Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it -- particularly under these facts.

It's an ####### move pure and simple. Part of my job with my company is to fire people from time to time. It's unpleasant even when the person is a jackass and deserves it. Even in that scenario you treat the person with respect as much as possible. There is no benefit to anyone to mock and ridicule someone on their way out the door.

There is no benefit to anyone to mock and ridicule someone on their way out the door.

You clearly never saw Garret Anderson play in Atlanta.

More than making them look like ########, it makes them look like they don't understand how baseball contracts work or they think they can change how contracts work if they try hard enough. I'd be embarrassed to come off as that dumb.

So, what did Belle have to do those 3 years? Did he have to get a medical opinion each year saying that he was incapable of playing baseball? Or did he have to show up on Day 1 of Spring Training and say "I don't think I can play this year"?

Not sure what Belle's obligations were, but the Orioles had to officially add him to their 40-man roster to collect on the insurance. I was startled by the little agate type Transactions box in the newspaper when Belle's name first popped up, until the bureaucratic nature of the move became clear.

One hopes the Yankees don't snake their way out of paying the man.

I don't mind if they get out of paying him as long as it happens after the 2014 season. If they're able to suddenly get $28 million or whatever the AAV is back from the luxury tax calculation for next season I'll be pissed.

#54 I asked my sister (insurance exec) about the Bagwell situation and her answer was basically, "depends on the specific language of the policy"

But the insurer would want to be satisfied that a player is indeed incapable of playing.

So, what did Belle have to do those 3 years?

I think he spent a lot of time with Chris Truby.

According to numerous baseball sources, the hip surgery Rodriguez is now recovering from will likely derail his playing career . . .

Perhaps, but in the run up to the surgery, the medical folks were saying just about the opposite.

Unless there is considerably more evidence, not mere rumor, than has been reported so far, I doubt the end of A-Rod's career or Yankee tenure is at hand.

I think its amusing that the Red Sox partisans, all of whom didn't have a nice thing to say about Slappy McPurple Lips for 8 seasons, are suddenly vigorously defending the enforceability of his contract.

Depending on the wording of the contract, the Yankees likely have a colorable recission argument that has settlement value. This is presumably positioning for buyout negotiations (that may even be three-way negotiations between the Yanks, A-Rod's people and the insurance company) and is exactly what the Yanks should be doing. They'd be crazy to leave $$ - and, potentially, salary cap $$ - on the table, and I don't think that this process is going to hurt the Yanks' ability to attract FAs in the future; A-Rod, and his penchant for trouble and negative press, is sui generis.

That being said, A-Rod is pretty clearly getting screwed here, but that's his lot in life.

According to numerous baseball sources, the hip surgery Rodriguez is now recovering from will likely derail his playing career, leaving him in such a diminished role that he may consider a settlement or an outright retirement.

"Numerous baseball sources also stated that Hal Steinbrenner has 'a real way with the ladies', and that rumors about the enormous size of his penis are 'entirely correct'."

"According to numerous baseball sources, the hip surgery Rodriguez is now recovering from will likely derail his playing career, leaving him in such a diminished role that he may consider a settlement or an outright retirement."

Leaving aside that "sources" could be one of our earlier AROD threads, note the emptiness of this information.

"will likely derail his career" -- what does this mean? Are these team doctors? Have they reviewed his med charts? What do we mean by "derail"?

Apparently "derail" = "diminished role" or, as cited later, "If he did that, he’d be a part-time player". Well, how part time? He's already been at a state where he's lucky to play 140 games and 120 has been about his average. Do we mean 60 starts at 3B and 60 at DH. For a guy his age, that would be pretty common -- over his last 4 years, Chipper averaged about 120 games a year. From ages 38-40 even Ripken didn't play 300 games.

And then ... his role may be diminished and so he "may" consider a settlement or retirement.

The entire report is complete and utter crap. The sources had nothing to say. That sentence says:

a) he has a long rehab coming -- we know this, Cashman said it the other day, no need for anonymous sources

b) he's unlikely to return to the AROD of old -- no ####, he hasn't been that player for 3-4 years. Was anybody expecting late 30s, rehabbing AROD to hit 45 HR?

c) if the surgery doesn't work particularly well, he may be done -- again, obvious and, again, Cashman has already said he may miss the entire year which is obviously not good for a guy in his late 30s.

So the only purpose of that quote is to keep floating the settle/retire talk that the Yankees want to keep afloat.

The 7th circle of hell is reserved for journalists and it's filled with anonymous sources saying nasty #### about them for eternity (and fire and flaying and lots of other good stuff too, don't worry).

if the surgery doesn't work particularly well, he may be done -- again, obvious and, again, Cashman has already said he may miss the entire year which is obviously not good for a guy in his late 30s.

If this continues to play out like the Dave Winfield saga, A-Rod will miss all of his age-37 season following major surgery, then come back to get almost 2900 more PAs at a 114 OPS+.

Who is the Mike Witt equivalent in that scenario?

Who is the Mike Witt equivalent in that scenario?

Ricky Nolasco.

I think its amusing that the Red Sox partisans, all of whom didn't have a nice thing to say about Slappy McPurple Lips for 8 seasons, are suddenly vigorously defending the enforceability of his contract.

Well, of course. Sox fans didn't want the Yankees to wriggle out from under that contract a week ago, and they don't want that now. It's entirely consistent.

So, what did Belle have to do those 3 years?

Guard his lawn.

Yahoo: Sources: Alex Rodriguez doesn't intend to retire

Though the New York Yankees appear to hope otherwise, Alex Rodriguez intends to recover from his latest hip surgery, resume his career and play out the remaining five years of his contract, sources said Thursday.

I think its amusing that the Red Sox partisans, all of whom didn't have a nice thing to say about Slappy McPurple Lips for 8 seasons, are suddenly vigorously defending the enforceability of his contract.

What's amusing about this exactly? We don't like A-Rod, but mainly because we don't like the Yankees, and now we want to see the Yankees stuck with his albatross of a contract. Pretty straightforward.

Edit: Coke to MCoA

What's amusing about this exactly? We don't like A-Rod, but mainly because we don't like the Yankees, and now we want to see the Yankees stuck with his albatross of a contract. Pretty straightforward.

That one's view of the enforceability (or lack thereof) of a contract is colored by the laundry. If folks were posting things like, "Man, I HOPE the Yankees are stuck with this miserable ####," then your point would be well-taken.

You clearly you can believe what you want, but those games did happen, runs were scored, games were won and it all counted. People cheered, have memories, souveniers and so on. You can pretend (like the NCAA does) that none of it ever happened, that it all is gone, but I promise you AROD hit a ton of homers and everything else that followed.

Yeah, but Armstrong's Tours de France "happened" too, but people now see them for what they were. I'm a Michigan grad and the Fab Five years, with the all-freshman Final Four and the two straight trips to the finals "happened" -- I saw them and cheered them on -- except that I now readily accept that they didn't.

It's actually quite easy to distinguish between the two types of "happenings," unless one purposefully ignores the simple distinction.

MLB records aren't taken away or vacated or anything else.

MLB records aren't taken away or vacated or anything else.

Bug, not feature.

Bug or feature, it's a real distinction between MLB and the NCAA or the Tour de france.

Alex Rodriguez intends to recover from his latest hip surgery, resume his career and play out the remaining five years of his contract

Oh well. It was a nice hemideminewscycle. There are amusement park rides that last longer than the "Mother of mercy, is this the end of A-Rod?" speculation.

If MLB invalidates games or records I want my ####### ticket money back. If they aren't refunding fans for watching an event that didn't happen it's just empty rhetoric.

That one's view of the enforceability (or lack thereof) of a contract is colored by the laundry.

But it isn't! Are there really any Yankee fans here who think that ARod's contract can be legitimately voided?

Bug or feature, it's a real distinction between MLB and the NCAA or the Tour de france.

I don't know...the world is what you make of it! I don't care what anyone else says, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Blue Jays winning the World Series last year.

Yeah, but Armstrong's Tours de France "happened" too, but people now see them for what they were. I'm a Michigan grad and the Fab Five years, with the all-freshman Final Four and the two straight trips to the finals "happened" -- I saw them and cheered them on -- except that I now readily accept that they didn't.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Backwards. The Orwellian version is the one that holds that the events "happened," therefore they happened.

Backwards. The Orwellian version is the one that holds that the events "happened," therefore they happened.

No, the Orwellian idea is that you can unhappen historical events that actually occurred by thinking really hard "but no, that doesn't count." If you want to argue that the results were tainted, the wins invalid and the entire career of the athlete disrespectful and undermined, have at it. But don't argue that the events that happened, didn't happen. Because that is some seriously deep doublethink.

But it isn't! Are there really any Yankee fans here who think that ARod's contract can be legitimately voided?

Not really, though it would certainly be nice if it could. I think the difference is that if it had been the Red Sox stuck with 5 more years of Manny being Manny at 114 million dollars the statements would be somewhat different.

Yeah, but Armstrong's Tours de France "happened" too, but people now see them for what they were. I'm a Michigan grad and the Fab Five years, with the all-freshman Final Four and the two straight trips to the finals "happened" -- I saw them and cheered them on -- except that I now readily accept that they didn't.

So, it happened and you remember it, but it didn't happen. Didn't Captain Kirk make a computer blow up with that one?

But don't argue that the events that happened, didn't happen.

Why? They didn't. Lance Armstrong didn't win Tours de France that at one time he was believed to have won. The same principle applies to tainted MLB "happenings" whether or not there's an infrastructure in place to declare the "happening" officially invalid. The absence of such an infrastructure is an historical accident of no serious import -- as noted, a bug, not a feature.

So, it happened and you remember it, but it didn't happen. Didn't Captain Kirk make a computer blow up with that one?

Is that how he did it? I thought he just humped it.

But it isn't! Are there really any Yankee fans here who think that ARod's contract can be legitimately voided?

There's just no way to know unless you see the contract. But in a purely abstract sense, sure. If the contract was made to A-Rod based on his current level of performance at that time, and that performance was achieved with illegal PEDs, there's arguably fraud and no meeting of the minds; i.e., the Yanks entered into the deal to sign a player that wasn't using PEDs, not a player that was.

Of course, there are 239 defenses to that argument, but the point is not that the Yanks have a winning argument, its that, absent knowledge of the specific contract (which we dont have), in a purely theoretical sense, they have a colorable argument for recission.

in a purely theoretical sense, they have a colorable argument for recission.

Yeah, well color me skeptical.

When has a team ever been successful in voiding a MLB contract not based on age? You argue like there is some distinct possibility that are is some unknown clause in A-Rod's contract when contract language is standardized an the union would not agree to some of the possibilities you suggest.

You argue like there is some distinct possibility that are is some unknown clause in A-Rod's contract when contract language is standardized an the union would not agree to some of the possibilities you suggest.

Contract language doesn't matter for recission. The whole point of recission is that there is no meeting of the minds; there is no contract. Recission does not equal termination.

Why? They didn't. Lance Armstrong didn't win Tours de France that at one time he was believed to have won. The same principle applies to tainted MLB "happenings" whether or not there's an infrastructure in place to declare the "happening" officially invalid. The absence of such an infrastructure is an historical accident of no serious import -- as noted, a bug, not a feature.

Of course they happened. Lance Armstrong did win Tours de France, but was stripped of the titles. Heck, they haven't even been able to give those titles to anyone because all of the people they could have given it to were just as tainted as Lance was... does that mean the whole race didn't happen? The "principle" is completely bogus, and even more absurd for baseball where these things happened in the absence of any rule a) against them or b) stating that any statistics or wins caused by them would be invalidated. Further, if you tried to do that in baseball, since you'd be hard pressed to find a team that didn't have a single player that wasn't tainted in some way, you'd essentially have to completely throw out the last 25-30 years and just pretend that they didn't happen and that there were no World Series winners. As a 40 year old baseball fan, I'd really hate the idea that baseball decided to throw out everything that happened during my adult life and officially delete it from history. It would pretty much shatter my connection to the game.

Claiming that events are not only invalid and don't count, but also didn't even happen is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting loudly, "I'm not listening!" when someone says something you don't want to hear.

Side question: If the Ravens win the Super Bowl this Sunday and the allegations about Ray Lewis using a banned substance are proven true, what really happened? Who will have "really" won?

There's just no way to know unless you see the contract. But in a purely abstract sense, sure. If the contract was made to A-Rod based on his current level of performance at that time, and that performance was achieved with illegal PEDs, there's arguably fraud and no meeting of the minds; i.e., the Yanks entered into the deal to sign a player that wasn't using PEDs, not a player that was.

Of course, there are 239 defenses to that argument, but the point is not that the Yanks have a winning argument, its that, absent knowledge of the specific contract (which we dont have), in a purely theoretical sense, they have a colorable argument for recission.

I'm sure you'd be so quick to bring up these purely abstract and theoretical possibilities for the team to void a contract they didn't want anymore if it was 12 months ago and the contract in question was Carl Crawford's.....

I'm sure you'd be so quick to bring up these purely abstract and theoretical possibilities for the team to void a contract they didn't want anymore if it was 12 months ago and the contract in question was Carl Crawford's.....

I wouldn't be so sure. When it comes to legal stuff, the game (as they say in The Wire) is the game. Keep in mind, I like A-Rod.

I'm a Michigan grad and the Fab Five years, with the all-freshman Final Four and the two straight trips to the finals "happened" -- I saw them and cheered them on -- except that I now readily accept that they didn't.

This one I don't get at all. I can kinda understand "roids enhance performance and ARod/Lance don't perform at that level without roids, therefore those events weren't 'real' and 'never happened.'"

But in the case of the Fab 5 you're talking about guys taking money from a booster (after enrolment I think, it wasn't even a recruiting scandal). That didn't affect their performance, nobody was throwing games or anything like that. To pretend those games didn't happen is like pretending you weren't there for the birth of your child because you got a speeding ticket on the way to the hospital.

b) stating that any statistics or wins caused by them would be invalidated. Further, if you tried to do that in baseball, since you'd be hard pressed to find a team that didn't have a single player that wasn't tainted in some way, you'd essentially have to completely throw out the last 25-30 years and just pretend that they didn't happen and that there were no World Series winners.

I wouldn't go that far -- for one reason, that's far too long a period. My personal perspective is that baseball from around 1996 to around 2006 did not represent anything like the fair competition of the era that preceded it, and those years weren't as compelling. I don't see how anyone could possibly look at a team like, say, the 2004 Red Sox and celebrate their accomplishments as equivalent to, say, the 1985 Royals.

My hopes from 2007 going forward look like they're going to be dashed, though I wouldn't necessarily equate something like a testosterone lozenge whose effects end after a day or two with the stacked anabolic steroid regimens that were a hallmark of the darkest parts of the steroid era.

To pretend those games didn't happen is like pretending you weren't there for the birth of your child because you got a speeding ticket on the way to the hospital.

It's nothing like that because their cheating procured the players that they competed with. No one at Michigan tolerated such a thing and the university scrubbed them and their "accomplishments" from the collective memory bank without the slightest nudge from the NCAA. They've been unwelcome ever since.

So no one's "pretending" anything. The games weren't legitimate competition between Michigan and the other teams and few if any factions around Michigan wants to be associated with such things. Whatever "happened" was provisional on the games being fair and when it was discovered that they weren't, the games were deemed not to have happened.

But it isn't! Are there really any Yankee fans here who think that ARod's contract can be legitimately voided?
There's just no way to know unless you see the contract. But in a purely abstract sense, sure. If the contract was made to A-Rod based on his current level of performance at that time, and that performance was achieved with illegal PEDs, there's arguably fraud and no meeting of the minds; i.e., the Yanks entered into the deal to sign a player that wasn't using PEDs, not a player that was.

Of course, there are 239 defenses to that argument, but the point is not that the Yanks have a winning argument, its that, absent knowledge of the specific contract (which we dont have), in a purely theoretical sense, they have a colorable argument for recission.

I don't understand. You're arguing that in 2007, half a decade in to drug testing in baseball, the Yankees had no clue that a player they were signing might be on steroids, or might use steroids in the future? And you think the Yankees will win an argument claiming that they think steroids use made a player _worse_? And that, knowing in 2009 that he had used steroids, they didn't try to void the deal until 4 years later, _after_ his performance/durability/health had deteriorated?

But no matter. The CBA speaks to penalties for using steroids. It is not "fraud." It is not a retroactive eradication of offer and acceptance.

That one's view of the enforceability (or lack thereof) of a contract is colored by the laundry.

This is true. There's only one team whose fans who are considering a likelihood of the contract being voided - or A-Rod deciding to retire - as being significantly greater than zero. Must be the laundry.

If the contract was made to A-Rod based on his current level of performance at that time, and that performance was achieved with illegal PEDs, there's arguably fraud and no meeting of the minds; i.e., the Yanks entered into the deal to sign a player that wasn't using PEDs, not a player that was.

The Yankees do not have a track record of avoiding, or wanting to avoid, contracts with PED users. There is no evidence that they had ever expressed the desire to sign A-Rod only if he were clean. There is no reason to believe that the MLBPA-approved contract would allow the precedent of special contractual discipline for PED use, especially given that the Yankees did not exercise such a liberty after he admitted in early 2009 steroid use. At this point there is (in the public domain, at least) insufficient evidence that A-Rod has used PEDs since signing this contract.

Yeah, if this, and if that, and if the other thing, then it's voidable. If you're going to have that many dubious ifs, you might as well aim higher than voiding a contract: the Yankees, if _______, could win the pennant this year - in the National League.

Hey Ray, you were quoted in NRO, Delroy Murdock's column.

The second sentence is a subjective opinion (*), but there's really nothing wrong with the Yankees: (1) not wanting A-Rod back; (2) wanting to not have to pay him; (3) not being happy with him being caught up in roids yet again; and (4) publicly saying each of (1), (2), and (3).

It might be economically rational for the Yankees to try to get away with breaching the contract, but I don't think it's all that admirable.

(*) I personally don't view him has having a great career, anymore than I view Lance Armstrong as having a great career. Why would I?

Because he's had a great career?

Just a guess.

Yeah, but Armstrong's Tours de France "happened" too, but people now see them for what they were

One drugged-up cyclist beating the pantaloons off of all the other drugged-up cyclists, time and time and time again, to show that he was better than all of them?

One drugged-up cyclist beating the pantaloons off of all the other drugged-up cyclists, time and time and time again, to show that he was better than all of them?

I am amused that I agree with Ray near 100% on "drug" threads and near 0% on Political threads.