Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
March 02, 2004
BASEBALL: Never Mind

So the Cubs tear up the contract they signed with Derrek Lee to give him a better deal, a 3-year deal instead of a 1-year deal. Remember when Gene Orza from the Players Union told us that "A-Rod shouldn't be allowed to tear up his contract in the same way that Tom Hicks shouldn't be allowed to"? You think the union will tell the Cubs they can't do this?

Didn't think so.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 06:58 AM | Baseball 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Hopefully your just using this as an easy way to get a laugh.

I'm a Sox fan, no union fan...but c'mon...any idiot can see that this deal is financially better just by looking at the numbers. No need to even factor in possible outside sources of income. Its there in black and white.

Posted by: C Giddy at March 2, 2004 09:38 AM

Maybe I wasn't clear enough . . . my point was that, during the A-Rod/Red Sox thing, Orza suggested that it was fair to bar players from rewriting their contracts to give the player less money because the teams are similarly barred from rewriting their contracts to give the player more money. That was an obvious falsehood, and the fact that it's not even controversial that teams do this everyday just underscores that point. The Cubs gave Lee a better deal because it was in their interests to do so; A-Rod was barred from considering it in his interest to take a lesser deal than the one he had.

Posted by: The Crank at March 2, 2004 09:58 AM

Ahhhhhh, I see.

More reason to despise Orza.

Still, big difference between "shouldn't be allowed to" and "isn't allowed to."

The Yankees turned out to be the MLBPA's best friend on this one. Orza's off the hook because ARod got what he wanted and he didn't have to sacrifice a dime in pay to do so.

Posted by: C Giddy at March 2, 2004 10:05 AM

Actually, if I understand them correctly, the union's position was that if A-Rod was going to give back money, he needed to be getting something in return that in some way made the deal better for him - and since he already had a ridiculously long contract with every conceivable perk, there wasn't a way to do that. In this case, the Cubs are getting three years of the player's services instead of the one they controlled him for under the prior contract. While it's debatable whether that makes it a better deal for them, well, it IS debatable, and thus consistent with the union's arguments.

Posted by: Jerry at March 2, 2004 02:45 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Site Meter