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

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Union would expel A-Rod if it could

“When he comes up to bat, you can hit him and hit him hard,” one player on the conference call told Yahoo Sports. “That’s what I’d do.”

Anyone want an OBP machine?

Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 01:53 PM | 57 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: a-rod, steroids, union

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. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 21, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4643403)
Apparently the players don't understand that A-Rod is required to sue the union if he wants to challenge the arbitration.
   2. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 21, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4643406)
Given the way the Yankees seemed to rally around him last year I don't buy that players are that pissed at him. I was at the game where Dempster plunked him and the players didn't hesitate in charging out of the dugout and Girardi was as pissed off as I've ever seen a manager get.

I'm sure the lawsuit changes things a bit but I doubt the players are truly that bothered by it.

As always with steroids, it's bad when other guys do it, no biggie when your teammates do it (see Matt Holliday and Jhonny Peralta).
   3. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4643416)
You have to understand that to the anti-steroids crazies, the accusation alone suffices as proof. So they get very upset when a player chooses to challenge the discipline rather than accept it.
   4. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: January 21, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4643417)
After the union killed A-Rod's deal to Boston in 2003, I doubt he really cares what the union thinks.
   5. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 21, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4643432)
After the union killed A-Rod's deal to Boston in 2003, I doubt he really cares what the union thinks.
If he really cared that much about that, he would have filed a grievance against the Union in 2003. Instead he told the Red Sox he would veto any trade the union did not approve.
   6. Nasty Nate Posted: January 21, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4643446)
After the union killed A-Rod's deal to Boston in 2003, I doubt he really cares what the union thinks.


But didn't the union's actions in 2003 eventually let him keep more of his contract than the Boston deal, while also letting him get out of Texas? I don't remember the specifics.
   7. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 21, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4643496)
But didn't the union's actions in 2003 eventually let him keep more of his contract than the Boston deal, while also letting him get out of Texas? I don't remember the specifics.


The Red Sox had worked out a Manny-for-A-Rod deal with the Rangers, that required A-Rod to take a pay cut, which he agreed to. The Union pointed out that taking a pay cut violated the CBA, and there was some speculation that Selig might okay the trade anyway and fight the union on this point, but A-Rod said that he would veto any trade the Union didn't approve, which more or less killed the trade.
   8. eddieot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4643507)
I'm sure the lawsuit changes things a bit but I doubt the players are truly that bothered by it.

You mean besides the 40 or so players on the call who want to kick him out? The players are pissed, no doubt about it. The union is their bread and butter. It took decades to get the players this cohesive and strong and current player leadership has no patience for dissent from within. Plus, Weiner was universally loved by the membership and an attack on his legacy did not sit well with current and former players. By suing the union A-Rod cut off his only real ally, except for Tacapina and his hourly billing staff.
   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4643512)
You mean besides the 40 or so players on the call who want to kick him out? The players are pissed, no doubt about it. The union is their bread and butter. It took decades to get the players this cohesive and strong


The union is at its weakest and most vulnerable point in decades. They have been steamrolled by MLB on this issue, which has had severe negative affects to the players and their contracts.

Plus, Weiner was universally loved by the membership and an attack on his legacy did not sit well with current and former players.


There was no attack on him or on his legacy. There was a claim that the union under Weiner's leadership didn't fulfill its responsibilities towards ARod and that Weiner himself made comments that harmed ARod.
   10. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4643558)
I'm not finding it hard to believe A-Rod will never play in the majors again--it would not shock me if the Yankees released him and ate his remaining contract as soon as his suspension ends, and he finds himself blackballed.
   11. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4643590)
I'm not finding it hard to believe A-Rod will never play in the majors again--it would not shock me if the Yankees released him and ate his remaining contract as soon as his suspension ends, and he finds himself blackballed.


Will be almost as big a joke as the Bonds black-ball.

A-Rod was targeted by the MLB and didn't do anything worse than the players they settled with.
   12. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4643595)
I'm not finding it hard to believe A-Rod will never play in the majors again--it would not shock me if the Yankees released him and ate his remaining contract as soon as his suspension ends, and he finds himself blackballed.


It would be hilarious if the Yankees released him and ate his contract, only to see another team pick him up for a song.

And that's the difference with the Bonds situation. The Giants in refusing to resign Bonds had no risk that they would be picking up the check while he played for another team.
   13. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4643599)
No doubt the Yankees and Selig are praying that he fails a drug test or otherwise can be shown to have used while suspended, thus bringing more discipline.

And if he fails a drug test it could become a messy situation as to whether the positive was for use already disciplined for or for new use (or whether the Yankees planted the drugs in his system, which I say half jokingly but now teams do have the incentive to do that).
   14. dlf Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4643601)
The notice of suspension indicated that MLB was still investigating Rodriguez's involvement with Anthony Galea, a person in Toronto publicly connected to hGH. I wonder how much information they have now or will buy before the 162 suspension ends ...
   15. JRVJ Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4643612)
Obviously some posters don't care one scintilla about the contents of the article, but assuming this is not a specious or very distorted spin job put out by MLBPA (i.e., assuming this actually reflects what happened), then let's stop this silly Sheehan/Marchman/RDP clothes ripping exercise about whether the players have been steamrolled or not.

Ultimately, (1) IF THE PLAYERS want to be strict on steroids or perhaps more importantly, (2) IF THE PLAYERS want to be strict on steroids but even moreso, on somebody who sues his own union, then that's their damn right and no third party commenters matter here.
   16. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4643618)
Plenty of union members in regular industries get to the point where they will sue their union. If you think you're getting the shaft and you don't want to get the shaft I don't really know why people would think you'd be lovey-dovey over getting the shaft. As they say, "it's business, it's nothing personal". In order to fight the case he has to sue the union. Plain and simple. I'm currently dealing with a situation where the union we work with is making us jump through a million hoops because a guy we let go will not accept being let go and the union has to show that they took the necessary steps and protected his rights the best they could.

If the players are angry over the union being naned in a lawsuit then the union has failed to properly educate them.
   17. villageidiom Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4643620)
The union is at its weakest and most vulnerable point in decades. They have been steamrolled by MLB on this issue, which has had severe negative affects to the players and their contracts.
Source? Or are you simply asserting?
   18. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4643621)
Ultimately, (1) IF THE PLAYERS want to be strict on steroids or perhaps more importantly, (2) IF THE PLAYERS want to be strict on steroids but even moreso, on somebody who sues his own union, then that's their damn right and no third party commenters matter here.


I wonder IF THE PLAYERS knew that their union lawyers had done such an awful job of representing their interests that the union lawyers didn't make sure the JDA was clear as to whether a non-analytical positive showing use of multiple substances in the same category could result in 50 games for each substance.
   19. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4643625)
A-Rod should buy a block of 40 bleachers seats at Yankee Stadium next season, and sit in them alone, with a huge cigar and his feet up like Max Cady.
   20. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4643626)
Source? Or are you simply asserting?


I don't know what in the world "Source?" is supposed to mean in this context. Is it some lame debating tactic? The question makes no sense. My source is me, after closely following what has happened over the last 10+ years in this issue and being able to understand and analyze it.

More to the point, my "source," if we're applying some twisted usage of the word, is Frederic Horowitz, for starters. Read his decision in the ARod grievance and then maybe you'll be informed enough to discuss these issues. Horowitz just interpreted the JDA expansively to uphold a suspension that wiped out one year from ARod's career and $25 million from ARod's contract. That is a "severe negative effect to the players and their contracts," as I said.
   21. JRVJ Posted: January 21, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4643668)
18, can you countenance the possibility that THE PLAYERS are more upset about PEDs than potential legal issues pertaining the JDA?

And if they are, that what third parties opine is irrelevant?
   22. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 06:52 PM (#4643673)
18, can you countenance the possibility that THE PLAYERS are more upset about PEDs than potential legal issues pertaining the JDA?


Contract status and loss of millions of dollars in a contract year are more than "legal issues." They are money issues - which players care about. If these players don't care about money/salary/income/contracts they are literally the first group of MLB players ever to not care.

It's up to the union's lawyers to (a) advise the players competently when the players are not fully comprehending an issue so that the players can make informed decisions, and (b) negotiate solid agreements with MLB that are clear as to what the players are agreeing to.

Since (b) didn't happen, there is no way that (a) could have happened. And since (a) didn't happen, the players are essentially being led through the forest by a blind shepherd and thus they are uninformed even if they think they know what they want.
   23. eddieot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 07:25 PM (#4643702)
The union is at its weakest and most vulnerable point in decades. They have been steamrolled by MLB on this issue, which has had severe negative affects to the players and their contracts.

Yes, Ray, contracts have suffered severely. The AAV of all the contracts signed this offseason is embarrassing. The players -- sorry -- the majority of players -- want the game rid of PEDs. If a few players have to suffer the consequences that is their right to decide as a collective bargaining unit. It isn't weakness, it's a personal health and business issue.

Also, can you countenance the possibility that THE PLAYERS are more upset about PEDs than potential legal issues pertaining the JDA?
Seriously, That's what happened. The players want the game clean.
   24. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4643717)
Yes, Ray, contracts have suffered severely. The AAV of all the contracts signed this offseason is embarrassing. The players -- sorry -- the majority of players -- want the game rid of PEDs.


A vocal plurality do, and a vocal leadership do. That may mean there is a majority, but it may not.

If a few players have to suffer the consequences that is their right to decide as a collective bargaining unit.


So far it's been ARod who has "suffered the consequences" of a poorly drafted drug agreement that only an incompetent union lawyer would have agreed to, since the agreement is unclear as to fundamental core issues of discipline. So the players "decided" nothing, since a decision that isn't informed isn't actually a decision at all. But, sure, "we don't care if a few members get thrown under the bus" sounds great, until it's you that is being thrown under the bus. Then it doesn't sound so hot.

To the extent that any one player could be significant in strengthening the union it was ARod for signing two mega-deals that helped increase player salaries, and for respecting the union's wishes in not going to Boston for a pay cut.
   25. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 21, 2014 at 07:48 PM (#4643722)
"Severe negative effects to their contracts?" No one has had a contract terminated because of the steroid issue. No one. All of the players accepted their suspensions with the exception of one man, a man with a history of questionable behavior and strange decision-making.

The players are doing very well, thank you, as evidenced by the contracts being given to the stars of the free agent class. And any players taking their contracts to arbitration can expect significant raises, as has been the case for years.

Bottom line: This is still the strongest union in the country.
   26. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 07:57 PM (#4643725)
"Severe negative effects to their contracts?" No one has had a contract terminated because of the steroid issue. No one.


Not yet. Not formally. But (a) the league threatened ARod with permanent suspension, (b) there is a good case to be made that the Yankees delayed putting ARod on the field in the hope that he would be suspended and never play again, and (c) nobody serious believes that the league and the Yankees (even if separately) will explore every avenue to try to get out from paying ARod the rest of his contract. Also (d) many people believe, with good reason, that ARod will be blackballed and thus never play again, and even if he gets paid that is still a pretty ghastly outcome. And don't forget (e) we're just beginning this, so while the league hasn't terminated a contract yet, it now has through Horowitz's decision the means to effectively do so, and where there is a way there is a will.

All of the players accepted their suspensions with the exception of one man, a man with a history of questionable behavior and strange decision-making.


You're being disingenuous. The others were offered 50 games. ARod wasn't. And ARod saw MLB put its full weight and then some behind an investigation of him. Think back to your Sesame Street lessons: one of these is not like the others. Can you tell which? If not you're not a serious person worth discussing this issue with.
   27. eddieot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 07:59 PM (#4643728)
A vocal plurality do, and a vocal leadership do. That may mean there is a majority, but it may not.

If you really believe that Ray, I have nothing to offer. If you think the MLBPA acts on the whims of a "vocal plurality" then I know you have no concept of how this union works. I can't counter an argument that is based on your own misconceptions.
   28. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:03 PM (#4643730)
McCoy, how much is "plenty"?
   29. vivaelpujols Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4643736)
The only way the ARod/JDA/CBA mess effects other players is if teams intentionally plant steroids or leaks of steroids or whatever in dead weight players with huge contracts. It would take a leap to see this expanding beyond steroid usage and frankly it's a leap to think that teams would go so low as to do this. I think most of this is Selig trying to clear his image rather than a deliberate attempt to weaken the union.

That being said, the job of the union is not to enforce a moral standard preferred by the majority of it's members, it's to protect the negotiated rights of every single one of it's players. The union arguably did not sufficiently protect ARod's rights (which is why he's perfectly justified to sue them). Steroids are unpopular, but so are a lot of other things that certain union members do which I'm sure they don't want held against them in financial matters. Brett Myers hit his wife and probably 99% of the players have not done so, but do you think the union should support Myers to be punished beyond what MLB or the teams have the authority to do? If players want steroids out of the game, have them negotiate stricter drug laws. Hell I don't care if the next JDA has a ban for first time offense. But it has to be in there, you can't just make up #### as you go along.
   30. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:28 PM (#4643799)
McCoy, how much is "plenty"?

More than two.
   31. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:31 PM (#4643800)
Bottom line: This is still the strongest union in the country.

We shall see. Lots of people and things were once the strongest until someone came along and knocked them over. Rome was once the strongest empire in the world. Now they are not.
   32. eddieot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:46 PM (#4643806)
The union arguably did not sufficiently protect ARod's rights (which is why he's perfectly justified to sue them).

I keep hearing this argument but no one really explains how this is true. The union got A-Rod's suspension reduced. They didn't "win" the case in that A-Rod is still being punished, but isn't it possible that A-Rod was in fact guilty of what he was accused of, and the union did the best they could given their members' feelings?

If players want steroids out of the game, have them negotiate stricter drug laws. Hell I don't care if the next JDA has a ban for first time offense. But it has to be in there, you can't just make up #### as you go along.

They will. It's a process. Laws are always being amended and changed. To think they would get it right in the first attempt is pretty naive.
   33. Dale Sams Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4643808)
We shall see


Those guys never should have thrown ARod's friend off the top of that roof. And they certainly shouldn't have killed his brother. Great idea fellas. Make it personal by killing his family.
   34. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2014 at 11:06 PM (#4643818)
They didn't "win" the case in that A-Rod is still being punished, but isn't it possible that A-Rod was in fact guilty of what he was accused of, and the union did the best they could given their members' feelings?

Feelings? Look, the rest of the union could have said to spit in Arod's eye, laugh deliriously at ARod's problems, and then tell him to go take a hike. It doesn't matter. Every member of the union is supposed to get the same protection and help from the union regardless of whether or not you like them. And when you think your union isn't vigorously or properly defending you one of the last options left to you after you've used up your other options and the decision has been handed down is to go after the union for failure to do what was agreed upon.
   35. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM (#4643819)
They will. It's a process. Laws are always being amended and changed. To think they would get it right in the first attempt is pretty naive.

I think it was pretty naive of the union to think bumbling around in the dark while everyone finally figures out what is the proper path and let management dictate what is the right path was the correct path.

If you think there are flaws in the contract you don't sign. If you think there is some gray area you get it clarified. You don't call it a work in progress, sign off on it, and then hope the guys who have spent the last 100 years screwing you suddenly grow a loving and caring heart.
   36. Bhaakon Posted: January 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM (#4643839)
I think it was pretty naive of the union to think bumbling around in the dark while everyone finally figures out what is the proper path and let management dictate what is the right path was the correct path.


That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, I think. Management was just as happy to let the PED users continue one unmolested, until the press and government started digging in. This is much less of a two-party face off than the typical union/management clash, both because outside parties exert a large amount of influence in the process, and because neither the MLBPA membership nor MLB owners are particularly monolithic groups.
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 11:58 PM (#4643844)
By the way, it's interesting to note that IF THE PLAYERS were truly committed to this issue in the manner that people say, they would agree to formally allow MLB to void contracts for a failed drug test. But, shockingly, they won't agree to that:

NEW YORK -- New baseball union head Tony Clark says players won't agree to terminating contracts as part of discipline for drug violations.

Clark took over as executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association following Michael Weiner's death in November and expects talks on possible changes to the drug agreement to start before spring training. Commissioner Bud Selig proposed last March that drug penalties be toughened, but Weiner had said any alterations would be discussed for the 2014 season.

"I'd venture to guess that even though there are concerns on a number of levels, that we will never end up in a world where player contracts are voided as a result," Clark said Wednesday during an interview with The Associated Press at the union's office.

   38. ptodd Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:22 AM (#4643869)
The union got A-Rod's suspension reduced.


Please tell me how they get credit for that?

To think they would get it right in the first attempt is pretty naive.


The JDA is subject to annual review, they have had more than 10 chances to get it "right". MLB poses no resistance to more severe penalties, the only hold back is the MLBPA.
   39. Zach Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4643871)
I think it was pretty naive of the union to think bumbling around in the dark while everyone finally figures out what is the proper path and let management dictate what is the right path was the correct path.

I misread this at first as saying that the union was naive to think that the problem would go away if they waited long enough, and lost a lot of momentum to management because of it. I actually think that reading is pretty close to being on the money.

Steroids are a natural wedge issue. Lots of players don't like them, don't want to be forced to use them, don't like that other players do use them. Some players do like them, because it gives them an advantage over other players. There is no natural "players' position" that automatically runs counter to the "owners' position."
   40. Zach Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:28 AM (#4643872)
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, I think. Management was just as happy to let the PED users continue one unmolested, until the press and government started digging in. This is much less of a two-party face off than the typical union/management clash, both because outside parties exert a large amount of influence in the process, and because neither the MLBPA membership nor MLB owners are particularly monolithic groups.

I agree with this, but I would also say that at this late date in history, management broadly believes that they have to have some kind of PED policy in order to market the game effectively.
   41. BrianBrianson Posted: January 22, 2014 at 06:31 AM (#4643901)
The only way the ARod/JDA/CBA mess effects other players is if teams intentionally plant steroids or leaks of steroids or whatever in dead weight players with huge contracts. It would take a leap to see this expanding beyond steroid usage and frankly it's a leap to think that teams would go so low as to do this. I think most of this is Selig trying to clear his image rather than a deliberate attempt to weaken the union.


"What's the most counter-factual statement you can make about the situation, Alex?" Selig's image gathered no tarnish, and these proceedings have not been good for it. They have been quite effective at damaging the union. Selig ended up with a sandwich - it's crazy to assert he was trying to make roast chicken, and not crazy to assert he was trying to make a sandwich. Beyond that, there's no leap required to think MLB would go from threatening and bribing scumbags to testify they supplied steroids to players whose teams want to dump their contracts to threatening and bribing scumbags to testify they supplied steroids to players whose teams want to dump their contracts. No jumping, no hopping, probably not even a step. Already there.
   42. Andy McGeady Posted: January 22, 2014 at 07:23 AM (#4643902)
Long term, if the MLBPA continue with this stance I see it backfiring.

a) it's the union's job to stand up for every member
b) the spreading of misinformation (deliberately?) about a member is bad juju, at the very least. Sets a powerful precedent.
c) speaking of precedent, I can imagine MLB and its owners rubbing their hands with glee at this - potentially gives them platform for arguments in future arbitration hearings.

The 2017 PED Arbitration Hearings: "Mr. Arbitrator, we in MLB cannot see how the players' association can possibly argue against this 150 game punishment when it is in fact more lenient than that handed down to Alex Rodriguez after the 2013 season, whose 162 game punishment the association not only accepted without challenge but also then tolerated attempts by members to kick that player out of the union after he had adhered by a straightforward, purely procedural requirement, in challenging the 162 game decision itself.

We submit to you, Mr. Arbirator, that the players' association should not be allowed to pick and choose their battles as they are now so doing.

All we ask for is consistency."
   43. villageidiom Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:38 AM (#4643911)
I don't know what in the world "Source?" is supposed to mean in this context. Is it some lame debating tactic? The question makes no sense. My source is me, after closely following what has happened over the last 10+ years in this issue and being able to understand and analyze it.
Wow, you're very defensive for someone who was merely asserting his own opinion and was being asked to confirm if he was doing just that. Given your past assertions and analysis on this issue have been wrong, I can understand your defensiveness.
   44. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:25 AM (#4643928)
The union is at its weakest and most vulnerable point in decades. They have been steamrolled by MLB on this issue, which has had severe negative affects to the players and their contracts.

Yeah, that explains why Clayton Kershaw just signed a megadeal for the most dollars per year in the history of the game.
   45. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4643933)
Yeah, that explains why Clayton Kershaw just signed a megadeal for the most dollars per year in the history of the game.


Hey, you remember that one time it got cold, yeah that totally disproved global warming. And when that rocket went to the moon, that gravity theory is total BS. And no one who has ever told the truth can be a liar, and no one who has ever lied can tell the truth. Because there is only black OR white, suggesting both could exist is crazy, and talk of grey or even colors is ... well the mind boggles.

Great post Joey.
   46. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4644012)
Big contracts are being given to players all over the place, and you know that dipshite. I'm not going to bother listing every single one of them for you.
   47. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4644019)
The union being weak and vulnerable is related to future contracts, and only loosely (there is much more to the union than the size of the $ in the contract), and pretty much not related to current or past contracts.

Suggesting the union is not vulnerable because players got large contracts is beyond silly.
   48. Andy McGeady Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4644074)
44. Joey B. says karma hits you right in the face Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:25 AM (#4643928)

The union is at its weakest and most vulnerable point in decades. They have been steamrolled by MLB on this issue, which has had severe negative affects to the players and their contracts.

Yeah, that explains why Clayton Kershaw just signed a megadeal for the most dollars per year in the history of the game.
No, it explains why MLB has felt free to employ tactics towards an active player that blur most reasonable interpretations of legality or fairness without fear of serious pushback from the player union.

Your example explains something completely different, that being that an employment contract signed by one of the best young pitchers in baseball ever, covering his prime years, by a ballclub that thanks to an enormous TV deal is awash with perhaps more money than any in the history of the game, has many zeroes attached.
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4644089)
Yeah, that explains why Clayton Kershaw just signed a megadeal for the most dollars per year in the history of the game.


Non sequitur.
   50. AROM Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4644229)
The Red Sox had worked out a Manny-for-A-Rod deal with the Rangers, that required A-Rod to take a pay cut, which he agreed to. The Union pointed out that taking a pay cut violated the CBA, and there was some speculation that Selig might okay the trade anyway and fight the union on this point, but A-Rod said that he would veto any trade the Union didn't approve, which more or less killed the trade.


A-Rod would have made a bit less from 2004-2007 had the trade gone through. I'll try and take a stab at what it means for baseball history:

2004: Red Sox have A-Rod play short (286/375/512) but it's not one of his best years. They have no Manny (308/397/613). Nomar probably gets traded early on for a left fielder, or is told to play left, or goes to 3rd so Mueller can play left. This doesn't really make the 2004 Red Sox better, but makes the Yankees weaker.

Verdict: Still probably win the world series. 25% chance A-Rod does something stupid or unclutch to take the bat out of Ortiz's hands at a crucial moment.

2005: Red Sox get a huge season out of Manny, but A-Rod is even better, and with more time to adjust their priorities the Red Sox have a left fielder to be named who vastly outhits Edgar Renteria. But the 2005 postseason was all about the White Sox and their hot pitching, and they have no trouble shutting down Boston's offense. A-Rod went 2 for 15 that postseason against the Angels, he would have been lucky to get one hit against the White Sox (similar to his 2006 postseason against pitching rich Detroit).

2006: Red Sox win 86 but are outscored on the season. Manny had a much better year than A-Rod, which partly offsets the mystery left fielder who outhits Alex Gonzalez. That team's pitching was just too weak though, they still miss the playoffs.

2007: Manny hit only 296/388/493, SS Lugo was crappy. A replacement LF (not to be read as replacement level, but a decent player they could have gotten with the money spent on Lugo) probably gets an 800-850 OPS, and A-Rod hits 54 homers with 156 RBI. In real life they won the WS, with A-Rod's big season they are even more convincing in the role (tough to do since they swept it).

2008+: A-Rod opts out. Boston has shown a reluctance to set the bar in contracts. New York would be in a situation where they've been out of the WS, their biggest rival just won, and the game's biggest star is a free agent. The Yankees have always relished taking big stars away from Boston. The only question is whether they entice him with an even bigger deal than 10/275.
   51. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4644237)
Non sequitur.

Bullsh*t. You made a stupid comment that isn't borne out by what's taking place in reality.
   52. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4644273)
Beyond that, there's no leap required to think MLB would go from threatening and bribing scumbags to testify they supplied steroids to players whose teams want to dump their contracts to threatening and bribing scumbags to testify they supplied steroids to players whose teams want to dump their contracts. No jumping, no hopping, probably not even a step. Already there.


I think the difference here is that there was external evidence not directly created by Bosch. For example, Horowitz relied for support on the Blackberry messages that originated from the devices owned by A-Rod, to which A-Rod's team responded that (a) someone could have tampered with the messages; (b) MLB wouldn't let our guy examine the devices so we don't really know whether someone did - but even so (c) we don't want a neutral person to evaluate the devices for tampering. (Note that A-Rod's team didn't deny the messages came from A-Rod's devices, so we can accept that he was communicating with Bosch.)

If MLB tried to suspend some innocent player by trying to create evidence out of thin air that he used PEDs, I think it's more likely that the MLBPA would aggressively protect his rights and oppose any suspension under the JDA - especially if MLB couldn't produce external evidence that corroborated that testimony. I certainly think that if A-Rod truly didn't send those messages to Bosch, his team would have been much more aggressive in trying to show tampering - I can't imagine a situation under those circumstances where A-Rod's team would not have accepted Horowitz's idea of having a neutral third party expert review the devices for tampering.

-- MWE
   53. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4644286)
If MLB tried to suspend some innocent player by trying to create evidence out of thin air that he used PEDs,


A likely scenario is:

Brian McNamee type to Angels: "Hey, I supplied Pujols with steroids. Wanna get out from under a season or more of his contract? What'll you give me to testify?"
   54. Captain Supporter Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4644288)
When you start having to defend someone by arguing that 500 of his text messages could have been tampered with, you might as well just admit that he was guilty.

Unless you are Ray, of course.
   55. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4644297)
(Note that A-Rod's team didn't deny the messages came from A-Rod's devices, so we can accept that he was communicating with Bosch.)

We can? I mean we can do anything we want but that isn't really how it works in hearings and such where there are procedures and laws.
   56. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4644299)
When you start having to defend someone by arguing that 500 of his text messages could have been tampered with, you might as well just admit that he was guilty.

Unless you are Ray, of course.


For the adults in the room: I have never argued that ARod is innocent or that he did not take PEDs or that the text messages didn't come from ARod's devices. My point has always been about the appropriate level of discipline under the JDA/CBA.
   57. PepTech Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4644308)
Source? Or are you simply asserting?
I don't know what in the world "Source?" is supposed to mean in this context. Is it some lame debating tactic? The question makes no sense. My source is me, after closely following what has happened over the last 10+ years in this issue and being able to understand and analyze it.

So the answer is, "simply asserting".

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

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(22 - 3:24am, Oct 25)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.6970 seconds
52 querie(s) executed