PDA

View Full Version : Can Ownership Protect Itself Against Player Suspension Salary Liability?


Lillian
11-21-2007, 12:47 PM
Perhaps there has already been a thread on this topic, but if not, does anyone know what the Player's Union has to say about structuring new contracts with clauses to protect ownership from guys getting suspended for steroids?

If that is possible, why wouldn't you write something into any new contract to avoid the risk of owing a guy a lot of money, when he can't play because he has been suspended?

Fenway
11-21-2007, 12:50 PM
Perhaps there has already been a thread on this topic, but if not, does anyone know what the Player's Union has to say about structuring new contracts with clauses to protect ownership from guys getting suspended for steroids?

If that is possible, why wouldn't you write something into any new contract to avoid the risk of owing a guy a lot of money, when he can't play because he has been suspended?

you suspended you don't get paid


The real dicy issue is making a trade for a player that is then suspended. Every GM knows the Mitchell list is coming and they may want to dump a player they know will get nailed.

Lillian
11-21-2007, 02:19 PM
That's interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

ericiii
11-21-2007, 02:46 PM
you suspended you don't get paid


The real dicy issue is making a trade for a player that is then suspended. Every GM knows the Mitchell list is coming and they may want to dump a player they know will get nailed.

When a player gets traded, can their contract be amended? I realize the $$$ and length of contract has to stay the same, but can ownership (of the player's new team) put an addendum on the player's current contract?

Frontman
11-21-2007, 02:59 PM
Something similiar must exist, as Jason Giambi could of been held in breach of contract with the Yankees when he apologized for "the stuff" (whatever that stuff was.)

I don't know all the details, but it was discussed at length on ESPN during that time.

soxfanreggie
11-22-2007, 09:12 PM
I wonder how the player's union could dance around disagreeing with putting language in contracts that players' contracts could be voided with positive steroid tests. They would probably claim that "faulty" tests could occur (which they could), but the ability to void contracts could be viable deterrant. It won't stop usage because some would take the risk and others would find new, undetectable 'roids, but it might be a start.