Ah, so Steve Carlton, who had a training regimen that would have killed most Olympic athletes, was a bad athlete. Gotcha.
Tom Glavine, college hockey star, bad athlete. You betcha.
I think there is some wiggle room, if both parties can agree to it.
I’m sure his contract mandates that he show up for all practices, all games, travel with the team, talk to the press, obey orders from coaches and managers, etc.
Perhaps this is becoming a daily humiliation ritual for the poor guy. What if, for a substantial pay cut, he could rid himself of all this? The team could give him a nice hotel suite in Tahiti for 3 years and all the blow he could snort, along with hot and cold running hookers.
Win win!
Given that Viciedo has been called up, and reached base six times in his first eight plate appearances, with a home run and a stolen base, I think we can safely predict that Dunn’s playing time will be much reduced, and this thread will be moot.
The fans and media have been screaming at the Sox to call up Viciedo all year. “But I have no place to play him,” said Ozzie. Well, you could have played him at DH, instead of the guy who’s hitting .160. I know it offends cosmic order to have a 22-year-old DH, but the rules do allow it.
Well he can do what Gil Meche did, retire and forgo the rest of what he is owed. Outside of that there is not much the White Sox can do. The player’s union wouldn’t sign off on any buy-out that gave Dunn less than about 99% of what he is owed. Their best bet is to hope he can rebuild himself in the offseason and they can get some value out of the rest of the deal.
Seriously? Even if both parties agree the contract can’t be amended?
Even then. The union is an involved party too and they wouldn’t agree to anything that would make baseball contracts anything other than 100% guaranteed. They don’t want any precedence that allows the White Sox to go to Rios or whoever else is sucking next and tell him that they will bench him if he won’t rework his deal.
I’m not sure the owners would be happy with Dunn reworking his deal either. Baseball doesn’t have holdouts, but I’m sure that would change if owners argued that players should be compensated based on how well they perform. Evan Longoria, for one, isn’t paid anywhere near what he is worth.
Are you saying a contract can guarantee he won’t be benched? I can’t imagine they can’t bench him, or even send him home, so long as they pay him what he’s due.
No, what I’m saying is you don’t have want teams to be able to say to players that I’m benching/trading/switching your position unless you take a paycut.
This is actually one reason I like the MLB better than the NFL. Once a contract is signed it’s actually treated like…a contract! If you signed a bad one, well guess what, you’re stuck with it. Even if both sides agree. Remember A-Rod was all set to take a pay cut and go to Boston back in 2003 but the union nixed the deal.
Tim Wakefield couldn’t make it playing 1B. He can’t hit. So he learned to throw a knuckleball. I would not say he’s not an athlete. He’s actually got a really good pickoff move. That’s gotta count for some kind of athleticism.
Just to clarify, what was originally suggested was just a buyout. Certainly a team could buy out a player’s contract for a sum below the amount outstanding - providing it was a legitimate buyout, whereby the player was released and thus able to shop his services elsewhere. The player could refuse it, but it’s something that could be negotiated, and such deals have happened before.
However, I’d agree a flat out renegotiation for lower money - with or without the threat of benching or what have you - but continued service wouldn’t happen. It sort of defies the whole point of having a contract. Long term contracts usually involve risks for both sides.
My apologies if I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that a guy like Wakefield is arguably not the athlete that many of his fellow pitchers are. He is still unquestionably a better athlete than 95% of the population. One might put him in the bottom quarter of MLB pitchers in terms of pure athleticism, though. 
In the business world, contracts are amended all the time. I can’t conceive of a business to business contract that cannot be amended if both parties agree to do so. Contracts are also canceled all the time, there are usually termination clauses that set out the proper way to sever the relationship. Companies do get stuck with bad contracts, but that’s generally because the termination clause is more costly than the losses from the contract.
I will also point out that Dunn is not “stuck” with this contract. If he so desires, he can sever the relationship unilaterally, with no notice, it is only the club who cannot do so. He doesn’t have to treat it like a “contract” he can pack his bag and leave any time he wants.
There’s been a trend toward this in baseball and I think it’s a good thing: the Rays and Longoria were working on a long-term contract before he even reached the majors, and he signed a long-term deal at a good salary in his first week after being promoted from AAA. He’s not being paid his market value now, and he and his agent had to know there was a strong possibility that could happen, but he got excellent security as a young player and the club got him for the long term. That sounds like a good deal for everybody.
Dunn only needs another 67 plate appearances to qualify, if I’ve done the math right (I think I have). To get there, he probably only needs to start 20 or 21 more games the rest of the way. Hopefully Ozzie does the right thing and keeps him on the bench for half of the remaining season to keep Deer’s record intact.
But, to do so, he would have to retire, correct? Otherwise you’d see baseball players do this all the time when they think they’re being underpaid. Or if their agent is Scott Boras.
Almost on cue, in his first game since RickJay wrote this, Halladay hit a bases-loaded double. He has noticeably batted better this season…dare I say it, looking somewhat better than RickJay (or I) could likely manage.
Figures.
The Blue Jays will blow this! The Blue Jays will blow this! If it worked for Halladay…
On ESPN yesterday, the announcer showing the replays made what to you is s terrible gaffe. He was talking about pitchers and declared them “terrible athletes”. I suppose you should straighten him out too. No reason for you to learn anything after all. You just have to be right. Even when you are not.
And we all know it’s impossible for a guy on ESPN to be wrong.
I don’t really have the time or inclination to find out who you’re talking about, write ESPN, and tell him he’s wrong.
But he IS wrong. Anyone who says major league pitchers as a group are terrible athletes is simply ignorant. It is a preoposterous, asinine claim to state that men like Roy Halladay, Justin Verlander, or Felix Hernandez are poor athletes. Most of these guys, in terms of overall atleticism, are at worst in the top two or three percent of all adult males of equal age.
I am not always right. Everyone’s fallible. But on this subject, I am completely right, and the ESPN guy is hopelessly wrong, or else he’s just talking out his ass, as ESPN announcers so often do.