards that meet the definition.

themetfairy Aug 18 2010 01:54 PM Re: krod out for the year

There's also the issue of estoppel. The Mets knew of K-Rod's behavior on Thursday, but let him pitch on Saturday. They only voided the contract after learning about the injury. Thus, because they didn't seem to have a problem with the behavior per se, they're could theoretically be barred from now asserting an objection to it.

Edgy DC Aug 18 2010 02:11 PM Re: krod out for the year

metirish wrote: I don't think it means anything to future free agents , I guess we might not see any resolution until next year. As a fan I certainly have more respect for my team when they take this measure, which of course meana feck all in the big picture. I think it means a feck of a lot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 18 2010 02:29 PM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: metirish wrote: I don't think it means anything to future free agents , I guess we might not see any resolution until next year. As a fan I certainly have more respect for my team when they take this measure, which of course meana feck all in the big picture. I think it means a feck of a lot. Maybe not to the players. But to agents? Oh, feck yes.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 18 2010 02:37 PM Re: krod out for the year

themetfairy wrote: There's also the issue of estoppel. The Mets knew of K-Rod's behavior on Thursday, but let him pitch on Saturday. They only voided the contract after learning about the injury. Thus, because they didn't seem to have a problem with the behavior per se, they're could theoretically be barred from now asserting an objection to it. Well... they're on record as wanting to give him a longer suspension. But after the two-day suspension was up, he was once again an active player. Estoppel? That's a new word for me. I'll have to look that up.

themetfairy Aug 18 2010 02:52 PM Re: krod out for the year

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Estoppel? That's a new word for me. I'll have to look that up. The Wikipedia entry on Estoppel

batmagadanleadoff Aug 18 2010 09:02 PM Re: krod out for the year

Informative article explaining a team's right to convert a guaranteed contract to a non-guaranteed one: Few Precedents for Mets’ Attempt to Rework Rodriguez’s Contract By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT Published: August 18, 2010 When the Mets announced Tuesday that they would no longer guarantee the remainder of Francisco Rodriguez’s contract, they were taking a step that was virtually unprecedented in Major League Baseball. Related The idea of converting a contract emerged in the late 1980s, with the arrest of the former Cy Young winner LaMarr Hoyt. In 1987, Hoyt was found with 500 pills of Valium and various painkillers in his pants while he tried to cross into the United States from Mexico. The San Diego Padres tried to void his contract, which was guaranteed under baseball’s collective bargaining agreement, but were rebuffed by an arbitrator. As a result of Hoyt’s case, major league teams took steps that they believed would give them more flexibility, adding clauses to contracts that said they could make a player’s contract no longer guaranteed. The clauses stated that the contracts could be converted if the player committed infractions such as violating the law, failing to be in playing condition or refusing to play. Today, about 90 percent of players from stars to rookies have such language in their contracts, although teams have rarely used the provisions and no team is known to have successfully done so. The Mets tried to this week by punishing Rodriguez, their star closer, who will miss the rest of the season because of a hand injury he sustained in an altercation with the father of his common-law wife. Baseball officials said on Wednesday that they believed it was the first time a team had tried to convert a contract since 2005, when the Baltimore Orioles did so to pitcher Sidney Ponson after he was arrested for driving drunk. The officials said they could not recall another time that a team had converted a contract. In response to the Mets’ decision to convert the contract, the players union on Wednesday filed a grievance with the commissioner’s office. The Mets, who also said that they would not pay Rodriguez for the remainder of the time he is injured, said they stood by their decision to convert the contract and dock Rodriguez’s pay. In the case of Ponson, he and the Orioles avoided an arbitration case and reached a settlement in which Ponson received much of the salary he was owed under his contract. With Rodriguez and the Mets, the sides could reach an agreement like Ponson’s or take the more risky path of having the case heard before Shyam Das, baseball’s arbitrator, who is not believed to have ever ruled on this issue. “If they fight it, this would become a significant case because it would test how much power teams have to convert contracts,” said Gabe Feldman, the head of the sports law department at Tulane University. “If the owners win, going forward teams will be able to convert contracts if players get into off-the-field trouble.” That would put baseball more in line with the N.F.L., where players are routinely released in the middle of their contracts. “This would give baseball owners a power that they never had before,” said Feldman, who said he believed it was unlikely that the case would eventually go before an arbitrator. He added: “If the owners lose this, though, it will basically say that all these provisions in contracts mean nothing. If there is one thing that the players union has stood for, it’s having guaranteed contracts for their players, so you can expect them to fight this strongly.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/sport ... tract.html

batmagadanleadoff Aug 18 2010 09:15 PM Re: krod out for the year

When the Times wrote that there is no precedent to successfully convert a guaranteed contract to a non-guaranteed one, they should have also written that there is no precedent denying a team the right to convert, either. In other words, this clause has never been ruled upon. I haven't read the exact convert clause that is presumably in K-Rod's contract so I'm just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that parties ought to be held to what they bargain for. If that clause is in K-Rod's contract, then it should be assumed that he agreed to it .. whatever "it" is. Of course, not knowing what "it" is, is a big glitch in trying to follow this case.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2010 09:41 AM Re: krod out for the year

Does anybody really believe that the possility of Rodriguez pitching for the Mets next year is any greater than unlikely? I mean, I realize that, for the sake of their claim, the Mets have to speak about 2011 as an open question, and to some exent I guess it is, but it seems to me that in playing the card they played, they clearly are telling him (and us) they want nothing to do with him, and they'll do some money-eating if necessary. Editor's note: the below paragrahs in blue have been demonstrated to be horseshit, and are only kept for posterity's sake. I don't think we've mentioned it much (or, possibly, at all ), but that 2012 option for $17.5 million comes with a $3.5 million buyout, so they're on the hook for either $10.5 million on $14 million, not $28 million (unless they so choose). So, if the contract isn't voided, he is still dealable, at that special cut rate that felonious batterers get dealt at.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2010 10:28 AM Re: krod out for the year

I can't imagine that they'll have him on the Mets in 2011. As Edgy said, if they win this case, they'll cut him loose, and if they don't, they'll deal him (probably with cash) to some other team. There's sure to be a market for him once he proves himself healthy again. Those 60-something saves a few years ago will still be appealing to more than a few teams.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2010 10:53 PM Re: krod out for the year Edited 7 time(s), most recently on Aug 20 2010 12:02 AM

The LA Times reports on the decision in the Lamar Hoyt MLBPA grievance arbitration. It appears that the decision is not as broadly anti-management as the press claims; instead, the arbitrator's refusal to rule that Hoyt's drug conviction constituted a breach of the morals clause in his contract might be limited to the facts of the Hoyt case, with little applicability to the K-Rod case. Although the arbitrator ultimately ruled in favor of pitcher Hoyt and against the Padres, the arbitrator determined that the Padres were to blame for the pitcher's conduct; that the team neglected Hoyt's medical condition - an addiction to Valium -, and to the extent that the Padres did anything, incorrectly treated him as a cocaine abuser even though the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Hoyt suffered from a Valium addiction brought about by stress and a pitching related injury; that the pitcher obtained large amounts of Valium in order to self-medicate himself, implicitly because the Padres would not provide him with the proper medical treatment; that Hoyt never intended to distribute and sell the drugs, and that Valium is a legal drug when obtained with a prescription. The arbitrator sympathized with Hoyt who was entitled to, but did not receive, adequate medical help from his employer, the Padres, for a sleep disorder and Valium dependency all brought about from a pitching, (i.e., work-related) injury. Ueberroth, Padres Come Under Fire Arbitrator's Report Cites Mishandling of Hoyt Drug Case July 01, 1987|BILL PLASCHKE, Times Staff Writer SAN DIEGO — Arbitrator George Nicolau's recent decision to rescind the San Diego Padres' release of former Cy Young Award-winning pitcher LaMarr Hoyt--meanwhile reducing his one-year baseball suspension to 60 days--was based upon charges that, in Hoyt's case, the drug programs administered by the Padres and Commissioner Peter Ueberroth were misguided, inconsistent, and unfair. The 46-page confidential report, dated June 16 and obtained by The Times, painted a portrait not of a street drug user, but of a former star with a failing right arm and failing marriage whose biggest problem was the stress that kept him from sleeping. Nicolau, chairman of a New York arbitration panel, ruled that the 32-year-old Hoyt, whose troubles with tranquilizers culminated in a 38-day prison sentence last winter, was wrongly disciplined by the Padres as a substance abuser when, in fact, he was a medication misuser. The report said the Padres wrongly placed Hoyt under the league's toughest drug-offender policy--two strikes and you're out--when Hoyt's circumstances should have dictated otherwise. It claimed San Diego, which attempted to terminate Hoyt's three-year, $3.2-million contract two days after he entered jail Jan. 5, was "impervious to its share of the blame for the culminating events of Oct. 28," when Hoyt was arrested attempting to cross the border from Mexico to the United States with nearly 500 pills concealed in his trousers. More than 300 were Valium, the rest were muscle relaxants. "San Diego did not carefully weight all the facts as just cause requires," the report stated. "It simply decided, irrespective of the circumstances, that its unwritten policy, as interpreted by (Ex-Padre President Ballard) Smith, would prevail." The report cited several major Padre indiscretions, beginning seven months before Hoyt's arrest, in March of 1986, when they sent Hoyt to Hazelden, a Minnesota drug treatment center heavily funded by Padre owner Joan Kroc. Hazelden specializes in those who have problems with illegal drugs; Hoyt's only previous substance problems were with Valium, a legal drug when obtained by prescription for medical use. According to testimony, in a pre-spring training physical examination during that time, Hoyt had even admitted he was taking Valium and wanted to speak to a doctor about it. The Padres did not respond. After Hoyt spent the full 28 days at the Minnesota facility, San Diego psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Rodgers, who is cited throughout Nicolau's report, concluded Hazelden was the "wrong place" for him, and that the ensuing Hazelden report was "gross," "uniformed" and an "injustice." The Nicolau report also admonished snap judgments by Smith, who conceded in his testimony that it was an after-dinner discussion with a doctor friend that led him to believe Hoyt was on cocaine, and that he had no idea the problem involved a sleeping disorder. The report concluded: "There is not a sliver of evidence . . . that Hoyt used cocaine at any time during his major league career. Nor is there any evidence that he sold, distributed or facilitated the distribution of drugs of any kind." Nicolau also was critical of Ueberroth, charging that the commissioner did not follow precedent set by decisions involving the Kansas City problems of 1983 and the Pittsburgh drug trials of 1985. "An examination of their facts and holdings," wrote Nicolau of the two earlier cases, "fully demonstrated the unparalleled and unjustifiable severity of Hoyt's discipline." Nicolau admonished Ueberroth for not giving Hoyt an alternative to suspension or meeting with him face-to-face to discuss the matter, both options that were available to the players in the Pittsburgh trials. He also charged that Ueberroth did not recognize the precedent set by Bowie Kuhn, who agreed to review the year-long suspensions of Kansas City's Willie Wilson, Willie Aikens and Jerry Martin in 1983, eventually reinstating all three players. "Significant disparity of treatment also creates uncertainity in the administration . . . at a time when the need is for an integrated, consistent and rational system," Nicolau warned. Ueberroth would not comment on the report, saying through news director Rich Levin: "The commissioner's office does not make it a practice to comment on the decisions of arbitrators." There was also no comment from the Padre front office. Hoyt has refused comment since leaving jail. Nicolau's ruling was in response to two Players' Assn. grievances filed after the Padres waived Hoyt and after Ueberroth handed down his suspension. The ruling and accompanying report, based on 463 pages of testimony and released to club presidents by the owners' Player Relations Committee, not only made Hoyt $2.95 million richer (his contract minus the 60-day suspension) but has influenced three teams to seek his services. Hoyt's agent, Ron Shapiro, met with the Atlanta Braves on Monday, will meet with the Baltimore Orioles either today or Thursday, and will finish the week with a meeting with the Toronto Blue Jays. By the start of next week, although at a minor league level, Hoyt could be back in baseball. For a prorated amount of baseball's minimum $62,500 contract--a team will owe him just $31,250 if he signs at the All-Star Break, for example--teams are willing to take a chance on Hoyt. "We aren't fearful of helping people, as long as they know they must first help themselves," Baltimore General Manager Hank Peters said. "And there's no question but that the guy can pitch." "The guy is dominating," said Toronto General Manager Pat Gillick. "And do you know him?" According to Nicolau's report, neither the Padres nor major league baseball knew him and, worse yet, did not take the time to find out. With the Chicago White Sox in 1983, Hoyt won the Cy Young Award by going 24-10 with a 3.66 earned-run average. The next season, both his weight and ERA ballooned (260 pounds, 4.47) and in the winter of 1984 he was traded to the Padres. Despite a late-season diagnosis of rotator cuff tendinitis, he performed well in 1985, going 16-8 with a 3.47 ERA. By then, however, the problems already had started. According to Nicolau's report, psychiatrist Rodgers determined that the 30-year-old pitcher became "obsessed" with his sore arm. On Feb. 5, 1986, with Hoyt's sore arm persisting, the pitcher visited Dr. Samuel Shannon in Hoyt's hometown of Columbia, S.C. He had not seen Shannon in eight years, but confided in him about an impending divorce and "excess stress" and requested medication. Shannon warned him of the difficulties associated with the drug, then prescribed 24 Valium (no refills) and 24 other sleeping pills. Upon his return to San Diego, according to the report, Hoyt shared the pills with his wife, Sylvia, who also was under stress. The pills lasted five days. On Feb. 10, when prescriptions ran out, instead of going to a local physician, Hoyt drove the 17 miles to Tijuana, Mexico, to obtain more. When he tried to come home, Hoyt was detained at the San Ysidro border crossing by customs agents for possession of marijuana and Valium tablets and Quaaludes. The pills were disposed of without analysis, Hoyt paid a $600 fine and was released. But a U.S. Customs official called the Padres. A few days later, Smith, telling his staff to keep it quiet, met with Hoyt. According to Smith's testimony, he reiterated the club's policy of extending assistance to employees on an initial drug involvement, but ending employment upon a second involvement. He told Hoyt he had used his first and last chance. Eight days later, Hoyt was in trouble again. Shortly after midnight, he was stopped on a San Diego street by police after driving through a red light. Hoyt was arrested for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana and a switch-blade knife. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of public nuisance, was placed on three years' probation, and paid $375 in fines. But a U.S. Customs official called the Padres. A few days later, Smith, telling his staff to keep it quiet, met with Hoyt. According to Smith's testimony, he reiterated the club's policy of extending assistance to employees on an initial drug involvement, but ending employment upon a second involvement. He told Hoyt he had used his first and last chance. Eight days later, Hoyt was in trouble again. Shortly after midnight, he was stopped on a San Diego street by police after driving through a red light. Hoyt was arrested for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana and a switch-blade knife. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of public nuisance, was placed on three years' probation, and paid $375 in fines. It was after this that he was sent to Hazelden. He stayed there a month, returning to spring training on March 27. According to Nicolau's report, "There was no after-care program. By all accounts, Hoyt was left on his own." Then in a poor season, he went 8-11 with a 5.15 ERA. On Oct. 28, trying to walk back across the border from Mexico with 500 pills stuffed in his pants and socks. He was formally charged with possession of Valium tablets and propoxyphene, a painkiller. Through a plea-bargain, the charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors. Before sentencing, U.S. Magistrate Roger Curtis McKee examined a report completed by Rodgers, the psychiatrist. The report explained Hoyt's "intractable" insomnia due to recent stresses, and the compounding of the problems through the "aggressive, isolative and sometimes abusive treatment program" at Hazelden. Rodgers report determined that on Oct. 28 Hoyt was smuggling pills to "medically treat himself." The report contributed to a sentencing of 45 days, 15 days less than the minimum 60 days as foreseen in the plea-bargain. Yet Smith testified that he never shared the report, and obtained the opinion that Hoyt's problem was with cocaine after speaking with a doctor friend at a dinner. According to Nicolau: "Smith asked what conclusions could be drawn about a person who talked about a sleep disorder and had large quantities of Valium. His friend, who had treated players for cocaine abuse, told him, 'It was very common for people that were using cocaine to use large quantities of Valium in an effort to come down.' Hearing that, Smith decided there was no basis for distinguishing Hoyt's case." Smith was so convinced, according to testimony, that he did not read the court transcript in which Judge McKee reduced Hoyt's sentence because of the other factors. He had already made up his mind and, two days after the start of Hoyt's jail term, one week before the Padres would have to start paying LaMarr Hoyt for the 1987 season, they released him. http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-01/ ... amarr-hoyt Dallas Green [crossout]weighs[/crossout] weighed in on the Hoyt Arbitration decision: Excerpt: `I used to have enough faith in ballplayers that they had the right character . . . I just don`t know anymore,`` said Green. ``Every time we go to court, we get beat. In tough situations, it always looks like the player comes out scot-free. ``What LaMarr Hoyt did was illegal. I don`t care what any damn do-good doctor said. To try now to blame it on the Padres . . . here`s a guy who`s going to walk away with close to 3 million bucks. And I`ll guarantee you that if he pitches good, he`s going to ask for $3 million more from somebody. ``This business continues to be nuts. All these things go through my mind, and I don`t have the answers. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987 ... drug-abuse

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2010 11:04 PM Re: krod out for the year

dupe. see above post.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2010 05:50 AM Re: krod out for the year

Am I understanding correctly that the ruling was based on the assertion that the Padres were using an incident that was more sad than bad as an excuse to get out of a contract that they really wanted out of because Hoyt (FREAKING HOYT!) was pitching poorly? If so, I guess it can help the Mets that Rodriguez wasn't pitching particularly poorly. They want out of the deal because he's been behaving like a blazing hot asshole.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 20 2010 10:44 AM Re: krod out for the year

I think that the arbitrator blamed the Padres for creating the conditions that caused Hoyt to break the law. Nicolau reasoned that if Hoyt received the proper medical attention and treatment that he ought to have received from his employer, he wouldn't have needed to smuggle the large quantities of Valium -- which he did to self-medicate himself rather than to distribute and sell. According to the decision, the Padres failed in their duties and responsibilities to Hoyt, and the team's failure caused Hoyt to resort to criminal conduct. Once the arbitrator decided that Hoyt's criminal conviction was largely caused by the Padres' indifference to Hoyt's medical condition, he could not then let the Padres use the conviction to get out from the contract.

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2010 11:16 AM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: If so, I guess it can help the Mets that Rodriguez wasn't pitching particularly poorly. They want out of the deal because he's been behaving like a blazing hot asshole. And some will ask if they would still want him out on blazing hot assaholic principles if he didn't have a huge salary and an even huger option year left.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2010 11:20 AM Re: krod out for the year

Oh, certainly. But I'd stick to that line if I were them, bringing in charts and photos to assist their argument.

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2010 11:25 AM Re: krod out for the year

If any NYM employee mentions even the existence of KRod's option clause in public he should be fired instantly -so, yeah, they should stick strictly to the 'we did this while he was pitching well therefore it's all about the crime' strategy. But the union is going to cling to the 'sanctity of the contract' story and I don't seem as confident as a lot of y'all that this is going to turn out in the club's favor - especially considering the clubs' batting average in legal matters.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 20 2010 11:32 AM Re: krod out for the year

Frayed Knot wrote: But the union is going to cling to the 'sanctity of the contract' story .... The sanctity of the contract should mean that every single clause counts. The union can't pick and choose as to which clauses should be enforced and which ones shouldn't. It'd be real sweet if some insider could leak the relevant provisions of K-Rod's contract. Because we are so in the dark here.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2010 11:33 AM Re: krod out for the year

I'm not confident either, and I think they'll spend a lot of money before this is over. But I'm happy they have the moxie to pursue this anyhow.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 20 2010 12:02 PM Re: krod out for the year

Here is a link to the current MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf A player contract consists of the standardized clauses (uniform contract -- attached as an exhibit to the CBA, Schedule A, page 210), as well as additional clauses ("special covenants") mutually agreed upon by the player and his team. The special covenants cannot be inconsistent with whatever rights are guaranteed in the CBA. A contract with special covenants must be approved by the Commissioner's office within 20 days after receipt for approval. If the union is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's approval of special covenants, it may file a grievance within 10 days of the Commissioner's approval. (Article IV, CBA). So, presumably, whatever is in K-Rod's contract has been approved and deemed consistent with the CBA. In any event, it would appear that the union has waived the defense of inconsistency with the CBA. So K-Rod's arbitrator can simply get on with determining whether or not K-Rod breached whatever clause triggers the Mets right to non-guarantee his contract

Frayed Knot Aug 21 2010 07:37 AM Re: krod out for the year

Jack Furlong - sports legal guy - on Richard Neer's radio program this morning: [as close to word for word as I can remember] -- "Nothing I've heard leads me to think that there's any chance the Mets can negate the contract" ... "If this is not Francisco Rodriguez this is a summons in front of the lowest-level judge and 6 months probation" ... "this is the equivalent of a bar room fight without serious injury" He thinks they'll get away without paying him for the remainder of this season based on the injury but nothing more on contract violation.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 21 2010 12:28 PM Re: krod out for the year

Frayed Knot wrote: Jack Furlong - sports legal guy - on Richard Neer's radio program this morning: [as close to word for word as I can remember] -- "Nothing I've heard leads me to think that there's any chance the Mets can negate the contract" ... "If this is not Francisco Rodriguez this is a summons in front of the lowest-level judge and 6 months probation" ... "this is the equivalent of a bar room fight without serious injury" He thinks they'll get away without paying him for the remainder of this season based on the injury but nothing more on contract violation. I don't know how anyone can opine as to whether K-Rod breached his contract, or what the penalty ought to be if it is ultimately determined that K-Rod did breach his contract, without knowing what's in his contract. Not only does Furlong not claim to have read K-Rod's contract, but he doesn't even know what the facts are, or how serious K-Rod's injury is. Furlong doesn't know when K-Rod will heal, or whether K-Rod will ever heal, or if he'll heal in part only, but with some permanent diminishment. I think that Furlong's comments are foolish, even if K-Rod's case is ultimately resolved exactly like Furlong predicts.

Frayed Knot Aug 21 2010 01:10 PM Re: krod out for the year

Well, I think he's making a safe assumption that a thumb ligament injury isn't going to be career ending. As far as the contract, he's opining on the seriousness (or not) of the assault and the fact that misdemeanors don't usually scuttle contracts.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 21 2010 01:13 PM Re: krod out for the year

Frayed Knot wrote: Well, I think he's making a safe assumption that a thumb ligament injury isn't going to be career ending. As far as the contract, he's opining on the seriousness (or not) of the assault and the fact that misdemeanors don't usually scuttle contracts. Why do you and Furlong assume that K-Rod's injury has to be career ending for the Mets to terminate the contract? Eating green M & M's could scuttle a contract if the parties contracted so.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 21 2010 10:25 PM Re: krod out for the year

According to this sports law blog the Mets converted K-Rod’s guaranteed contract to a non-guaranteed one “because of conduct in violation of the Uniform Player’s Contract”. (“UPC”) If this information is accurate, then we now know that the Mets will claim that K-Rod breached either section 7(b)(1) or section 7(b)(3) of the UPC. The two sections, which JCL cited in his earlier post about the Ponson case, read as follows: 7.(b) The Club may terminate this contract upon written notice to the Player (but only after requesting and obtaining waivers of this contract from all other Major League Clubs) if the Player shall at any time: (1) fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the Club's training rules; or (3) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this contract. According to these two provisions, the Mets can terminate K-Rod’s contract under either of two conditions: 1) that his conduct did not conform to good citizenship; or 2) that he failed to keep himself in first class physical condition. The Mets need not prove an injury in order to succeed on grounds of bad citizenship/sportsmanship. I still haven’t formed an opinion as to how this grievance will be resolved, but I’m disappointed with the reporting of the story. The press continues to report that based largely on the Lamarr Hoyt and Denny Neagle cases, the Mets chances of succeeding are remote to impossible. I don't necessarily disagree with that opinion, but I haven’t read anything persuasive from the press in support of its' virtually unanimous opinion. For example, the press cites the Hoyt arbitration as a powerful precedent in favor of K-Rod and against the Mets. Had the arbitrator in the Hoyt case ruled that a conviction for drug smuggling does not constitute bad behavior or bad citizenship, I might be convinced that the bad conduct prong of the Mets case against K-Rod is weak. It follows logically that if a drug smuggling conviction is not bad citizenship, then neither would punching out your girlfriend’s father. But the Hoyt arbitrator rendered his final decision without ever reaching that issue. The Hoyt arbitrator ruled that however one may characterize Hoyt’s conduct, it would be unfair for the Padres to benefit and to use Hoyt’s conduct as grounds to terminate his contract because the Padres themselves were to blame for causing Hoyt’s conduct in the first place. Thus, the media’s idea that baseball’s arbitrators have set a very high bar for what constitutes bad behavior has no support … or at least no support in the Hoyt decision. Likewise, the Neagle decision neither helps nor hurts the Mets or K-Rod because, technically, there is no such thing as a Neagle decision. The parties settled before the arbitrator ruled. Therefore, there is no Neagle decision, no Neagle ruling, and no Neagle precedent that the union might point to in order to claim an advantage in K-Rod’s case. As far as legal precedents are concerned, it’s as if the Neagle case never existed. Settlements are not precedents and are never binding on subsequent and different parties to a separate case involving similar issues. You don’t have to give your neighbor $100,000.00 for accidentally breaking his arm just because two years earlier, your uncle paid $100,000.00 to settle his own broken arm case. Settlements are not precedents, and are not even admissible evidence. Notably, on the day that the Rockies settled with Neagle, the pitcher was merely charged with committing a crime, but not convicted. With respect to the injury prong of the Mets’ case against K-Rod, the Hoyt decision and Neagle case have little, if any, relevance. The Padres and Rockies were attempting to terminate their respective player contracts solely on the alleged bad behavior of their pitchers, and never claimed that their pitchers injured themselves while engaging in unauthorized conduct. And as mentioned, the Neagle case was settled. If anything, it would seem that history is on the Mets side, rather than on the side of K-Rod. Last week, a panel of arbitrators denied the Union's grievance on behalf of Shawn Chacon: his contract was successfully terminated by the Astros after Chacon punched out the Astro GM. While the Chacon case does not perfectly match the K-Rod case, it is the most factually similar arbitration to K-Rod's Case. Also, arbitrator Shyam Das, who headed the Chacon arbitration panel, was recently assigned to the K-Rod case. Finally, the sports law blog writes that the Mets actions against K-Rod are based on provisions of the UPC. However, the relevant provisions of the UPC (Section 7) address the team's right to terminate the contract. But in the K-Rod case, the Mets have not terminated the contract; instead the team has converted it to a non-guaranteed contract, presumably pursuant to a special covenant that is not a part of the UPC. If the blog's information is correct, then one possibility is that the convert clause penalty is triggered by the player's breach of section 7 of the UPC. Insofar as the New York Times reported that teams developed the “convert clause” in response to the decision in the Hoyt case, the Hoyt decision has no bearing on how that “convert clause” might be interpreted: if the “convert clause” did not exist at the time of the Hoyt decision, then arbitrator Nicolau could not have ruled on that specific clause.

Frayed Knot Aug 22 2010 05:57 AM Re: krod out for the year

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why do you and Furlong assume that K-Rod's injury has to be career ending for the Mets to terminate the contract? Eating green M & M's could scuttle a contract if the parties contracted so. Except that a union that protects its players to the extent that the MLBPA does isn't going to sign off on a green M & M's clause or, by the opinion of just about everyone I've heard on this subject, one where a heat of the moment misdemeanor is grounds for termination. It's not that I don't admire your optimism on this subject, I just don't share it.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 22 2010 11:36 AM Re: krod out for the year

"You can't talk to my mami that way!" Screaming match between K-Rod's mom and K-Rod's girlfriend's father in law triggers the beatdown: Excerpt: The one-sided fight began when Carlos Peña challenged Rodriguez's manhood and insulted his mother after the crazed closer began shouting about the latest Mets loss, police sources told the Daily News. "Stop acting like a baby," one source quoted Peña as telling the volatile Rodriguez inside a Citi Field lounge designated for players' families. "Man up, and play better." K-Rod's mother told Peña to keep his mouth shut, prompting a screaming match in Spanish between the pair, the source said. "You can't talk to my mami that way!" Rodriguez shouted before landing the first of many punches in the Wednesday night mismatch. The 6-feet, 195-pound hard-throwing righty pinned the defenseless Peña against a wall outside the Mets' clubhouse while raining blows on his head and face, prosecutors said. Stadium security, after hearing the 53-year-old's howls, yanked the four-time All-Star away, officials said. The beating occurred in full view of Peña's common-law wife, along with the children and girlfriends of other players. K-Rod left the ballpark in his white Lamborghini, returning 15 minutes later - only after a Mets employee reached him by cell phone. "He slapped his father-in-law around and then bolted," a police source said. "People were shouting after him, 'Hey, you can't leave,' but he got in his car and left...Dumb on and off the field, I guess."

Edgy DC Aug 24 2010 06:32 PM Re: krod out for the year

Nothing new there. It would be more useful if they could get a translation of the exchange between the not-in-laws from somebody in the vicinity.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 14 2010 08:57 AM Re: krod out for the year

Associated Press wrote: NEW YORK - Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez faces more charges in his New York City assault case. Authorities said in court Tuesday that Rodriguez violated an order of protection by sending his girlfriend 56 text messages apologizing and urging a resolution. They said he'll now be charged with criminal contempt. Rodriguez is accused of attacking his girlfriend's father outside a family lounge at Citi Field.

Nymr83 Sep 14 2010 08:59 AM Re: krod out for the year

please let the Mets get out of this contract.

Ceetar Sep 14 2010 09:01 AM Re: krod out for the year

Nymr83 wrote: please let the Mets get out of this contract. How about renegotiate it and pay him peanuts?

Edgy DC Sep 14 2010 09:48 AM Re: krod out for the year

How would that happen?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 14 2010 09:50 AM Re: krod out for the year

Maybe if his agent was an elephant.

Ceetar Sep 14 2010 09:58 AM Re: krod out for the year

Such a bastard, that K-Rod. wanting to apologize and see his kids on their birthday. Lock him up and throw away the key.

Edgy DC Sep 14 2010 10:09 AM Re: krod out for the year

You really shouldn't have a lot of sympathy there.

Ceetar Sep 14 2010 10:13 AM Re: krod out for the year

Edgy DC wrote: You really shouldn't have a lot of sympathy there. I don't have any sympathy for him, but he's better off without that gold-digging family in his life.

Edgy DC Sep 14 2010 10:30 AM Re: krod out for the year

Sheesh. Sure sounds like sympathy to me.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 14 2010 11:05 AM Re: krod out for the year

As a new dad, I empathize. It sucks. It really, really sucks to be in the situation he's in, on his children's birthdays-- hell, it sucks to be going through what must be a fairly stressful situation, with loads of open time on his hands, and not be able to see his children, watch them make faces, smell their hair and sweat and farts... it's terrible. But: A) He put himself in this situation. (Both the general situation-- "marrying" into this particular "gold-digging" family-- and the specific, legally perilous one.) B) He had a judge and (presumably) legal representation explain to him the situation he was in, and the consequences of violating any stipulation of his release. (Including, most likely, the impact of any such violation on his ability to spend time with his family going forward.) C) He chose anyway to pretty clearly violate said stipulation. Repeatedly. Like, dozens-of-times repeatedly. Like I said, his situation sucks. And it's entirely-- ENTIRELY-- of his own making.

Edgy DC Sep 14 2010 11:16 AM Re: krod out for the year

Seems to me any requests for exceptions to the ruling can be easily forwarded through lawyers, rather than 59 text messages. Estranged spouses have a long history of using children for emotional leverage to break down a partner with a restaining order.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 14 2010 11:19 AM Re: krod out for the year

It's almost as if he's got an impulse-control problem or something.

metirish Sep 14 2010 11:24 AM Re: krod out for the year

it's all rather sad though , Ollie had/has great stuff. I remember Barry Bonds being interviewed years ago when he was in his prime saying that Ollie was the toughest leftie for him to face, his stuff was that good.

Ceetar Sep 14 2010 11:31 AM Re: krod out for the year

metirish wrote: it's all rather sad though , Ollie had/has great stuff. I remember Barry Bonds being interviewed years ago when he was in his prime saying that Ollie was the toughest leftie for him to face, his stuff was that good. Some of the Mets said it was really hard to face the Cardinal's infielders too. They were so wild and clueless that you never really knew what/where the ball was going to do/go. i think the same thing applies here. Wait, who'd Ollie beat up/text?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 14 2010 11:42 AM Re: krod out for the year

Thread derailment! RUN!

Ceetar Sep 14 2010 11:45 AM Re: krod out for the year

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Thread derailment! RUN! heh. at least Ollie has relevance to the Mets. K-Rod's court case should not.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 14 2010 11:52 AM Re: krod out for the year

And bad things shouldn't happen to good people, and no child should ever go to bed hungry. But they do, they do, and this case is pretty relevant-- if not near-crucial-- to the Mets' offseason plans.

themetfairy Sep 14 2010 12:13 PM Re: krod out for the year

It actually is relevant. There was a strong argument that the Mets' challenging of the contract based on the assault could be estopped by the fact that they put him into a game after the arrest. But if he is continuing to break the law (I say this in the very technical sense; I'm actually empathetic to the fact that he would want to have contact with his children), that strengthens the Mets' case.

Ashie62 Sep 14 2010 03:46 PM Re: krod out for the year

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Thread derailment! RUN! heh. at least Ollie has relevance to the Mets. K-Rod's court case should not. bullshit

Kong76 Sep 14 2010 08:27 PM Re: krod out for the year

Wow, restraining orders include texting?!? I may be on the news next.