User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5957 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Corrected for accuracy.
The writer repeats this as if it holds water, when in the sentence preceding this quote the writer gave a very good reason: "He still has five years and $114 million left on his contract."
Aside from all the other possible reasons.
This is not a Palmeiro situation (he was in the last year of his deal and pretty much at the finish line when he walked away), or even a Bonds situation (him returning was contingent on a team offering him a contract).
Yeah, why would Alex quit? He's not that old.
Yes; imagine the gall of the union fighting to protect $100+ million in guaranteed money!
Neither was Albert Belle.
see #9
this is his 2nd hip operation and basically at the time of the first I read that he basically opted for the short cut procedure to get back quicker, but was gonna pay for it later, it's now later.
There is anon-zero chance that contract/PED issues aside he's done any way.
The key question is whether he thinks he can repair his legacy. If he does, then he'll come back.
Let's say he concludes that he cannot repair his legacy, or if he just doesn't want to get face getting booed nightly (even more than before) in every ballpark around the league. He's owed $114M. To take an extreme example, why wouldn't he take $113MM as a settlement?
I think there may well be a range palatable to both the Yankees and AVoid. If $113MM, what about $80MM? $80MM is obviously a huge sum of money to an already rich man--but it also represents an enormous savings to the Yanks.
If he simply has a career-ending condition, why is there this weird public campaign against him about settlements and voiding his deal etc etc?
He might have sources for "hip surgery will likely derail his playing career." I'm fairly certain he doesn't have sources from other organizations that "he may consider a settlement or an outright retirement."
Because the Yankees want out of the contract, but the contract isn't voided just because of career ending injury/medical condition.
Schadenfreude and a centuries-long love of the Icarus myth.
George Costanza
Barring revelations in A-Rod's favor, if A-Rod and the Yankees reach a settlement, I doubt anyone will touch him as a free agent even if he's healthy. He'll be on the Bonds blacklist.
It's all part of the same sentence and the same train of thought.
Right, but Rodriguez won't have anything to gain from a settlement in the event of a career ending injury/medical condition.
Are the Yankees just using the convergence of the hip injury and the drug scandal as the perfect timing to unleash some plan to try to shame Rodriguez into taking a bunch of money to walk away? That doesn't seem like a wise strategy, it would depend on him being extremely discouraged by the injury and/or the scandal. Wouldn't it make more sense to support their player in his rehab until either he can give them some contribution on the field or they can trade him without eating every penny of the contract. He didn't seem like a big enough problem that he urgently needed to be off the team until just now.
Albert Belle, last played in 2002, was paid $13 mil in 2003
Jeff Bagwell, last played in 2005, was paid $19 mil in 2006, was in fact, the highest paid player in the NL that year.
Moo Vaughn, last played in 2003, was paid $17 mil in 2004.
I can't think of anyone paid for 5 more years after suffering a career ending injury (not counting negotiated deferred payments, ala Bobby Bo), but I don't see why it would be different.
What a #### way for a great career to end.
Belle last played in 2000 and was paid to sit around for three years.
Incidentally, I predict A-Rod will playing, for the Yankees, by August. I remember going through most of this same foolishness with Giambi.
Sure he would. Sans a settlement, I imagine he would be contractually required to work himself back into shape and present himself to the team to play baseball. He may not want to do that for the next 5 years. If he wants to say "Hey, I'm not going to go through that, I'm done." he may not be entitled to money in later years.
Yeah, I know that. Don't know how I messed that up.
Wayne Garland was waived five years into a ten-year contract. Wsa he still he paid or did he settle with the Indians?
He has been getting himself into shape a presenting himself to a team to play baseball for 15 years, and I heard nothing about him wanting to retire until this drug story came up. What a coincidence.
I second this prediction.
Plenty of players have served drug suspensions. Have any of them ever had their contracts voided?
Wade BoggsKevin Youkilis era begin!Why? It's just as likely this is nothing but wishcasting from the team, or perhaps even the writer. There is no reason to assign "numerous baseball sources" any particular credibility or standing.
Ha, if you need further proof of what a fabrication this article is. Everyone knows old Bolshevik Bud based the entire financial structure of the CBA around Rodriguez's crippling contract with New York. To have Alex crippled AND on the Yankee payroll? Why he's probably having Smithers click his heels for him right now.
That's basically what Gil Meche decided, though he only had one year left on the contract. He retired rather than go through the process, leaving quite a few million on the table.
One difference, besides the length of time on the contract, was that there was no evidence the Royals were trying to screw over Meche. Considering the crap the Yankees are pulling, I wouldn't expect Arod to be so generous.
I thought that this surgery is on the other hip?
Yeah. I mean two or three people posting in this thread could arguably constitute numerous baseball sources. It's pulled out of Madden's ass and dressed up with vague sourcing to make it sound like something more than worthless.
Yes, left hip this time which supposedly takes more stress for a RHB.
Their dispute with Alan Wiggins was resolved (on strong advice from MLB -- allegedly because they didn't want another arbitration loss on the books) before it got to arbitration by the trade to the Orioles.
After his final positive test he and the Orioles negotiated a buy-out of his contract. Again, the situation was headed to arbitration and the Orioles would probably have lost because there was a private drug testing clause in the contract and a subsequent arbitrator ruled these clauses void. But Wiggins settled for about 90 cents on the dollar which I think reflects the fact that it wasn't a lock he'd win in the arbitration. Plus he got the money then and there and the full arbitration process takes time.
He never should have changed his name from Joey.
What a #### way for a great career to end.
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).
If there's no way to not have to pay him, they'll pay him.
(*) 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?
Lots of teams have albatross contracts, but I don't recall other teams trying to publicly shame the players into walking away (if in fact that is what the Yankees are attempting).
Assuming that the Yankees have insured AROD's contract against career ending injury - the hip is a legitimate injury and if the insurance pays out and AROD is sick of trying to rehab and putting up with all the other crap - then collecting on the insurance is a face-saving way out for everybody...
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it -- particularly under these facts.
Unless one thinks there's something wrong with shame itself.
This is the big 'if.' Is there any indication that he IS sick of everything besides suspicious anonymous quotes?
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.
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.
You clearly never saw Garret Anderson play in Atlanta.
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.
But the insurer would want to be satisfied that a player is indeed incapable of playing.
I think he spent a lot of time with Chris Truby.
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.
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.
"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'."
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 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+.
Ricky Nolasco.
Guard his lawn.
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
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.
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.
Bug, not feature.
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.
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.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
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.
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.
So, it happened and you remember it, but it didn't happen. Didn't Captain Kirk make a computer blow up with that one?
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.
Is that how he did it? I thought he just humped it.
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.
Yeah, well color me skeptical.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because he's had a great career?
Just a guess.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main