Sidney Ponson's contract termination has brought a grievance from the MLBPA. The O's terminating his deal--with $11 mill. remaining--made me a fan. These type of terminations are fairly common in the real business world. But we all know that primadonna athletes are not subject to the terms of the contracts--contracts that they sign. An example of that is found in Ponson's case.Part of the grievance says "(MLBPA) contended that an addendum in Ponson's contract allowing the team to convert it to a nonguaranteed deal was not authorized under baseball's collective bargaining agreement and was the result of a "concerted effort by the clubs."
OK, so then how was it approved by the league? How did the MLBPA approve it? Oh, and why did Ponson sign it then? It's just ridiculous. This is rich too:
The grievance also accuses the Orioles of relying on "confidential information improperly obtained from club medical personnel." However, according to the UPC, clubs have access to "relevant medical information pertaining to that player."
He's an athlete. Of course, they are privy to ALL medical records that are relevant to his ability to perform and fulfill his contract.
You can read more about this here. Guys like him, Denny Neagle, Sosa, etc. do these type of things because owners cave and let them. Here's hoping this thing actually goes to trial and the players lose.
Ponson agent Barry Praver said, "The grievance speaks for itself."
Yes it does.
No comments:
Post a Comment