krod out for the year

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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]

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]

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((1) or section 7((3) of the UPC.

The two sections, which JCL cited in his earlier post about the Ponson case, read as follows:

7.( 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]

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]

"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 Pe�a 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 Pe�a as telling the volatile Rodriguez inside a Citi Field lounge designated for players' families. "Man up, and play better." K-Rod's mother told Pe�a 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 Pe�a 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 Pe�a'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."

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

please let the Mets get out of this contract.

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: please let the Mets get out of this contract.

How about renegotiate it and pay him peanuts?

[Guest Edgy DC]

How would that happen?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe if his agent was an elephant.

[Ceetar]

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

[Guest Edgy DC]

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

[Ceetar]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Sheesh. Sure sounds like sympathy to me.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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.)

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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

[metirish]

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]

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?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Thread derailment! RUN!

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Thread derailment! RUN!

heh. at least Ollie has relevance to the Mets. K-Rod's court case should not.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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.

[Guest themetfairy]

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]

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

bullshit

[Guest Kong76]

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