krod out for the year

[Benjamin Grimm]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.

[Guest themetfairy]

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.

[Guest attgig]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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]

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?

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

Igarashi recalled, not Green.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The relevant clauses:

Paragraph 7((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((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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.