I once read a mystery short story where the plot revolved around a baseball owner who signed an aging star to a multi-million dollar contract, only to have the star suffer a career ending injury. The owner’s solution? Pay a hit man a million dollars to kill the player, saving the team millions. It’s would be a good thing if that story didn’t get passed around the table at the next owners’ meeting as it might be tempting to some of the participants.
There’s been a lot of confusion about the Josh Hamilton situation in Los Angeles (or is it Anaheim?), but one thing is clear: Angels owner Arte Moreno is a liar. He claimed that the contract he signed with Josh Hamilton had a provision that voided the contract if Hamilton succumbed to one of his myriad addictions, and therefore the Angels owed Hamilton nothing. At the time nearly everyone is the sports talk industry derided the comment, pointing out that such a clause was directly contrary to the players’ collective bargaining agreement and would never be approved by the players’ union. Now the Angels have announced they will continue to pay Hamilton the bulk of his money even though he will play for division rival Texas Rangers. So, what happened to the claim that they didn’t owe Hamilton any money?
The clause was probably a dream Moreno had, or some kind of fantasy that he ruminated on so long he thought it was real. This is the biggest problem with owners of baseball teams; they always insist on signing players to contracts that only make sense if the player continues to play at a high level or even improves over the course of a time period where age and injury will almost inevitably produce decline. The contracts only make sense if the player’s career works out in a best-case scenario; anything less is a disaster.
Part of the Angels’ problem in dealing with all of this is the cognitive dissonance they feel over the arbitrator’s ruling that Hamilton did NOT violate league drug policy, despite admitting to having a relapse. News of Hamilton’s relapse was leaked to the media, and Baseball Commish Rob Manfred (man, that looks weird) declined to investigate. But it must be clear where the leak came from: there were only three possible sources, and there is no reason to suspect either Hamilton or the Commissioner’s office. The Angels knew about the relapse, and they had the incentive of hoping that Hamilton would get suspended and let them off the hook for his salary. Releasing the information was only proper if Hamilton had been found guilty of a drug violation; I think the Angels just assumed that Hamilton self-reporting would count. When the arbitrator found that it is only a violation of the MLB drug policy if you get caught, not if you confess, the Angels refused to accept that logic and just continued to act as if the MLB drug policy had been broken.
This is probably the right decision, from an “addiction is a disease not a crime” perspective. However I hope that MLB doesn’t get into another Steve Howe situation, where a player tests positive over and over and over (and over) and always gets another chance because “it’s a disease.”
Hamilton is not blameless here. He knew, and accepted more than any other player I can recall, that he had addiction issues. He managed to build a career in Texas because his behavior was highly monitored and the team created an environment that minimized the possibility of a relapse. So when his contract was up, what did Hamilton do? He turned down the millions offered by Texas and decided to accept a few more millions to move to Southern California. Because we all know that addicts won’t have any temptations in Southern California. Hamilton says the Angels knew the risks when they signed him; true, but Hamilton knew the risks as well and disregarded them.
So, the Angels send a former MVP to a division rival while paying him about $70 million. Hamilton, at age 33, probably has had his best years behind him. But maybe being back in the environment that let him thrive will invigorate his career once more.
If it is any solace to the Angles, the Mets will pay Bobby Bonilla, who retired in 1999, more this season than they will pay Matt Harvey. So maybe this wasn’t quite the stupidest contract in baseball history. But it is up there.
No comments:
Post a Comment