|
| Unvoidable
|
From the same notes column that brought us the O'Leary story comes some owners' grousing about drug suspensions:
A couple of major league owners whispered to me last week that they wish there was something they could do to void contracts when a player such as a Manny Ramírez is suspended for violating the drug policy. While Dodgers owner Frank McCourt will get $7.7 million in relief for Ramírez's unpaid 50-game suspension, owners would like to get rid of such contracts altogether.
"There ought to be something to protect us from something like this," said a National League owner. "We sign a contract with a player in good faith and then the contract is violated and the player basically can't live up to the terms of the contract because of his behavior. "It's just not right that we have to be stuck with a contract like that."
"Something to protect us from something like this?" The owners themselves negotiated the rules of suspensions in the Basic Agreement with the players years ago, and had every opportunity to re-open the issues when the rules about PED suspensions were negotiated within the past few years. If they wanted the right to release someone when they get suspended, they should have bargained for it.
But when you think about it, the notion of voiding the contract of guys like these kind of makes no sense anyway. Ask yourself: even if they had the power to do it, would the Dodgers truly void Manny's deal? He's going to be eligible to play on July 3rd. Don't you think Los Angeles would rather have him playing for them as opposed to the Giants, Mets or Cubs? It makes no sense that Frank McCourt would turn Manny into a free agent, because for all of the complaining about him, he's still an elite talent that is going to help someone's playoff push this season. For players less talented? The money isn't so big that it would make a huge difference anyway.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
"A couple of major league owners whispered to me last week that they wish there was something they could do to void..."
Who says they can't? From THR, ESQ (an entertainment legal blog by The Hollywood Reporter)
"The Dodgers may have good ground for terminating Manny, says Edelman, on the basis that the star player violated the contract's sportsmanship and training language, although he adds that a court would fuss over whether the facts in this specific case fit the broad and ambiguous morals clause and whether the league's punishment for substance violations (the 50 day suspension and loss of salary) might trump Manny's contract.
"My gut is that both (the contract and the league rules) can be read together," he says. "I think if the Dodgers wanted out of the contract, both parties would open negotiations and reach a settlement before getting to a black box of a win-or-lose court case."
Bonds may be a talent that could help someone's playoff push, yet nobody is signing him. Plus, the Dodgers could use that money on Sheets, Pedro, or to acquire another player in trade.
You say the "money isn't so big," but doesn't Manny have a $20 million player option for 2010?
Think you're wrong here.
Manny's money is big. My argument is that he's so valuable to the team that they won't risk making him a free agent. It's other, less prominent players whose money is small enough to where voiding a contract wouldn't bring much benefit.
And as a lawyer, I take issue with THR, ESQ. I think it would be a very difficult argument to make that the MLB owners can both (a) impose suspension discipline and (b) void contracts for the same violation. At best the owners would have a horiffic legal fight on their hands, and still would probably lose anyway. The Basic Agreement and the suspension regimin were both negotiated by parties of presumed equal bargaining power. An arbitrator would likely find that, if the owners wanted to be able to void contracts for positive PED tests, such a power should have been explicitly placed in the BA.
As for Bonds: he's a totally different beast than Manny. He hasn't played baseball since 2007. He just had hip surgery (or leg surgery; forget which one). He's way past 40. There is no reason to believe that he could help anyone's playoff push at this point. Manny was knocking the cover off the ball this past Wednesday.
Craig, in Manny's case in particular, with no failed drug test as proof of doping outside the presence of hCG, wouldn't the MLBPA fight the case against the "morals clause" by merely saying Manny had a personal issue that he was trying to fight with [US legal] drugs that were banned by baseball?
Couldn't they just sit back and say [in a legal sense] prove that was he took was "immoral"?
MLB punished Manny for volating its substance program. I assume that the Dodgers would terminate based on lack of sportsmanship and violating training protocol. Arguably, those are different things.
You're probably right that the Dodgers won't pick this battle, but if they wanted to, they might be able to at least put Manny into some kind of litigation box. After all, if Manny challenged termination, he'd be in court for some time, unable to sign with any other team. (No?) There would be strong incentive towards settlement.