Gibbons 15-day suspension?

[Dr. FLK]

I'm not sure I understand the eye rolling...do we even know what happened with Ponson?

Nope. It seems to have drawn out forever and never got resolved.

[ledzepp8]

Nope. It seems to have drawn out forever and never got resolved.

Well I was under the impression that it was resolved and that both parties had agreed not to discuss the resolution publicly. But who really knows though?

[RShack]

Nope. It seems to have drawn out forever and never got resolved.

Status quo forever = PA wins, Sir Bonehead loses.

[Dr. FLK]

Status quo forever = PA wins, Sir Bonehead loses.

Really? Can you explain that? I don't really know too much about the state of this debacle. Thanks.

[RShack]

Status quo forever = PA wins, Sir Bonehead loses.

Really? Can you explain that? I don't really know too much about the state of this debacle. Thanks.

Well, PA says that Sidney's not getting another nickel. Sidney says he's gonna fight that. As long as nothing changes, Sidney gets no more Oriole nickels, er, millions. So, the status quo is that PA wins.

Frankly, I don't think Sidney has a whole lot of friends on this one. Doesn't seem to me that the union is trying real hard to take PA to the mat. But I'm just guessing about that part.

[Dr. FLK]

Well, PA says that Sidney's not getting another nickel. Sidney says he's gonna fight that. As long as nothing changes, Sidney gets no more Oriole nickels, er, millions. So, the status quo is that PA wins.

Frankly, I don't think Sidney has a whole lot of friends on this one. Doesn't seem to me that the union is trying real hard to take PA to the mat. But I'm just guessing about that part.

Thanks. I was guessing that Sid had his money, and PA had to fight to get it back. I didn't know it was Sid who had to fight to get his cash. It sure would be nice to see him cutoff from the Oriole cash...lord knows he's stolen enough.

[Migrant Redbird]

Well, PA says that Sidney's not getting another nickel. Sidney says he's gonna fight that. As long as nothing changes, Sidney gets no more Oriole nickels, er, millions. So, the status quo is that PA wins.

I don't think so. Eventually, either an arbitrator or a judge will rule that the O's had sufficient cause to void the contract and Sidney loses, or they will rule that the O's have to pay him all of it, plus interest, legal fees, and possibly penalties as well, unless Sidney and the O's reach a settlement out of court.

I don't think the case will completely go away; there's too much money involved. Even if Sidney is broke and can't afford a lawyer and the players association wouldn't back him, some lawyer seeking the notoriety would represent him on a contingency basis.

My recollection, which might be incorrect, was that I read or heard within the last year that the case had been postponed. I've not heard anything since, but it's unlikely the case would simply disappear.

My own opinion -- not worth much since I'm not a lawyer -- is that precedent and facts are on Sidney's side and that Angelos will eventually end up paying more than if he'd simply settled.

Frankly, I don't think Sidney has a whole lot of friends on this one. Doesn't seem to me that the union is trying real hard to take PA to the mat. But I'm just guessing about that part.

I think the union has to press the case to avoid it negating the Denny Neagle precedent.

[thomden]

I haven't read much about fan reaction if Gibbons takes the field next year. Any thoughts?

[bgtimber75]

I haven't read much about fan reaction if Gibbons takes the field next year. Any thoughts?

Same reaction if he hadn't been busted from me. A shake of the head and a quick change of the channel if I see him on the field next season.

[UMDTerrapins]

I haven't read much about fan reaction if Gibbons takes the field next year. Any thoughts?

Don't think we can really say until a week from now (after the Mitchell Report). But at the moment I'd say it won't be kind. I think most all of us want to see new blood on the field, but certainly we don't want to see old, tainted blood. I wouldn't boo him....but it would be hard to cheer for him. Of Segui, Grimsley, Palmeiro, Sosa, etc......Gibbons is the only guy around for us to take out our frustrations on. I don't wish anything bad for him, he needs a new start as much as we need him gone. Of course, I don't think he'll be in the majors again after 2008. Nobody wins here.

[RShack]

I don't think so. Eventually, either an arbitrator or a judge will rule that the O's had sufficient cause to void the contract and Sidney loses, or they will rule that the O's have to pay him all of it, plus interest, legal fees, and possibly penalties as well, unless Sidney and the O's reach a settlement out of court.

I don't think the case will completely go away; there's too much money involved. Even if Sidney is broke and can't afford a lawyer and the players association wouldn't back him, some lawyer seeking the notoriety would represent him on a contingency basis.

Maybe. Or maybe nobody wants to risk it. Maybe the union doesn't want to risk it. Maybe it stays on-hold forever. I don't know if it will, but it could. Stranger things have happened. Plus, I never said PA would win. I don't know if he would or not. Knowing him, I bet he's got better chance than maybe you think he does. But all I said was that the status quo means that PA is winning so far, that's all. Everyday it stays status quo, that's another day that PA is still winning. I agree that it could change.

I'm not convinced it necessarily has to change. If anybody really wanted it settled, it'd be settled by now. It's not like there's good reasons for it dragging out this long. It's not like they have to locate Jimmy Hoffa and dig him up to find the evidence. I think everybody agrees about all the actual facts of the case. I think it's prolly a matter of whether the union wants to risk losing it. My hunch is they don't. Even if they win, they look bad because the media will make it look like they're saying that Sidney should get millions of dollars for being a drunk instead of winning ballgames. I don't think they wanna be seen as being on Sidney's side in this thing. I think they'd much rather ignore it and have Sidney just go away. If they don't want to pursue this, they can leave it on-hold forever and find some way of their own to make Sidney happy-enough. That way, they avoid losing, they avoid the negative precedent you're talking about. As long as it's on-hold, there is no precedent. PA wouldn't mind that, because the status quo is fine with him. The status quo gives him what he wants: not giving Sidney another nickel. But I certainly don't know what will happen.

[billyc123]

I know I'm joining this discussion late, but now the thread it getting where I wanted it to go.

As for Sidney, I wonder if the union is bound (to a greater or lesser extent) by their CBA & whatever boilerplate goes into every player contract to fight the voiding of the contract on Ponson's behalf?

As for Gibbons, it's unlikely that the Orioles can void his contract because of this incident, but why not try?

[RShack]

As for Sidney, I wonder if the union is bound (to a greater or lesser extent) by their CBA & whatever boilerplate goes into every player contract to fight the voiding of the contract on Ponson's behalf?

If there is, I would think that means they can't just give up. Not sure if it means they can't just stall forever.

As for Gibbons, it's unlikely that the Orioles can void his contract because of this incident, but why not try?

I dunno all the details. I think PA's argument rests on some clause in the contract about not doing stuff detrimental to the team (or some such), and that by repeatedly being an ass in public and breaking laws left and right, Sidney violated the terms of his contract. If so, it sounds to me like PA's got a point. I don't think PA'd do it if he was sure he was gonna lose. But I could be wrong about all of this.

[billyc123]

I dunno all the details. I think PA's argument rests on some clause in the contract about not doing stuff detrimental to the team (or some such), and that by repeatedly being an ass in public and breaking laws left and right, Sidney violated the terms of his contract. If so, it sounds to me like PA's got a point. I don't think PA'd do it if he was sure he was gonna lose. But I could be wrong about all of this.

As to Gibbons, this seems like the perfect situation for an attempt at voiding a contract for HGH use/admission of said use. I say this w/o having read the contract or the specific "detrimental to the team" provision(s) contained in every one. Angelos is the perfect owner to attempt something like this. He'd likely have the backing of the commissioner's office, which would love to see an example made of a player (and Guillen is probably out b/c my guess it that it's highly unlikely that KC didn't know about this before signing him). There's also a cogent argument that Gibbons' misled the Orioles in the lead up to the contract by compiling statistics b/c of his use of HGH/performance enhancing drugs. Plus, Angelos would be able to pay his own firm the legal fees associated with the arbitration. I, for one, would love to see the Orioles try it.

[RShack]

As to Gibbons, this seems like the perfect situation for an attempt at voiding a contract for HGH use/admission of said use.

No way. AFAIK, they have no proof that he actually *used* anything, except for what he fessed up to. I betcha all this was negotiated. I think this was a back room deal that works fine for everybody, including Gibbons, for the reasons I said in post #78 in this thread.