Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Thursday, September 01, 2005 |
Orioles Release Ponson
It's hard to imagine how the player's union will deal with this without looking like a bunch of apologist jerks. If the "morals" clause has any meaning at all, this has got to be one of the reasons for using it. You don't punch a judge, get caught drunk driving, and most serious of all, have a 7-11 record with a 6.21 ERA, all in the same season. This could lead to a whole underground kind of free agency, and one the players might not like so much. Since the clause also means the team can waltz out on his contract, if Baltimore is successful, expect to see Derek Lowe answering tough questions about his zipper next week.
Comments:
i don't think that criminal conduct and cheating on your wife are the same thing, and so i don't see lowe getting released on moral grounds.
# posted by 
: 9/01/2005 03:06:00 PM
: 9/01/2005 03:06:00 PM
The clause as written is
"The Player agrees to perform his services hereunder diligently and faithfully, to keep himself in first-class physical condition and to obey the Club's training rules, and pledges himself to the American public and to the Club to conform to high standards of personal conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship."
In what way is cheating on your wife conformant to "high standards of personal conduct"? That's a loophole you could drive a truck through.
"The Player agrees to perform his services hereunder diligently and faithfully, to keep himself in first-class physical condition and to obey the Club's training rules, and pledges himself to the American public and to the Club to conform to high standards of personal conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship."
In what way is cheating on your wife conformant to "high standards of personal conduct"? That's a loophole you could drive a truck through.
you could drive a truck through it, but it's a two-lane highway. i mean, it's not like he beat his wife (NO milton bradley comments please). he just fell in love with another woman. it happens. not all romances are perfect. can you really penalize a man for having too much love in his heart?
-vishal
-vishal
# posted by : 9/01/2005 04:36:00 PM
: 9/01/2005 04:36:00 PM
Adam, Vishal -- my point isn't necessarily to pick on Lowe, but rather that given Ponson's particularly egregious example, owners have actually exercised the "morals" clause, which is something they have never done before (or so I recall hearing). If that's true, the question will then be defining what qualifies as moral turpitude, an exercise the owners will work to ratchet down. An Albert Belle, for instance, would do well to behave himself.
Re: Lowe v. Ponson,
Lowe throws one-hitters and has a ring. Ponson doesn't.
Lowe throws one-hitters and has a ring. Ponson doesn't.
# posted by : 9/02/2005 12:46:00 AM
: 9/02/2005 12:46:00 AMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.