Joel Sherman at least seems grounded in reality. The threat of a contract void could compel ARod to accept a buyout:
"Privately, the Yankees are thrilled with this latest mess. For if
the allegations first made yesterday in the Miami New Times that detail
Rodriguez purchasing banned performance enhancers from 2009-12 turn out
to be accurate — or worse — then a portal has been opened for the
Yankees to accomplish a goal as large as winning the 2013 World Series
because of what it means to their present and near future: Severing ties
with Rodriguez and saving as much of the $114 million they owe him over
the next five years as possible.
Now let’s not mislead anyone.
The Yankees will need a Hail Mary to succeed. After all, we thought
baseball had Ryan Braun with no wiggle room, and Braun escaped. We
thought the feds had Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, and how did that
turn out? The union may not love A-Rod, but its history is to fight like
heck for its members and when the Players Association fights it
generally wins.
Still, this is a Hail Mary the Yankees will be
happy to attempt, as opposed to, say, when they threatened to go after
the contracts of Bubba Trammell, Carl Pavano and Jason Giambi for
various forms of alleged malfeasance — and then didn’t."
Bubba Trammell. Was benched for a game against the Mets and he just disappeared. Remember that guy?
Anyway, ARod and the Union are not just going to quietly give back $114 million.
I have a gripe with the invocation of a "morals clause" when it just boils down to costs and benefits:
"But maybe the mere threat of more info arising from a court case would
move Rodriguez to agree to a buyout, say half of the $114 million, and
that lowered total would count toward the tax (can’t see the union ever
accepting that). Or maybe a sensitive sort will not want to endure the
public humiliation that will come with his appearances and retire
claiming an inability to recover from a second hip surgery in four
years. In that scenario, the Yankees might be able to recoup 70-85
percent of his contract in insurance."
No comments:
Post a Comment