Yankees logo

Would the Yankees sue A-Rod for “damaging the Yankees brand?”

66 Comments

The idea of voiding player contracts in retaliation for PED suspensions is a non-starter at present, as the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies that the Joint Drug Agreement constitutes the sole basis of punishment for PED use.  We talked a lot recently about why changing the CBA/JDA to include contract voiding is undesirable. In just the past week some players have gone on record saying that such a thing won’t happen unless some mechanism is built in to differentiate between active attempts to cheat vs. accidental ingestion of banned substances, but that changes the whole nature of the drug program and would lead to evidentiary trials for every positive test, and that seems like a stretch.

Yet it is a topic that simply won’t die. Buster Olney talks about it in today’s column, in which he reports how teams and their lawyers are trying to think of other ways to claw back money from players who use PEDs. After noting that the CBA prevents any such moves:

However, some lawyers believe there could other, more simple grounds — along the lines of the recent government suit filed against Lance Armstrong. Could a team file a lawsuit against a player — as they would any company or entity with which they worked — alleging that irreparable damage has been done to their business, to their brand, through the actions of the defendant?

Take Rodriguez, for example.

At the time the Yankees signed him to his 10-year, $275 million deal, after the 2007 season, they entered into the deal thinking that Rodriguez would continue as an important and marketable part of their franchise for years to come. This is also why they added $5 million incentive clauses that were attached to specific and historic statistical milestones — so he andthe franchise would share that wealth.

But after his admission of PED use in the spring of 2009, the practical usefulness of Rodriguez as a marketing piece was badly damaged — and now, with MLB close to concluding its investigation of Rodriguez, he is all but useless on that front.

It’d be pretty hilarious, after a century of hearing the Yankees talk about how their brand is sterling and their business is bigger than anything this side of God to suddenly claim that Alex Rodriguez did “irreparable damage to their business and brand.”

Plaintiff’s Attorney: “So it’s your testimony, Mr. Steinbrenner, that a century’s worth of domination and glory was cast asunder by the man sitting over there?”

Hal Steinbrenner: “Yes. Yes it is. No one knows who Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle and Derek Jeter are anymore. I tried to give a Yankees cap away to a small child yesterday and his father punched me in the ear.”

“Your witness.”

Seems unlikely but I suppose lawyers have made more outlandish claims.

Of course there’s something besides a lack of such chutzpah that would keep a team from doing that: opening the door to arguments in the future about just how valuable a given player is to the team’s brand.

In this hypothetical case wouldn’t A-Rod’s lawyers be obligated and motivated to argue how much good will the Yankees already received from him? The value of him in their marketing materials from the time he arrived until his name became Mudd? The value of his contributions to the 2009 World Series winning team? No, not in a baseball sense — that’s what A-Rod’s salary was for — but for all of the good will and marketing mojo that flowed out of that? Maybe the YES Network’s revenue would be part of that too? I mean, it would all have to be on the table if we’re talking about the extra-contractual damage the Yankees would be claiming, yes? It would have to be offset by the extra-contractual benefits, of which there have no doubt been many.

No team is going to want to wade into that. If, for no other reason, it would lay the groundwork for player suits in equity — think unjust enrichment theory — when a team realizes way, way more value from the player than that for which they paid. I wonder how many people feel better about the Nationals since Bryce Harper came up. Yasiel Puig totally changed the perception of the Dodgers in a month. There has to be some value in there, no?

Lawyers and their teams know this. But maybe they don’t care. Here’s the giveaway, from Olney’s article:

Could a team gain legal traction and win that argument? Could they get some money back? The longtime lawyer said he isn’t entirely sure. “But I’d file that suit if it involved a player with us,” he said, “because what do you have to lose?”

How utterly inspiring.

Blue Jays sign Steve Pearce to a two-year deal

NEW YORK - MAY 09: Steve Pearce #28 of the Baltimore Orioles looks on from the dugout during the game against the New York Yankees at Yankee Stadium on May 9, 2015 in the Bronx borough of New York City. (Photo by Rob Tringali/SportsChrome/Getty Images)
Getty Images
2 Comments

Buster Olney of ESPN reports that the Blue Jays have signed Steve Pearce to a two-year deal worth $12.5 million.

Pearce, 33 had some health issues in 2016, but he hit .288/.374/.492 across 302 plate appearances when he was on the field and he mashes lefties in particular. Pearce is versatile as well, logging time at first base, second base, right field, left field, and DH in 2016 while splitting time between the Rays and Orioles.

Jung Ho Kang’s DUI arrest was his third since 2009

PITTSBURGH, PA - JUNE 10:  Jung Ho Kang #27 of the Pittsburgh Pirates fields a ground ball in the second inning during the game against the St. Louis Cardinals at PNC Park on June 10, 2016 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Justin K. Aller/Getty Images)
Getty Images
6 Comments

Last week Pirates infielder Jung Ho Kang was arrested in South Korea for driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. That’s bad, but it turns out that it’s nothing new. The Yonhapnews Agency reports that Kang has been arrested for DUI three times since 2009:

Gangnam Police Station in southern Seoul confirmed that it was Kang’s third DUI arrest, with the three strikes law resulting in the immediate revocation of his license. According to police, Kang had also been arrested for a DUI in August 2009 and May 2011. No personal injuries were reported in either case, though he’d caused property damage in the latter incident.

The report also notes that a companion of Kang initially claimed that he, and not Kang, was behind the wheel at the time of the accident which led to Kang’s arrest last week. It was later revealed by the car’s black box, however, that Kang was driving. So add in some obstruction of justice, whether it is charged or not, to the scene. Police are investigating that.

Between all of this and the fact that Kang is under investigation for an alleged sexual assault in Chicago this past season, a pretty ugly portrait of the Pirates’ infielder is beginning to reveal itself.