batmagadanleadoff

Edgy DC wrote: As I mentioned in the other thread, that $17.5 million option has a $3.5 million buyout clause. The buyout voids if 2012 vests.

The Mets have the easiest remaining schedule in all of baseball, according to this: Remaining schedule (today through season's end) Best schedule: New York Mets. Sure, they're only 11-19 since the All-Star break. Sure, they're now 8� games out of a playoff spot (the wild card), putting their chances of a postseason appearance at slim to none. And sure, they just lost Francisco Rodriguez for the season, meaning there's a patchwork bullpen back there desperately trying, often failing, to preserve leads. But that doesn't mean owners of Mets starters should be leaping off ledges, especially not with the knowledge that their remaining schedule is strong. The Mets play more home (23) than road (20) games the rest of the way, and face teams that rank in the bottom half of the National League in runs 26 times in 43 contests (or more than 60 percent of the time). Heck, the toughest matchups they have remaining are six against the rival Philadelphia Phillies, a team that has a .657 OPS against the Mets this year, and four against the Milwaukee Brewers, all of them at Citi Field. Johan Santana, R.A. Dickey and Jonathon Niese might yet stave off disaster. http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=60F6I100818

The Dodgers lose! The Dodgers lose! The Mets pick up a game on L.A.

If Misches were wishes, I'd have me some knishes.

What makes some of you suspect the radar gun's accuracy? Parnell's been hitting 101 and 102 all season long, home and road.

If there was any proof, I'd bet on Ryan over Parnell for that record.

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.

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

In Venezuela, K-Rod's nickname is "El Kid".

How many here would charge that run to Jerry's ERA? Honestly.

If Dickey pitches a complete 9th inning, he will qualify for the ERA title (until tomorrow's game).

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

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).

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

Dickey said cogitate.

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/

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

The shame of Manuel's closer by committee bullpen, I assume, is that it exists only because Jerry thinks he lacks another reliever as effective as K-Rod. Jerry's probably dying to eventually anoint someone else as "the closer" and will hope that someone steps up to that role. Consider yourself anointed, Hisanori. Takahashi to be Mets' closer of choice HOUSTON -- Manager Jerry Manuel said Hisanori Takahashi would likely remain the team's closer as long as he continues to succeed in the position. Takahashi worked a perfect ninth for his first save Monday. "For the most part he'll be the guy if he's fresh and the matchups look favorable for him," Manuel said. "He'll be the guy that we'll close the games with." http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100817&content_id=13568380&notebook_id=13568382&vkey=notebook_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym