krod out for the year

[Ceetar]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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?

[Guest attgig]

and players union will challenge.

[metirish]

@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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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/sports/baseball/18contract.html

[batmagadanleadoff]

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((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((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( 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(, 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/writers/michael_mccann/08/17/mets.krod.contract/

[MFS62]

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

[Guest Edgy DC]

Freakin' Hoyt.

[Gwreck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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