krod out for the year

[nymr83]

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]

Mugshot

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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/news/story?id=5471769

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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 ( (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/_/id/4863/with-k-rod-mets-will-fight-union-precedent

[smg58]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest themetfairy]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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]

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.

[Guest themetfairy]

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

The Wikipedia entry on Estoppel

[batmagadanleadoff]

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/sports/baseball/19contract.html

[batmagadanleadoff]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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/sports/sp-717_1_lamarr-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/1987-07-03/sports/8702180899_1_lamarr-hoyt-drug-problem-drug-abuse

[batmagadanleadoff]

dupe. see above post.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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.