Report: A-Rod banned through 2014?

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
StuckOnYouk said:
Question, can A-Rod sue MLB if Selig imposes a lifetime ban?
 
Probably a stupid question, but figured I'd ask.
 
 
Yes, and I'll take the case; there are limits, even for a would be Caesar.
 
I dislike A-Rod and everything he stands for.  But Selig, like Tattaglia, is a pimp, and he's forever trying to expunge 1994 and its cynical aftermath.  Out damned spot, out I say.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,571
If MLB is really going for a lifetime ban, they must have evidence for either him recruiting many other players or him hiring people to steal boxes of evidence, right? I really hope that no matter how this turns out, everything that MLB has gets made public. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
jon abbey said:
If MLB is really going for a lifetime ban, they must have evidence for either him recruiting many other players or him hiring people to steal boxes of evidence, right? I really hope that no matter how this turns out, everything that MLB has gets made public. 
 
It has to be something of this order -- running a RICO enterprise or obstruction of justice -- to justify life in prison without parole, which is what this would be.  Until presented with the evidence, I'm going to assume that this is Selig being Selig.
 
If I'm the Yanks, I'd don't play games with A-Rod.  Play him when he's healthy, if for no other reason than to distance yourself from the Selig shenanigans.
 

AbbyNoho

broke her neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,180
Northampton, Massachusetts
I still don't like that the Yankees sign a guy for huge money that they know is a cheater, get some good years out of him, and then get to just walk away from it because Selig is afraid for his legacy. New York is not innocent in this, but they get rewarded. 
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,302
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Andrew said:
I still don't like that the Yankees sign a guy for huge money that they know is a cheater, get some good years out of him, and then get to just walk away from it because Selig is afraid for his legacy. New York is not innocent in this, but they get rewarded. 
Considering the number of people who have been implicated/caught using PEDs with ties to the NYY compared to all other teams (combined?), either the entire franchise is staffed by Mr. Magoo's less-sighted family members or they are complicit in this.  Punishing the NYY by sticking them with ARod's contract (and a spot on the 40-man, if possible) would be the BEST deterrent to other teams to avoid PED users in the future.  If the team gets away scott free, they've got nothing to lose beyond a little bad press and the need to fill a position on their roster.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,571
SemperFidelisSox said:
The report of A-Rod attempting to negotiate a deal seems to be from tonight. ESPN has it as their lead story on their ticker.
 
But at literally the same time, MLBN had constant flashing reports that MLB is going for the lifetime ban.
 

BucketOBalls

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
5,643
Steak of Turmoil
Yaz4Ever said:
Considering the number of people who have been implicated/caught using PEDs with ties to the NYY compared to all other teams (combined?), either the entire franchise is staffed by Mr. Magoo's less-sighted family members or they are complicit in this.  Punishing the NYY by sticking them with ARod's contract (and a spot on the 40-man, if possible) would be the BEST deterrent to other teams to avoid PED users in the future.  If the team gets away scott free, they've got nothing to lose beyond a little bad press and the need to fill a position on their roster.
 
What they should do is have the balance of banned players contracts paid to MLB.  That way the team loses the money and cap space and the player doesn't get the money. No incentive for anyone.    We don't want players thinking they might be able to retire early at the worst case either. 
 
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,751
Garden City
What the fuck are you guys talking about? For a few days I've been reading people have serious conversations about why a team should be liable to pay a contract after a player gets suspended. 
 
That's not how it works. It's not how it's ever worked. It's not going to change just because the Yankees signed a really really stupid contract and you're upset that they might get away with it. The cynical side of all of us would like to see every team get burned for their stupid contracts but to have pages of serious discussions about this is kind of annoying. 
 
Sorry that it's gotta be the Yankee fan to come out and say it but it's just a really dumb discussion.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,302
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
BucketOBalls said:
 
What they should do is have the balance of banned players contracts paid to MLB.  That way the team loses the money and cap space and the player doesn't get the money. No incentive for anyone.    We don't want players thing they might be able to retire early at the worst case either. 
 
Excellent point.  I was thinking of some charitable way to dispose of their income, but couldn't find anything that would be feasible.  MLB is also complicit in this, so them getting the money would need to have strings attached to it in which MLB would need to build fields in inner cities or something along those lines.  I agree, though, that the teams should have to pay but the player shouldn't reap the benefits.  I also wouldn't want the money to be used by MLB or the team in their own area - "Gee, we're sorry we signed ARod but look our money went to new fields in Harlam.  We're really good people who made a mistake."  The money should be spent elsewhere so their fans don't benefit in a way that keeps them happy with their team.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,302
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
crow216 said:
What the fuck are you guys talking about? For a few days I've been reading people have serious conversations about why a team should be liable to pay a contract after a player gets suspended. 
 
That's not how it works. It's not how it's ever worked. It's not going to change just because the Yankees signed a really really stupid contract and you're upset that they might get away with it. The cynical side of all of us would like to see every team get burned for their stupid contracts but to have pages of serious discussions about this is kind of annoying. 
 
Sorry that it's gotta be the Yankee fan to come out and say it but it's just a really dumb discussion.
although I just used the NYY as an example in my last post (which I posted before reading yours), I don't believe anyone is suggesting it be limited to burning the Yankees.  Anyone who took on a known cheat (or resigned them after finding out), does not deserve to benefit.  The largest example of this happens to be NYY.  Sorry if that offends your fandom :)
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,751
Garden City
Yaz4Ever said:
Had he not admitted to using in the past before this extension was signed?  I honestly thought he did.
 
In December 2007, Rodriguez and the Yankees agreed to a 10-year, $275 million contract. In February 2009, after previously denying use of performance-enhancing drugs, including during a 2007 interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes, Rodriguez admitted to using steroids, saying he used them from 2001 to 2003 when playing for the Texas Rangers due to "an enormous amount of pressure" to perform.[6][7]
 

phrenile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
13,949
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
BTW, to go back to the issue of whether ARod's contract would count against the CBT, this article - http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130730/SPORTS/130739991 - quotes "MLB" to say that ARod's contract would not count.
 
Having looked at the CBA, there is certain evidence that is true - only players on the active list count towards the CBT and it appears that players who are suspended pursuant to the Joint Drug Agreement are placed on some kind of restricted list.
 
Interestingly enough, however, one thing that isn't clear is what happens if ARod is suspended under the "best interests of baseball" clause.  I suspect, though, MLB is going to rule that the salary isn't going to count. 
 
More's the pity.
I've seen that widely reported, but it seems utterly inconsistent with CBA Article XXIII:
  • Players serving disciplinary suspension imposed by the Commissioner are considered to be on the Club's Active List and earn service time. (CBA Article XXI A.(2)(a).)
  • Discipline under the JDA is discipline imposed by the Commissioner's Office (JDA section 1.A.3.).
  • Although players serving JDA suspensions are placed on the Restricted List, they still earn service time (JDA section 7.I.), which is consistent with Article XXI.
  • Being on the Restricted List has implications under the MLRs (e.g. not counting towards the numerical limits of MLR 2(c)(2), staying on the team's Reserved List for 2 years under MLR 15(g), etc.). But nothing says that players on the Restricted List aren't on the Club's Active List, under Article XXI or best I can tell anywhere else.
  • The Restricted List is define as an Inactive List under MLR 60(s), but so's the Disabled List, and I've never seen anyone argue that players on the Disabled List don't count for the Competitive Balance Tax.
At the end of the day, the CBT is no one's beef but the club owners', and Selig can presumably reach whatever outcome they go along with. But I'm still inclined to believe there's some misinformation/misreporting going on here in the press.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,302
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
crow216 said:
 
In December 2007, Rodriguez and the Yankees agreed to a 10-year, $275 million contract. In February 2009, after previously denying use of performance-enhancing drugs, including during a 2007 interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes, Rodriguez admitted to using steroids, saying he used them from 2001 to 2003 when playing for the Texas Rangers due to "an enormous amount of pressure" to perform.[6][7]
ok, my bad.
 
still hate him and the Yankees, though, so I'm going to root for any resolution that punishes both of them :)
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,812
Washington

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,878
Northern Colorado
As a Sox fan, like most on this board, I obviously don't want to see the Yanks get out from under that contract without penalty.  However, even if I try and remove my fandom here, which is admittedly hard to do, it makes sense that they shouldn't get out for free.  
 
As the above quote suggests, probably every other team in baseball wants to see the Yankees stuck with this, too.  Obviously, all of the other teams in the AL East will want this to happen for competitive reasons, but even the other teams in baseball, all of which are at a financial disadvantage to the Yanks (with the possible exception of the Dodgers), will press Selig to keep this contract against the Yankees, if for no other reason than luxury tax money and "equality."  Given that the CBA seems ambiguous on this, and given that Selig represents all of the owners, it seems quite possible, likely, even, that he will not allow the Yankees to walk from this.  They may not have to pay ARod actual money, which is still a huge reward, but they may very well have to account for the contract on their books for salary and luxury tax purposes.  
 
Either way, I expect a fight, possibly a legal one, to ensue; but it is far easier for MLB to fight the Yankees on this than for them to fight literally ever other team.  
 

phrenile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
13,949
crow216 said:
Phrenile - Is there a glossary attached? I take service time to mean actual time. As in, it counts toward your service time in the league. Has nothing to do with salary.
Service time is only relevant for the Competitive Balance Tax because the Competitive Balance Tax is calculated based on salaries for players on the Club's Active List, and Article XXIII (the Competitive Balance Tax article) expressly incorporates the definition of Club's Active List defined in Article XXI (the service time article).

It's clear that A-Rod won't get paid during any suspension but will continue to accrue service time. That's an entirely different matter from whether the salary that he doesn't receive would still count towards the Yankees' payroll for purposes of Competitive Balance Tax calculations.
 

phrenile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
13,949
I wonder whether people are misreading Article XXIII E(1) and (2):
E. Determination of Salary

The determination of a Players Salary for a particular Contract Year
for the purposes of interpretation and application of this Article XXIII
only shall be in accordance with the following rules.

(1) General Rule
Salary shall mean the value of the total compensation (cash or
otherwise) paid to a Player pursuant to the terms of a Uniform
Players Contract, including any guarantee by the Club of payments
by third parties, for a particular championship season. Salary shall
include, without limitation, the value of non-cash compensation such
as the provision of personal translators, personal massage therapists,
and airfare and tickets exceeding normal Club allotments. Consistent
with the rules set out below, all compensation paid to a Player pursuant
to the terms of a Uniform Players Contract shall be attributable
to the Contract Year(s) in which the Player is required under the
Contract to render services to a Club as a baseball player, regardless
of how the compensation is characterized under the Contract.

(2) Average Annual Value of Guaranteed Multi-Year Contracts
A Uniform Players Contract with a term of more than one (1)
championship season (Multi-Year Contract) shall be deemed to
have a Salary in each Guaranteed Year equal to the Average Annual
Value of the Contract (plus any bonuses subsequently included by
operation of Section E(4) below). Average Annual Value shall be
calculated as follows: the sum of (a) the Base Salary in each Guaranteed
Year plus (b) any portion of a Signing Bonus (or any other
payment that this Article deems to be a Signing Bonus) attributed to
a Guaranteed Year in accordance with Section E(3) below plus (c)
any deferred compensation or annuity compensation costs attributed
to a Guaranteed Year in accordance with Section E(6) below shall
be divided by the number of Guaranteed Years.
E(1) says generally look to the amount of salary paid, which you might think would mean that salary that isn't paid (because a drug suspension is one without pay) doesn't count for the Competitive Balance Tax.

The problem is you go on to E(2) and you find that salary for a multi-year contract "shall be deemed to have a Salary in each Guaranteed Year equal to" the AAV plus bonuses. That specific rule should control over the general rule in E(1).
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,878
Northern Colorado
A note from the irony files: Bob Costas is on Leno right now (taped from earlier today, I know) talking about ARod's looming suspension with Kate Hudson, Leno's previous guest, sitting right next to him.  
 
Oh, and I just realized that I knew Molly Bloom (that Molly Bloom, I hadn't realized) in high school, and she was a slut then, too. 
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,812
Washington
Sox and Rocks said:
As a Sox fan, like most on this board, I obviously don't want to see the Yanks get out from under that contract without penalty.  However, even if I try and remove my fandom here, which is admittedly hard to do, it makes sense that they shouldn't get out for free.  
 
As the above quote suggests, probably every other team in baseball wants to see the Yankees stuck with this, too.  Obviously, all of the other teams in the AL East will want this to happen for competitive reasons, but even the other teams in baseball, all of which are at a financial disadvantage to the Yanks (with the possible exception of the Dodgers), will press Selig to keep this contract against the Yankees, if for no other reason than luxury tax money and "equality."  Given that the CBA seems ambiguous on this, and given that Selig represents all of the owners, it seems quite possible, likely, even, that he will not allow the Yankees to walk from this.  They may not have to pay ARod actual money, which is still a huge reward, but they may very well have to account for the contract on their books for salary and luxury tax purposes.  
 
Either way, I expect a fight, possibly a legal one, to ensue; but it is far easier for MLB to fight the Yankees on this than for them to fight literally ever other team.  
 
I'm not sure all other owners care whether the Yankees get hit with this or not. If you set the precedent that ARod's money counts against the luxury tax, wouldn't the other owners be against that?
 

sfip

directly related to Marilyn Monroe
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2003
7,838
Philadelphia suburb
ThePrideofShiner said:
 
I'm not sure all other owners care whether the Yankees get hit with this or not. If you set the precedent that ARod's money counts against the luxury tax, wouldn't the other owners be against that?
In general only owners of teams who would be anywhere near and/or above the luxury tax threshold.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,129
phrenile said:
I've seen that widely reported, but it seems utterly inconsistent with CBA Article XXIII:
  • Being on the Restricted List has implications under the MLRs (e.g. not counting towards the numerical limits of MLR 2(c)(2), staying on the team's Reserved List for 2 years under MLR 15(g), etc.). But nothing says that players on the Restricted List aren't on the Club's Active List, under Article XXI or best I can tell anywhere else.
  • The Restricted List is define as an Inactive List under MLR 60(s), but so's the Disabled List, and I've never seen anyone argue that players on the Disabled List don't count for the Competitive Balance Tax.
 
 
In Article XXIII(C)(2), the definition of "Active List" incorporates the definition put forth in Article XXI.  Article XXI, as noted below, that "Active List" explicitly includes players on the Disabled List.
 
To me, the most natural reading of the way the agreements are put together is that players on the DL are counted towards the CBT and players on the Restricted List due the JDA are not.
 
The one wild card?  The "Just Cause" provisions of the CBA don't specify whether the a suspended player is put on a Restricted List, so unless I'm missing something elsewhere - which is quite possible - it's theoretically possible for Bud to suspend ARod and keep him on the Active List. 
 

phrenile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
13,949
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
In Article XXIII(C)(2), the definition of "Active List" incorporates the definition put forth in Article XXI.  Article XXI, as noted below, that "Active List" explicitly includes players on the Disabled List.
 
To me, the most natural reading of the way the agreements are put together is that players on the DL are counted towards the CBT and players on the Restricted List due the JDA are not.
 
The one wild card?  The "Just Cause" provisions of the CBA don't specify whether the a suspended player is put on a Restricted List, so unless I'm missing something elsewhere - which is quite possible - it's theoretically possible for Bud to suspend ARod and keep him on the Active List.
Yes, Article XXI explicitly includes players on the Disabled List, but that's in the same provision that also explicitly includes players placed on a disciplinary suspension by the Commissioner.

By the way, I overlooked this yesterday, but the Players' Association can grieve CBT payroll calculations under Article XXIII F. I wonder if they'd try here.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,792
NY
Whether the team knew or not (any team, not just NY), I don't see why the salary shouldn't still count against the cap.  This isn't based on a reading of the CBA.  It's based on common sense.  They signed the deal, they knew the ramifications, they presumably got enhanced performance out of the player until he got caught, they get to keep the cash they'd otherwise owe- but letting them off the hook for purposes of the luxury tax seems like a huge windfall to me.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,878
Northern Colorado
ThePrideofShiner said:
 
I'm not sure all other owners care whether the Yankees get hit with this or not. If you set the precedent that ARod's money counts against the luxury tax, wouldn't the other owners be against that?
You make it seem like most teams pay the tax, when in fact only a handful actually do (didn't only 2-3 teams pay this year, based on last year's final salaries?)
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,491
It makes sense to have the salary still hit against the cap. More skin in the game from the organization can only help prevent this stuff due to greater incentive -- not only do you lose the player but you still lose the money in one way if it's not being paid out.
 
That is not how it currently works, so I don't think it would be appropriate to do this to the Yanks for ARod beyond the fuck-the-yanks-and-arod motivation. Going forward? I think it'd be something to consider.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,751
Garden City
I don't think its common sense at all Glenn. The goal here is to punish a player. Theoretically, a team is also hurt when a player is suspended because that player doesn't help the team win games. Just because it happens to be a case where the team benefits from not having the player doesn't mean the rules should be changed. In essence, you're arguing that any team should be both hurt by losing the baseball value of the player and also by having to pay tax on the contract. It's kind of ridiculous.

However, at the risk of it being me vs the forum, I'm just going to bow out and let everyone continue this conversation.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,485
Southwestern CT
phrenile said:
Yes, Article XXI explicitly includes players on the Disabled List, but that's in the same provision that also explicitly includes players placed on a disciplinary suspension by the Commissioner.

By the way, I overlooked this yesterday, but the Players' Association can grieve CBT payroll calculations under Article XXIII F. I wonder if they'd try here.
 
I would think that the Player's Association would fight tooth and nail to keep A-Rod's salary from being counted.
 

Tim Salmon

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,324
crow216 said:
I don't think its common sense at all Glenn. The goal here is to punish a player. Theoretically, a team is also hurt when a player is suspended because that player doesn't help the team win games. Just because it happens to be a case where the team benefits from not having the player doesn't mean the rules should be changed. In essence, you're arguing that any team should be both hurt by losing the baseball value of the player and also by having to pay tax on the contract. It's kind of ridiculous.

However, at the risk of it being me vs the forum, I'm just going to bow out and let everyone continue this conversation.
 
I view it like this:  Losing the baseball value of the player is the team's "punishment" for, at best, failing to do due diligence and, at worst, actively promoting a culture of cheating.  Continuing to pay a tax on that player's salary is not a punishment, but simply the reasonable consequence of a business decision that was fraught with risk.  If A-Rod loses his "baseball value" because he is injured or his skills decline to the point of uselessness, then the Yankees are effectively punished twice for their stupidity in awarding him a decade-long contract in Monopoly money -- first, by wasting a roster spot on a player with no value, and second, by continuing to pay that player at the negotiated salary, with all of the attendant tax consequences.  So if A-Rod loses his "baseball value" because he cheated, why do we give his employer a mulligan? 
 
It seems to me your stance that losing the baseball vaue of the player is sufficient punishment ignores the fact that making teams pay for their poor personnel decisions is an integral part of baseball economics.  The business consequences of those decisions should not vary depending on why a particular player has lost his value.
 

candylandriots

unkempt
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2004
12,516
Berlin
Average Reds said:
 
I would think that the Player's Association would fight tooth and nail to keep A-Rod's salary from being counted.
 
That's probably right. But would the PA ever be concerned about an unscrupulous person spiking a player's supplements to get out of a contract? That thought certainly crossed my mind, but maybe it's just my mind that runs that way.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
45,019
Mtigawi
Look at the bright side, when this horrible contract was signed we all knew the Yanks had no regard towards the financial side of this. They knew it was an overlay but given the incentives for hitting certain career milestones this would have been the period of Arod Worship and by extension, NYYFellatio ... Freaking non-stop.

At least we have avoided that, in somewhat glorious fashion.

Plus it's not a lock Arod would have sucked. He's one of baseball's greatest hitters, it was even likely he would have resumed being relatively epic. Ortiz did.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,483
Jeez, if the Yankees get out from A-Rod's deal without luxury tax implications, it might give other teams ideas. Players on long-term deals might want to be extra careful with what their teams' trainers are prescribing, if you know what I mean.
 
(I'm only about 75% joking right now.)
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,304
Hingham, MA
crow216 said:
I don't think its common sense at all Glenn. The goal here is to punish a player. Theoretically, a team is also hurt when a player is suspended because that player doesn't help the team win games. Just because it happens to be a case where the team benefits from not having the player doesn't mean the rules should be changed. In essence, you're arguing that any team should be both hurt by losing the baseball value of the player and also by having to pay tax on the contract. It's kind of ridiculous.

However, at the risk of it being me vs the forum, I'm just going to bow out and let everyone continue this conversation.
 
But you're not acknowledging the flip side - yes, the team is hurt by losing the baseball value and having to pay tax, but prior to him getting caught, they received more baseball value from the player than they should have due to his use of PEDs. So it's not like they didn't get any benefit from the situation and are just being penalized.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,304
Hingham, MA
Danny_Darwin said:
Jeez, if the Yankees get out from A-Rod's deal without luxury tax implications, it might give other teams ideas. Players on long-term deals might want to be extra careful with what their teams' trainers are prescribing, if you know what I mean.
 
(I'm only about 75% joking right now.)
 
That's in interesting point - we could have avoided the Punto trade by just having Beckett, Crawford, and Gonzalez get caught
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,460
Boston, MA
I hate to be the one defending ARod, and I admit I haven't read through this whole thread yet, but I think the lifetime ban proposal is fucking ridiculous.  I mean really relative to Braun or Peralta it just looks to me like ARod is getting slammed for being as high profile an asshole as he is, for the added embarrassment to MLB of having such a high profile celebrity caught up in this shit.  That's not how it's supposed to work.  This ain't fucking 'Nam, there are supposed to be rules to this game [/myt1].
 

Brianish

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2008
5,578
PrometheusWakefield said:
I hate to be the one defending ARod, and I admit I haven't read through this whole thread yet, but I think the lifetime ban proposal is fucking ridiculous.  I mean really relative to Braun or Peralta it just looks to me like ARod is getting slammed for being as high profile an asshole as he is, for the added embarrassment to MLB of having such a high profile celebrity caught up in this shit.  That's not how it's supposed to work.  This ain't fucking 'Nam, there are supposed to be rules to this game [/myt1].
 
That's all well and good if his offense is the same as Braun or Peralta, but there are multiple reports that he actively worked to impede the investigation, maybe going so far as destroying evidence. There's also the possibility, given the number of Yankee-connected players, that they have evidence he got other players using. Obviously the possibility exists that they're just trying to make an example of him, but until/unless the evidence is made public, it's difficult to say conclusively. 
 

Idabomb333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2007
202
crow216 said:
I don't think its common sense at all Glenn. The goal here is to punish a player. Theoretically, a team is also hurt when a player is suspended because that player doesn't help the team win games. Just because it happens to be a case where the team benefits from not having the player doesn't mean the rules should be changed. In essence, you're arguing that any team should be both hurt by losing the baseball value of the player and also by having to pay tax on the contract. It's kind of ridiculous.

However, at the risk of it being me vs the forum, I'm just going to bow out and let everyone continue this conversation.
What PhilPlantier said, plus there's the fact that the team isn't paying for the baseball value anymore.  Hypothetically, the player's salary is approximately equal to his baseball value.  That's the point of having a market for free agents.
 
If pre-FA player who produces surplus value gets caught, then just the suspension is a penalty to the team.  If a team won the bidding for a player, then theoretically they paid more for that player than any other team wanted to, so yeah, they have a roster spot to fill, but they have the salary to fill it with too.
 
Yes, I'm a Sox fan and I want the Yankees to suffer, but the point is just extra visible in this case.  If the team has no financial burden for the suspended player, sometimes that's bad for them, but in a lot of cases it's good, and in a case like this, it's REALLY REALLY good.  The real point is that the PED policy should include disincentives for teams to hire PED users such that it's *never* good for the team to have suspended players.  If the Yankees get out of ARod's contract with this, then it creates a huge incentive for teams to, for example, try to find guys who are using PEDs but haven't been caught yet.  If they can gather evidence, then they can sign the player to a slightly over-market contract knowing that if the contract becomes an albatross, they just reveal their evidence to the league and they're free.  Hypothetically, you might even have a player say, "Here's evidence that I used PEDs.  Pay me more than you otherwise would, because if I start to decline, you can use that to get out of my contract."  That'd be better for the team than adding high salary team option years onto a contract, and maybe better for the player too.
 
Maybe these situations aren't entirely realistic, but the point is there shouldn't be incentives for anything remotely like this.
 
Another way to look at it is relative to a team losing a player to an injury.  The team shouldn't be in a better situation when their player gets suspended for PED use than they are when the player gets injured, right?  But that's exactly the case now.  While the player's out, the team loses the baseball value either way.  When the player's injured, the team also loses the player's salary and the player still counts toward the luxury tax.  I recognize that this is "necessary" to protect the players who get injured, but from a team's perspective, they'd much rather have a guy get caught with PEDs than injured.  How can that be the right way to setup the system?
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,807
Row 14
Infield Infidel said:
 
I agree, he should absolutely scratch and claw for every penny left on his deal. but if he doesn't get it I don't think he'll have to end his luxury lifestyle. 
 
That was my point.  Why would I feel bad for a chemically induced centaur?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,646
Brianish said:
 
That's all well and good if his offense is the same as Braun or Peralta, but there are multiple reports that he actively worked to impede the investigation, maybe going so far as destroying evidence. There's also the possibility, given the number of Yankee-connected players, that they have evidence he got other players using. Obviously the possibility exists that they're just trying to make an example of him, but until/unless the evidence is made public, it's difficult to say conclusively. 
 
 
True enough, but what about Bud's offenses as pointed out in Joe Sheehan's blowtorch piece:
 
It is ludicrous that Bud Selig would find himself about to invoke XII.B against anyone. In the 1980s, as owner of the Milwaukee Brewers and a labor hawk, Selig faithfully executed MLB's plan of colluding to fix the market for baseball players. With his fellow owners under then-commissioner Peter Ueberroth, Selig agreed to not compete for talent, to not look to improve his team, in violation of federal labor law. In the winter prior to the 1987 season, Selig's Brewers declined to pursue stars such as Tim Raines, Jack Morris and Ron Guidry. A team that finished second in the AL in runs scored came up seven games short in the AL East by also finishing tenth in runs allowed, using 12 different starting pitchers including Len Barker (5.36 ERA), Chris Bosio (5.24), Mark Knudson (5.37) and Mike Birkbeck (6.20). By putting self-serving violations of antitrust law ahead of the good of the Brewers, Selig may have cost his team a division title while spearheading an approach that would end up costing MLB owners $280 million across three separate judgments and queering relations with the MLBPA for the next two decades.

Seven years later, Selig would make the costs of collusion look like ashtray money. After participating in the ouster of commissioner Fay Vincent in 1992, Selig became the de facto commissioner in advance of the negotiations for a Collective Bargaining Agreement in 1994. As the head of the Executive Council, Selig pushed a hardline approach that included a payroll cap, the ending of salary arbitration and the gutting of free agency. The walkout forced by this approach would cost the game more than a half-billion in direct lost revenue in 1994, and more than a billion dollars in total when 1995 and slack revenues in post-strike seasons are tallied. The strike ended when the National Labor Relations Board agreed to seek an injunction against the owners for unfair labor practices, and future Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor not only granted the injunction, she ruled that the owners would have to come to her to get permission to declare an impasse in the future.

As an owner, as a member of the Player Relations Committee, as head of the Executive Council, as acting commissioner, Bud Selig has done more to violate XII.B than Alex Rodriguez, as a player, ever could. Over a period of ten years, Selig executed strategies that cost the industry more than $1.2 billion, that violated antitrust and labor law, that destroyed any working relationship with the MLBPA and that damaged baseball's standing with American sports fans.
 
Of course, Bud's retort would be the current state of MLB's revenues and franchise values.
 
 
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,460
Boston, MA
Brianish said:
 
That's all well and good if his offense is the same as Braun or Peralta, but there are multiple reports that he actively worked to impede the investigation, maybe going so far as destroying evidence. There's also the possibility, given the number of Yankee-connected players, that they have evidence he got other players using. Obviously the possibility exists that they're just trying to make an example of him, but until/unless the evidence is made public, it's difficult to say conclusively. 
Maybe.  What I see here is MLB relying on an aggressive interpretation of a vague rule in order to bully a player into submitting to their real objective.  XII.B is just crappy law.  
 

Brianish

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2008
5,578
If the argument is Selig is a scumbag, you're going to have to look for a long time before you discover someone who disagrees. But the fact that he's gotten away with a lot doesn't have any bearing on how A-Rod is or should be punished. It makes Selig a hypocrite, sure. But we knew that. It doesn't make the A-Rod's violations the equivalent of Braun's or Peralta's. I'll continue to withhold judgment until we get clear reports on what he's done. 
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,571
This is SI's cover story this week, and one thing they include that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is that A-Rod was called in by MLB in 2010 in connection to that Canadian doctor Galea, and they may now have proof that he was lying to them during that meeting, so that may be a bit of what's going into this punishment by MLB also.  
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Let me get this straight-  During an appeal a player can still play.  So if alex appeals, will the yankees still put him on the field?  Thats what I'm wondering.  It will be interesting to see how the clubhouse reacts if he can still play.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,807
Row 14
Average Reds said:
 
I would think that the Player's Association would fight tooth and nail to keep A-Rod's salary from being counted.
 
Why?  If it isn't counted then a Qualifying Offer is going to be worth less.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Yaz4Ever said:
Considering the number of people who have been implicated/caught using PEDs with ties to the NYY compared to all other teams (combined?), either the entire franchise is staffed by Mr. Magoo's less-sighted family members or they are complicit in this.  Punishing the NYY by sticking them with ARod's contract (and a spot on the 40-man, if possible) would be the BEST deterrent to other teams to avoid PED users in the future.  If the team gets away scott free, they've got nothing to lose beyond a little bad press and the need to fill a position on their roster.
 
I don't think the Yankees were any more complicit than any other team.  Said differently, I don't think they had a PED vending machine in the lobby.  ARod is a big swirling clusterfuck of PED issues.  I don't think it's surprising that a lot of players who were in NY while he was, ended up using.  I have a hard time believing the Yankees were aware of and okay with what was going on.  I'd be more inclined to point the finger at Rodriguez himself.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
4,008
Burrillville, RI
opes said:
Let me get this straight-  During an appeal a player can still play.  So if alex appeals, will the yankees still put him on the field?  Thats what I'm wondering.  It will be interesting to see how the clubhouse reacts if he can still play.
You are right but it seems like it won't apply here. The threat is for Bud to suspend (ban) A-Rod for life using his "best interest of baseball" powers. This power is outside of the joint drug agreement and this decision cannot be appealed.  The "option" for A-Rod is to agree to a lesser penalty. The appeal process would not come into play in this scenario since he's agreeing to the penalty