'Invisible' Ellsbury

Igosplut

New Member
May 8, 2007
45
Cape Cod MA.
If memory serves me correctly (a quick search on the net brought up nothing but a long laundry list of his injury's) Didn't Ellsbury do the same thing (outside treatment) when he had the collision with Adrian Beltre ? I seem to remember the Sox management getting their nose out of joint because of it
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,692
McAdam notes:

It wasn’t terribly surprising the Yankees unceremoniously released him last week with another year (at $21 million) remaining and a $2 million buyout for 2022. What was surprising was that the Yankees maintain that they’re not going to pay him that remaining money, citing Ellsbury’s decision to seek medical care from someone the Yankees hadn’t approved of as their loophole.

Most agree that their efforts will be unsuccessful and that Ellsbury will ultimately win his appeal, but the very fact that the Yankees are trying to get out from underneath their contractual obligations will only further stain Ellsbury’s reputation.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
McAdam concludes that the Yankees duchebaggery will cause a decline in Ellsbury’s standing?

Ok, journ-o
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
916
(B)Austin Texas
Quoted from Craig Calcanterra of Yahoo.com (I don't have a subscription to The Athletic but he does) who quoted Ken Rosenthal: "Over the weekend Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic spoke to the doctor in question, Viktor Bouquette. Bouquette claims that he never treated Ellsbury for any sports-related injury ... his practice is a bit more wholistic [sic], focusing on “inflammation in patients by identifying and treating its underlying causes.” Ellsbury was already injured when he began working with Bouquette, he says, and Bouquette’s treatments did not conflict with or impair Ellsbury’s injury rehabilitation. Rosenthal reports that the Yankees were aware of Bouquette’s involvement back in May and sent him a letter seeking to confirm that Ellsbury was not being treated with any banned substances ...Bouquette says he responded promptly, so confirming."

As reported elsewhere, the Yankees do not have insurance for the 2020 year of Ellsbury's contract.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,397
In fairness to the Yankees (WTF am I saying?!), that's a much more cut-and-dried situation. You can't play dangerous sports or hobbies while under contract, because you can get hurt. Everyone understands that, and like everyone says, it's black-and-white and inarguable. A few of them go skiing in the winter anyways. No one really cares unless you get hurt, but if you do get hurt, you should expect them to throw the book at you, because you selfishly let the team down and, from a business perspective, deprived them of the value of their bargain. You have some sympathy for people just playing rec basketball in a gym, trying to stay active in the winter, but he's also being paid millions of dollars not to do so.

So yeah, that's another example of the Yankees voiding a contract, but I don't think it falls into the category of "sin of not being as good as they thought he was when they signed him".

As for Ellsbury, based solely on the reported facts of "sought treatment from a licensed doctor who may or may not have had a professional error 8 years ago and is clearly being smeared by the NYDN", I have trouble feeling like this is anything except sour grapes by NYY management. Was Ellsbury taking PEDs? Is there evidence? A failed test? No? Then the complaint is that there are "suspicions" about this doctor's medical practice. Come the hell on. Absent any shenanigans with prohibited substances, all this proves is that Ellsbury was sincere about trying to get back on the field.
I’m not sure why the requirement to be fully transparent with the club about medical treatment is different from the requirement not to engage in certain hobbies — they are unusual restrictions that reflect the unusual nature of the work, and there is nothing inherently unfair about enforcing those clauses only when the club is harmed by a violation.

Just as players who ski or ride motorcycles only get in trouble if they get hurt, I expect Ellsbury will get his money unless the MFY can show that the undisclosed treatments may have hindered his ability to get back on the field. And if the MFY knew about the treatments early last season and raised no concerns until now, they are probably on the hook even if the treatments were harmful.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,710
If anyone cares, here is what appears to be the operative language from the CBA: https://d39ba378-ae47-4003-86d3-147e4fa6e51b.filesusr.com/ugd/b0a4c2_95883690627349e0a5203f61b93715b5.pdf

ARTICLE XIII—Safety and Health
G. Disclosure of Medical or Health Information
(2) Notice of and Authorization for Medical Care
(a) Work-Related. A Player shall provide his Club with reasonable advancenotice of any treatment conducted by a health care provider inconnection with a disability directly resulting from an injury sustained in the course and within the scope of his employment (including an elective procedure) (collectively referred to as a “Work-Related Injury”), unless such health care provider is affiliated with the Club. Any treatment a Player receives for a Work-Related Injury by a health care provider who is not affiliated with the Club must be authorized by the Club in advance of the treatment in accordance with Regulation 2 of the UPC. If suchtreatment involves a surgery or invasive procedure, such authorization must be in writing. A Player is not required to provide his Club with notice of aconsultation or evaluation of a Work-Related Injury by a healthcare provider who is not affiliated with the Club provided that the Player: (i) receives no treatment in connection with the consultation or evaluation; (ii) does not submit to an invasive test or procedure; and (iii) is not invoking his right to a Second Medical Opinion under Section D of this Article. In addition, if such an evaluation or consultation was not authorized by the Club, the Club will not be responsible under Regulation 2 of the UPC for any expenses incurred by the Player in connection with it.​
(b) Non-Work-Related. A Player is not required to provide a Club with reasonableadvance notice of a treatment for a disability, injury or condition(including an elective procedure) that is not work-related (collectively referred to as a “Non-Work-Related Injury”) unless the nature of the Non-Work-Related Injury may affect the Player’s ability to provide services as required by the UPC, in which case the Player must provide the Club with advance notice of any treatment. In addition, a Player will be excused from any notice requirement if the treatment is in response to a medical emergency, and there is insufficient time to contact the Club.​
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,877
Garden City
I don't think we can blame teams for testing the boundaries of the rules. It's not evil or unfair. However, if the Yankees are just looking to slither their way into a loophole based on a couple doctor visits or something, I would hope this is very black and white and Ellsbury gets his money.