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

Monday, August 05, 2013

THT: Freedman: ARod, the JDA and the CBA

Eugene Freedman’s latest…

Regardless of the outcome this case, it is likely arbitrator Horowitz’s last for MLB and the Players Association. Whichever party is least satisfied with his decision likely will dismiss him.

The difficulty would come if either party tried to dismiss him after a procedural ruling rather than after the issuance of a final award. Because termination of an arbitrator is a contractual matter under the CBA, the next appointed arbitrator would hear the case about Horowitz’s dismissal, filed by the party not desiring to terminate arbitrator Horowitz mid-case. And, that second arbitrator would no doubt reinstate Horowitz to hear the remainder of the A-Rod case.

Finally, it should be noted that Rodriguez will not and should not sue MLB, nor should MLB or the Yankees sue him for violating his player contract or in an attempt to void his contract. While there are people suggesting any number of lawsuits, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, these suits would be dismissed. These are matters to be dealt with under the CBA’s negotiated grievance procedure.

The United States Supreme Court decided a series of cases known as the Steelworkers Trilogy in 1960. In those cases, the Court decided that all disputes regarding matters related to or covered by the CBA must go to grievance arbitration and cannot be heard in the courts. This covers discipline and termination of contracts, and The Supreme Court also greatly restricted judicial review of arbitral awards.

Moreover, the JDA strictly prohibits individual clubs from taking action against players for violations of the drug policy. It vests exclusive power with the Commissioner.

Whatever arbitrator Horowitz’s decision is in this case, as long as it draws its essence from the CBA, it is final and binding and not able to be appealed.

Repoz Posted: August 05, 2013 at 09:09 AM | 37 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: steroids

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.

   1. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: August 05, 2013 at 09:45 AM (#4512914)
The excerpt is like dirty talk for some people on this site. The only thing missing is a few Latin words.
   2. dlf Posted: August 05, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4512932)
The difficulty would come if either party tried to dismiss him after a procedural ruling rather than after the issuance of a final award. Because termination of an arbitrator is a contractual matter under the CBA, the next appointed arbitrator would hear the case about Horowitz’s dismissal, filed by the party not desiring to terminate arbitrator Horowitz mid-case. And, that second arbitrator would no doubt reinstate Horowitz to hear the remainder of the A-Rod case.


Peter Seitz was the arbitrator who decided the Messersmith / McNally case in the early 1970s that eventually resulted in free agency. After the case was heard, and apparently after he encouraged the parties to settle by strongly hinting at his ruling, MLB tried to fire him. MLBPA went to the Courts to have Seitz reinstated. I don't see anything in the current CBA that would change that.

... it would be likely that a suspension under that section [ed: 'best interests'] would commence even before the case is heard and decided. ... Moreover, there is no irreparable harm to A-Rod if the suspension goes into effect immediately rather than after the hearing, even if no discipline is the result. His damages are strictly financial. He can be made whole for any financial loss. Many people believe missing games is irreparable, but if that were the case, all suspensions would be stayed until the conclusion of the process. They are not. Only those under the JDA are stayed.


First, Eugene is mistaken factually. We see it all the time when players are suspended for participation in beanball wars or on-field brawls; those suspensions are not in effect until after the appeal process. [Note, this is not an arbitraion appeal; rather it goes from Joe Torre's office to the player who can chose to appeal to Selig.]

Second, there is history on the side of the player in this argument. For example, when Bowie Kuhn suspended Fergie Jenkins, the arbitrator (Ray Goetz) ordered him reinstated pending a final hearing on the merits.
   3. Bob Tufts Posted: August 05, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4512933)
And when MLB appealed the Messersmith-McNally arbitration decision by Peter Seitz in federal court in Kansas City, Judge Oliver ruled against MLB, relying on the “Steelworkers Trilogy” Supreme Court precedent that said the judiciary had a limited role in labor arbitration.

Marvin Miller was a senior advisor at the USW when the Trilogy case occurred......and Don Fehr was local counsel for the MLBPA in the 8th Circuit case.

I will share a coke with dlf....
   4. eddieot Posted: August 05, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4512950)
Best piece posted by far on this whole debacle. I agree with #1. This is as good as gets when it comes to MLB labor porn.
   5. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4512995)
It's clear the Melky case looms as an obstacle for MLB. Melky got only 50 games, despite being involved in setting up a fake website in order to cover up his guilt, and despite being a BioG client himself. And Melky's wasn't a deal but was actual discipline handed down.

The other thing is that all of the other BioG players are apparently being offered 50 games.



   6. JJ1986 Posted: August 05, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4513008)
I know MLB has "stopped negotiating," but is there any chance they just agree to a 52-game suspension to keep Alex out for the rest of the year if he starts serving immediately. Anything else is going to be messy for all parties involved.
   7. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4513034)
Wasn't the vomit from Selig's camp supposed to be projectiled out at noontime today?
   8. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4513037)
Yeah I want to see the list of the heretics posthaste.
   9. dlf Posted: August 05, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4513062)
A couple of sites are stating that 3pm EDT is the time the info will drop.
   10. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 05, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4513065)
The info has already dropped. Per twitter:

Among players accepting 50-game suspensions: #Rangers’ Cruz, #Tigers’ Peralta, #Phlllies’ Bastardo, #Mets’ Valdespin, #Padres’ Cabrera.


Colon, Grandal, Melky get no additional discipline. No violations found for #Nationals’ Gio Gonzalez. #Orioles’ Valencia. They are clear.


Also suspended: #Yankees’ Cervelli, #Mariners’ Montero, #Mets’ Puello, #Astros’ Escalona, #Padres’ De Los Santos, #Yankees’ F. Martinez.
   11. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 05, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4513066)
It's clear the Melky case looms as an obstacle for MLB. Melky got only 50 games, despite being involved in setting up a fake website in order to cover up his guilt, and despite being a BioG client himself. And Melky's wasn't a deal but was actual discipline handed down.

The other thing is that all of the other BioG players are apparently being offered 50 games.


At the end of the day, it won't make sense that Melky, Colon, and Grandal got nothing for anything other than the positive test. A-Rod will use that fact to great effect in his arbitration.
   12. Monty Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:00 PM (#4513067)
A couple of sites are stating that 3pm EDT is the time the info will drop.


"We meant noon PDT, obviously. Or possibly Hawaiian time."
   13. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4513074)
If a player is suspended while he's rehabbing from an injury, is he allowed to continue to use team facilities and medical/training staff for his rehab during the suspension?
   14. Monty Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4513075)
I know MLB has "stopped negotiating," but is there any chance they just agree to a 52-game suspension to keep Alex out for the rest of the year if he starts serving immediately. Anything else is going to be messy for all parties involved.


That's what MLB appears to be suggesting in this latest leak.
   15. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4513076)
Nothing official on A-Rod, though. Saving the best for last?
   16. APNY Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4513085)
Nothing official on A-Rod, though. Saving the best for last?

If a drug suspension is on appeal, it can't be officially announced until after the appeal, correct?
   17. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4513096)
If a drug suspension is on appeal, it can't be officially announced until after the appeal, correct?

Good point. I am honestly not 100% sure but I feel like we'd've heard by now if he was/is appealing....
   18. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4513105)
"We meant noon PDT, obviously. Or possibly Hawaiian time."

Still time for MLB to blink (again).
   19. dlf Posted: August 05, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4513131)
If a drug suspension is on appeal, it can't be officially announced until after the appeal, correct?


Supposedly there is a catch-all provision that allows MLB to comment on cases where the information is already public. Since Biogenesis was first identified in the Miami New Times, that seems to allow them to comment. See, for example, Michael Weiner's comments about leaks coming from entities other than MLB last month.
   20. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4513168)
I imagine the delay is that the two sides are still negotiating (despite the idiotic bluster from Selig's camp that they were done negotiating because ARod dared point out the truth, that they don't want him back on the field ever again).

It _could_ be that Selig's lawyers are still trying to talk some sense into him, but I doubt it.

As I've said all along, I don't expect ARod to agree to more than 150 games (*), and I don't expect Selig to agree to as "low" as 150 games, so I expect no deal will be reached.

(*) And the number ARod's team might have in their head, having seen the evidence - and especially in light of the fact that everyone else is getting 50 including Melky and basically including Braun (65 is close) - might be 100.

In an ironic twist, MLB's own testing policy provides exculpatory evidence for ARod in terms of pushing back against a use claim, in that he's been tested multiple times over the years and has tested negative each time.
   21. valuearbitrageur Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4513187)
(*) And the number ARod's team might have in their head, having seen the evidence - and especially in light of the fact that everyone else is getting 50 including Melky and basically including Braun (65 is close) - might be 100.


Why would the number be a single game more than 50? That's all the MLB can do under the JDA, so why would A-Rod agree to even one game more?
   22. Monty Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4513188)
I imagine the delay is that the two sides are still negotiating (despite the idiotic bluster from Selig's camp that they were done negotiating because ARod dared point out the truth, that they don't want him back on the field ever again).


And also despite the idiotic bluster from Rodriguez's camp that they wouldn't negotiate.
   23. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4513193)
First, Eugene is mistaken factually. We see it all the time when players are suspended for participation in beanball wars or on-field brawls; those suspensions are not in effect until after the appeal process.


Suspensions for beanball wars or on-field brawls are imposed by the Senior VP for Standards and On-Field Operations (Joe Garagiola, Jr.), and are appealable under Section XI(C) of the CBA. Suspensions under the "best interests" clause are covered under Section XII of the CBA, and XII(E)(1) states that "Nothing contained in the Grievance Procedure (Section XI) shall excuse a Player from prompt compliance with any discipline imposed upon him". The way that I read that (and presumably Eugene and everyone else who has been reporting on this), a suspension under Section XII would be served immediately and if it were later found that the suspension was improper, the player would have to be "made whole" per XII(A).

-- MWE
   24. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4513195)
I imagine the delay is that the two sides are still negotiating (despite the idiotic bluster from Selig's camp that they were done negotiating because ARod dared point out the truth, that they don't want him back on the field ever again).

And also despite the idiotic bluster from Rodriguez's camp that they wouldn't negotiate.


Hey, don't take away idiotic bluster. It's one of the few growth industries left in our troubled land.
   25. valuearbitrageur Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4513204)
And also despite the idiotic bluster from Rodriguez's camp that they wouldn't negotiate.


They want to negotiate, they are just really confused over what the actual punishment and deadlines are. Is the deadline the all-star game or virtually every day since? Is it lifetime, 200 games, 150 games, or another fantasy punishment (perhaps chained in Hades for an eternity next to Rose and Shoeless Joe) the MLB has no ability to give.
   26. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4513213)

Why would the number be a single game more than 50? That's all the MLB can do under the JDA, so why would A-Rod agree to even one game more?


That's the limit for a positive test. A-Rod isn't being punished for a positive test.
   27. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4513364)
The ARod case has so far fallen out exactly as I predicted it would last week after going through the JDA with a fine toothed comb.

Why would the number be a single game more than 50? That's all the MLB can do under the JDA, so why would A-Rod agree to even one game more?


Under Section 7A of the JDA It's 50 games for a first violation for a positive test ("analytic"), or for otherwise "non-analytic" (evidence other than a positive test) evidence of use or possession.

MLB is apparently (among other things) trying to stack violations of use or possession under 7A to get straight to >50 games. And I do believe that said attempt will fail, because, as I said, I think an arbitrator would interpret the agreement as "you can't get to discipline for a second violation until the player has been disciplined for the first violation and thus given notice that a next violation will subject him to the next wave of discipline."

If all the JDA had was 7A I would think the argument that they can't suspend ARod for more than 50 games would have tremendous weight.

But the JDA has other clauses. Of note here is 7F (participation in sale/distribution) and 7G (a catch-all that could arguably include the obstruction charges). 7F has a max of 100 games for a first violation, and 7G allows for discipline but doesn't specify it, and therefore I believe an arbitrator would find that a player could be disciplined under 7G for possibly up to 100 games on a first violation, but no more.

Now to what I see as the biggest question. If there are violations here under 7A, 7F, and 7G, is MLB allowed to take the max penalty under 7A (50 games), the max under 7F (100 games) and something under 7G (let's say up to 100 games) and add them all together to reach 214 games?

I think no. But the argument that they can has merit.

I think the arbitrator would ultimately find that a first discipline can only be up to a max of 100 games -- that he would essentially tell MLB "pick a category, either 7A, 7F, or 7G and go with it; but I'm not allowing you to add suspension periods from different sections together to get to a massive suspension on a first violation."

As part of my support, one of the clauses in the JDA speaks to notice (granted it appears in a different context but the concept is applicable), and another clause speaks of how if a sample tests positive for different categories of drugs (for examlpe, a PES AND a stimulant), MLB is not allowed to suspend separately for each category of drugs and instead would have to pick one category (e.g., MLB can go for the longer suspension but cannot add the suspensions together). This also points towards my interpretation.

Mind you the JDA simply does not speak to these issues. Now, perhaps an arbitrator would find that the intent of the parties was to allow stacking within categories and penalizing across categories. I'm very skeptical because of the concepts of notice and fairness; if ARod is going to lose 214 games of salary, I think an arbitrator would want to be damned certain that that was spelled out explicitly in the agreement first. Otherwise, MLB could potentially in effect void contracts on the first offense, which I think an arbitrator would be very hesitant to allow absent such specificity.

I'm just trying to make informed guesses here. I don't guarantee an arbitrator would see it my way. I think the argument that MLB can't stack violations within a Section to get immediately to a longer suspension is very strong, and is a bit more compelling than the argument that MLB can't add suspension periods across Sections to get to a longer suspension, but I'm betting on the latter too. I think ARod will get a max of 100 games (7F) - assuming arguendo that the evidence is solid, which I would never assume but I haven't seen it so I'm focusing more on the legal analysis.

My second guess is a max of 150 games (7A + 7F if the arbitrator doesn't buy the above arguments).

My third guess, which is not much different from my second guess, is, yes, that he will uphold the 214 games (7A + 7F + 7G). And if so the players are in a horrible position as the commissioner will have the authority to mete out a first-discipline permanent suspension, which the players -- and they're talking big now against those who have been swept up in this -- eventually will not be able to accept. It is simply too much power and money to hand back over to MLB. I think if the arbitrator upholds the 214-game suspension being handed to ARod then December 2016, when the JDA is up, may be a BIT too early for nuclear war (I expect it to take 4-5 years before the players realize what they have done), but we will see nuclear war sooner rather than later if not by December 2016.
   28. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4513488)
FWIW, Michael McCann, an attorney who teaches sports law and comments on it for CNN/SI, just released a piece which agrees with the thrust of my argument and conclusion:

Rodriguez's legal arguments

In his appeals for relief through arbitration and possibly litigation, expect Rodriguez to raise these types of arguments:

1. The Joint Drug Agreement does not authorize a 211-game suspension for a first-time offender

In punishing Rodriguez, baseball cites the Joint Drug Agreement. This document details specific game suspensions should a player participate in the sale or distribution of prohibited substances. A first-time offense carries a maximum 100-game suspension and a second-time offense carries a maximum permanent suspension. Rodriguez has never before been punished, which would make him a first-time offender. Baseball, however, portrays Rodriguez's conduct as repeatedly in violation of baseball rules. Rodriguez seems to have the advantage here: either he's a first-time offender or he is being punished by some other source of law unmentioned by baseball.


He doesn't specifically adress the issue of the validity of adding up cross-suspension periods to reach a mega-suspension, but his conclusion appears to be similar to mine.
   29. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: August 05, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4513494)
Ray, most of your posts on thus site drive me nuts, but the info on the JDA and past roid cases has been very helpfull and enlightning.
Thanks.
   30. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 04:59 PM (#4513505)
Thanks.
   31. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4513518)
Another question I have, since I see the union as not having the stomach for this fight:

If Michael Weiner or some other official speaking on behalf of the union, either generally or specifically in connection with the ARod case (either to the public or to ARod's legal team), says "Oh yes, it was always the parties' intent that violations can be stacked or taken from cross categories to add up to >100 games or even a permanent suspension on a first offense," can ARod specifically dispute that interpretation? Or would his goose be cooked there?

Would it boil down to whether the union specifically notified players that such was the case?

I would think ARod's team could argue to the arbitrator that, regardless of the union's comments, the JDA on its face is unclear, and thus did not properly inform the players that this was the case. I think the argument would perhaps be persuasive, but I'm not quite sure it would be valid or how much weight it would carry.

Bottom line: I think ARod's legal team and the union's lawyers are going to split on their approach to this issue, if they haven't already (and I suspect they have already).
   32. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: August 05, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4513534)
Well, per Rotoworld, Weiner said the union agrees with his decision to fight it and that Selig did not act appropriately under the basic agreement.
   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 06:32 PM (#4513636)
MLB commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement that Rodriguez's punishment will begin Thursday and cover the rest of the 2013 regular season, the 2013 postseason and the 2014 regular season and was covered under the drug program's protocols and based on Rodriguez's "use and possession of numerous forms of prohibited performance-enhancing substances, including testosterone and human growth hormone, over the course of multiple years."


So they want to stack 7A violations. That is very likely to fail.

"Rodriguez's discipline under the Basic Agreement is for attempting to cover-up his violations of the program by engaging in a course of conduct intended to obstruct and frustrate the Office of the Commissioner's investigation," Selig said in the statement.


And this is 7G. Again I think the max here would be 100 games, so even if they can add 7A to 7G time (I'm skeptical), that only gets them up to 150 games. An arbitrator would have authority to give more than 100 games for 7G, but I don't see it.

Do they allege any 7F violations for participating in sale/distribution? ESPN only prints part of Selig's statement (for what reason news organizations don't typically provide us with a complete transcript of such statements, I don't know - clearly it's around somewhere so I'll find it). I don't think "Hey, ARod gave a bunch of players Bosch's contact info" -- or "ARod gave Bosch contact info for a bunch of players" -- would rise to the level needed for 7F.
   34. Walt Davis Posted: August 05, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4513649)
I still don't quite buy the anti-stacking argument although the notification aspect is interesting.

But there's no way to get to 211 or "oh what the heck, the rest of this year and all of next" under the JDA. Sheer stupidity on MLB's part. If they wanted to stack 2 use/possession violations, they should have asked for 150; if they wanted to stack three, they should have asked for permanent. If they wanted one use and one sales then they should have asked for 150. Even if you went with several stacked violations but each less serious than an anayltic positive ... you still can't get to 211. It just smacks of "we can't prove it but we know he was doing something!"

If the arbitrator wants to sort it out to rest of this year and all of next or hint quite broadly that a settlement at that would be a good idea, then fine. But you can't propose it.

It just seems so stupid. They know they have to argue under JDA. Every time you think MLB has learned its lesson ...
   35. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4513672)
Walt, I don't think there's any hay to be made by ARod by arguing that there is something peculiar or invalid about 211 games per se (as opposed to 210 or 200). As we know, 211 games is tied to the end of 2014, and MLB is theoretically able to make up a number under 7G, and of course 7F has a range (80-100) as well.

The issue is whether 211 is supported by the JDA and whether it is a punishment that is reasonably commensurate with the scope of ARod's conduct. If an arbitrator thinks 200-220, for example, is in the ballpark, then it's rational to allow them to pick 211 to take him through 2014.
   36. Ron J Posted: August 05, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4513674)
#34 Doesn't surprise me at all frankly. Think of it in terms of breaking union solidarity rather than the specifics of the ARod case. We know that there are (at minimum) a number of players fully supportive of the hard line Selig and company are proposing.

If an arbitrator reduces the suspension to (say) 100 games (or less) then I thing it leaves the PA substantially less united moving forward.

Now I doubt this is really what's driving Selig. I think everything reeks of MLB's old institutional arrogance, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a side order of low cunning served with said institutional arrogance.
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 06, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4513986)
Yankees' statement:

"We are compelled to address certain reckless and false allegations concerning the Yankees' role in this matter," the team said. "The New York Yankees in no way instituted and/or assisted MLB in the direction of this investigation; or used the investigation as an attempt to avoid its responsibilities under a player contract; or did its medical staff fail to provide the appropriate standard of care to Alex Rodriguez."


I may be wrong here and I'm happy for someone to tell me why - which may not be that difficult - but for my money, the Yankees delayed returning him to the field, hoping that he would either accept a lengthy suspension that would keep him out until 2015, or hoping that Selig would suspend him under the CBA thereby preventing him from returning to the field in 2013. We don't know what the insurance contract says, but any prayer the Yankees had of arguing that he wasn't able to perform for a stretch from 2013-2014 and beyond hinged on him not actually taking the field during that time -- even if it was complicated (and at the end of the day probably undone) by the suspension.

Teams do not freak out when a player excitedly tweets that he's getting close to returning. Team officials do not yell profanities upon being confronted with such a tweet. Teams do not get into public disputes involving a battle of the doctors when a player says that he's ready to take the field. The Yankees were trying to run out the clock hoping that the suspension would keep ARod off the field this year one way or the other, and only when it became clear that MLB was going to suspend him under the JDA thus giving ARod the right to take the field while he was appealing, the Yankees, basically out of options, relented.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(660 - 5:30pm, Oct 31)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4900 - 5:21pm, Oct 31)
Last: Danny

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(36 - 5:20pm, Oct 31)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogRelix: Watch the Exact Moment the Phish Crowd Found Out the Giants Won the World Series
(4 - 5:16pm, Oct 31)
Last: Danny

NewsblogAFL Saguaros at Rafters
(4 - 5:15pm, Oct 31)
Last: Mike Emeigh

Newsblog2014-2015 MLB free agent power ranking
(5 - 5:11pm, Oct 31)
Last: Squash

NewsblogAP: Sandoval, Shields Among 121 Free Agents
(15 - 5:05pm, Oct 31)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogSending Gordon | Joe Blogs
(28 - 5:04pm, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogMLB.com - In pursuit of Maddon, Cubs dismiss Renteria
(14 - 5:01pm, Oct 31)
Last: Al Kaline Trio

NewsblogBoston.com: Youk Retires
(13 - 4:39pm, Oct 31)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFree Agency Contract Calculator - Beyond the Box Score
(1 - 4:38pm, Oct 31)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(138 - 4:22pm, Oct 31)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(33 - 4:11pm, Oct 31)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGabe Kapler to the LA Dodgers Front Office? Misadventures in Twitter Direct Messages
(1 - 4:03pm, Oct 31)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogStatcast: Gordon stops 90 feet from tying Game 7
(17 - 4:02pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

Page rendered in 0.3645 seconds
52 querie(s) executed