batmagadanleadoff

Frenchy failed with two men on base in the first. He also swung on at least four pitches that were about a foot out of the strike zone. This is all a part of Jerry's reverse platoon where the manager tries to get the worst out of his ballplayers.

Tejada's out.

Nobody's gonna blame Jerry for leaving Santana in to give up Pence's 2d HR? (You know who you are.)

The good news is that we cleared Frenchy for the 9th.

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).

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.

I will use my svengali powers to manipulate Jerrry into playing me. I rake righties.

Frenchy against righties. Paying dividends.

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.

Edgy DC wrote: The problem, like Hamlet's, is the law's delay. Until a court rules otherwise, an arbitrator can rule that whether Rodriguez violoated the clause by unjustifiably beating on a man remains an open matter. I don't know about that. What's the burden of proof in an arbitration? It's beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. If the burden of proof is anything less in a civil arbitration, then it's possible for K-Rod to prevail in a criminal trial but not in a civil proceeding. Also, what happens if no witnesses want to testify in a criminal trial? Does that mean that the Mets are without remedy?

I woulda given him his blow yesterday. I'd bet anything that Davey Johnson woulda done the same. What would Davey do?

I hope Jerry has an intelligent explanation for why Frenchy is in and Pagan is out against a righty.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wouldn't the fact that Frankie pitched for them after the in-law brouhaha sorta muddy up the diagnosis/their claims that he's entirely at fault for the injury? K-Rod's representatives will certainly argue that. I re-read the Ponson behavior clause that JCL cited earlier in this thread. If that's a standard MLB clause, and the controlling clause in K-Rod's contract, then it would appear from a plain reading, that the player's behavior is what constitutes a breach, and not whether the behavior resulted in an injury. So I wonder if the injury is even relevant? What about a player that, hypothetically, sexually molests a child? Does the team need to prove that the player injured himself in the act in order to void the contract?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think you're misunderstanding the tenor here. I think what the Mets lack the stomach for isn't the "battle" but the possibility of having to pay a guy they've released. That stomach, I could see. If the Mets do void his contract without justification, their penalty (or damages) would be offset by the value of K-Rod's new contract. And if K-Rod doesn't sign another contract, or signs another contract for less than he would've gotten under the current one, the Mets could use that to prove the permanence of K-Rod's injury and/or the diminishment of his abilities as a result of the "incident".

And another thing: The Wilpons supposedly won't have the stomach for the battle that will surely ensue if they void K-Rod's contract? This is an idiotic thought. The K-Rod battle should be a relative walk in the park for the funeral parlor owner's son who became a billionaire real estate magnate and owner of the Mets.

Boy I'm so sick about reading the union this and the union that as if the union is some omnipotent entity that doesn't have to do anything more than walk into court in order to win K-Rod's case. Of course this matter will be contested heavily if the Mets try to void K-Rod's contract. So what?

I wish we still had K-Rod and that the "incident" never happened. And though I think that spending $10M to get 60 or 70 innings of relief is an inefficient use of resources, if that's what it costs to retain quality relief pitching, then the Mets, as the wealthy team from the great city of New York blah blah blah, should be able to afford this luxury easier than most of their competitors. It's not a bad thing for a team to exploit its socioeconomic standing to a competitive advantage. K-Rod was having a fine season. Ideally, the Mets would still have K-Rod, the "incident" would have never happened, and the save rule wouldn't determine how Mets relievers are used.

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.

I'd like to know how the "behavior" or "morals" clause is written. Does a player simply have to engage in the prohibited activity for his actions to constitute a breach, or does the action have to result in a serious and permanent injury? Or something else?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: According to the ESPN Sportscenter ticker crawl, the Mets will attempt to void the remainder of K-Rod's contract. No further news as of yet. Good for them! I wonder how much of a chance this has. Has it ever been attempted before? I seem to remember something with Jeff Kent a few years ago, but nothing ever came of it. (Was it something to do with a motorcycle? Or basketball? The details escape me.) It was rumored that Kent injured himself while riding a motorcycle. I don't remember if the Giants opted to forgive Kent, or if the team lacked the evidence it would need to succesfully void Kent's contract. A team might decide to look the other way for fear of some future backlash from free agents or players with the right to veto a trade.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The downside to this is that Rodriguez can't be traded or released while he's on the DL. So while the Mets spend what promises to be at least a partially protracted battle trying to effect the voiding of the contract, he'll remain on the roster until Spring Training at least. The Mets could do whatever the hell they wanna do. They're holding the money. Advantage Mets. They could, for example, announce that they're cutting K-Rod effective immediately and withholding the rest of whatever money he's owed, on grounds that he injured himself by engaging in conduct prohibited by his contract (assuming there is such a clause in the contract, as a prerequisite), and that K-Rod is no longer the player the Mets bargained for when they signed him. Then K-Rod'll sue, and the system (whether a court of law or arbitration, depending on the contract) will determine whether the Mets were justified or not. According to the ESPN Sportscenter ticker crawl, the Mets will attempt to void the remainder of K-Rod's contract. No further news as of yet. If so, the Mets will have decided that K-Rod breached the contract when he engaged in a physical altercation with his common law father in law.

Mets sign Harvey: http://www.sbnation.com/2010/8/17/1626975/matt-harvey-mets-baseball-sign-draft