hgher grimsley wont be paid salary

HGHer Grimsley Won't be Paid Salary

The latest development in the Jason Grimsley saga is today's news that

the Arizona Diamondbacks, who unconditionally released Grimsley this

week after learning that his house was raided by federal agents, do

not intend to pay Grimsley the remainder of his salary for the year.

It is customary for released MLB players to be paid for the remainder

of a season. The Diamondbacks' move also contradicts published

statements made by Grimsley's agent, Joe Bick, who said that while he

expected Grimsley would retire, he thought the player would be paid

this year's salary.

By way of published statements, the team has effectively dared

Grimsley, likely to become the Linda Tripp of the steroids scandal

(especially if his statements manage to drag down current MLB darling

Albert Pujols), to have his union rep file a grievance. The team seems

particularly miffed that after Grimsley's house was searched in April,

the player declined to inform the team promptly (but instead suited up

in a DBacks uniform).

Although I have no particular love for Grimsley, I suspect that the

team has overstepped its bounds here. Baseball's commissioner has

virtually unlimited power to act in the best interests of the game of

baseball, and could conceivably, without threat of judicial / arbitral

reversal, suspend Grimsley without pay. But the team itself does not

have those same broad powers, unless the contract contains a clause

allowing the team to escape from its obligations if the player is

found to have used a controlled substance. The so called Loyalty

Clause that requires a player to "obey the club's training rules"

would not seem to me to be sufficient grounds to escape the contract.

The Loyalty Clause (Section 3(a) of the Uniform Player Contract)

provides:

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.

While it may be a close issue, I don't think this clause is sufficient

cover for the Diamondbacks. Is this language specific enough to be

enforceable? Is Grimsley's admitted usage of HGH, anabolic steroids

and amphetamines a clear violation? I think Grimsley is going to need

all the money he can get (to pay for a good defense team), and

pursuing that grievance is a good idea if his claim is a likely

winner.

As I've suggested in some earlier posts, the steroids scandal may

present many of these interesting contractual disputes. Can a team

escape from its contractual obligations if a player tests positive?

What if a player, like Grimsley here or Jason Giambi a year ago,

hasn't failed any baseball steroids tests, but has admitted to past

use? Does the fact that Grimsley is the target of law enforcement

attention matter?

Update: According to agent Bick, Grimsley plans to fight the Dbacks

over this matter. A grievance is "already in process," as ESPN reports

here.

-- Posted by Geoffrey Rapp @ 6/10/2006 05:18:00 PM -- Comments (9) --