Yankees tell A-Rod to shut up

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well I'm certainly smart enough to know the difference between "your" and "you're", but it's not a matter of being a smart guy, it's a matter of being educated on the topic we're discussing. Clearly, I know far more about baseball labor and contractual situations than you do. There are absolutely no such terms.

Like I said, your a smart guy. I figured you would get it.

I'm telling you what has been reported. If you know something specific about that contract, I've already told you I'm more then willing to consider it. Now, all you have to do is stop being more interested in acting the part and more interested in presenting the information about the contract that illustrates your point. As I have said, this is what was reported by ESPN. Not my assumptions.

I am honestly trying to think of a nice way to put this and not be confrontational, but it's clear you really have no clue about baseball contracts and the CBA..

There is nothing at all honest about this statement and you and I both know it. It's fine, it is what it is but what it is not is you not trying to be confrontational. If you know so much about these contracts, as you claim, then it is you who should show us why what has been reported is not true.

Source, please?

ESPN. I heard it being discussed on the Herd. So now, is the next thing out of your mouth how I didn't understand what was being said or that I am not educated enough to understand or am I simply flat out lying? Which will it be? Why don't you show us why what was said earlier is wrong?

Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this matter in a mature fashion and I'll be happy to explain to you how you are wrong. If you want to keep making wisecracks such as "your (sic.) a smart guy" then I'll let you think you're right while all the rest of us know you're wrong.

By all mean, if you are able, please do so. Now, you and all of the "rest of us" go ahead and think whatever you like. I'm certain I'll be OK.

 

[Rogah]

Like I said, your a smart guy. I figured you would get it.

I'm telling you what has been reported. If you know something specific about that contract, I've already told you I'm more then willing to consider it. Now, all you have to do is stop being more interested in acting the part and more interested in presenting the information about the contract that illustrates your point. As I have said, this is what was reported by ESPN. Not my assumptions.

And I am asking you for a link, because I have been reading all the reports and I haven't seen a single thing in line with what you are saying. But please try and do better than the laughable contention "I heard it beng discussed on the Herd." So yes, you either did not understandwhat you thought you heard, or you're lying. I won't speculate which of those 2 is the case.

Seriously bro, you totally destroyed any credibility you tried to claim on this issue when I said "The MLBPA will never let (the Yankees) get away with (voiding the contract)" and you replied "MLBPA has nothing to do with that at all." (direct quote, your words)

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And I am asking you for a link, because I have been reading all the reports and I haven't seen a single thing in line with what you are saying. But please try and do better than the laughable contention "I heard it beng discussed on the Herd." So yes, you either did not understandwhat you thought you heard, or you're lying. I won't speculate which of those 2 is the case.

Seriously bro, you totally destroyed any credibility you tried to claim on this issue when I said "The MLBPA will never let (the Yankees) get away with (voiding the contract)" and you replied "MLBPA has nothing to do with that at all." (direct quote, your words)

I'm not your Bro. Don't confuse that.

What are the two things you say are not true?

1. That the Yankees have the final say on when and if A-Rod comes back.

2. If injuries are a direct result of Steroid Usage, that can be grounds for termination of contract.

OK, since you are basically saying that what was reported is not true, and since I listened to this on ESPN Radio, which is not a good source for you, then here are links that support what WAS reported.

"But the Yankees have made no such announcement, and the team's medical staff -- not Kelly -- would have the final say as to when and where Rodriguez begins playing in Minor League games."

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news...tebook_id=51722806&vkey=notebook_nyy&c_id=nyy

"Baseball's drug policy was specifically written so that teams can't do things like this," one of the sources said. "You can't use this to try to get out of the last years of a contract."

The paragraph does not preclude a club from taking further action against a player who is unable to play because of injury or disability "resulting directly from a physical injury or mental condition arising from his violation of the Program" and allows a club to withhold a player's salary if he is unable to play due to legal proceedings or incarceration due to a drug violation."

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/sto...oid-alex-rodriguez-contract-according-sources

OK, there you go. There are two sources that would seem to confirm what was reported earlier.

Now, I've done what you asked, which was provide sources. Now it's your turn. You go ahead and do the same. How's he going to file a grievance on something that neither he or the Union have rights on? Neither he nor the Union can do jack about if A-Rod actually plays or when the team certifies him as ready.

The Union, nor the player has any legal right to do jack if a player is found to have sustained injury as a direct result of using PEDs. That is part of the Players and Owners agreement.

 

[Rogah]

I'm not your Bro. Don't confuse that.

Whatever you say, buddy!

1. That the Yankees have the final say on when and if A-Rod comes back.

What I said is that if he can prove he is healthy, he can file a grievance to get placed on the 25-man roster. The Yankees cannot keep a healthy Alex Rodriguez down in the minors indefinitely against his will, period, end of story.

2. If injuries are a direct result of Steroid Usage, that can be grounds for termination of contract.

OK, since you are basically saying that what was reported is not true, and since I listened to this on ESPN Radio, which is not a good source for you, then here are links that support what WAS reported.

"But the Yankees have made no such announcement, and the team's medical staff -- not Kelly -- would have the final say as to when and where Rodriguez begins playing in Minor League games."

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news...tebook_id=51722806&vkey=notebook_nyy&c_id=nyy

"Baseball's drug policy was specifically written so that teams can't do things like this," one of the sources said. "You can't use this to try to get out of the last years of a contract."

The paragraph does not preclude a club from taking further action against a player who is unable to play because of injury or disability "resulting directly from a physical injury or mental condition arising from his violation of the Program" and allows a club to withhold a player's salary if he is unable to play due to legal proceedings or incarceration due to a drug violation."
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/sto...ontract-according-sources [/quote] Apparently

Apparently you've failed 1st grade logic class, ole' chum. You own link - let me say that again: the link that you provided to support your contention - admits that it is a long shot.

According to a source, the fact that the Yankees continued to honor Rodriguez's 10-year, $275 million contract extension after his public admissions of PED use in 2009 might further weaken their case to void the contract.

The Union, nor the player has any legal right to do jack if a player is found to have sustained injury as a direct result of using PEDs. That is part of the Players and Owners agreement.

Aaaaaaaaaand once again you decide to show you really have no clue what you are talking about. Any contract that gets voided for any reason against a player's will is subject to appeal by the MLBPA. And you seem completely unaware that the MLBPA is probably the strongest union in pro sports, so I wouldn't bet against them.

Face it: The Yankees are stuck with A-Rod. They will save some money if/when he gets suspended, but they're still on the hook for roughly 9 figures.[/quote]

 

[kristie]

stop fighting, guys, please!!!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What I said is that if he can prove he is healthy, he can file a grievance to get placed on the 25-man roster. The Yankees cannot keep a healthy Alex Rodriguez down in the minors indefinitely against his will, period, end of story.

Right, Thank you for point that out. What you said had nothing at all to do with the original statement, which I tried to point out to you to no avail. What you did was act silly and now you can't or won't own up. It's fine. The fact remains that my original statement was correct and all the BS you threw up was nothing more then just that.

Apparently you've failed 1st grade logic class, ole' chum. You own link - let me say that again: the link that you provided to support your contention - admits that it is a long shot.

Once again, you have failed to actually read the thread. In my very first post, I explained that while this was a possibility and within the rules, I also explained that it was unlikely and that I doubted it would happen. You should change your name to fail.

According to a source, the fact that the Yankees continued to honor Rodriguez's 10-year, $275 million contract extension after his public admissions of PED use in 2009 might further weaken their case to void the contract.
Aaaaaaaaaand once again you decide to show you really have no clue what you are talking about. Any contract that gets voided for any reason against a player's will is subject to appeal by the MLBPA. And you seem completely unaware that the MLBPA is probably the strongest union in pro sports, so I wouldn't bet against them.

None of this was ever in question. This was in your head. The argument you were having with yourself. None of this pertains to the two statements I originally made comment on. This is all fluff you threw up once you realized that you had not actually understood the discussion and that you were, in fact, wrong. Your still doing it.

Further, I acknowledge the fact that a grievance can be filed but it doesn't mean it could or would be upheld. Same with an appeal. None of this is news to you and you know I have already said this but at the end of the day, that rule still stands and any amount of denial will not change it. For a smart guy, you sure are not willing to accept what you already know to be true. You would rather try and save face but sooner or later, you will have to acknowledge the fact that what I have said, all that you denied, all that you basically said in so many words was fabricated, is in fact, true.

Face it: The Yankees are stuck with A-Rod. They will save some money if/when he gets suspended, but they're still on the hook for roughly 9 figures.

I never said the Yankees were not stuck with A-Rod. The discussion was never about that. Do you get it yet? I simply stated the rules and what I had heard reported.

Good job with all that.

 

[Rogah]

I never said the Yankees were not stuck with A-Rod. The discussion was never about that. Do you get it yet? I simply stated the rules and what I had heard reported.

And I simply (and accurately) stated that you really don't understand what you're talking about. No need to throw a hissy fit.

I said the MLBPA would oppose any effort to void A-Rod's contract. You said (direct quote, your words) "MLBPA has nothing to do that at all." A wise, mature man would concede "hey I didn't know that the MLBPA would fight against an attempt to void a player's contract." But instead, you say the MLBPA has nothing at all to do with that, then refuse to admit you were in error.

Seriously, bro, you look far less foolish admitting yo umade an honest mistake than you do in defending something everyone in here knows is wrong. Anyways, you're obviously obsessed with having the last word, so go ahead, Sparky!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And I simply (and accurately) stated that you really don't understand what you're talking about. No need to throw a hissy fit.

What is it that you think I don't understand?

The two things in question are:

1. The Yankees make the final determination over when A-Rod can return to play. Is that true or is that false?

2. If injury is a direct result of the use of illegal substances such as PEDs, then a team has the right to void a contract. Is that true or is that false?

I said You said (direct quote, your words) "MLBPA has nothing to do that at all." A wise, mature man would concede "hey I didn't know that the MLBPA would fight against an attempt to void a player's contract." But instead, you say the MLBPA has nothing at all to do with that, then refuse to admit you were in error.

Show me where the MLBPA has any say in this at all. The MLBPA can do nothing to force the Yankees to play A-Rod. NOTHING. And this was the statement I referred to when saying that the MLBPA has no say. However, I don't believe they have any say in the specific circumstance of injury by direct result of banned substance usage either.

The MLBPA can not prevent a contract from being voided if said players injuries can be directly linked to the use of PEDs and the injury is a direct result of such usage. They can file for anything they want but they can't do anything to prevent it if the conditions of the injuries are a direct result of said usage of banned substances. This is not about actually using PEDs. It's about injuries that are caused by such usage.

If you disagree, then show me the links (which by the way I have asked you to do for several pages now) that support what you say.

You said: That statement is 100% wrong. The overwhelming

I said that the MLBPA's ability to prevent either is wrong and it is.