Friday, February 29, 2008
SPANISH INDOOR SQUAD BEGINS ITS ROAD TO BRAZIL 2008
The current Indoor Football European Champions begin thepreliminary games for the World Cup in Brazil today aginstGeorgia in Caceres (Spain).SFS would like to wish them luck & give them a mention, as theIndoor side sometimes gets "eclipsed" by the outdoor catagory.The Spanish Indoor team is considered the Best Team in the World, as their various titles confirm, including European &
REAL MADRID LOOK TO CRISTIANO RONALDO & STEVE GERRARD FOR THE 2008-09 EFFECT.
The signnings of BIG names serve Football Club Presidents todeflect news, create "smoke screens" & keep their masses undercontrol. If Karl Marx said... " Religion is the opium of the masses",SFS says..."Big name signnings is the opium of the fans".According to "Sport" ( a Barcelona based paper), REAL MADRID isalready working to grab & sign the needed tranquilizer, in case Realend up finally being
Thursday, February 28, 2008
I get interviewed and stuff
Rick from the excellent blog Stiles Points has interviewed me in his "Beers for Bloggers" Series. So check it out! My answers are mostly boring, but you've probably come to expect that from me.
I'll be out of town for a week... yay for spring break! It'll be fun.
Enjoy yourselves, and hopefully I'll come back to some nice FA signings by the Vikings!
I'll be out of town for a week... yay for spring break! It'll be fun.
Enjoy yourselves, and hopefully I'll come back to some nice FA signings by the Vikings!
New Sports Illustrated Piece on Roger Clemens and his Legal Strategy
I have a new SI.com piece tonight on Roger Clemens. It examines how the House Oversight Committee regarded Clemens' legal strategy for the proceedings. Hope you have a chance to read it.
SPANISH CUP SEMI FINAL 2008: GETAFE 3 - RACING 1
Around 4,000 Racing de Santander fans travelled to Madrid to cheer on their team against Getafe in the 2º semi-final 1º legmatch played tonight with GETAFE defeating RACING 3-1 &virtually securing a place in the final of the SPANISH CUP. If theydo, it will be the 2ºyear in a row & remarkable achievement forsuch a modest side.Getafe scored first in the 23rd min thanks to DE LA RED, as seen above
Baseball and Union Ask Supreme Court to Review Eighth Circuit's Fantasy League Ruling
Eric Fisher of Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Daily reported today that MLBAM and the MLBPA have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that a series of prior lower court rulings involving First Amendment and right of publicity issues have created an inconsistent mess, and that "the appropriate legal test for balancing state-law publicity rights and First Amendment interest is a recurring and important question on which this Court's instruction is needed. ... The same use of a famous person's identity will be unlawful or constitutionally protected depending upon which jurisdiction first addresses that use an outcome that is fundamentally unfair, particularly to national businesses." Fisher notes that "[t]he vast majority of petitions for a writ of certiorari are denied, particularly for civil cases such as this, and MLBAM and the union are seeking to improve their chances by arguing to the broader need of a uniform standard for right of publicity disputes." As I have argued before, the Eighth Circuit's public domain standard is simply not a workable standard for determining whether the First Amendment trumps a right of publicity claim.
In my Penn State Law Review article, which can be downloaded from here, I propose that right of publicity claims can be assessed utilizing a "commercial advantage spectrum" that incorporates First Amendment considerations. At the purely "non-commercial" end of the spectrum, the primary purpose for the defendant's use of a celebrity's identity is not to gain any commercial advantage, e.g. news reporting uses, entertainment (i.e. movies, films) and literary works, which are privileged under the First Amendment based upon either the public's right to know or the public interest in free expression. At the other end, the purely "commercial end," the celebrity's identity is being used to demonstrate to consumers that the individual is associated with, or approves of, the user or the user's product or service, e.g. advertisements, endorsements and marketing efforts, which clearly violates the right of publicity.
The confusion arises with respect to those uses that fall somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum, which can be referred to as "quasi-commercial" uses, i.e. video game use, trading card use and fantasy league use. In my article, I propose a standard that entails a two-part inquiry:
When the content for a product or service is based almost exclusively on the celebrity's name or likeness, it is unfair and not good policy to allow the producer to reap the full commercial value of the celebrity's identity. The most efficient allocation of resources is obtained in a free market by which producers of products and services compete for the right to use celebrities' identities, and the celebrities and producers are incentivized to negotiate licensing fees based upon what the market will bear for such use.
UPDATE (2/29/08): USA Today's press release on the filing of the petition for writ of cert. states: "Using First Amendment and right of publicity arguments, MLBAM and the union have argued that players should be paid when their names are used for fantasy baseball leagues, in the same way players are paid when their names are used to endorse products. But the lower courts found that fantasy leagues' broad use of statistics isn't the same as faking an endorsement from a player and not paying him." However, USA Today's statement misconstrues both MLBAM's and the union's position as well as the lower courts' determinations, and implies that the right of publicity is only violated by fake endorsements -- which is simply false. Contrary to what is stated in this press release, neither the district court nor the court of appeals ruled as such, and MLBAM and the union are not comparing fantasy league use to endorsement use. USA Today conveniently omits that the holdings of the lower courts are inconsistent with the fact that players are paid for use of their names in non-endorsement contexts as well, such as trading cards and video games.
In my Penn State Law Review article, which can be downloaded from here, I propose that right of publicity claims can be assessed utilizing a "commercial advantage spectrum" that incorporates First Amendment considerations. At the purely "non-commercial" end of the spectrum, the primary purpose for the defendant's use of a celebrity's identity is not to gain any commercial advantage, e.g. news reporting uses, entertainment (i.e. movies, films) and literary works, which are privileged under the First Amendment based upon either the public's right to know or the public interest in free expression. At the other end, the purely "commercial end," the celebrity's identity is being used to demonstrate to consumers that the individual is associated with, or approves of, the user or the user's product or service, e.g. advertisements, endorsements and marketing efforts, which clearly violates the right of publicity.
The confusion arises with respect to those uses that fall somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum, which can be referred to as "quasi-commercial" uses, i.e. video game use, trading card use and fantasy league use. In my article, I propose a standard that entails a two-part inquiry:
(1) Is the celebrity's name or likeness being used for a purpose other than news reporting, entertainment (i.e. movie, film), or literary?(2) If so, is the celebrity's name or likeness the "essence" of the product or service being produced such that the product or service is dependent upon such use for its existence?
UPDATE (2/29/08): USA Today's press release on the filing of the petition for writ of cert. states: "Using First Amendment and right of publicity arguments, MLBAM and the union have argued that players should be paid when their names are used for fantasy baseball leagues, in the same way players are paid when their names are used to endorse products. But the lower courts found that fantasy leagues' broad use of statistics isn't the same as faking an endorsement from a player and not paying him." However, USA Today's statement misconstrues both MLBAM's and the union's position as well as the lower courts' determinations, and implies that the right of publicity is only violated by fake endorsements -- which is simply false. Contrary to what is stated in this press release, neither the district court nor the court of appeals ruled as such, and MLBAM and the union are not comparing fantasy league use to endorsement use. USA Today conveniently omits that the holdings of the lower courts are inconsistent with the fact that players are paid for use of their names in non-endorsement contexts as well, such as trading cards and video games.
Second Annual National Sports and Entertainment Law Symposium
I am honored to be speaking at the Second Annual National Sports and Entertainment Law Symposium, to be held at the University of Virginia School of Law next Thursday and Friday, March 6-7. The event is sponsored by the Virginia Continuing Legal Education and the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. Other speakers include Sports Law Blog's Chris Callanan and Gary Roberts.The event offers 9 MCLE credit hours and 2 Ethics credit hours. If you are interested in attending, click here.
Here are more details about the event:
* * *
The best national experts in the fields of sports, entertainment, music, publishing, art, and marketing converge at the University of Virginia for a multi-track program perfect for beginners and experienced lawyers and agents alike.
An expanded day-and-a-half program, following the tremendous success of the inaugural symposium, featuring:
• A faculty of more than 25 prominent national experts, agents, academicians, professionals, and celebrities from New York, Los Angeles, and around the country
• 1½ days consisting of general topics as well as breakout sessions, including: (1) the basics of sports and entertainment representation; (2) advanced issues in sports law regulation; and (3) the latest in entertainment issues, including panels on literary publishing, issues of relevance to the music industry, making a TV deal, and challenges to artists over appropriation art
• Special panels providing complete legal updates on sports and entertainment issues
• Plenary session on merchandising deals
• Breakout session on how to represent your client in the Internet/digital age
• Lunch on March 6 and a networking cocktail party, all included
• All of the above for a bargain price of only $350 because of our partnership with the University of Virginia
WHY ATTEND?
Simply, this is quickly becoming a must-attend gathering for aspiring to experienced lawyers and agents, as well as students and academicians who focus their attention or practice in the sports/entertainment fields. This year we combine “basic knowledge” course offerings with course offerings for more sophisticated entertainment and sports law practitioners. Virginia CLE (a non-profit) combines its significant resources with those of the prestigious University of Virginia School of Law to offer this diverse and cutting-edge program in a spectacular setting (we have the entire law school to ourselves during spring break) — for only $350. No matter your goals or your current niche in practice or academia, you will leave this symposium armed with the most current information and a new set of friends and professional contacts.
COURSE SCHEDULE
THURSDAY, MARCH 6
7:30 Registration Begins
7:45 Plenary Session. The Basics of Starting an Entertainment and Sports Law Practice (Optional — NO CLE CREDIT)
Entering the field of Entertainment and Sports Law can be very exciting but also very challenging for newcomers. This panel will discuss various strategies for entering into this field, as well as how to gain important knowledge and how to attract clients and build a successful practice.
Moderator: Kirk T. Schroder
Panelists: Keven J. Davis, Michael D. Steger, Stephanie Vardavas 8:45 Opening Remarks 9:00
Breakout I. The Basics: The Fundamentals of Representing and Marketing Athletes
Moderator: Pamela R. Lester
Panelists: Anthony J. Agnone, Keven J. Davis, George K.H. Schell, Stephanie Vardavas
Breakout II. Update on Current Issues in Entertainment Law
Few experts in the field keep up with the latest trends and developments in entertainment law like Stan Soocher, Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance. Stan is joined by Stewart Levy, a prominent New York–based entertainment litigator for this interesting and informative panel.
Moderator: Stan Soocher
Panelist: Stewart Levy
10:45 Breakout I. The Music Industry at a Crossroads: The Topics Concerning Music Lawyers in Today’s Marketplace
What do you get when you put one of the top music lawyers from Los Angeles and one of the top music lawyers from New York together on a panel with the general counsel to the Dave Matthews Band? A rare opportunity to see music law legends get to the bottom of what the future holds for today’s music industry.
Moderator: Philip H. Goodpasture
Panelists: Jay L. Cooper, Elliot J. Groffman
Breakout II. The Art of the Television Production Deal
With the advent of reality television and more outlets to exhibit television programming, television production deals are more complicated and have more issues. This distinguished panel will discuss television production from the perspective of the producer and television network and will give entertainment lawyers important insights in the deals in today’s market.
Moderator: Bennett J. Fidlow
Panelists: Lee Bartlett, Jonathan Moonves
Breakout III. Sports: Disciplinary Rules and Procedures in Professional Sports
From off-the-field misbehavior to performance-enhancing drugs, disciplinary issues in sports have never been more at the forefront. This panel of representatives from major team and individual sports will explore the parameters of such discipline, the rationale underlying it, the legal basis supporting it, and what the future portends.
Moderator: Jill Pilgrim
Panelist: Ron Klempner
1:30 Plenary Session: Merchandising Deals — What Every Attorney Must Know
The creation of brands around celebrities associated with entertainment and sports is an important source of revenue, especially in the merchandising of such brands. This panel will discuss the basics of merchandising deals and how these deals are structured in today’s global economy. Issues regarding cross-branding, marketing, streaming media, and downloadable content also will be discussed.
Moderator: Jay L. Cooper
Panelists: Michael Krassner, Pamela R. Lester
3:15 Breakout I. The Challenges of Appropriation Art and Its Impact on the Entertainment Industry
In the visual arts, the term appropriation often refers to the use of borrowed elements in the creation of new work. When appropriation art is used in connection with the entertainment industry, it raises many gray areas in copyright law interpretation and enforcement of agreements. One of the leading lawyers in the field of the Visual Arts and former Secretary and General Counsel to the J. Paul Getty Trust, Christine Steiner of
Moderator: Christine Steiner
Panelists: Simon Frankel, Victor Perlman
Breakout II. Sports Law Update
A concise and essential update on the latest judicial and administrative rulings during a year in which controversy surrounded nearly every sport.
Moderator: Gary R. Roberts
FRIDAY, MARCH 7
8:30
This panel will apprise attorneys of the legal developments and approaches in the digital age. Topics will include the approach to negotiating agreements related to new technologies and how to properly identify and address important issues on behalf of clients.
Moderator: Bobby Rosenbloum
Breakout II: A Current View of Literary Publishing and the Relationship Among Authors, Publishers, Attorneys, and Agents
The negotiation of an agreement between an author and a literary publisher often is complex, especially in an era of high-profile authors and large advances. In a panel discussion moderated by Symposium Director Kirk T. Schroder, Michael Rudell, a leading literary publishing attorney, and David Black, a prominent agent, both of whom represent well-known authors, will discuss these complexities and the relationships among authors, publishers, and agents.
Moderator: Kirk T. Schroder
Panelists: David Black, Michael Rudell
Breakout III. Morals Clauses in Sports Contracts — A 2008 Primer
A leading expert in the
Moderator: Michael McCann
Panelists: Christopher L. Brown, Christopher Callahan, George K.H. Schell, Stephanie Vardavas
10:15 Ethical Issues: Considerations for Entertainment and Sports Lawyers
The changing nature of the entertainment and sports industries always presents important ethical and professional considerations for attorneys. This panel will discuss key considerations for attorneys when addressing ethical issues and will discuss current potential ethical matters arising from current opinions and practices.
Moderator: Martin E. Silfen 12:15 Adjourn
FACULTY
Anthony J. Agnone, Eastern Athletic Services / Hunt Valley, MD
Lee Bartlett, Executive Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs, Fox Broadcasting / Los Angeles, CA
David Black, David Black Literary Agency / New York, NY
Christopher L. Brown, Orpheus Sports and Entertainment Consulting Company / Boston, MA
Christopher Callanan, Campbell Trial Attorneys / Boston, MA
Jay L. Cooper, Greenberg Traurig, LLP / Santa Monica, CA
Keven J. Davis, Garvey Schubert Barer / New York, NY
Bennett J. Fidlow, Schroder Fidlow, PLC / Richmond, VA
Simon Frankel, Covington & Burling / San Francisco, CA
Philip H. Goodpasture, Williams Mullen / Richmond, VA
Elliot J. Groffman, Carroll, Guido & Groffman / New York, NY
Ron Klempner, Associate General Counsel, NBA Players Association / New York, NY
Michael Krassner, Sony Signatures
Pamela R. Lester, Lester Sports and Entertainment, Inc. / Skillman, NJ
Stewart Levy, Eisenberg Tanchum & Levy / New York, NY
Michael McCann, Mississippi College School of Law; Sports Illustrated / Jackson, MS
Jonathan Moonves, Del, Shaw, Moonves, Tanaka, Finkelstein & Lezcano / Santa Monica, CA
Victor Perlman, General Counsel and Managing Director, American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. / Philadelphia, PA
Jill Pilgrim, General Counsel and Drug Testing Program Administrator, Ladies Professional Golf Association / Daytona Beach, FL
Gary R. Roberts, Dean and Gerald L. Bepko Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law / Bloomington, IN
Bobby Rosenbloum, Greenberg Traurig, LLP / Atlanta, GA
Michael Rudell, Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C. / New York, NY
George K.H. Schell, Assistant General Counsel, Marketing, Trademarks and Licensing, The Coca-Cola Company / Atlanta, GA
Kirk T. Schroder, Schroder Fidlow, PLC / Richmond, VA
Martin E. Silfen, Law Office of Martin E. Silfen, P.C. / Virginia Beach, VA
Stan Soocher, Editor-in-Chief, Entertainment Law & Finance / Denver, CO
Michael D. Steger, Law Offices of Michael D. Steger, PC / New York, NY
Christine Steiner, Law Office of Christine Steiner / Los Angeles, CA
Stephanie Vardavas, Assistant General Counsel, Nike, Inc. / Beaverton, OR
Directions to Seminar Site
REGISTRATION FEES
$350.00 regular registration.
$199.00 regular registration — Thursday, March 6 only.
$159.00 regular registration — Friday, March 7 only.
$99.00 law student registration.
FERNANDO TORRES 5TH HIGHEST PAID PLAYER IN THE WORLD
A study by "Futebol Finance" & picked up by "Sport" has given theirlist of the Worlds Best Paid Players, in gross figures, with AC MilanBrazilian player KAKA in the Nº 1 spot. The highest paid Spanish bornplayer is Liverpool player FERNANDO TORRES in 5th place.Here is the list :1. Ricardo Kaka (Milan) 9.000.000 euros2. Ronaldinho Gaucho (Barça) 8.520.0003. Frank Lampard (Chelsea) 8.160.0004. John
Alan Milstein to Speak at Syracuse University College of Law
The folks at the Entertainment and Sports Law Society at Syracuse University College of Law have let us know about a couple of upcoming speaking events: one with our friend and colleague Alan Milstein, the other with ESPN college basketball analyst Len Elmore, who is also an attorney. If you would like to attend either event, please contact Steven Saperstein, president of the society, at sbsapers@syr.edu.
Here are the details:
February 29, 2008 1 p.m.
Len Elmore, ESPN broadcaster and Attorney
Syracuse University College of Law room 275
March 5, 2008 12 p.m.
Alan Milstein, Top Sports Ligator and Sports Law Blog writer
Syracuse University College of Law room 275
Here are the details:
February 29, 2008 1 p.m.
Len Elmore, ESPN broadcaster and Attorney
Syracuse University College of Law room 275
March 5, 2008 12 p.m.
Alan Milstein, Top Sports Ligator and Sports Law Blog writer
Syracuse University College of Law room 275
Rusty Hardin Needs to Stop Talking
The latest from Rusty Hardin, Roger Clemens' lead attorney and possibly the worst example of the grandstanding lawyer we have seen in a while. Upon learning that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had requested that DOJ open an investigation into possibly perjury or obstruction by his client, Hardin said:
Please spare me the righteous indignation. Hardin almost single-handedly created any "circus of public opinion" that he now decries. Hardin sent Clemens (or at least acquiesced in Clemens going) to the "60 Minutes" interview--specifically to win over the court of public opinion. It failed because most people who saw the interview did not believe Clemens. Then Hardin (allegedly) pushed for the congressional hearing to be held when both the chair and ranking member wanted to cancel--specifically to win over the court of public opinion by taking an oath and forcefully denying the allegations. Hardin also managed to get half the House Committee to meet privately with Clemens, hoping they would go easier on him in the hearing--thus making Clemens look better for the court of public opinion that would be watching. Both of these failed because most people who saw/heard the hearing still did not believe Clemens. And let's not forget that Hardin has basically dared DOJ to investigate Clemens by saying of the likely lead investigator that Clemens "would eat his lunch."
Everything Hardin has done for the past three months has been designed to win i the court of the public opinion. He does not mind the circus. The problem is the court of public opinion that Hardin has tried so hard to win over simply does not believe his client.
Now we are done with the circus of public opinion, and we are moving to the courtroom, . . . Thankfully, we are now about to enter an arena where there are rules and people can be held properly accountable for outrageous statements.
Please spare me the righteous indignation. Hardin almost single-handedly created any "circus of public opinion" that he now decries. Hardin sent Clemens (or at least acquiesced in Clemens going) to the "60 Minutes" interview--specifically to win over the court of public opinion. It failed because most people who saw the interview did not believe Clemens. Then Hardin (allegedly) pushed for the congressional hearing to be held when both the chair and ranking member wanted to cancel--specifically to win over the court of public opinion by taking an oath and forcefully denying the allegations. Hardin also managed to get half the House Committee to meet privately with Clemens, hoping they would go easier on him in the hearing--thus making Clemens look better for the court of public opinion that would be watching. Both of these failed because most people who saw/heard the hearing still did not believe Clemens. And let's not forget that Hardin has basically dared DOJ to investigate Clemens by saying of the likely lead investigator that Clemens "would eat his lunch."
Everything Hardin has done for the past three months has been designed to win i the court of the public opinion. He does not mind the circus. The problem is the court of public opinion that Hardin has tried so hard to win over simply does not believe his client.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Student Fans Acting Badly
Grant Wahl at si.com decries this basketball season as the "ugliest in years" and calls on schools and conferences to take some action to get fans and fan speech under control. I have written enough about fan speech in this and other spaces that my views are pretty obvious. Jump over and read the piece to get a sense of the laundry list of incidents.
One problem is the way Wahl lumps too many dissimilar incidents together into an overall picture of bad fan behavior. Without question, threatening messages on the cell phones of players and families are out of line. So is throwing stuff at players' families--throwing stuff is not protected speech. Homophobic chants are troubling, if only for the continued (although constitutionally protected) disrespect is shows for a portion of the community. Of course, the fact that directing a homosexual epithet at an athlete is viewed by the speaker and the listener as a great insult raises some interesting sociological issues.
But I think Wahl undercuts his point by including too many examples that actually are pretty funny or clever and that certainly contain at least some level of social and political commentary. Calling attention to Maryland's low graduation rate, fans at Duke (which the mainstream media, including SI, lauds ad nauseum for their creativity) wore graduation caps and gowns and held signs reading "Fear the Classroom" and "A Mind is a Terrapin Thing to Waste." Even my wife, a Maryland fan when she pays attention, thought that was funny. Students at UNC waved "WANTED" posters with a picture of Duke's Gerald Henderson, a reference to Henderson's hard (and arguably flagrant?) foul on a UNC player last year. Fans at UAB targeted Memphis player Robert Dozier's allegedly hitting his girlfriend, with signs reading "We Beat Memphis, Not Our Girls." Some of this is offensive, sure--but offensiveness is not a ground for restricting speech.
Michigan State Coach Tom Izzo almost gets it: "I hate to say this because freedom of speech is at issue, but this isn't what freedom of speech is intended for." Actually, it is. But too often, we recoil when we see what freedom of speech looks (or sounds) like.
One problem is the way Wahl lumps too many dissimilar incidents together into an overall picture of bad fan behavior. Without question, threatening messages on the cell phones of players and families are out of line. So is throwing stuff at players' families--throwing stuff is not protected speech. Homophobic chants are troubling, if only for the continued (although constitutionally protected) disrespect is shows for a portion of the community. Of course, the fact that directing a homosexual epithet at an athlete is viewed by the speaker and the listener as a great insult raises some interesting sociological issues.
But I think Wahl undercuts his point by including too many examples that actually are pretty funny or clever and that certainly contain at least some level of social and political commentary. Calling attention to Maryland's low graduation rate, fans at Duke (which the mainstream media, including SI, lauds ad nauseum for their creativity) wore graduation caps and gowns and held signs reading "Fear the Classroom" and "A Mind is a Terrapin Thing to Waste." Even my wife, a Maryland fan when she pays attention, thought that was funny. Students at UNC waved "WANTED" posters with a picture of Duke's Gerald Henderson, a reference to Henderson's hard (and arguably flagrant?) foul on a UNC player last year. Fans at UAB targeted Memphis player Robert Dozier's allegedly hitting his girlfriend, with signs reading "We Beat Memphis, Not Our Girls." Some of this is offensive, sure--but offensiveness is not a ground for restricting speech.
Michigan State Coach Tom Izzo almost gets it: "I hate to say this because freedom of speech is at issue, but this isn't what freedom of speech is intended for." Actually, it is. But too often, we recoil when we see what freedom of speech looks (or sounds) like.
SPANISH CUP 2008 SEMI FINAL - 1º LEG : FC BARCELONA 1 - VALENCIA CF 1
The 1º game of the Spanish Cup semi final has finished withFC BARCELONA 1 - VALENCIA CF 1 . A draw that went rightdown to the wire with Barça scoring in the very last moment &it a controversial manner. The game was a one way affair with Barça dominating & overrunningthe Valencia goal , the TV commentator said at one stage nearing the end that Barcelona had shot 18 times to Valencia´s 1, but that
REAL MADRID FOLLOWING RUSSIAN PAVLYUCHENKO
According to news from Spanish daily "AS", REAL MADRIDis following closely Russian League two time leading goalscorer,Russian International & Spartak Moscow forward ROMANPAVLYUCHENKO.The 28 year old has had Real "spying" on him for the last twoyears & the Real Madrid technical team see him as the idealperson to complement "ageing" forwards Van Nistelrooy &Raul for next season. Stay tuned!
Would Legislation Providing for Mandatory Drug Testing of Professional Athletes Pass Constitutional Muster?
The answer to that question could be, and has been, the subject of an entire law review article. But I want to touch upon it today because the timing is right in light of today's hearing in front of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. In his opening statement, Chairman Bobby Rush said: "If Congress can play a role in shaping public policy to eradicate all sports at every level of these substances, then this subcommittee is prepared to act. I resent all the elitists and cultural critics who dismiss this as an issue of populist spectacle. I believe that we can move forward in a measured, deliberative and partisan manner with the legislation that seriously tackles drugs in sports." MLBPA executive director Don Fehr later said, "It should be noted that any legislation governing drug testing in private industry surely raises troubling constitutional questions."
In Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), the Supreme Court addressed whether it was constitutional for a school district to adopt a policy implementing random urinalysis drug testing of student-athletes, the expressed purpose of which is "to prevent student athletes from using drugs, to protect their health and safety, and to provide drug users with assistance programs." The Supreme Court noted that "state-compelled collection and testing of urine, such as that required by the Policy, constitutes a 'search' subject to the demands of the Fourth Amendment" and that "[w]arrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause." But "[a] search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, 'when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.'" In upholding the constitutionality of the school district's drug testing policy, the Supreme Court also noted:
The in loco parentis rationale -- the fact that "the subjects of the policy are (1) children, who (2) have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster" -- was central to the Supreme Court's determination that it met the "special needs" requirement. In other cases, the Supreme Court has found special needs in upholding suspicionless searches and seizures (1) to conduct drug testing of railroad personnel involved in train accidents, (2) to conduct random drug testing of federal customs officers who carry arms or are involved in drug interdiction, and (3) to maintain automobile checkpoints looking for illegal immigrants and contraband. Does mandatory drug testing of professional athletes satisfy the "special needs" requirement?
And from a privacy standpoint, the Supreme Court noted that "the results of the tests are disclosed only to a limited class of school personnel who have a need to know; and they are not turned over to law enforcement authorities or used for any internal disciplinary function." Well, that would obviously be a legitimate concern with federal legislation imposing mandatory testing of professional athletes.
In Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), the Supreme Court addressed whether it was constitutional for a school district to adopt a policy implementing random urinalysis drug testing of student-athletes, the expressed purpose of which is "to prevent student athletes from using drugs, to protect their health and safety, and to provide drug users with assistance programs." The Supreme Court noted that "state-compelled collection and testing of urine, such as that required by the Policy, constitutes a 'search' subject to the demands of the Fourth Amendment" and that "[w]arrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause." But "[a] search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, 'when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.'" In upholding the constitutionality of the school district's drug testing policy, the Supreme Court also noted:
We caution against the assumption that suspicionless drug testing will readily pass constitutional muster in other contexts. The most significant element in this case is the first we discussed: that the Policy was undertaken in furtherance of the government's responsibilities, under a public school system, as guardian and tutor of children entrusted to its care.
And from a privacy standpoint, the Supreme Court noted that "the results of the tests are disclosed only to a limited class of school personnel who have a need to know; and they are not turned over to law enforcement authorities or used for any internal disciplinary function." Well, that would obviously be a legitimate concern with federal legislation imposing mandatory testing of professional athletes.
Duke Lacrosse II: Some First Amendment Issues
Continuing my thoughts on the latest Duke lacrosse lawsuit.
One interesting feature is the role that the First Amendment might play for the defendants. Much of the conduct described in the complaint, and much of the conduct that presumably forms the basis for the players' claims against Duke and Duke officials (and to law-enforcement officials to a lesser degree), centers on all sorts of public statements that stated or suggested that some or all the players had done something wrong. Consider several categories.
These various expressive incidents seem to form the core of four counts and Duke and its officials: 1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 2) Breach of Duty to Protect Students from Known Dangers and Harassment; 3) Negligent Supervision of Duke Professors and Employees; and 4) Intrusion upon Seclusion.
The problem is that much of what is described in the complaint sounds and looks like constitutionally protected speech. Although much of it certainly is "hostile" (to quote the Complaint), the speech described does not look like it crosses the line into unprotected categories of true threats or incitement to violence. There is no temporal imminence necessary for incitement. The one well-known case involving "WANTED" posters, which upheld a jury award against the speakers, occurred in the context of an anti-abortion group, more explicit hints at violence, and the unique history of violence over that issue--none of which is present here. All the rhetorical hyperbole and exaggeration, racially and ethnically charged though it might be, also is protected. So is all the hostility, as long as it does not become a direct, targeted threat.
Most of this is speech on a matter of public concern: an alleged crime and misconduct by a high-profile group in the campus community, an ongoing police investigation into that crime, all of it touching on issues of race, gender, class, and privilege; this sounds like social or political speech. Most of the protesters stayed in public spaces and there is nothing per se unprotected about protesting in front of a residence. True, many faculty members and students seized on the case as a chance to further a particular political agenda--but that is what the freedom of speech is about. Finally, some of what was said or implied turned out to be false, perhaps recklessly so. For example, there are allegations that Brodhead continued to criticize the players despite having information suggesting that no rape had occurred, no racial slurs had been uttered, and that the players were cooperating with the early stages of the investigation.
Notably, however, there is no defamation claim against the university. Two reasons for this. First, there are few, if any, direct assertions of verifiably false fact; second, in any event, none of these plaintiffs could satisfy the "of and concerning" requirement for defamation. To the extent there were knowingly false assertions of fact about the players' guilt or moral culpability, these were targeted at the team as a whole; a member of even a small group typically cannot sue over false statements about that group. Calling the team a "gang of hooligans" with two or three unnamed bad actors is not actionable defamation. Moreover, defamation is not the only tort that has built-in limitations in its application to protected speech. Torts such as I/I/E/D or privacy cannot be utilized against protected speech as an end-run around the First Amendment and the limits of the actual malice requirement of New York Times v. Sullivan. Brodhead, school officials, and Duke as an entity all enjoy First Amendment liberties to speak on these matters of public concern, free from civil liability if that expression does not fall into some narrow category of unprotected speech.
Also notably, the individual professors who spoke out against the team are not named as defendants; only Duke and university officials. The theory of civil liability is that Duke is liable for the harm caused by this expression because Brodhead, et al., failed to stop these faculty members and students from engaging in this expression. If I am right that much of the speech at issue is protected, that theory of vicarious liability cannot work. If civil liability could not be imposed on a speaker for protected expression, how can it be imposed on the speaker's employee for failing to stop the speaker from engaging in that speech? That seems constitutionally perverse.
None of this is to suggest that the case as a whole fails. Just that there is a lot of stuff in this complaint and it requires serious parsing by the parties and the court. One bit of parsing must take into account the limits on civil liability imposed by the First Amendment.
One interesting feature is the role that the First Amendment might play for the defendants. Much of the conduct described in the complaint, and much of the conduct that presumably forms the basis for the players' claims against Duke and Duke officials (and to law-enforcement officials to a lesser degree), centers on all sorts of public statements that stated or suggested that some or all the players had done something wrong. Consider several categories.
1) Statements by Duke and its officials, particularly President Richard Brodhead, that implied that the players had done something wrong (including possible sexual assault and use of racist epithets) and that they were not cooperating with the investigation by hiding behind a "blue wall of silence." These statements "malign[ed] the Duke lacrosse team as a gang of hooligans that included 'two or three really bad actors.'"
2) Statements by various faculty members, most notoriously the Group of 88's editorial advertisement in April 2006 and various statements by individual professors to the media and to the public. These statements expressly stated a belief in the players guilt and the need for the players to be punished, criminally and by the university. Many of these statements were charged with overtones of race, gender, class, and privilege, the implication being that a group of privileged white males had to be punished for racist and misogynist actions. Many statements used hyperbolic, charged language, including statements likening the team party to the murder of Emmett Till--a lynching of an African-American by privileged whites. Some statements called for judgments to be imposed beyond the walls of the courtroom. Some statements referred to the lacrosse players as "white supremacists." Faculty members also called for the university immediately to condemn the team and its players. There also were some instances of in-class speech, but I will leave those for another day.
3) Several protests against the team and its members. This included a candlelight vigil outside the house in which the party occurred and another Duke-owned house in which some players lived, where the crowd chanted, among other things, "shame" and "you can't run, you can't hide" (protesters also banged on windows and doors at the latter house). There was a "pot-banging" protest outside some player residences early on a Sunday morning, with protesters wielding signs and chanting--all reflecting a belief in the guilt of at least some of the players, the collective guilt of the team as a whole for some misconduct, and a real hostility to the players. There also was a boycott planned for an upcoming (but ultimately canceled) home game, with fans holding signs reading "Don't Be a Fan of Rapists." According to the complaint, these protests were explicitly encouraged by various faculty members.
4) "WANTED" posters went up around campus, featuring photos (taken from the school web site) of 43 of the 46 white team members.
These various expressive incidents seem to form the core of four counts and Duke and its officials: 1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 2) Breach of Duty to Protect Students from Known Dangers and Harassment; 3) Negligent Supervision of Duke Professors and Employees; and 4) Intrusion upon Seclusion.
The problem is that much of what is described in the complaint sounds and looks like constitutionally protected speech. Although much of it certainly is "hostile" (to quote the Complaint), the speech described does not look like it crosses the line into unprotected categories of true threats or incitement to violence. There is no temporal imminence necessary for incitement. The one well-known case involving "WANTED" posters, which upheld a jury award against the speakers, occurred in the context of an anti-abortion group, more explicit hints at violence, and the unique history of violence over that issue--none of which is present here. All the rhetorical hyperbole and exaggeration, racially and ethnically charged though it might be, also is protected. So is all the hostility, as long as it does not become a direct, targeted threat.
Most of this is speech on a matter of public concern: an alleged crime and misconduct by a high-profile group in the campus community, an ongoing police investigation into that crime, all of it touching on issues of race, gender, class, and privilege; this sounds like social or political speech. Most of the protesters stayed in public spaces and there is nothing per se unprotected about protesting in front of a residence. True, many faculty members and students seized on the case as a chance to further a particular political agenda--but that is what the freedom of speech is about. Finally, some of what was said or implied turned out to be false, perhaps recklessly so. For example, there are allegations that Brodhead continued to criticize the players despite having information suggesting that no rape had occurred, no racial slurs had been uttered, and that the players were cooperating with the early stages of the investigation.
Notably, however, there is no defamation claim against the university. Two reasons for this. First, there are few, if any, direct assertions of verifiably false fact; second, in any event, none of these plaintiffs could satisfy the "of and concerning" requirement for defamation. To the extent there were knowingly false assertions of fact about the players' guilt or moral culpability, these were targeted at the team as a whole; a member of even a small group typically cannot sue over false statements about that group. Calling the team a "gang of hooligans" with two or three unnamed bad actors is not actionable defamation. Moreover, defamation is not the only tort that has built-in limitations in its application to protected speech. Torts such as I/I/E/D or privacy cannot be utilized against protected speech as an end-run around the First Amendment and the limits of the actual malice requirement of New York Times v. Sullivan. Brodhead, school officials, and Duke as an entity all enjoy First Amendment liberties to speak on these matters of public concern, free from civil liability if that expression does not fall into some narrow category of unprotected speech.
Also notably, the individual professors who spoke out against the team are not named as defendants; only Duke and university officials. The theory of civil liability is that Duke is liable for the harm caused by this expression because Brodhead, et al., failed to stop these faculty members and students from engaging in this expression. If I am right that much of the speech at issue is protected, that theory of vicarious liability cannot work. If civil liability could not be imposed on a speaker for protected expression, how can it be imposed on the speaker's employee for failing to stop the speaker from engaging in that speech? That seems constitutionally perverse.
None of this is to suggest that the case as a whole fails. Just that there is a lot of stuff in this complaint and it requires serious parsing by the parties and the court. One bit of parsing must take into account the limits on civil liability imposed by the First Amendment.
WSJ Law Blog Interview of Lawyer with NCAA Enforcement Practice
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog features an interview with attorney (and former IU quarterback) Mike Glazier. Glazier took his law degree and sports background and joined the NCAA enforcement team for several years. He's subsequently built a practice representing colleges involved in NCAA investigations. HT to Above-the-Law.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Yale Law School Panel on "The Mitchell Report and Beyond: Steroids, HGH, and the Future of Baseball"
I am honored to be speaking at Yale Law School next Tuesday as part of a panel on "The Mitchell Report and Beyond: Steroids, HGH, and the Future of Baseball." The panel was put together largely through the work of Aaron Zelinsky, a 1L at Yale Law School who wrote a terrific guest entry here last month entitled "Three Strikes for the National Labor Relations Act." If you are interested in attending, please contact Aaron at aaron.zelinsky[at]gmail.com. The panel is open to the public.Here is the official write up of the panel:
* * *
The Mitchell Report and Beyond: Steroids, HGH, and the Future of Baseball
The recently released Mitchell Report has brought national attention to the role of performance enhancing substances in baseball. From Capitol Hill to the sports pages, the conversation has focused on who did what, where, and when. This interdisciplinary panel seeks to move beyond questions about individual users and examine the Mitchell Report from a broader perspective. What did the Mitchell Report actually say? What are its implications for baseball and for other sports? How should professional sports address the issue of performance enhancing substances in the future? The panelists will tackle these issues from medical, legal, business, and media perspectives.
Tuesday March 4, 5pm
Sterling Law Building, Room 122Dean Harold Koh (Moderator) (M.A. Oxford '96, J.D. Harvard '80). Dean Koh is the Dean of Yale Law School and Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law. He is also a longtime Red Sox fan.
Jim Golen (MSL '99) Jimmy Golen has been a reporter for The Associated Press for almost 20 years, covering sports in Boston for the world's largest newsgathering organization since 1995. He has covered five Super Bowls, three Olympics and three World Series, including the Red Sox victories in 2004 and '07. Previously, he worked for the AP in New York, Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, La., and Buffalo, N.Y.
Dr. Peter Jokl (YSM '68, Yale College '64) Dr. Jokl is Professor and Vice-Chairman of the Yale Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation and the Section Chief of Yale Sports Medicine. He is the former President of the American Academy of Sports Physicians
Joe Ravitch (YLS '88) managing director in the Investment Banking Division of Goldman Sachs with responsibility for the media and entertainment sector within the firm's Telecom, Media and Technology (TMT) Group. Ravitch works with many of the large diversified entertainment companies around the world.
Prof. Michael McCann (J.D. UVA '02, LL.M. Harvard '05). Assistant Professor of Law, Mississippi College School of Law; Visiting Professor of Law, Boston College Law School (Fall 2008); Associate Professor of Law, Vermont Law School (Spring 2008 and beyond). Author of "Sports and the Law" column on SI.com. Legal expert for Sports Illustrated and SI.com stories. Chair, AALS Section on Sports and the Law. Contributor, Sports Law Blog.
SPANISH FOOTBALL MAPS
SFS friend & reader Bill makes sporting maps of many sports butwith a keen interest in Football. Here is a Spanish Football Mapthat Bill has elaborated that SFS recommends you take a look athttp://billsportsmaps.com/?p=1079Thanks Bill, great & interesting work!
Another Duke Lacrosse Suit
Back in October, I wrote about the § 1983 lawsuit filed by the three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted in 2006 on charges of gang-raping an exotic dancer, then exonerated when it became clear the woman had fabricated the story and the district attorney (subsequently disbarred and convicted of criminal contempt) had repeatedly lied to the court and attempted to conceal exculpatory evidence. Last week, other members of the team (none of whom were indicted) filed their own civil action in federal court, against Duke University and several members of the university administration, most prominently president Richard Brodhead; Duke University Health Services, owner of Duke University Medical Center, where the complainant had been treated following the alleged attack, and two medical staffers who examined the woman and allegedly provided false information about the results of the exam; and a variety of Durham County law enforcement officials. There are 27 counts, involving constitutional and state tort claims. The three indicted players reached a settlement with the university last year before any lawsuit was filed.
I have a particular interest in this lawsuit, and the Duke lacrosse mess as a whole. I have organized and am moderating a panel at this summer's Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting in Palm Beach called "The Phases and Faces of the Duke Lacrosse Controversy," which will examine the wide range of legal issues arising from this controversy.
Anyway, some initial thoughts. I will write more on the complaint later this week.
1) The complaint is 237 pages and 747 paragraphs. So much for a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Actually, this is a good example of litigation as press release that Beth Thornburg describes in writing about another hot sports lawsuit--West Virginia University against former football coach Rich Rodriguez. A pleading becomes as much about telling a story to the public and trying to win the community over as about giving notice to the court and to the defendants about the nature of the claims and the surrounding circumstances. This complaint recounts the full story of the Duke lacrosse mess in exacting detail, highlighting all the wrongdoing by various defendants--without necessarily linking that conduct to any legal right or duty to a particular plaintiff.
2) Former DA Mike Nifong is not a named defendant, despite being at the heart of all of this. Nifong filed for bankruptcy recently, imposing an automatic stay on any litigation naming him as a defendant. These plaintiffs thus did not include him as a defendant. But they argue that his misconduct is attributable to the City of Durham, which is a named defendant. This, by the way, could have a major effect on the action filed by the three indicted players, since their case is all about Nifong and his actions as the person who took (apparently unprecedented) control over the entire investigation.
3) There is an interesting version of cause-and-effect presented in the Complaint. The plaintiffs allege that Nifong (and implicitly the other defendants, especially the university) did not cause the media frenzy that surrounded the case. Rather, they all reacted to it and that media frenzy somewhat explains the subsequent Nifong's behavior--he needed to press the case to look good for the press and to satisfy the public aroused by the story. Implicit in the complaint is a similar argument that the Duke administration also reacted against the players when pressure from the media and from faculty and student activists reached a fever pitch.
4) Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims against Duke and its administrators and employees. But I do not see how these defendants are state actors. The basic notion is that the hospital staff and university officials cooperated with government in its investigation by: providing information to law enforcement, some of which was either false or unlawfully released; withholding or speaking out to discredit exculpatory information; or making or failing to correct false statements about the case by law enforcement and others. The complaint refers to the university "acting in concert" with law enforcement and to an "agreement and meeting of the minds" as to this course of conduct--seemingly looking to establish state action via a public/private conspiracy. But based on the allegations, I do not see the necessary meeting of the minds that this test requires. Certainly the university helped law enforcement and certainly the university played a role in creating and fostering the resulting circus. But I do not see the allegations alleging anything approaching an explicit agreement to engage in obviously and blatantly unlawful conduct. Cooperation with law enforcement typically is not enough.
5) It will be potentially difficult, but also necessary, for the parties and the court to sort out precisely which plaintiffs suffered what harm from what conduct. The complaint speaks about the plaintiffs as a group suffering a deprivation of rights. But the only harm suffered in common was the cancellation of the lacrosse season (which forms the basis of one breach of contract claim against the university) and everyone being tagged with the infamy, criticism, and potential harassment that came with being part of "the lacrosse team." But I think some more direct and concrete individualized harm is going to be necessary for individual players to recover. For example, which individual players were called in and questioned by police? Which individual players were subject to improper searches or improper questioning? Which players had confidential information disclosed to law enforcement in violation of federal law? Which individual players were subject to direct threats or harassment or physical assaults or taunts at the hands of professors, classmates, and the public? Unlike the three indicted players who ultimately were forced to leave the university, the individualized harm here is not as obvious and it certainly is not clear from the complaint. Perhaps it is not necessary to break that down at the pleading stage (hey--notice pleading lives!). But it will be as the case moves forward.
I have a particular interest in this lawsuit, and the Duke lacrosse mess as a whole. I have organized and am moderating a panel at this summer's Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting in Palm Beach called "The Phases and Faces of the Duke Lacrosse Controversy," which will examine the wide range of legal issues arising from this controversy.
Anyway, some initial thoughts. I will write more on the complaint later this week.
1) The complaint is 237 pages and 747 paragraphs. So much for a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Actually, this is a good example of litigation as press release that Beth Thornburg describes in writing about another hot sports lawsuit--West Virginia University against former football coach Rich Rodriguez. A pleading becomes as much about telling a story to the public and trying to win the community over as about giving notice to the court and to the defendants about the nature of the claims and the surrounding circumstances. This complaint recounts the full story of the Duke lacrosse mess in exacting detail, highlighting all the wrongdoing by various defendants--without necessarily linking that conduct to any legal right or duty to a particular plaintiff.
2) Former DA Mike Nifong is not a named defendant, despite being at the heart of all of this. Nifong filed for bankruptcy recently, imposing an automatic stay on any litigation naming him as a defendant. These plaintiffs thus did not include him as a defendant. But they argue that his misconduct is attributable to the City of Durham, which is a named defendant. This, by the way, could have a major effect on the action filed by the three indicted players, since their case is all about Nifong and his actions as the person who took (apparently unprecedented) control over the entire investigation.
3) There is an interesting version of cause-and-effect presented in the Complaint. The plaintiffs allege that Nifong (and implicitly the other defendants, especially the university) did not cause the media frenzy that surrounded the case. Rather, they all reacted to it and that media frenzy somewhat explains the subsequent Nifong's behavior--he needed to press the case to look good for the press and to satisfy the public aroused by the story. Implicit in the complaint is a similar argument that the Duke administration also reacted against the players when pressure from the media and from faculty and student activists reached a fever pitch.
4) Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims against Duke and its administrators and employees. But I do not see how these defendants are state actors. The basic notion is that the hospital staff and university officials cooperated with government in its investigation by: providing information to law enforcement, some of which was either false or unlawfully released; withholding or speaking out to discredit exculpatory information; or making or failing to correct false statements about the case by law enforcement and others. The complaint refers to the university "acting in concert" with law enforcement and to an "agreement and meeting of the minds" as to this course of conduct--seemingly looking to establish state action via a public/private conspiracy. But based on the allegations, I do not see the necessary meeting of the minds that this test requires. Certainly the university helped law enforcement and certainly the university played a role in creating and fostering the resulting circus. But I do not see the allegations alleging anything approaching an explicit agreement to engage in obviously and blatantly unlawful conduct. Cooperation with law enforcement typically is not enough.
5) It will be potentially difficult, but also necessary, for the parties and the court to sort out precisely which plaintiffs suffered what harm from what conduct. The complaint speaks about the plaintiffs as a group suffering a deprivation of rights. But the only harm suffered in common was the cancellation of the lacrosse season (which forms the basis of one breach of contract claim against the university) and everyone being tagged with the infamy, criticism, and potential harassment that came with being part of "the lacrosse team." But I think some more direct and concrete individualized harm is going to be necessary for individual players to recover. For example, which individual players were called in and questioned by police? Which individual players were subject to improper searches or improper questioning? Which players had confidential information disclosed to law enforcement in violation of federal law? Which individual players were subject to direct threats or harassment or physical assaults or taunts at the hands of professors, classmates, and the public? Unlike the three indicted players who ultimately were forced to leave the university, the individualized harm here is not as obvious and it certainly is not clear from the complaint. Perhaps it is not necessary to break that down at the pleading stage (hey--notice pleading lives!). But it will be as the case moves forward.
REAL MADRID NEWS 2008.
Normally the news of players coming out of injury & at the sametime ready to play this weekend is´nt something to publish about here atSFS. But if it´s REAL MADRID & in a "slump" process, the return ofdefender PEPE & forward ROBINHO take on other dimensions.Coach Schuster wishes to have them back & playing this weekend against Recreativo de Huelva. The Real Madrid coach is looking a weebit "
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Mets in Salary Arbitration
Marty Noble, the Mets beat reporter for MLB.com, posted an interesting story, "Perez wins arbitration case: Hearing was first for Mets since Cone’s 16 years ago" on Friday analyzing the Perez decision. Noble provided a chart with all of the Mets’ hearings while noting that the team had not participated in an arbitration hearing since 1992. Cleveland (7 team victories, 6 player victories) is the only team to have a longer streak avoiding arbitration. The Indians lost to Greg Swindell and defeated Jerry Browne in 1991. Stephen Goldberg decided the Swindell arbitration, and Gil Vernon handled the Browne arbitration.
Noble offered a glimpse inside the hearing room while also commenting on the efforts of agent Scott Boras on behalf of his clients. Boras squared off against Mets general counsel David Cohen. Noble also discussed both presentations, and I quote: "Boras, who now has prevailed in 19 of 45 cases, used Erik Bedard, recently traded from the Orioles to the Mariners, as a Perez comparable in his presentation. Bedard's salary at a corresponding career point, was $7 million. The Mets presented Tomo Ohka, Jason Marquis and, primarily, Brad Penny ($5.125 million) as Perez comparables." The comparable players chosen for the presentations are rarely presented in the newspaper/web articles covering the hearings. Convincing the arbitrators that you have selected the appropriate comparable players is a key factor in winning of losing. The panel of Robert Bailey, Elizabeth Neumeier, and Steven Wolf accepted the Boras presentation as better than Cohen’s list of pitchers and his overall argument.
So, according to Noble’s tally, Boras is now 19-26 in arbitration hearings. His winning percentage of .422 is only slightly lower than the overall players’ percentage of .423 (205 arbitrations won and 279 arbitrations lost since 1974). I knew from my research that Boras once had a lengthy losing streak so I was interested to see his record because I had not yet been able to compile that information. Given the critic’s position that he often overvalues the worth of his clients, I was somewhat surprised that his record is nearly identical to the 33-year record of the players (remember there were no hearings in 1976 and 1977).
I have added the names of the arbitrators from my research to the list of Mets players who have endured arbitration with the New York National League team.
Player - Year - Player Request - Team Offer - Win - Arbitrator
Dale Murray - 1979 - $100,000 - $72,000 - Team - Herbert Northrup
Joel Youngblood - 1979 - $91,000 - $78,000 - Team - Quinn Mills
Mookie Wilson - 1983 - $325,000 - $215,000 - Player - Robert Stutz
Jesse Orosco - 1985 - $850,000 - $650,000 - Team - Raymond Goetz
Doug Sisk - 1985 - $470,000 - $275,000 - Team - Arvid Anderson
Wally Backman - 1986 - $425,000 - $325,000 - Team - Richard Bloch
Ron Darling - 1986 - $615,000 - $440,000 - Team - Roger Abrams
Ed Lynch - 1986 - $530,000 - $400,000 - Player - Thomas Christenson
Tim Teufel - 1986 - $350,000 - $200,000 - Team - Frederick Reel
Ron Darling - 1987 - $1,050,000 - $800,000 - Player - John Sands
Kevin McReynolds- 1987 - $825,000 - $625,000 - Team - Thomas Christenson
Dwight Gooden - 1988 - $1,650,000 - $1,400,000 - Team - Richard Bloch
Len Dykstra - 1989 - $575,000 - $455,000 - Player - Frederick Reel
Tim Teufel - 1989 - $590,000 - $470,000 - Player - Richard Bloch
David Cone - 1990 - $1,300,0000 - $815,000 - Player - Raymond Goetz
Jeff Musselman - 1990 - $315,000 $220,000 - Player - Thomas Roberts
David Cone - 1992 - $4,250,000 - $3,000,000 - Player - Nicholas Zumas
Kevin Elster - 1992 - $1,350,000 - $760,000 - Team - Robert Creo
Jeff Innis - 1992 - $650,000 - $355,000 - Team - Richard Kasher
Oliver Perez - 2008 - $6,500,000 - $4,725,000 - Player - Robert Bailey, Elizabeth Neumeier, Steven Wolf
David Cone, Ron Darling, and Tim Teufel all went back for a second round with the Mets. Cone won twice while Darling and Teufel split their hearings with the team. Arbitrators with multiple Mets hearings include Richard Bloch (2-1 in favor of the Mets), Thomas Christenson (1-1), Raymond Goetz (1-1), and Frederick Reel (1-1).
Noble offered a glimpse inside the hearing room while also commenting on the efforts of agent Scott Boras on behalf of his clients. Boras squared off against Mets general counsel David Cohen. Noble also discussed both presentations, and I quote: "Boras, who now has prevailed in 19 of 45 cases, used Erik Bedard, recently traded from the Orioles to the Mariners, as a Perez comparable in his presentation. Bedard's salary at a corresponding career point, was $7 million. The Mets presented Tomo Ohka, Jason Marquis and, primarily, Brad Penny ($5.125 million) as Perez comparables." The comparable players chosen for the presentations are rarely presented in the newspaper/web articles covering the hearings. Convincing the arbitrators that you have selected the appropriate comparable players is a key factor in winning of losing. The panel of Robert Bailey, Elizabeth Neumeier, and Steven Wolf accepted the Boras presentation as better than Cohen’s list of pitchers and his overall argument.
So, according to Noble’s tally, Boras is now 19-26 in arbitration hearings. His winning percentage of .422 is only slightly lower than the overall players’ percentage of .423 (205 arbitrations won and 279 arbitrations lost since 1974). I knew from my research that Boras once had a lengthy losing streak so I was interested to see his record because I had not yet been able to compile that information. Given the critic’s position that he often overvalues the worth of his clients, I was somewhat surprised that his record is nearly identical to the 33-year record of the players (remember there were no hearings in 1976 and 1977).
I have added the names of the arbitrators from my research to the list of Mets players who have endured arbitration with the New York National League team.
Player - Year - Player Request - Team Offer - Win - Arbitrator
Dale Murray - 1979 - $100,000 - $72,000 - Team - Herbert Northrup
Joel Youngblood - 1979 - $91,000 - $78,000 - Team - Quinn Mills
Mookie Wilson - 1983 - $325,000 - $215,000 - Player - Robert Stutz
Jesse Orosco - 1985 - $850,000 - $650,000 - Team - Raymond Goetz
Doug Sisk - 1985 - $470,000 - $275,000 - Team - Arvid Anderson
Wally Backman - 1986 - $425,000 - $325,000 - Team - Richard Bloch
Ron Darling - 1986 - $615,000 - $440,000 - Team - Roger Abrams
Ed Lynch - 1986 - $530,000 - $400,000 - Player - Thomas Christenson
Tim Teufel - 1986 - $350,000 - $200,000 - Team - Frederick Reel
Ron Darling - 1987 - $1,050,000 - $800,000 - Player - John Sands
Kevin McReynolds- 1987 - $825,000 - $625,000 - Team - Thomas Christenson
Dwight Gooden - 1988 - $1,650,000 - $1,400,000 - Team - Richard Bloch
Len Dykstra - 1989 - $575,000 - $455,000 - Player - Frederick Reel
Tim Teufel - 1989 - $590,000 - $470,000 - Player - Richard Bloch
David Cone - 1990 - $1,300,0000 - $815,000 - Player - Raymond Goetz
Jeff Musselman - 1990 - $315,000 $220,000 - Player - Thomas Roberts
David Cone - 1992 - $4,250,000 - $3,000,000 - Player - Nicholas Zumas
Kevin Elster - 1992 - $1,350,000 - $760,000 - Team - Robert Creo
Jeff Innis - 1992 - $650,000 - $355,000 - Team - Richard Kasher
Oliver Perez - 2008 - $6,500,000 - $4,725,000 - Player - Robert Bailey, Elizabeth Neumeier, Steven Wolf
David Cone, Ron Darling, and Tim Teufel all went back for a second round with the Mets. Cone won twice while Darling and Teufel split their hearings with the team. Arbitrators with multiple Mets hearings include Richard Bloch (2-1 in favor of the Mets), Thomas Christenson (1-1), Raymond Goetz (1-1), and Frederick Reel (1-1).
Fantasy Baseball Rankings: Second Base
After ranking the first basemen a few days ago, it's time to move on to 2B!1. Chase Utley - It shouldn't be any surprise, but Utley is still the cream of the crop when it comes to 2B. He hit .332 last year, which is really good. But really, he does a little bit of everything. He missed 30 games, but he still had 22 HR, over 100 RBI, and over 100 Runs. And he even stole 9 bases just for good measure. He is easily the top fantasy 2B.
2. B.J. Upton - Upton is another guy that cashed in on his enormous talent in 2007. He showed good power, speed, and patience at the plate, which should carry over into the new year. Playing in only 129 games, he had 24 HR and 22 SB. The fact that he has a solid walk rate (and a .386 OBP) will give him plenty of opportunities to get on base and either steal bases or score a lot of runs. The fact that he will only be 23 for most of the year gives him the slight edge over Phillips for the 2nd spot.
3. Brandon Phillips - Phillips finally truly cashed in on all that talent, having a breakout year in 2007. He gives you power and speed from the 2B spot, with a 30-32 year last season. He also scored over 100 runs, and his .288 BA was certainly respectable. He'll turn 27 this summer, meaning he should be right in the middle of his prime.
4. Brian Roberts - He's a stolen base fiend, finishing with 50 of them in 2007. But that doesn't mean he is one-dimensional, as he also brings a solid amount of pop. He hit 12 HR and had 42 2B last year, which is not too shabby for a guy that brings so many SB as well as over 100 runs. An average of .290 is nothing to complain about either.
5. Robinson Cano - He didn't quite hit for .342 like he did in 2006, but he's still a very effective fantasy player. The average was still a very respectable .306, and he displayed solid power with 19 HR and 41 2B. As he's playing in the Yankees lineup, his RBI and R totals will be solid no matter where he bats in the order.
6. Chone Figgins - He might not hit .330 again, but he brings a lot of speed and versatility to the table. He missed over 45 games last year, but still had 41 SB, following up his 52 SB in 2006 and 62 SB in 2005. He doesn't have a lot of power, but he has averaged 8 triples over the past 3 years, which helps. He's also eligible for multiple positions.
7. Howie Kendrick - The guy can rake. As a 24 year-old playing only part of the time, he hit .322 last season, and slugged a very respectable .450. He doesn't take walks and he doesn't hit for a ton of power, but he's a great hitter for average, and should score a lot of runs in a solid Angels offense.
8. Ian Kinsler - Kinsler is a decent option for speed and power at 2B. He finished 2007 with 20 HR and 22 SB. He also showed solid plate discipline, finishing with an OBP of .355. He's a solid option at 2B... there are guys with more upside at this spot, but you could certainly do worse than Ian Kinsler.
9. Rickie Weeks - Many people (myself included) expected a breakout year from Weeks, but due to injuries and such, it never materialized, as he finished with just a .235 AVG. However, some of the peripheral numbers did look good... he took a fair amount of walks, had decent power, and even stole 25 bases. He's got high upside, but has to stay healthy.
10. Placido Polanco - Polanco was excellent last year with a .341 AVG, which allowed him to score over 100 runs. It's unrealistic to expect such high output again, but he will be in a solid lineup that adds Miguel Cabrera. Polanco is another guy that is just a solid option... there are other guys who might have more upside at this spot, but you know what you're getting from Placido Polanco.
Your thoughts? What would you change around?
LUIS FABIANO CURRENT SPANISH LEAGUE TOP GOAL SCORER AFTER ROUND 25 / 2008
The International Brazilian & SEVILLA FC forward LUIS FABIANO( pictured below) is doing what a forward gets paid to do, score goals. But more than this is the speed & the effectiveness that Fabiano hasdemostrated, that currently keeps him as the leading Spanish 1ºDivision Top Goalscorer with Round 25 already played.The figures are impressive 28 goals so far this season: 19 in La Liga;7 in
Full Contact: The Illinois Supreme Court Elaborates on the Contact Sports Exception in Karas
On February 22, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court delivered an opinion found here in Karas v. Strevell, et al. Karas was injured during an ice hockey game after he was body checked from behind by two opposing players Strevell and Zimmerman (my client). Thereafter, Karas' father brought suit on behalf of his minor son against the two players, the opposing team, the referee association, and the league. The lawsuit claimed that the opposing players' conduct was willful and wanton, and the team, referees and the league had negligently and willfully and wantonly caused Karas' injury. I will not delve too far into the underlying details as Geoffrey Rapp wrote an insightful piece on this blog following the appellate court's decision, which can be found here, and also because I may have further work on this matter representing Zimmerman.This matter was before the Illinois Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal following motions to dismiss based on the pleadings (Illinois is a fact-pleading state). In other words, we (the defendants) argued that the complaint did not sufficiently state a cause of action. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with all defendants, but gave the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint (if he is able to do so) under the new pleading standard to survive the Contact Sports Exception.
The Contact Sports Exception in Illinois holds that if a plaintiff is injured by a co-participant while engaged in a contact sport, the same may only recover if the injury was the result of intentional or willful and wanton conduct (see Pfister v. Shusta, 167 Ill. 2d 417 (1995)).
Important holdings from this opinion by Justice Burke:
- The Contact Sports Exception is not an affirmative defense, nor does the exception require a court to explore the plaintiff's subjective awareness of the risks associated with a particular sport. Rather, the Exception defines the scope of a defendant's duty.
- In deciding if a sport qualifies under the Exception, a court must consider the nature of the sport, specifically looking at the inherent risks in said sport. If physical contact among co-participants is inherent in the game, a player owes no duty to a co-participant to avoid ordinary negligence. Again, the court will look to the objective factors of the game, not the subjective expectation of the parties.
- Ice hockey and tackle football are not only contact sports under the Exception, but are considered by the Court to be full-contact sports. The Court defines full-contact sports as sports where "physical contact between players is not simply an unavoidable byproduct of vigorous play, but is a fundamental part of the way the game is played," and as such, "[i]n these sports, holding participants liable for consciously disregarding the safety of coparticipants is problematic."
- In full contact sports, "conscious disregard for the safety of the opposing player is an inherent part of the game." Therefore, holding a player in a full-contact sport liable for violating this standard violates the underlying rationale of the Exception, and would have a chilling effect on full-contact sport participation.
- As the willful and wanton standard is both unworkable and contrary to the rationale in Pfister, a new standard is required.
- Looking to Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), the Illinois Supreme Court stated the new standard for full-contact sport liability: "a participant breaches a duty of care to a coparticipant only if the participant intentionally injures the coparticipant or engages in conduct 'totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.'"
- Nothing currently plead against Strevell and Zimmerman meets this standard.
- The contact sports exception also applies to organizational defendants (coaches, officials, teams, and leagues).
- To successfully plead a valid cause of action for "failing to adequately enforce the rules in an organized full-contact sport, plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted with intent to cause the injury or that the defendant engaged in conduct 'totally outside the range of ordinary activity (internal citations to Knight)' involved with coaching or officiating a sport."
- The application of the Exception to organizational defendants is not whether the organizational defendant's conduct causes a 3rd party to violate a standard of care.
- Nothing currently plead against the organizational defendants meets the new standard to overcome the Exception.
I have not yet heard if Karas plans to re-file this matter under the new standard.
Covington & Burling's Representation of both Major League Baseball and Roger Clemens
of The American Lawyer has a very interesting piece on concerns by Major League Baseball that one of its lawfirms, Covington & Burling, has represented Roger Clemens in his current matter with the Mitchell Report and Congress. Lanny Breuer, one of the Covington's litigation partners and former special counsel to President Bill Clinton in his impeachment proceedings, has led his firm's efforts in representing Clemens. Here are a couple excerpts from the piece:
Earlier this year Covington & Burling decided to add pitcher Roger Clemens to its roster of high-profile clients. But perhaps it should have received approval from another client, Major League Baseball, first. Covington agreed to represent Clemens in the congressional steroids inquiry without getting the league’s sign-off—a potential blunder in the high-stakes world of sports league representation. According to a source familiar with the matter, Covington’s decision to represent Clemens annoyed the league. The official relationship between Major League Baseball and the firm has not changed but, according to the same source, a meeting between the two is imminent. . . .
[T]he Clemens assignment would potentially put Covington at odds with one its clients, MLB. Covington has a long history of representing professional sports leagues. Although the firm is known mostly for its work on behalf of the National Football League, it has also done some work for baseball, according to its Web site. Last year, for example, it represented baseball in connection with the launch of an MLB channel. However, Clemens’s interests appeared to be aligned against baseball. Breuer, like Hardin, would likely have to attack the Mitchell Report. Breuer apparently didn’t accept the Clemens assignment right away. In January, Hardin told The New York Times that Breuer said he had to get clearance first. “We’d talked to him, and we’d just been waiting a day or two to check out conflicts,” said Hardin. “He had no conflicts.”
Update: a reader e-mails me a good point about a separate occasion where Covington's interests may not have coincided with Major League Baseball's: "It might be worth noting also that Covington and Burling partner Andrew Jack was lead counsel for the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission during its negotiations with MLB over the Nationals new stadium. That stadium deal, as you probably know, was one of the most generous in sports history."
* * *
Earlier this year Covington & Burling decided to add pitcher Roger Clemens to its roster of high-profile clients. But perhaps it should have received approval from another client, Major League Baseball, first. Covington agreed to represent Clemens in the congressional steroids inquiry without getting the league’s sign-off—a potential blunder in the high-stakes world of sports league representation. According to a source familiar with the matter, Covington’s decision to represent Clemens annoyed the league. The official relationship between Major League Baseball and the firm has not changed but, according to the same source, a meeting between the two is imminent. . . .
[T]he Clemens assignment would potentially put Covington at odds with one its clients, MLB. Covington has a long history of representing professional sports leagues. Although the firm is known mostly for its work on behalf of the National Football League, it has also done some work for baseball, according to its Web site. Last year, for example, it represented baseball in connection with the launch of an MLB channel. However, Clemens’s interests appeared to be aligned against baseball. Breuer, like Hardin, would likely have to attack the Mitchell Report. Breuer apparently didn’t accept the Clemens assignment right away. In January, Hardin told The New York Times that Breuer said he had to get clearance first. “We’d talked to him, and we’d just been waiting a day or two to check out conflicts,” said Hardin. “He had no conflicts.”
* * *
For the rest of the story, click here.Update: a reader e-mails me a good point about a separate occasion where Covington's interests may not have coincided with Major League Baseball's: "It might be worth noting also that Covington and Burling partner Andrew Jack was lead counsel for the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission during its negotiations with MLB over the Nationals new stadium. That stadium deal, as you probably know, was one of the most generous in sports history."
SAMUEL ETO´O GOALSCORER WITH HAT-TRICK & PHOTOGRAPHER
Overwhelming request to see the photo that SAMUEL ETO´O tookafter gaining a HAT TRICK & scoring FC BARCELONA´s last of5 goals over Levante yesterday.Here it is , thanks to "Mundo Deportivo". A bit out of focus, butOK. If Eto´o leaves Football...
REAL MADRID - FC BARCELONA: TWO SIDES OF THE COIN
Like always there are two sides to the same coin, Madrid papers- As & Marca - use the same word - "STOOGES". Why? Check theGetafe goal that comes after Robben thought he scored & histeammates went overr to celebrate. Problem was it was disallowed& Getafe took the free kick quickly racing up field to score, while mostof Real was still frozen looking on in dismay. See Video below:"There is Liga,
Sunday, February 24, 2008
SPANISH FOOTBALL - LA LIGA - ROUND 25/ 2008 SUNDAY GAMES RESULT
Big day in Round 25 Sunday games with plenty of goals continuing from yesterday, & Fc Barcelona putting pressure on League leadersReal Madrid with a bulldozing win & cutting the lead to 2ºpoints afterthe latter lost! Here are the results , scorers & images.ATLETICO DE MADRID is sinking, since their loss to Real Madrid fewweeks back they have not been able to lift themselves. Today away toOSASUNA
JUANDE RAMOS WINS HIS 1º ENGLISH TITLE WITH TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
TOTTENHAM HOTSPURS has proclaimed itself the "Carling Cup"(League Cup) Champions for 2008 after defeating Chelsea Fc 2-1in extra time. Its the 5th title in 16 months for Tottenham´sSpanish coach JUANDE RAMOS ( below) & his first English title.Tottenham payed a huge amount of money to lure Juande fromSevilla FC after winning back to back Uefa Cups, Spanish Cups &Euro SuperCups, & after 4 months
PAUL GASCOIGNE. THE FALL OF A FOOTBALL STAR
SFS gets out of its blogging area, Spanish Football & Spanish Sports,after seeing this video of English Football player PAUL GASCOIGNEon " Current TV" http://current.comI´m a bit sad to see the man in such a state, from a strictly Football pointof view Gascoigne was an extremely talented player & could have reachedthe top, had it not been for his "unstable" life. I think SFS can say in thename of
ATLETICO DE MADRID LOOK FOR A GOALKEEPER
Let´s be honest, while ATLETICO DE MADRID main goalkeeperLeo Franco has been injuried, his substitute Italian Abbiati has´ntexactly spread confidence. Its obvious that Atletico need a securekeeper & they are already looking for one.The speculation & rumour is that the desired person is PEPE REINAof LIVERPOOL FC, but the man has a contract until 2012 & hewishes to stay a few years more in English
Saturday, February 23, 2008
SPANISH FOOTBALL - LA LIGA - ROUND 25 /2008 SATURDAY MATCH RESULTS
Two matches played tonight, Round 25 of "La Liga" with the rest scheduled tomorrow, here are the results, scorers & images.VALENCIA CF were looking for a victory to calm their particular rough waters, but only managed to find a drawn port with a 1-1result against RECREATIVO. Valencia basically lacked the finishing touch in front of goal, & was unlucky with some tight referee decisions.However,
Analyzing Kelvin Sampson's Settlement: A Good Business Decision for IU
Last week on the blog, I discussed Kelvin Sampson's contract situation in the wake of Indiana's receipt of a Notice of Allegations two weeks ago from the NCAA's enforcement staff. Yesterday's $750,000 settlement between IU and Sampson, of which $550,000 is coming from an anonymous donor, is a really good business decision for IU.
First, there is the risk of losing a wrongful termination lawsuit. According to Mark Alesia of the Indianapolis Star: "IU spokesman Larry MacIntyre said the risk of losing a wrongful-termination lawsuit was the biggest reason for offering Sampson a buyout instead of firing him. MacIntyre said the school thought it could have been liable for $2 million to $3 million in a lawsuit." MacIntyre further commented, "The university is basically avoiding that for $200,000." As I mentioned in the comments to my previous post, and I also said it to Alesia, the for cause termination language in Sampson's contract with IU is much more favorable to IU than it was for OSU in Jim O'Brien's contract. That being said, just as OSU did not prevail in O'Brien's wrongful termination suit, there is always a risk that IU would not prevail either; not to mention the time, the inconvenience, the attorneys fees and the bad PR associated with ongoing litigation -- even if IU were to prevail!
There's also another risk element that may have been eliminated by a settlement. IU has until May 8 to respond to the NCAA's allegations. The case is expected to be heard on June 14 by the NCAA Committee on Infractions, and a decision regarding possible penalties against IU's basketball program would come four to eight weeks later. IU could also appeal that decision to the Infractions Appeals Committee. Sampson is most likely going to be a witness in the case. A wrongful termination lawsuit could be very contentious and ugly, and IU doesn't want an adversarial witness at the NCAA hearing who has an axe to grind. Also, the NCAA would have access to all the pleadings and testimony from a lawsuit, which might not be in IU's best interest. I'm not suggesting that IU administration and/or compliance staff were involved in any wrongdoing, but in a lawsuit you just never know what might be alleged or what information could be revealed through discovery.
UPDATE (2/25): Today, IU released the Settlement Agreement entered into between Sampson and IU, which can be accessed here. Interestingly, Section 4(a) of the agreement obligates Sampson to fully cooperate with IU with respect to any NCAA investigation, proceeding or hearing. That provision alone might be worth more than $200K.
First, there is the risk of losing a wrongful termination lawsuit. According to Mark Alesia of the Indianapolis Star: "IU spokesman Larry MacIntyre said the risk of losing a wrongful-termination lawsuit was the biggest reason for offering Sampson a buyout instead of firing him. MacIntyre said the school thought it could have been liable for $2 million to $3 million in a lawsuit." MacIntyre further commented, "The university is basically avoiding that for $200,000." As I mentioned in the comments to my previous post, and I also said it to Alesia, the for cause termination language in Sampson's contract with IU is much more favorable to IU than it was for OSU in Jim O'Brien's contract. That being said, just as OSU did not prevail in O'Brien's wrongful termination suit, there is always a risk that IU would not prevail either; not to mention the time, the inconvenience, the attorneys fees and the bad PR associated with ongoing litigation -- even if IU were to prevail!
There's also another risk element that may have been eliminated by a settlement. IU has until May 8 to respond to the NCAA's allegations. The case is expected to be heard on June 14 by the NCAA Committee on Infractions, and a decision regarding possible penalties against IU's basketball program would come four to eight weeks later. IU could also appeal that decision to the Infractions Appeals Committee. Sampson is most likely going to be a witness in the case. A wrongful termination lawsuit could be very contentious and ugly, and IU doesn't want an adversarial witness at the NCAA hearing who has an axe to grind. Also, the NCAA would have access to all the pleadings and testimony from a lawsuit, which might not be in IU's best interest. I'm not suggesting that IU administration and/or compliance staff were involved in any wrongdoing, but in a lawsuit you just never know what might be alleged or what information could be revealed through discovery.
UPDATE (2/25): Today, IU released the Settlement Agreement entered into between Sampson and IU, which can be accessed here. Interestingly, Section 4(a) of the agreement obligates Sampson to fully cooperate with IU with respect to any NCAA investigation, proceeding or hearing. That provision alone might be worth more than $200K.
Thoughts on the IU Player Boycott
What should we make of the almost-boycott by six senior members of the IU Basketball team? The six, including star forward D.J. White, did not show at practice Friday, to protest both the dismissal/buyout/force resignation of Head Coach Kelvin Sampson in the wake of allegations of major NCAA rules violations and the hiring of Assistant Dan Dakich, rather than assistant Ray McCallum, as interim head coach. Ultimately, it fizzled and all six traveled with the team for today's game against Northwestern (of course).
I am of several minds here. On one hand, we rightly applaud players who speak out in support of their coaches. And I have criticized judicial opinions that allowed players to be punished for speaking out for or against a coach. And I mentioned Hoosiers, where Jimmy Chitwood is depicted as a hero for standing up for Coach Dale against an entire town that wanted him fired. And I also have suggested that players should be given greater freedom when the coach who recruited them departs (at least when it is the coach skipping town on his own).
On the other hand, a school must have the ability to fire or discipline a coach whose willful (and repeated) misconduct has doomed the program to major NCAA sanctions. Perhaps the seniors, who will not be around when the hammer comes down on the program, are not concerned with that. So they were defending their coach--but in a way that inhibits any effort to make and enforce NCAA rules. Should they be applauded in the same way we applaud Jimmy Chitwood? How much say should players have in this type of situation?
I am of several minds here. On one hand, we rightly applaud players who speak out in support of their coaches. And I have criticized judicial opinions that allowed players to be punished for speaking out for or against a coach. And I mentioned Hoosiers, where Jimmy Chitwood is depicted as a hero for standing up for Coach Dale against an entire town that wanted him fired. And I also have suggested that players should be given greater freedom when the coach who recruited them departs (at least when it is the coach skipping town on his own).
On the other hand, a school must have the ability to fire or discipline a coach whose willful (and repeated) misconduct has doomed the program to major NCAA sanctions. Perhaps the seniors, who will not be around when the hammer comes down on the program, are not concerned with that. So they were defending their coach--but in a way that inhibits any effort to make and enforce NCAA rules. Should they be applauded in the same way we applaud Jimmy Chitwood? How much say should players have in this type of situation?
FERNANDO TORRES 3 - MIDDLESBROUGH 2
SFS normally concentrates on Spanish Football & lets the better bloggersreport on the Premier League, however the exception is that the personmentioned is Spanish, ex-Atletico de Madrid & is doing very well atLIVERPOOL. The number 9 , is FERNANDO TORRES & he hasscored a HAT-TRICK today against Middlesbrough to give his teamthe 3-2 victory.The young forward received a standing ovation from
Friday, February 22, 2008
Split Decision on the Final Day of Salary Arbitration
Oliver Perez won his arbitration decision today when panel members Robert Bailey, Elizabeth Neumeier, and Steven Wolf selected his figure of $6,500,000 over the Mets offer of $4,725,000.
Neumeier and Wolf were also busy yesterday with Stephen Goldberg hearing the Francisco Rodriguez case. The three arbitrators sided with the Angels in that case. Rodriguez will receive $10,000,000 for this year tying the highest awards in arbitration history with Ryan Howard and Alfonso Soriano.
Management ended up taking the title versus the players again this year. The final tally for the 8 hearings was 6 wins for management and 2 wins for the players. The two hearings move Robert Bailey’s panel decisions to 3-2 in favor of the player with Steven Wolf at an even 3-3. Stephen Goldberg is now at 25-17 in favor of the team by my count and Elizabeth Neumeier is 12-8 in favor of the team.
According to my information, there have now been 3,043 cases filed since arbitration began in 1974. This number is subject to challenge because I have been trying to reconcile different numbers in different sources for the early years. Of the 484 hearings, teams have won 279 or 58% and players have won 205 or 42%.
Neumeier and Wolf were also busy yesterday with Stephen Goldberg hearing the Francisco Rodriguez case. The three arbitrators sided with the Angels in that case. Rodriguez will receive $10,000,000 for this year tying the highest awards in arbitration history with Ryan Howard and Alfonso Soriano.
Management ended up taking the title versus the players again this year. The final tally for the 8 hearings was 6 wins for management and 2 wins for the players. The two hearings move Robert Bailey’s panel decisions to 3-2 in favor of the player with Steven Wolf at an even 3-3. Stephen Goldberg is now at 25-17 in favor of the team by my count and Elizabeth Neumeier is 12-8 in favor of the team.
According to my information, there have now been 3,043 cases filed since arbitration began in 1974. This number is subject to challenge because I have been trying to reconcile different numbers in different sources for the early years. Of the 484 hearings, teams have won 279 or 58% and players have won 205 or 42%.
28 Years Ago Today
This happened.
For my money, the Miracle on Ice is the greatest sporting event to ever happen. By now we've all heard the story, and most of us have seen the movie Miracle, based off the team in which a maverick coach from Minnesota named Herb Brooks picked who he felt was the best team, but not necessarily the best players, and molded them into a gold medal winner.
The Soviets featured such players as Boris Mikhailov, one of the greatest Russian players ever, and Vadislav Tretiak, the best goaltender in the world at the time.
The United States meanwhile, were led by a group of college kids. Some of them were very good, as they would sign with professional teams soon after the 1980 Olympics, but definitely not on par with the Soviets talent wise.
I won't bore you with the details, but we all know Mike Eruzione, the United States captain, scored the game winning goal with exactly 10 minutes left in the game to give the US the win and set the stage for Al Michaels's famous call, and an eventual gold medal, which they earned by defeating Finland.
13 US players played in the NHL. Neal Broten, who won an NCAA title with Minnesota, scored 923 career points in over 1000 NHL games. Mark Johnson is now the women's hockey coach at Wisconsin, and his son plays for the mens team. Eruzione and goalie Jim Craig, two of the stars of the semifinal game, totaled just 30 NHL games between them, all by Craig. Coach Herb Brooks tragically died in a car accident at the age of 66.
Let me preface this next point by saying that I think an Olympic Gold Medal is the best "trophy" to win in sports. If you gave me a choice between a gold medal and a superbowl, I would take a gold medal without hesitation. I usually come down somewhere between disapproving and apathetic when ESPN does dumb stuff like Who's Now, but if the Miracle on Ice doesn't win the Greatest Highlight, people need to hand in their citizenship. While I get tired of the 1972 Dolphins, I will never tire of hearing about the 1980 Olympic team that shocked the world and united a nation.
IS THE RIQUELME "GHOST" HAUNTING ATLETICO DE MADRID
Could ATLETICO DE MADRID´s current problems been avoidedif they would have signned JUAN ROMAN RIQUELME from Villareal?That´s the question that is being said by many fans & one that SFSthinks is the main reason for the extraordinary slump in the teamsperformance. Atletico is JUST hanging on to the Champions Leagueclassification positions, & thanks to the loss & bad play from rivalsVillareal &
Francisco Rodriguez Case - Arbitrator Stephen Goldberg
The case for and against Francisco Rodriguez of the Angels was presented yesterday to the panel of Stephen Goldberg, Elizabeth Neumeier, and Steven Wolf. Prior to this hearing, Goldberg’s panel and individual record was 24-17 in favor of the team.
Goldberg’s decisions prior to three-arbitrator panels included the cases of:
Dann Billardello (1992-Padres-team won)
Jose Lind (1992-Pirates-player won)
Barry Bonds (1991-Pirates-team won)
Paul Gibson (1991-Tigers-player won)
Greg Swindell (1991-Indians-player won)
Shawon Dunston (1990-Cubs-player won)
Billy Hatcher (1990-Pirates-player won)
Bo Jackson (1990-Royals-team won)
Steve Balboni (1989-Mariners-player won)
Glenn Davis (1989-Astros-player won)
Andre Dawson (1988-Cubs-team won)
Greg Harris (1987-Rangers-player won)
Charlie Leibrandt (1987-Royals-player won)
Bill Dawley (1986-Astros-team won)
Julio Franco (1986-Indians-team won)
Leon Durham (1985-Cubs-team won)
Juan Bonilla (1984-Padres-player won)
The record of these 17 cases is 7 for the team and 10 for the players.
I still continue to check and re-check my sources because of the many data elements. My spreadsheets and individual player templates for over 3,000 players who have filed for arbitration since the process began in 1974 are drawn from newspaper reports available on Westlaw and LexisNexis. So, for instance, I have Elizabeth Neumeier’s panel record from 1999 to 2007 as 11-7 in favor of the team. The New York Times reported that the panel of Richard Bloch, Roger Kaplan, and Jerome Ross heard the 1999 Midre Cummings case instead of the Shane Andrews case. Numerous reports listed Elizabeth Neumeier as hearing her first case on the Cummings panel. However, I was unable to locate another article that corrected this listing with respect to the Andrews panel. My sources included Murray Chass, "Baseball - Arbitration Hearings; Owners Win In New Format," New York Times, February 10, 1999 (1999 WLNR 3029431). This is an important historical note because Elizabeth Neumeier was the first female baseball salary arbitrator in 1999. My complete record of newspaper sources for arbitrators stops with the 1984 season. My information for the first decade is incomplete. I hope that I will someday be able to complete and verify everything that I have. I do not expect, however, that MLB or MLBPA will want to assist me in this. It would be great for Stephen Goldberg to write about some the cases that he has handled because it would be interesting to read his reflections on some of the really interesting cases that he has heard and decided.
Steven Wolf’s panel record (2005-2008) was 2-2 after he sided with the Nationals in the Lopez decision earlier this month.
Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times offered an interesting analysis in an article entitled "Moreno Still Hopes to Sign Rodriguez." He quoted owner Arte Moreno as wanting to reach a multiyear deal with Rodriguez. Rodriquez and the Angels are $2,500,000 apart in their figures of $10,000,000 and $12,500,000. Francisco Cordero’s 4-year, $46,000,000 deal and Mariano Rivera’s 3-year, $45,000,000 deal are factors in an analysis of the Rodriguez case. DiGiovanna offers a number of comments about the 2007 second half performance that I am sure the arbitrators heard about yesterday. I still think the Angels will win this case when the announcement comes out today.
Goldberg’s decisions prior to three-arbitrator panels included the cases of:
Dann Billardello (1992-Padres-team won)
Jose Lind (1992-Pirates-player won)
Barry Bonds (1991-Pirates-team won)
Paul Gibson (1991-Tigers-player won)
Greg Swindell (1991-Indians-player won)
Shawon Dunston (1990-Cubs-player won)
Billy Hatcher (1990-Pirates-player won)
Bo Jackson (1990-Royals-team won)
Steve Balboni (1989-Mariners-player won)
Glenn Davis (1989-Astros-player won)
Andre Dawson (1988-Cubs-team won)
Greg Harris (1987-Rangers-player won)
Charlie Leibrandt (1987-Royals-player won)
Bill Dawley (1986-Astros-team won)
Julio Franco (1986-Indians-team won)
Leon Durham (1985-Cubs-team won)
Juan Bonilla (1984-Padres-player won)
The record of these 17 cases is 7 for the team and 10 for the players.
I still continue to check and re-check my sources because of the many data elements. My spreadsheets and individual player templates for over 3,000 players who have filed for arbitration since the process began in 1974 are drawn from newspaper reports available on Westlaw and LexisNexis. So, for instance, I have Elizabeth Neumeier’s panel record from 1999 to 2007 as 11-7 in favor of the team. The New York Times reported that the panel of Richard Bloch, Roger Kaplan, and Jerome Ross heard the 1999 Midre Cummings case instead of the Shane Andrews case. Numerous reports listed Elizabeth Neumeier as hearing her first case on the Cummings panel. However, I was unable to locate another article that corrected this listing with respect to the Andrews panel. My sources included Murray Chass, "Baseball - Arbitration Hearings; Owners Win In New Format," New York Times, February 10, 1999 (1999 WLNR 3029431). This is an important historical note because Elizabeth Neumeier was the first female baseball salary arbitrator in 1999. My complete record of newspaper sources for arbitrators stops with the 1984 season. My information for the first decade is incomplete. I hope that I will someday be able to complete and verify everything that I have. I do not expect, however, that MLB or MLBPA will want to assist me in this. It would be great for Stephen Goldberg to write about some the cases that he has handled because it would be interesting to read his reflections on some of the really interesting cases that he has heard and decided.
Steven Wolf’s panel record (2005-2008) was 2-2 after he sided with the Nationals in the Lopez decision earlier this month.
Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times offered an interesting analysis in an article entitled "Moreno Still Hopes to Sign Rodriguez." He quoted owner Arte Moreno as wanting to reach a multiyear deal with Rodriguez. Rodriquez and the Angels are $2,500,000 apart in their figures of $10,000,000 and $12,500,000. Francisco Cordero’s 4-year, $46,000,000 deal and Mariano Rivera’s 3-year, $45,000,000 deal are factors in an analysis of the Rodriguez case. DiGiovanna offers a number of comments about the 2007 second half performance that I am sure the arbitrators heard about yesterday. I still think the Angels will win this case when the announcement comes out today.
FC BARCELONA: MARC MUNIESA ANOTHER YOUNG FOOTBALL PEARL
FC BARCELONA is a fertile ground for young Football talent,widely considered Worldwide as one of the best clubs to nurture promising players, half the World club scouts "hang out" in Spainto watch the "Barça kids" in action. Here are just a few names thathave come out of the "Barça Football School" : Messi, Cesc, Giovani,Bojan...The lastest pearl is MARC MANIESA ( above) a 15 year oldcentral
REAL MADRID 2008: CANNAVARO CONFIDENT OF THE DEFENCE
REAL MADRID Italian defender FABIO CANNAVARO hasexpressed his solid confidence with his teams defence, on Spanishradio "Onda Cero", & has been picked up by most Spanish paperstoday."In my opinion, Sergio Ramos, Pepe, Heinze & myself are thebest defence in Europe" ( Cannavaro)What your opinion? SFS believes the 4 have played together very little this season.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fantasy Baseball Rankings: First Base
It's that time of year again! Here's my top 10 for 1B for Fantasy Baseball.1. Albert Pujols - The power numbers were way down, but he still edges out Prince for the top spot. But it is a bit worrisome that he hit 17 less HR last year than in 2006, and had only 103 RBI compared to 137 the year before. Unlike past year, he's not a guy to consider with the first overall pick, but he's still the top 1B.
2. Prince Fielder - Prince obviously had a huge year in 2007, hitting 50 HR and topping 119 RBI. The average was at .288, which is obviously still good, but also about 40-50 points behind Albert Pujols, which is why Prince comes in at 2nd.
3. Ryan Howard - As was to be expected, Howard's numbers went down some compared to 2006, but he was still very productive. Fantasy owners will take 47 HR and a solid 136 RBI. One concern is that his average fell from .313 to .268, a rather precipitous drop. If he can get it back to the .300 range, he'll once again be a contender for top fantasy 1B.
4. David Ortiz - Curiously, Ortiz hit 19 fewer HR last year than in 2006, but he had 23 more doubles. Not sure why that was the case. He's still an RBI machine, totaling 117 last year, which was actually his lowest in 4 years. He should continue to get plenty of opportunities to drive runners in batting right in the middle of a very potent lineup.
5. Mark Teixeira - Teixeira quietly tore the cover off the ball in Atlanta, slugging .615 after the midseason trade. In only 54 games with the Braves, he had 17 HR and 56 RBI. He probably can't keep up that pace, but the Atlanta offense should be solid once again, and he'll be a big part of that.
6. Lance Berkman - As is becoming a theme with the 1B on this list, Berkman's power numbers were way down last year, as his HR total dropped by 11 and his SLG fell over 100 points. Even in a down year, he still hit 34 HR and had over 100 RBI. Again, if he can regain 2006 form, he's probably a top 3 1B.
7. Justin Morneau - Morneau didn't have quite the year he did during his MVP campaign, but he still hit 31 HR and drove in a solid 111 runs. The average did drop 50 points, which is a concern. I suspect we will see his numbers settle in somewhere in between the 2006 and 2007 seasons, which makes for a very good run-producing machine.
8. Derrek Lee - He probably won't approach the 46 HR he had in 2005 again, but he is a doubles machine, hitting 43 last year in 150 games. He's also a very solid hitter for average, as his batting average was a solid .317.
9. Travis Hafner - He was a bit of a disappointment last year with his numbers completely down across the board. His SLG dropped a whopping 200 points and his average was down 40 points. He hit 16 less HR, had 17 fewer RBI, and scored 20 less runs. However, if he can return anywhere near to his 2004-2006 form, he's a top 5 1B. Worth the risk.
10. Adrian Gonzalez - 30 HR, 100 RBI, 101 runs, and 46 doubles... those are numbers you can live with. Gonzalez is a very productive player who you know what you're going to get. He's never going to be an MVP type player, but he's just an above average 1B that helps you in a few different areas.
What are your thoughts? Which of these rankings would you change?
New Sports Illustrated Piece on Roger Clemens
I have a new column on SI.com: The Road From Here: What's Next for Clemens? Probably an Indictment. I hope you have a chance to read it.
UEFA CUP RETURN GAMES 2008: 1 OUT OF 3 FOR SPANISH TEAMS
Only one Spanish team managed to go onto the next round of the UEFACUP tonight, after the two supposingly big names said goodbye.Above is the away goal by PROGREBNYAK that gave ZENITST.PETERSBURG the victory over VILLAREAL, althoughthey lost the match. They came with a goal advantage & in caseof a draw an away goal is worth double.Villareal almost made the comeback with goals from G.FRANCOin the
NFLPA Says NFL is Colluding
Last November, the NFLPA launched an investigation into whether the NFL’s decision to lower the debt ceiling of its 32 clubs constitutes collusion to reduce competition for players or players’ salaries (which I previously posted on the blog). In October, NFL owners voted to lower the debt ceiling (how much money a team can borrow) by $30 million, which reduces the debt ceiling to $120 million from $150 million, and to cut $1 billion of league and team debt over the next three years. This morning, Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Daily reports that the NFLPA plans to announce later today that it is has asked Special Master Stephen Burbank to overturn the NFL’s decision last fall to lower teams’ debt cap, which the the union contends is designed to dry up the cash teams need to spend on players' salaries, charging that the league violated the anti-collusion provisions of the CBA.
The league takes the position that reducing the debt cap was essentially a "business decision" in light of the current turmoil in the economy. As I noted in my November post, the NFLPA takes the position that lowering the debt ceiling could have a chilling effect on team spending for players because clubs frequently finance player compensation and signing bonuses with debt. Essentially, the union views the debt limitation as a restriction on free agency.
The NFLPA has two very strong claims in support of its position. First, the union can argue that imposing the debt limitation constitutes a breach of the anti-collusion provision in the CBA. The anti-collusion provision, which essentially prohibits the teams from acting in concert with each other with respect to the players' exercise of their free agency rights, is a necessary prerequisite in order for free agency to work properly (i.e. player salaries determined by an uninhibited free market). There is precedent that collusion does not require a "common agreement" among teams to suppress player salaries. Therefore, if, as a result of the agreement among the teams to lower the debt ceiling, teams are not able or willing to spend as much on salaries as they otherwise would in the absence of such an agreement, then the agreement violates the anti-collusion provision.
The second argument the union can make here is what I mentioned in the comments within my November post. It can be argued that lowering the debt cap constitutes a mandatory subject of collective bargaining that must be negotiated with the union and can't be unilaterally implemented by the league. Based on precedent interpreting what constitutes "wages" for purposes of mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, I don't see how the NLRB or any court could conclude that lowering the debt cap does not impact players' wages. But even if it's a permissive subject, then the league could be exposed to an antitrust lawsuit here. As a side note, MLB negotiated, and agreed to, its debt service rules with the MLBPA.
The league takes the position that reducing the debt cap was essentially a "business decision" in light of the current turmoil in the economy. As I noted in my November post, the NFLPA takes the position that lowering the debt ceiling could have a chilling effect on team spending for players because clubs frequently finance player compensation and signing bonuses with debt. Essentially, the union views the debt limitation as a restriction on free agency.
The NFLPA has two very strong claims in support of its position. First, the union can argue that imposing the debt limitation constitutes a breach of the anti-collusion provision in the CBA. The anti-collusion provision, which essentially prohibits the teams from acting in concert with each other with respect to the players' exercise of their free agency rights, is a necessary prerequisite in order for free agency to work properly (i.e. player salaries determined by an uninhibited free market). There is precedent that collusion does not require a "common agreement" among teams to suppress player salaries. Therefore, if, as a result of the agreement among the teams to lower the debt ceiling, teams are not able or willing to spend as much on salaries as they otherwise would in the absence of such an agreement, then the agreement violates the anti-collusion provision.
The second argument the union can make here is what I mentioned in the comments within my November post. It can be argued that lowering the debt cap constitutes a mandatory subject of collective bargaining that must be negotiated with the union and can't be unilaterally implemented by the league. Based on precedent interpreting what constitutes "wages" for purposes of mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, I don't see how the NLRB or any court could conclude that lowering the debt cap does not impact players' wages. But even if it's a permissive subject, then the league could be exposed to an antitrust lawsuit here. As a side note, MLB negotiated, and agreed to, its debt service rules with the MLBPA.
Howard Wins in Arbitration
Ryan Howard won his request for $10,000,000 from the Phillies. This represents the first hearing loss ever for the Phillies. The arbitration panel was Stephen Goldberg, Robert Bailey and Jack Clarke. According to my research, Goldberg’s panel record is 24-17 in favor of teams, and Bailey’s panels are 2-2. Clarke, who also sat on the Chien-Ming Wang panel this year, has a panel record of 9-8 in favor of players. This decision ties the record for the highest award. Previously, Alfonso Soriano was given a $10,000,000 award. However, he lost his case against the Washington Nationals in 2006 when he asked for $12,000,000.
NFL Reverses Position on Church Super Bowl Parties
According to my colleague Howard Friedman's Religion Clause blog, the NFL has reversed its position on whether churches could host "family friendly" Super Bowl parties without infringing on the league's IP rights. I blogged about the underlying dispute here. According to Howard's post,
in a Feb. 19 letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that starting next year, the league will not object to "live showings -- regardless of screen size -- of the Super Bowl" by religious organizations as long as the showings are free and are on premises that the church uses on a "routine and customary" basis.
FC BARCELONA: LIONEL MESSI TRIMS THE CELTIC CLOVER
From the city of Barcelona , from its based daily sports paper "MundoDeportivo" & its cartoon section "KAP" comes this post - matchcomment about the Celtic 2 - Fc Barcelona 3 result last night inChampions.The Barça Argentine forward MESSI was the star that gave his team thevictory with his two goals.
FC BARCELONA IS THE WORLD´s TOP NEWS GENERATOR
According to the University of Navarra (Spain) via its ESIrgBusiness School study, that was presented yesterday at the"Business Centre of Birbeck ( university of London), Spanishclub FC BARCELONA is the club that most generates news inthe World. The Nº1 spot is directly related to the fact that the clubhas in its squad Lionel Messi, Thierry Henry & Bojan ( picturedbelow) that grab most of the
Howard Decision Today - Perez and Rodriguez
Yesterday at the Renaissance Vinoy Resort and Golf Club in St. Petersburg, Florida, Ryan Howard, his father Ron, and agent Casey Close squared off against Astros president Tal Smith to see which side could convince a majority of three arbitrators that Howard either deserves the highest figure ever awarded to a first-year arbitration-eligible player ($10,000,000) or a modest raise from $900,000 to the Phillies offer of $7,000,000.
The Phillies have never lost a salary arbitration hearing. The $3,000,000 gap is considerable, and the largest in this arbitration cycle. Because Howard is a Super-2 player, Tal Smith argued that the $7,000,000 figure is more appropriate. Furthermore, with management winning all five hearings this year, I expect the Phillies and Smith will be happier today when the decision is announced. Service time, Howard’s 199 strikeouts, the drop in on-base percentage, batting average, and slugging percentage last year should also tip the scale towards the Phillies. Arbitrators have often been reluctant to award a huge increase, and that is exactly what they were asked to do in Howard’s case. There is no denying the great offensive production of the young slugger who was Rookie of the Year in 2005 and Most Valuable Player in 2006.
There were a number of fine articles posted yesterday including ones by Philadephia Inquirer columnist Jim Salisbury ("A Window on How Arbitration Works"), Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News ("Why Howard Will Win, Why He’ll Lose"), and MLB.com’s Ken Mandel, who posted a number of articles on MLB.com. Jon Heyman of si.com had some interesting inside information on the Chien-Ming Wang presentation ("Chien-Ming Wang) that underscores why it is difficult to predict outcomes when you have not heard the presentation. It is the same difficulty that one encounters when looking at appellate court decisions without consulting the briefs of counsel or, to a lesser extent, the oral arguments.
Oliver Perez of the Mets and Francisco Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim take their shots at management today. If the Howard decision goes to management as I think it will, the Mets and the Angels could produce the first-ever clean sweep of the hearings. It should be an interesting final few days.
The Phillies have never lost a salary arbitration hearing. The $3,000,000 gap is considerable, and the largest in this arbitration cycle. Because Howard is a Super-2 player, Tal Smith argued that the $7,000,000 figure is more appropriate. Furthermore, with management winning all five hearings this year, I expect the Phillies and Smith will be happier today when the decision is announced. Service time, Howard’s 199 strikeouts, the drop in on-base percentage, batting average, and slugging percentage last year should also tip the scale towards the Phillies. Arbitrators have often been reluctant to award a huge increase, and that is exactly what they were asked to do in Howard’s case. There is no denying the great offensive production of the young slugger who was Rookie of the Year in 2005 and Most Valuable Player in 2006.
There were a number of fine articles posted yesterday including ones by Philadephia Inquirer columnist Jim Salisbury ("A Window on How Arbitration Works"), Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News ("Why Howard Will Win, Why He’ll Lose"), and MLB.com’s Ken Mandel, who posted a number of articles on MLB.com. Jon Heyman of si.com had some interesting inside information on the Chien-Ming Wang presentation ("Chien-Ming Wang) that underscores why it is difficult to predict outcomes when you have not heard the presentation. It is the same difficulty that one encounters when looking at appellate court decisions without consulting the briefs of counsel or, to a lesser extent, the oral arguments.
Oliver Perez of the Mets and Francisco Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim take their shots at management today. If the Howard decision goes to management as I think it will, the Mets and the Angels could produce the first-ever clean sweep of the hearings. It should be an interesting final few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)