1/30/2013 10:15 AM
They seriously considered it with Giambi.

At any rate, they'd obviously love to be done with A-Roid.   However, if they can't be, the last thing they want is to further alienate him.    He's not a fan favorite. He can't be traded.  I have no idea if he's well-received in the clubhouse but I doubt it.   When you're a great player, your "quirks" are accepted.  When you're not, you're just an *******.

I expect the Yanks to make an announcement that they stand behind him any day now.
1/30/2013 10:19 AM
Posted by Jtpsops on 1/29/2013 7:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Gambling is much more serious offense.
How so? A manager/player who gambles can unfairly influence a game and compromise the integrity of the sport.

A roider can unfairly influence a game and compromise the integrity of the sport.

One unfairly hurts his team - the other unfairly helps his team. Either way, it damages baseball's integrity.
Gambling provides the incentive to lose.
1/30/2013 10:23 AM
That's not even worth arguing.

Everyone would rather have players/coaches trying to win, even if they're going beyond the accepted means, than intentionally lose.

Effort is a positive.
1/30/2013 10:39 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):
They seriously considered it with Giambi.

At any rate, they'd obviously love to be done with A-Roid.   However, if they can't be, the last thing they want is to further alienate him.    He's not a fan favorite. He can't be traded.  I have no idea if he's well-received in the clubhouse but I doubt it.   When you're a great player, your "quirks" are accepted.  When you're not, you're just an *******.

I expect the Yanks to make an announcement that they stand behind him any day now.
I think it's more likely that you'll never see ARod play another game for the Yankees.

He's almost certain to miss this entire season because of the Yankees insurance policy that covers his salary if he doesn't play.  2014 and beyond is a huge question mark.

I think one way or another, the Yankees want nothing more than to move forward without having to deal with finding a spot on their 25 man roster for ARod.  Even if it means a trade that involves eating a good portion of the contract.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8894904/new-york-yankees-attempting-void-alex-rodriguez-contract-according-sources
1/30/2013 10:33 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2013 10:23:00 AM (view original):
That's not even worth arguing.

Everyone would rather have players/coaches trying to win, even if they're going beyond the accepted means, than intentionally lose.

Effort is a positive.
Indeed.  I heard so many people say that PEDs made baseball like WWE.  Nope - but gambling involvement would.
1/30/2013 11:18 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/30/2013 10:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):
They seriously considered it with Giambi.

At any rate, they'd obviously love to be done with A-Roid.   However, if they can't be, the last thing they want is to further alienate him.    He's not a fan favorite. He can't be traded.  I have no idea if he's well-received in the clubhouse but I doubt it.   When you're a great player, your "quirks" are accepted.  When you're not, you're just an *******.

I expect the Yanks to make an announcement that they stand behind him any day now.
I think it's more likely that you'll never see ARod play another game for the Yankees.

He's almost certain to miss this entire season because of the Yankees insurance policy that covers his salary if he doesn't play.  2014 and beyond is a huge question mark.

I think one way or another, the Yankees want nothing more than to move forward without having to deal with finding a spot on their 25 man roster for ARod.  Even if it means a trade that involves eating a good portion of the contract.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8894904/new-york-yankees-attempting-void-alex-rodriguez-contract-according-sources
This part:

According to two baseball sources -- one of whom is familiar with the wording of Rodriguez's contract -- even if it is proved that Rodriguez received PEDs and HGH from Bosch, the Yankees would not be able to impose a punishment greater than the mandatory 50-game suspension stipulated for a first-time offender by baseball's collectively bargained Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.

Section 7, paragraph M of the agreement states, "All authority to discipline Players for violations of the Program shall repose with the Commissioner's Office. No Club may take any disciplinary or adverse action against a Player (including, but not limited to, a fine, suspension, or any adverse action pursuant to a Uniform Player's Contract) because of a Player's violation of the Program."

"Baseball's drug policy was specifically written so that teams can't do things like this," one of the sources said. "You can't use this to try to get out of the last years of a contract."

1/30/2013 11:30 AM
Again, you are confusing discipline/punishment with terminating a contract. 

They are two completely different things.
1/30/2013 11:41 AM
No, they aren't.


or any adverse action pursuant to a Uniform Player's Contract
1/30/2013 12:08 PM
You're confusing an apple with an orange.

The language concerning the JDP program only means that MLB and MLB alone can issue a fine and/or supension to a player for violating the program.  Teams cannot issue their own fines and/or suspensions, or any other disciplinary action.  That's all that says.

The conditions to terminate a player's contract are spelled out in the Uniform Player's Contract.  I don't believe that is trumped by anything in the JDP.

That said, I think the challenge the Yankees would face in attempting to void the contract is that they would have to go above and beyond the current allegations.  They would need a very creative and convincing argument.
1/30/2013 12:19 PM
According to the Joint Drug Agreement, Section 7, paragraph M, teams cannot terminate the contract for reasons related to program violations. It does trump the UPC because both MLB and the MLBPA have agreed that the UPC can't be voided by violation of the JDA until the third positive test.

JDA

Section 7 paragraph M is on page 28.
1/30/2013 12:23 PM
Hence my statement:

"That said, I think the challenge the Yankees would face in attempting to void the contract is that they would have to go above and beyond the current allegations.  They would need a very creative and convincing argument."
1/30/2013 12:27 PM
I think it's cut and dry. What do you think "adverse action pursuant to the UPC" means?
1/30/2013 12:27 PM

You're putting a lot of thought and mental gymnastics into something that's never going to amount to anything.

1/30/2013 12:29 PM
And Section 7, paragraph M does not say anything about voiding (or not voiding) contracts.

Are you seeing that somewhere else in the document?
1/30/2013 12:30 PM

Is voiding a contract not an "adverse action" towards that contract?

of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.