Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Alex Rodriguez unlikely to return to Yankees, sources say, as third baseman is dealing with new drug scandal and lengthy hip surgery rehab

If A-Rod leaves, who will Yankees media have left to blame?

Alex Rodriguez is unlikely to ever wear the pinstripes again, sources familiar with the Yankees’ situation with their troubled third baseman told the Daily News, no matter what happens regarding new allegations that he is again involved with performance-enhancing drugs.

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. He still has five years and $114 million left on his contract.

“I don’t know why he would want to go through the pain of rehabbing and trying to play up to the caliber of player he was, and come back to a game where nobody wants him,” said a baseball official.

“If he did that, he’d be a part-time player and presumably unable to achieve any of the incentive clauses in the contract or even the milestones.”

Even before the latest steroid allegations surfaced, Yankee officials had already privately begun preparing for the likelihood that Rodriguez would never finish out the mega-deal he signed in 2007.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM | 133 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: alex rodriguez, peds, retirement, yankees

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. jmurph Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4359067)
Hilarious. Wonder who the unnamed source was?
   2. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4359070)
It's really unprofessional for reporters to act as a mouthpiece for the organization without any critical thinking at all.
   3. catomi01 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4359072)
Even before the latest steroid allegations surfaced, Yankee officials had already privately begun preparing for the celebration, in the event that Rodriguez could not finish out the mega-deal he signed in 2007.


Corrected for accuracy.
   4. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4359078)
One hopes the Yankees don't snake their way out of paying the man.
   5. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4359077)
“I don’t know why he would want to go through the pain of rehabbing and trying to play up to the caliber of player he was, and come back to a game where nobody wants him,” said a baseball official.


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).
   6. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4359087)
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.


Yeah, why would Alex quit? He's not that old.
   7. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4359090)
Lupica:

Or — this appears to be even more of a longshot — they want the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, to hit him with a drug suspension so they can start exploring ways to void his contract, even though the Major League Baseball Players Association will fight to protect guaranteed money in baseball the way gun nuts protect their guns.


Yes; imagine the gall of the union fighting to protect $100+ million in guaranteed money!
   8. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4359099)
Maybe A-Rod will pull a Mickelson and decide all the taxes make it worth not even earning that 114 million bucks.
   9. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4359100)
Yeah, why would Alex quit? He's not that old.


Neither was Albert Belle.
   10. AROM Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4359113)
37, will turn 38 in mid season. He's certainly not young.
   11. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4359115)
Yeah, why would Alex quit? He's not that old.


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.
   12. jobu Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4359118)
I think it is significantly above a non-zero probability that AVoid would take a settlement to end the contract.

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.
   13. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4359122)
Based on the second paragraph above, the writer is not relying on a single source, but "numerous baseball sources." I'm guessing that these are sources from both within and outside of the Yankee organization.
   14. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4359128)
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.


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?
   15. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4359135)
Based on the second paragraph above, the writer is not relying on a single source, but "numerous baseball sources." I'm guessing that these are sources from both within and outside of the Yankee organization.


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."
   16. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4359136)
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?


Because the Yankees want out of the contract, but the contract isn't voided just because of career ending injury/medical condition.
   17. jobu Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4359137)
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?

Schadenfreude and a centuries-long love of the Icarus myth.
   18. SavoyBG Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4359141)
Hilarious. Wonder who the unnamed source was?


George Costanza

   19. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4359143)
Hal Steinbrenner has the rosaries out abut now...
   20. ColonelTom Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4359146)
The "career-ending injury" path depends on having a diagnosis of a career-ending injury that the insurance company won't fight. Given the context of the further PED accusation and the questions of (1) whether A-Rod wants to play anymore and (2) whether the Yankees want him to play even if he can, I can't imagine that the insurer would go quietly on that issue. Settlement is much more likely, whether it's between the Yankees/A-Rod or Yankees/insurer.

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.
   21. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4359149)
"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."

It's all part of the same sentence and the same train of thought.
   22. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4359153)
Because the Yankees want out of the contract, but the contract isn't voided just because of career ending injury/medical condition.


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.
   23. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4359156)
Because the Yankees want out of the contract, but the contract isn't voided just because of career ending injury/medical condition.


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.

   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4359159)
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 appears to be precisely what's going on. I really hope it backfires on them.

What a #### way for a great career to end.
   25. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4359163)
Albert Belle, last played in 2002, was paid $13 mil in 2003


Belle last played in 2000 and was paid to sit around for three years.
   26. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4359164)
Right, but Rodriguez won't have anything to gain from a settlement in the event of a career ending injury/medical condition.
Hasn't there been some report that the Yankees have insurance on A-Rod's deal? If he pulls an Albert Belle "retirement," I assume the Yankees wouldn't want a settlement, because they're getting the desired end result: A-Rod off the team, and them paying little to none of the contract.

Incidentally, I predict A-Rod will playing, for the Yankees, by August. I remember going through most of this same foolishness with Giambi.
   27. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4359167)
Right, but Rodriguez won't have anything to gain from a settlement in the event of a career ending injury/medical condition.


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.
   28. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4359171)
Belle last played in 2000 and was paid to sit around for three years.


Yeah, I know that. Don't know how I messed that up.
   29. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4359176)
[23]: Thanks, Misirlou. The "Moo Vaughn" mento always used to crack me up BITD.
   30. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4359177)

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.


Wayne Garland was waived five years into a ten-year contract. Wsa he still he paid or did he settle with the Indians?
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4359184)
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.


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.

Incidentally, I predict A-Rod will playing, for the Yankees, by August. I remember going through most of this same foolishness with Giambi.


I second this prediction.
   32. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4359185)
Or — this appears to be even more of a longshot — they want the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, to hit him with a drug suspension so they can start exploring ways to void his contract,


Plenty of players have served drug suspensions. Have any of them ever had their contracts voided?
   33. Dale Sams Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4359189)
Let the Wade Boggs Kevin Youkilis era begin!
   34. spike Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4359190)
I'm guessing that these are sources from both within and outside of the Yankee organization.

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.
   35. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4359191)
Or — this appears to be even more of a longshot — they want the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, to hit him with a drug suspension so they can start exploring ways to void his contract,


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.
   36. SoSH U at work Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4359200)
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.


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.

   37. The Good Face Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4359211)
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.


I thought that this surgery is on the other hip?
   38. SG Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4359213)
There is no reason to assign "numerous baseball sources" any particular credibility or standing.


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.
   39. SG Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4359215)
I thought that this surgery is on the other hip?


Yes, left hip this time which supposedly takes more stress for a RHB.
   40. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4359222)
"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, with most insiders predicting Rodriguez will soon be fellating itinerants for steroid money during his irreversible spiral to a failed suicide that will render him a paralyzed vegetable that schoolchildren can spit on during class trips organized for that purpose. The BBWAA has announced that it will conduct an immediate vote for the 2018 Hall of Fame class so that they can get their rocks off rejecting Rodriguez now, instead of being forced to wait. Reached in Bill Conlin's bathroom, the handsy ghost of Kirby Puckett told a Ouija board "H-E-S-A-D-I-S-G-R-A-C-E."
   41. Ron J2 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4359234)
#32 The Padres twice tried to void contracts of players caught up in recreational drug issues. LaMarr Hoyt was in prison longer than he was suspended for and the Padres lost in arbitration.

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.
   42. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4359243)
#40 is awesome.
   43. dr. scott Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4359261)
Wow, Belle got 35 million to sit on his butt. I had forgotten that, and he averaged 160+ games a year from 96-99.
   44. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4359265)
Wow, Belle got 35 million to sit on his butt. I had forgotten that, and he averaged 160+ games a year from 96-99.



He never should have changed his name from Joey.
   45. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4359269)
That appears to be precisely what's going on. I really hope it backfires on them.

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?
   46. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4359294)
...and (4) publicly saying each of (1), (2), and (3)...


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).
   47. Scientist guy Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4359297)
I think that there may be an insurance angle here that people may be missing.

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...
   48. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4359299)
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).

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.
   49. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:53 PM (#4359307)
if ... AROD is sick of trying to rehab and putting up with all the other crap...


This is the big 'if.' Is there any indication that he IS sick of everything besides suspicious anonymous quotes?
   50. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 31, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4359323)
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?


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.
   51. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 31, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4359349)

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.
   52. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4359353)
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.
   53. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4359357)
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.
   54. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: January 31, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4359359)
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"?
   55. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4359386)
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.
   56. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4359388)
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.
   57. Ron J2 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4359391)
#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.
   58. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4359401)
So, what did Belle have to do those 3 years?


I think he spent a lot of time with Chris Truby.
   59. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4359424)
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.
   60. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4359426)
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.
   61. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4359438)
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'."
   62. Walt Davis Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4359445)
"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).
   63. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: January 31, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4359465)
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+.
   64. catomi01 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4359484)
Who is the Mike Witt equivalent in that scenario?
   65. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4359491)
Who is the Mike Witt equivalent in that scenario?


Ricky Nolasco.
   66. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4359495)
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.
   67. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4359504)
So, what did Belle have to do those 3 years?


Guard his lawn.
   68. SG Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4359506)
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.
   69. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4359511)
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
   70. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4359520)
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.
   71. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4359523)
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.
   72. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4359524)
MLB records aren't taken away or vacated or anything else.
   73. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4359526)
MLB records aren't taken away or vacated or anything else.

Bug, not feature.
   74. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4359530)
Bug or feature, it's a real distinction between MLB and the NCAA or the Tour de france.
   75. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4359533)
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.
   76. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4359535)
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.
   77. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4359536)
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?
   78. Greg K Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4359537)
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.
   79. Randy Jones Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4359538)
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.
   80. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4359540)
We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Backwards. The Orwellian version is the one that holds that the events "happened," therefore they happened.
   81. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4359549)
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.
   82. Bob Meta-Meusel Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4359552)
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?
   83. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4359572)
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.

   84. tfbg9 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:32 PM (#4359573)
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.
   85. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4359577)
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.
   86. tfbg9 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4359585)
in a purely theoretical sense, they have a colorable argument for recission.


Yeah, well color me skeptical.
   87. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4359602)
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.
   88. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 31, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4359622)
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.
   89. Bob Meta-Meusel Posted: January 31, 2013 at 08:44 PM (#4359670)
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?
   90. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4359686)
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.....
   91. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:32 PM (#4359702)
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.
   92. Walt Davis Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4359720)
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.
   93. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:10 PM (#4359722)
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.
   94. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4359728)
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.
   95. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4359751)
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.

   96. villageidiom Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:58 PM (#4359758)
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.
   97. tfbg9 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:13 PM (#4359764)
Hey Ray, you were quoted in NRO, Delroy Murdock's column.
   98. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4359769)
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.
   99. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:35 PM (#4359772)
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?
   100. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2013 at 12:02 AM (#4359784)
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.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(50 - 4:54am, Jul 25)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(3 - 4:44am, Jul 25)
Last: Alex meets the threshold for granular review

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(89 - 3:59am, Jul 25)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(43 - 3:59am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogBucs Dugout: Manel: Pirates getting creative with defensive shifts
(8 - 3:53am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3027 - 3:50am, Jul 25)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(16 - 3:37am, Jul 25)
Last: Jeff Francoeur's OPS

NewsblogA's designate Johnson for assignment
(20 - 3:28am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(31 - 3:23am, Jul 25)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(80 - 3:16am, Jul 25)
Last: Red Menace

NewsblogFivethirtyeight: Billion-Dollar Billy Beane
(21 - 2:42am, Jul 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: 7-24-14
(59 - 1:56am, Jul 25)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(914 - 1:20am, Jul 25)
Last: MikeOberly

NewsblogEx-MLB star Chuck Knoblauch accused of assaulting ex-wife
(21 - 12:26am, Jul 25)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(14 - 12:25am, Jul 25)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Page rendered in 0.7474 seconds
52 querie(s) executed