PDA

View Full Version : Yanks admit to expunging word "Steroid" from Giambi's contract


Flight #24
02-14-2005, 01:46 PM
Under the category if "It's gonna get worse before it gets better":

ESPN radio's reporting that Yanks VP Levine admits they removed references to the word steroids from Giambi's deal, but that "they did not believe he was using steroids".

Yeah, I'm sure he just asked for the word to be removed because he always lost to his little brother as "Asteroids" when they were kids and it brought up bad memories......



Maybe this belongs in What's the Score, but since the Yanks have admitted it, IMO it's not rumor.

MUsoxfan
02-14-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't know how the Yankees thought they were gonna get out of the rest of that contract. Either that raises the reddest red flag that ever existed, or they encouraged the use of steriods

NonetheLoaiza
02-14-2005, 02:19 PM
Hey, I am happy this is biting them in the arse. Maybe now, Steinbrenner will be hesitant to spend so much money...

Jabroni
02-14-2005, 02:21 PM
So Cashman was lying?

Mickster
02-14-2005, 02:50 PM
So Cashman was lying?

I'm sure that Cashman wasn't a part of the contract negotiations so therefore was not lying when he stated that the word "steroids" was not removed from Giambi's contract, to his knowledge.

Or, at least that is the spin he'll place on his comments. :cool:

gosox41
02-14-2005, 02:58 PM
Under the category if "It's gonna get worse before it gets better":

ESPN radio's reporting that Yanks VP Levine admits they removed references to the word steroids from Giambi's deal, but that "they did not believe he was using steroids".

Yeah, I'm sure he just asked for the word to be removed because he always lost to his little brother as "Asteroids" when they were kids and it brought up bad memories......



Maybe this belongs in What's the Score, but since the Yanks have admitted it, IMO it's not rumor.


What a bunch of dummies. Not because they excluded the word 'steroid's' and didn't think Giambi was using. But because they expect fans to buy into this BS story. Outside of Cub fans, do we look stupid?? Of course the Yankees had to seriously suspect he was doing steroids even if they operated under the 'don't ask don't tell policy.'

Before I wanted to see Giambi's contract voided because he was 1. using illegal drugs and 2. was acting in a fraudulent matter.

But now I'm glad the Yankees have to eat the contract for encouraging such behavior.



Bob

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 02:58 PM
I'm sure that Cashman wasn't a part of the contract negotiations so therefore was not lying when he stated that the word "steroids" was not removed from Giambi's contract, to his knowledge.

Or, at least that is the spin he'll place on his comments. :cool:

I would bet Cashman (and every other GM) wasn't around when they put the details on paper, just an agent or even assistant to the agent and some nameless Assistant GM. Since the contract was written before this scandal, would an Assistant GM care enough to hold up the contract because of the wording on detail which neither side thought would ever come into play? Not saying this is the case, but enough room for plausible denialability.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 03:33 PM
I would bet Cashman (and every other GM) wasn't around when they put the details on paper, just an agent or even assistant to the agent and some nameless Assistant GM. Since the contract was written before this scandal, would an Assistant GM care enough to hold up the contract because of the wording on detail which neither side thought would ever come into play? Not saying this is the case, but enough room for plausible denialability.I don't believe it. They're just covering their asses. I'm pretty sure any change like that would have to get approved by the GM. Maybe even Steinbrenner.

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 03:38 PM
I don't believe it. They're just covering their asses. I'm pretty sure any change like that would have to get approved by the GM. Maybe even Steinbrenner.

"George, they'd like any references to steroids removed from the contract. No real reason why.......but we've checked, and Jason insists he's never used steroids. And we got independent confirmation form his agent, so we believe him".

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:56 PM
I don't believe it. They're just covering their asses. I'm pretty sure any change like that would have to get approved by the GM. Maybe even Steinbrenner.

Why? Steroids wasn't nearly tenth of a story it is now in 2001. George wanted Giambi, so little wording in a clause wasn't going to make a difference. I don't think anyone in wildest nightmares saw BALCO and without BALCO none of this ever happens.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 04:11 PM
Why? Steroids wasn't nearly tenth of a story it is now in 2001. George wanted Giambi, so little wording in a clause wasn't going to make a difference. I don't think anyone in wildest nightmares saw BALCO and without BALCO none of this ever happens.Are you kidding? For 71 years only once did anyone break the 60 home run barrier, and that was by only one. Then all of a sudden players are not just breaking the record but smashing it to bits. And two or three guys at a time. Did you honestly think even back in 1998 that they WEREN'T juiced? When they put on 40 lbs of muscle and outgrew their batting helmets in their 30's, did you think it was the Cheerios? Do you think it's remotely possible the Yankees' brass didn't know when they signed Giambi? If so, them PM me. I have a bridge I'd like to talk with you about.

Baby Fisk
02-14-2005, 04:14 PM
"George, they'd like any references to steroids removed from the contract. No real reason why.......but we've checked, and Jason insists he's never used steroids. And we got independent confirmation form his agent, so we believe him".

Steinbrenner: "Okay Costanza. If it looks good to you, it looks good to me. You're doing a fine job round here, George. Keep it up!"

StillMissOzzie
02-14-2005, 04:45 PM
I would bet Cashman (and every other GM) wasn't around when they put the details on paper, just an agent or even assistant to the agent and some nameless Assistant GM.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the Yankmees would delegate a NINE-figure contract to an assistant GM, agent, or anyone else. IMHO, I agree that the Yankmees were operating under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and it has come back to bite them in the ass.

Part of me wanted Giambi to get that contract nullified ("cheaters never prosper"), part of me wanted the Yanks to eat it ("serves them right").

SMO
:gulp:

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 04:47 PM
I find it extremely hard to believe that the Yankmees would delegate a NINE-figure contract to an assistant GM, agent, or anyone else. IMHO, I agree that the Yankmees were operating under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and it has come back to bite them in the ass.

Part of me wanted Giambi to get that contract nullified ("cheaters never prosper"), part of me wanted the Yanks to eat it ("serves them right").

SMO
:gulp:

The problem is that them eating it means nothing in terms of their ability to make personnel moves. That's a big part of what makes them the Yankees - never having to pay for your mistakes.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 05:03 PM
The problem is that them eating it means nothing in terms of their ability to make personnel moves. That's a big part of what makes them the Yankees - never having to pay for your mistakes.I wouldn't say that. If they didn't have Giambi's contract you can bet they would have been after Beltran. Even the Yankees don't have an infinite amount of money. With their payroll, luxury tax and revenue sharing, they've got to be getting close to the limit.

samram
02-14-2005, 05:55 PM
I wouldn't say that. If they didn't have Giambi's contract you can bet they would have been after Beltran. Even the Yankees don't have an infinite amount of money. With their payroll, luxury tax and revenue sharing, they've got to be getting close to the limit.

I agree. Plus their luxury tax rates are the highest possible since they've been over the threshold amount in every year it's been in effect. Furthmore, running a business in New York is not cheap.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 06:25 PM
I find it extremely hard to believe that the Yankmees would delegate a NINE-figure contract to an assistant GM, agent, or anyone else. IMHO, I agree that the Yankmees were operating under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and it has come back to bite them in the ass.

Part of me wanted Giambi to get that contract nullified ("cheaters never prosper"), part of me wanted the Yanks to eat it ("serves them right").

SMO
:gulp:

I am not sure if Cashman is a contract lawyer or not, but writting the contract out is not handle by the GM. I doubt there is one contract that Kenny Williams has actually written out, teams pay lawyers to do that. The GM and agent agree to the principals of the deal and then subordinates hammer out the small details.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 06:31 PM
Are you kidding? For 71 years only once did anyone break the 60 home run barrier, and that was by only one. Then all of a sudden players are not just breaking the record but smashing it to bits. And two or three guys at a time. Did you honestly think even back in 1998 that they WEREN'T juiced? When they put on 40 lbs of muscle and outgrew their batting helmets in their 30's, did you think it was the Cheerios? Do you think it's remotely possible the Yankees' brass didn't know when they signed Giambi? If so, them PM me. I have a bridge I'd like to talk with you about.

I am not saying they knew or suspected anything, what I am saying was the story and PR backlash are no where near where they are now. So the Yankees and the MLB didn't care if Giambi or other players were putting harmfull substances into their bodies since it allows players to produce at a higher levels. The BALCO investigation cause strong PR backlash which prompted Congressional hearings and mention in the State of Union address. Thus baseball had to crack down on it, not because they cared about records or players health but gate receipts. Thus in 2001 the Yankees probally didn't care about the clause too much and change at Giambis bequest. It is also plausible the person writting the contract never told Cashman or anyone else higher up above it. That is what I am saying.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 06:32 PM
I agree. Plus their luxury tax rates are the highest possible since they've been over the threshold amount in every year it's been in effect. Furthmore, running a business in New York is not cheap.

I think est rev for the Yankees run at about 500 million. So they have about another 100 million to spend before the breakeven point.

Mickster
02-14-2005, 07:07 PM
I think est rev for the Yankees run at about 500 million. So they have about another 100 million to spend before the breakeven point.

Your figure is about 100 Mil higher that what I read in sporting news about 6 months ago in an article written by Rosenthal. He mentioned that they were basically at the break-even point as things stood. That is one of the reasons that the Yankees are pushing for a new stadium deal. According to the CBA, the Yankees can deduct approx. $160 M (iirc) if yearly stadium financing costs from the amount that they would be requited to pay in luxury taxes and revenue sharing, meaning if the Yanks get a new stadium deal, they would essentially be paying no revenue sharing or luxury taxes to the other MLB teams.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 08:15 PM
I am not saying they knew or suspected anything, what I am saying was the story and PR backlash are no where near where they are now. So the Yankees and the MLB didn't care if Giambi or other players were putting harmfull substances into their bodies since it allows players to produce at a higher levels. The BALCO investigation cause strong PR backlash which prompted Congressional hearings and mention in the State of Union address. Thus baseball had to crack down on it, not because they cared about records or players health but gate receipts. Thus in 2001 the Yankees probally didn't care about the clause too much and change at Giambis bequest. It is also plausible the person writting the contract never told Cashman or anyone else higher up above it. That is what I am saying.Cashman may not actually write the contracts, but I guarantee he signs off on every detail in every one of them, as does every GM in baseball. There is NO possibility he didn't know about it.

Steroid use didn't just start in 2001. It had been going on for some time and everyone with two eyes and an ounce of grey matter knew it. It wasn't a big story so they felt they could do what everybody else in baseball was doing, which was to pretend the problem didn't exist. So they thought it would be OK because no one would ever find out? What kind of excuse is that?

In the final analysis it's real simple. They knew perfectly well what they were doing. They knew it was wrong. They chose to look the other way. They got caught. End of story.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 09:35 PM
Your figure is about 100 Mil higher that what I read in sporting news about 6 months ago in an article written by Rosenthal. He mentioned that they were basically at the break-even point as things stood. That is one of the reasons that the Yankees are pushing for a new stadium deal. According to the CBA, the Yankees can deduct approx. $160 M (iirc) if yearly stadium financing costs from the amount that they would be requited to pay in luxury taxes and revenue sharing, meaning if the Yanks get a new stadium deal, they would essentially be paying no revenue sharing or luxury taxes to the other MLB teams.

I didn't read the article, but have seen the 500 million dollar mark thrown around. Does the 400 million include rev from the Yes Network?