1/30/2013 12:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):
I think it's cut and dry. What do you think "adverse action pursuant to the UPC" means?
I think you're taking a giant leap in arguing that that phrase specifically implies that you cannot void a contract for any other reason if the player in question has violated the JDP.
1/30/2013 12:34 PM
Posted by AlCheez on 1/30/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):

You're putting a lot of thought and mental gymnastics into something that's never going to amount to anything.

It's a theoretical exercise. 

Plus, it's always fun to point out what a dumbass bad_luck can be with his bizarre attempted application of logic to a given question.
1/30/2013 12:34 PM
Oh, I get it, you're talking past each other.

bad_luck is correct - you can't void a players' contract just for using PEDs.

tec is correct - just because a player violates the JDP doesn't mean you can't void his contract for some other reason
1/30/2013 12:36 PM
Posted by AlCheez on 1/30/2013 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Oh, I get it, you're talking past each other.

bad_luck is correct - you can't void a players' contract just for using PEDs.

tec is correct - just because a player violates the JDP doesn't mean you can't void his contract for some other reason
Yes.  Exactly.
1/30/2013 12:45 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/30/2013 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by AlCheez on 1/30/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):

You're putting a lot of thought and mental gymnastics into something that's never going to amount to anything.

It's a theoretical exercise. 

Plus, it's always fun to point out what a dumbass bad_luck can be with his bizarre attempted application of logic to a given question.
That's harsh. If there was another reason to void the contract the Yankees would have used it already.
1/30/2013 12:55 PM (edited)
Not necessarily.  Yesterday's news could have been the breaking point.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, the expectation was that ARod could be back in the Yankees lineup by mid-season.  Now, they've gotten a one-two punch of (a) he could miss the entire season, and (b) his name is involved in another PED controversy.

The Yankee's patience may have just run out.

One question would be: since you can't void a contract solely based on a JDP violation, can it be incuded with some weight along with other extenuating circumstances in a void attempt.  Or does it need to be excluded from the argument completely?
1/30/2013 1:03 PM
I would guess that it isn't a quantity over quality situation. One legally sound argument would be all they needed. Several arguments of questionable legal footing wouldn't work.

A first violation of the JDP (this would be Arod's first) can only result in a 50 game suspension, nothing else. There would have to be some other, unrelated violation of his UPC. Since Arod hasn't upper decked the toilet in Cashman's office or murdered Jeter with a broken bat, I think the Yankees are stuck with him.
1/30/2013 1:05 PM
I'm fairly certain they aren't going to just be able to drag up anything from the past and try to void the contract.  The items I've read about have all been stuff connected to this - ie, did he commit a crime in acquiring the PEDs, did he received outside medical treatment without authorization, etc.  The argument would be they aren't voiding him violating the JDP, but for another justifiable action connected with it.
1/30/2013 1:09 PM
Posted by AlCheez on 1/30/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm fairly certain they aren't going to just be able to drag up anything from the past and try to void the contract.  The items I've read about have all been stuff connected to this - ie, did he commit a crime in acquiring the PEDs, did he received outside medical treatment without authorization, etc.  The argument would be they aren't voiding him violating the JDP, but for another justifiable action connected with it.

Exactly.

Every report I've heard today is that the Yankees front office (and, I assume, lawyers) are exploring any and all possibilities to pursue a void of the contract.

1/30/2013 1:29 PM
But to use those things to void the contract, they'd have to show damages. Arod could get a flu shot from CVS. That's receiving outside medical treatment without authorization. But unless the Yankees can show that the treatment impacted Arod's ability to fulfill the contract, it's not enough to void the contract.

In this case, the PEDs/treatment aren't what will keep him out. The hip injury and/or the suspension from PED use will. And you can't void the contract for those reasons.

Like you said before, it's extremely unlikely that they will find a way out of the $114 million. The reports of lawyers exploring possibilities is PR smoke.
1/30/2013 1:39 PM
Well, I certainly don't think anything will happen, but the language around voiding the contract doesn't require that a breach of citizenship/conduct/tranining policy render the player unable to fulfill the contract.

All that being said, even if they have a valid cause, the language also requires a waiver from all the other clubs.  Heh, good luck with that.
1/30/2013 1:47 PM (edited)
First, there's a huge difference between getting a flu shot and procuring controlled substances that are banned by the JDP.  Unless flu shots are prohibited by the JDP program.  I highly doubt that they are.

Second, I don't think the results of the outside medical treatment are relevant.  That he took outside medical treatment without team approval would be the only relevant fact.

Third, I don't think the Yankees exploring voiding the contract is PR smoke at all.  If anything, it's setting up a potentially very ugly legal battle between the Yankess and the MLBPA and ARod.  That's hardly positive PR.  They would have to make the determination if they feel that they have a strong enough case such that the potential of saving $114m is worth the battle.
1/30/2013 1:49 PM
But since it's NOT actually setting up that battle, his point was that letting it out there that you're looking into it makes for good PR.
1/30/2013 1:52 PM
As I mentioned earlier, I think the Yankees have absolutely zero interest in ever seeing ARod on the field wearing a Yankee uniform ever again.

And if I were ARod, I would question whether I would want to subject myself to the public reaction, which you know is going to be very ugly, if I ever stepped on the field at Yankee Stadium while wearing pinstripes again.
1/30/2013 1:57 PM (edited)
Posted by AlCheez on 1/30/2013 1:49:00 PM (view original):
But since it's NOT actually setting up that battle, his point was that letting it out there that you're looking into it makes for good PR.
Does it?

If the Yankees are bluffing with this just to seek public approval from their fans, I think they are wasting their time.  They already have support from their fans.

They need to approach this from a business standpoint.  $114m is a lot of money.
of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.