jung

That had to be pretty satisfying for Scuts given that take out play from earlier in the game. Hope he glared into the Cards dugout.

I guess I could see Hamilton accepting language that paralleled the Lackey language. I just do not think that the Lackey language allows a great deal of latitude outside of the precise limitations in the Lackey contract. In other words, the key trigger to the language in the Lackey contract was "playing time missed". No playing time missed, the language does not apply. I DO NOT think the Lackey language suggests the means to utilize more broadly written language in a ML contract. In addition I do not believe the existence of the Lackey contract allows for remedies outside of the remedies applied in the Lackey contract. So, the language can only be triggered if playing time is missed and the only remedy is an extension of player obligation to play for the team. In the case of Lackey the salary was also considerably reduced during the period of that extension. I would believe there is latitude with regard to the salary to be paid during that extended period. However I do not believe that you could get a contract past either ML or the PA, using language that strayed at all past that. So you would be talking about a very specific trigger and a very limited set of remedies. I could see Hamilton possibly going for that but that is wayyyyyyy short of the remedies that I think Jacko has been suggesting.

I believe that Jacko is correct with reference to Lackey-ish language added to a contract. However, the remedies available to the club are narrowly defined and relate to "playing time missed". So going back to the Lackey language, Lackey had to miss time in order for the language that related to his known condition to kick in. That language did nothing to change Lackey's salary during the active term of the contract and any effort to do so in the contract would have resulted in a contract that neither the league nor the Players Association would have allowed. It simply allowed that if a certain amount of time was missed then Lackey owed the Sox an additional year of contractual obligation to play for the Sox and only the Sox (unless the Sox traded him or relinquished their rights by some other means) and he owed the Sox that year at a considerably reduced rate of pay. I am convinced that very similar language could be applied in Hamilton's case as well, as the parallels are unmistakable. Both Lackey and Hamilton have conditions known to the clubs involved. There certainly is the possibility that Hamilton would miss playing time and Lackey certainly did. Hence the same remedy could be applied in Hamilton's case as it was applied in Lackey's case. The only "beef" I might see the Players Association raise is that Lackey's stipulation related to an injury all parties agreed was sustained as a consequence of Lackey's participation in baseball while Hamilton's condition is not. However if the Players Association adopted that line, I believe they would fail. Who is to say for example in the Lackey situation that the genesis of his injury began before he started his ML career? Therefore I think it improbably that the Players Association could successfully imply any practical difference between Lackey's elbow and Hamilton's condition from a ML contract perspective.

SFF I am interested in what language in the CBA you are referring to that would allow any team to make a player contract non-guaranteed based on a condition. As for activities that are illegal, of course a player would have to be prosecuted and found guilty of a crime for the language in the CBA regarding such activity to have relevance. I think that is what you are referring to under "rights" and if I have accurately judged your meaning you are right in that regard. If in fact a player is found guilty of illegal activity, the commissioner of baseball has the only rights and authority with regard to punishing the player relative to issues that pertain to the pursuit of his ML career. The team only has rights if the commissioner relinquishes his rights to the team. Since this is in the CBA, a team could not write language into a specific contract with a player that would supersede that language. All of the other relevant language is in the Standard Contract which is Schedule A of the CBA. Item 4 Condition allows that: The Player represents that he has no physical or mental defects known to him and unknown to the appropriate representative of the Club which would prevent or impair performance of his services. So this provision provides that there might be a crack open to the club if the club is not aware of a condition the player had AND WAS AWARE OF when the player signed the contract. But that is a two street. As long as the player has in fact adhered to item 4, then the team knows what condition or conditions the player has and as such, agrees to sign the player regardless. That very much limits team action relative to a "condition". Item 5 of the Standard Contract covers "other sports" and stipulates that: The Player and the Club recognize and agree that the Player’s participation in certain other sports may impair or destroy his ability and skill as a baseball player. Accordingly, the Player agrees that he will not engage in professional boxing or wrestling; and that, except with the written consent of the Club, he will not engage in skiing, auto racing, motorcycle racing, sky diving, or in any game or exhibition of football, soccer, professional league basketball, ice hockey or other sport involving a substantial risk of personal injury. This is the item in the contract that would allow the club to specifically note other sports and/or activities that the club could stipulate. A player that did not act in accordance with those stipulations would have violated his contract. So, I absolutely believe you can write language into a contract that would allow a team to void a contract if a player engages in an activity which carries an risk of injury that the club is unwilling to sustain. The club would add such stipulations to item 5 of the Standard Contract. But my point SFF is that there is no such thing as a non-guaranteed ML contract. The remedies available to the team are to void or not void. The team cannot write language into the contract that would under a certain set of circumstances turn the contract from guaranteed to non-guaranteed as that would again directly conflict with language in the CBA. You cannot write a ML contract that conflicts with the CBA.

Yea but Boone injured himself playing basketball. You can put terms into a contract that prohibit specific activities but drug addiction is not an activity. Nobody has taken a preexisting condition and voided a contract as a consequence. If they sign Hamilton, they are signing somebody with what will be considered a condition....drug addiction. Just because he is not using does not mean he is "cured" and that is the difference. You can specify activities that are to be prohibited and there is even general language in the CBA that you can liberally read to allow for that....Contracts have been written around motorcycle riding and basketball playing and other "activities" but not conditions. I think Joba's contact specified a trampoline related injury and I guess the Yanks decided not to enforce it. You sign a contract with a player with a known condition and I don't think there is a way out. You can insure the contract to soften the blow or write terms into the contract that makes the player still your player for an additional period of time at a reduced salary rate....like the Sox did with Lackey. So in the case of Hamilton, they could insure the contract and they could also write in some language that said that if he had to go into recovery and missed time because if it, he would owe his team an additional year (using the Lackey example) at XYZ salary. Even in the case of Lackey-ish language I think the key would be actual playing time missed. Joba's situation is interesting from the perspective even of activities because it would appear the Yanks had every right to void his contract but decided against it. Point being that even in the case of activities depending on the financial commitment to the player and the perceived value of the player the team still sometimes finds itself unwilling to void.

I think I mentioned this in another thread but no MLB contract can be written that contradicts the terms of the CBA. Can't write a contract with Hamilton that voids his guaranteed money if he relapses. You can insure the contract which I suspect any team would do and/or do what the Sox did with Lackey which is less likely but still a possibility I guess. However you cannot write in terms that nullify Hamiton's guaranteed money. If you could we likely would have already seen contracts of that type for other "conditions" or other situations with other players.

This is beginning to look like destiny favoring the Tigers...that is twice at least NY has been jobbed by the umps in two games....unusual turn of events there.

The way he walked Tex was as telling as having walked him. Veverde had Tex 0-2 and then Tex got the count to 2-2. At that point Veverde did not have a choice. He had to challenge Tex at that point. That does not necessarily mean that he had to grove a FB right down main street, mano a mano style. However he had to go with a FB and try to get it in a good location. Worst that could happen would have been a HR and Detroit still has the lead and Veverde is out of the game at that point. Instead of challenging Tex he throws another ball nowhere near the plate. At 3-2 actually Veverde still had one last shot to challenge Tex and failed again...walking him in the process. That is virtually the same scenario that Storen the Nats pitcher was in against the Cards the night before and he had surrendered the same way Veverde surrendered to Tex in that spot. The only difference was that Storen had to throw a slider for a strike on the outer edge and instead tryed to coax hitters to reach for that slider off the plate.....another classic example of the pitcher losing his nerve and raising the white flag of surrender. Any manager that sees that and leaves the pitcher in after that hitter, gets no sympathy from me. The pitcher has already told you that he is done. Besides being unwilling to challenge Tex, the strikes Veverde was throwing were all meatballs. Frankly, Veverde knew they were meatballs, which is why he lost his nerve and his confidence. Seeing pop gun Ichiro take you yard even in Matchbox Stadium does not do much for your confidence.

So you just leave the closer in even when he himself has put up the surrender flag and has given up as many runs already in the inning as outs he has recorded??? That is just lame. By the way....Leyland DID take Valverde out....just one batter to late....so ultimately Leyland did take Veverde out in that inning and brought in a LH pitcher to pitch to the NEXT LH batter. Lots of good that did since the horse had already left the barn. By rights Leyland deserved to get his head beat in by the Yanks for treating Raul like he was just some 40 year old stiff just like Showalter got his head beaten in for the same reason. Situational managing in MLB has just gone out the window just like situational hitting has. In this case the "situation" was that Raul was a white hot, LH batter, by far the BEST threat the Yanks could bring to the plate that could actually hurt Detroit and Leyland leaves in a RH pitcher that has already put up the surrender flag to pitch to him. Even the TBS broadcast team, as bad as they were during the broadcast basically gave that whole situation the big "Holy s***" especially Darling who stopped just short of saying Leyland had to rethink his entire approach to this "my players, my guys" thing if he wanted to have a shot at winning a WS. There is no way in hell, closer or no, that you can justify allowing any one pitcher to give up the tying runs, ALL FOUR OF THEM, in the ninth inning to the home team in Yankee Stadium cause it is to easy at that point for the Yanks to just end the game on you without you even being able to come up again with one of those ridiculous RF HR's. That was already an unprecedented post season last inning come back. All it would have taken was one more of those silly RF HR's to have created the most embarrassing managerial gaff in post season history.

So you just leave the closer in even when he himself has put up the surrender flag and has given up as many runs already in the inning as outs he has recorded??? That is just lame. By the way....Leyland DID take Valverde out....just one batter to late....so ultimately Leyland did take Veverde out in that inning and brought in a LH pitcher to pitch to the NEXT LH batter. Lots of good that did since the horse had already left the barn. By rights Leyland deserved to get his head beat in by the Yanks for treating Raul like he was just some 40 year old stiff just like Showalter got his head beaten in for the same reason. Situational managing in MLB has just gone out the window just like situational hitting has. In this case the "situation" was that Raul was a white hot, LH batter, by far the BEST threat the Yanks could bring to the plate that could actually hurt Detroit and Leyland leaves in a RH pitcher that has already put up the surrender flag to pitch to him. Even the TBS broadcast team, as bad as they were during the broadcast basically gave that whole situation the big "Holy s***" especially Darling who stopped just short of saying Leyland had to rethink his entire approach to this "my players, my guys" thing if he wanted to have a shot at winning a WS. There is no way in hell, closer or no, that you can justify allowing any one pitcher to give up the tying runs, ALL FOUR OF THEM, in the ninth inning to the home team in Yankee Stadium cause it is to easy at that point for the Yanks to just end the game on you without you even being able to come up again with one of those ridiculous RF HR's. That was already an unprecedented post season last inning come back. All it would have taken was one more of those silly RF HR's to have created the most embarrassing managerial gaff in post season history.

Unless both teams make significant changes, both the Red Sox and Yankees have pop gun lineups. The difference at this point is that the Yankees are paying about a zillion $$$ more for their pop gun line up and the Sox now have the financial flexibility to do something about theirs. The question on the Sox end is whether the FO is up to the task. As for this series, the Yanks are really under pressure to win game 2 with Kuroda on short rest. Don't think the Yanks can get past Detroit in any event. However if they lose game 2 the rest of the series will be anticlimactic. Losing Jeter really hurts on one hand as he has been one of the more consistent players they have had in this post season. However for one game there might be something of the wounded animal effect that might actually help the Yanks in game 2.

While I do not think Valverde should have been brought into the game it hardly matters. Once he refused to challenge Tex 2-2 having had him 0-2, Valverde himself had raised the white flag and had to come out at that point especially with LH, white hot hitting Raul coming up. Managers need to start acknowledging that Raul is the hottest hitter the Yankees have and is in fact the only hitter the Yankees have at the moment that can hurt you. Instead of seeing a white hot hitter that is the only true threat the Yankees have at the moment, they see a 40 year old that does not even start....stupid. Everybody acknowledges that the teams that you have to worry about going into and in the post season are the teams that get hot. So why don't managers use the same logic with regard to players? Because in the main they are dumb as dirt. Showalter refused to acknowledge Raul and probably got bounced from the post season for it. Leyland made the same mistake tonight and almost lost the game because of it.

While I do not think Valverde should have been brought into the game it hardly matters. Once he refused to challenge Tex 2-2 having had him 0-2, Valverde himself had raised the white flag and had to come out at that point especially with LH, white hot hitting Raul coming up. Managers need to start acknowledging that Raul is the hottest hitter the Yankees have and is in fact the only hitter the Yankees have at the moment that can hurt you. Instead of seeing a white hot hitter that is the only true threat the Yankees have at the moment, they see a 40 year old that does not even start....stupid. Everybody acknowledges that the teams that you have to worry about going into and in the post season are the teams that get hot. So why don't managers use the same logic with regard to players? Because in the main they are dumb as dirt. Showalter refused to acknowledge Raul and probably got bounced from the post season for it. Leyland made the same mistake tonight and almost lost the game because of it.

ML managers are so stupid they should be castrated so they cannot have offspring. How many rules did Leyland break there. 1) do not bring in your closer in a non-save situation 2) do not risk game 1 of a seven game series in this case to "see what Valverde had" 3) when your pitcher is giving up a run for every out he is recording, it might be time to simply say he does not have it and get him outta' there Valverde had Tex 0-2 and let him off the hook. There was nobody on base so Valverde could have challenged Tex without loosing the game when the count got to 2-2 and he was unwilling to challenge him....Remind anybody of anything from the Cards/Nats game last night? On top of that, Valverde was throwing meatballs all inning....had already given up a 2 run HR to Ichiro of all people and the mistakes he was making were just the kind of mistakes that would allow Raul to get his arms extended. It was a mistake to bring Valverde in to begin with because taking game 1 is more valuable to the Tigers than whatever the hell Leyland was trying to do with or for Valverde. Having brought him in, he should have been out of the game when he walked Tex. I just cannot believe how Showalter managed in that series and Leyland is not doing much better so far.

This looks like it is going like many of us expected. Yanks if lose here will be down 0-1 with Karoda going on short rest followed by getting 1-2 in the Detroit rotation back to back...Good night Irene. Yanks will be lucky to win behind Karoda as they still cannot hit even mediocre pitching. Fister was as hittable as I have seen him tonight and handcuffed the Yanks. Yanks did get robbed on that Cano line drive off Fister though. That was as bad a call as I have seen since....well the last bad out call at 1st in this post season. What is wrong with the umps at 1st this post season. The missed calls have not even been close...terrible terrible calls in each case.

I think the thinking on Napoli (if they are thinking about him at all) would be that nobody is going to give him really big money and he could end up being a reasonably priced 3 year contract guy that can play some platoon 1st and platoon Catcher. Any sort of really big money deal and I would not have any interest in Napoli. His 1 year high water market is something like $9M so I would have no interest in paying him $9 per for 3 years.

Ya know what I can go back to now.....remember when I huffed and snorted about leaving Gonzalez in for those runs on walks in the 5th because this whole thing of leaving the starter in as long as he has not lost the lead yet drives me completely nuts..... Like I said then...this was no dog days of August game where you are trying to get Gonzalez a win...should have got him out of there and then...lifted him the very next inning! So Gonzalez never threw a pitch in the 6th having given up runs on walks to end the 5th. DJ has a lot to answer for here.

Very good point 700. I would absolutely jump out a window if the Spanks won a WS on that s***. I would have not been able to do anything but swear for a week at least.

Well good game thread guys...love calling out the pitches, pitch by pitch cause it is so much fun to do it along with the pitcher and the hitter.

Even though I said that a slider on the plate would have saved Storen, the reason I did not like him there....look at the difference between the way Mott is walking around the mound and the way Storen was.

Damn....shame of it is that Storen was throwing good sliders...he just lost confidence in it and insisted on trying to get the hitter to chase it off the plate. If he just got one of those sliders over the the outer third I think he would have had his out...his save and game over. The one he threw after the FB off the inside of the plate would have had him dead if he threw it for a strike. Thats baseball

Baseball has always been this "I go with my guy" game but when a guy is done he is just done. DJ should have seen that Storen had no pitch to throw. He was not going to challenge with the FB and when he lost his nerve with the slider what the hell was he supposed to do from there...make the ball disappear as it crossed the plate?

Well I did not like Storen here to begin with and said so. When he lost his nerve with the slider...DJ had to get him outta' there even though he is the closer....he was done at that point.

Good point A700....I sort of thought he had him there. On the other hand...Storen sort of lost his nerve with the slider. I did not expect him to challenge with the FB. Knew he would go inside off the plate with FB and he did. But then just was not willing to get the slider over the outer third and kept missing...hoping they would reach for it.

That was really interesting. Storen was unwilling to challenge him with the FB 3-2. His only choice was FB or walk him and start anew with another batter. But now stuck with a LH