Soriano refuses to play

What a crock! If he doesn't show up again, send him to the minors, he can play 2nd there. Tough luck for the Nats, they got screwed in this deal.

Infielddad....couldn't agree with you more....will be interesting to see how it plays out.....when one thinks himself more important than the whole....what happens to the team?

A tough one for the Nationals......hope they hold the line.......

Suspend without pay indefinitely...

Who's his advisor, Latrell Sprewell or T.O.?

What a big baby. I don't tolerate it on our youth team (I sat my own son ONCE because he didn't want to play the outfield, never happened again), sure the heck shouldn't be tolerated just because someone has a big contract.

Just put him on the suspended list now. No pay, no time credited. Nationals don't have to do anything and even if he sits the season he will not be a free agent next year because of the contract he signed. He's the Nationals property for a year when he playing, on the suspended list the clock and calendar will not start. He will be begging to play sooner than you think.

Not to agree with high paid players but soriano agreed to go there because he was talked into it.If the team deactivates him he wont be paid so he is giving up alot,10 million dollars..I tend to look at this as maybe if they dont want him to play the position he is comfortable with maybe he will just retire..Do you think he needs the money giving up 10 mil. I think there was some lieing goin on somwhere and a man standing up for his rights...Imho

He was awarded $10 million and signed a contract. He got traded, a part of the deal in MLB. Too bad, so sad, now pack up and go play in DC. Unless his pact stipulates that he gets to say where he plays and bats in an order, he's obligated to play and presently in violation of the agreement.

and he doesnt collect the 10 mill if he doesnt play simple as that....

Not surprised and neither should the NATS considering there is a history here of Soriano refusing to consider a move to the OF as well as the Rangers not allowing the NATS to talk to Soriano prior to consummating the deal.

Classic case of Owners vs Union.

- Has the potential for the lawyers to obtain some easy bucks here!

- And if becomes a case, has the potential to reach the higher courts (if not the highest court) in the land!

- MLB Players Union might need/want 'another Marvin Miller' to set precedence!

- I am unable to recall any other DQ (as suggested by the Bowden) after Curt Flood and MLB free agency.

- Bowden could and should be 'fired' by the owners for 'taking a $10M gamble' and NOT asking, and then backing out when Texas GM put the red flags up!

- I haven't leaned to either side (owners vs players) yet. Yet sitting on the fence is no fun either!

- One thing is clear Bowden's fatal mistake is when he delegated F. Robinson to resolve his problem.

Stay Tuned

Bear

Bear, How is the Soriano situation anything like Curt Flood, the reserve clause issues and Marvin Miller's efforts to obtain union status, free agency and happening to "fall" into arbitration rights...since they were the suggestion of the owners.
Soriano has the benefits of all those efforts. Went to arbitration and lost...to the tune of $10,000,000 being his salary. He has a contract to play baseball that was traded to Washington. So far as I know, he does not have a contract to play 2nd base.
Would be interested in hearing why this equates with the efforts of Miller/Flood. I think Soriano is the beneficiary of all they did and the issues don't compare.

The owners deserve what they get.

They constantly "cave-in" to principle; and, don't be surprised if it happens in this case, too.

There are two fundamental isues here.

1) Human beings are not property.

2) If one party to a contract seeks to change the nature or provisions of that contract to the detriment of one party of the contract, the contract is null and void.

Sorianno is not property.

He signed a contract with Texas at a position that has brought him prosperity and renown. Demanding that he perform at a position other than the stated or implied position without his agreement voids the contract.

Been, the owners clearly have the most to lose if this issue is not managed correctly. Can you imagine anyone agreeing to be a manager of a MLB club if Soriano and his approach prevail? Can you imagine the impact on major league baseball itself. Put Manny, David Wells and a few others in place of Soriano and analyze the consequences to MLB if they do not properly manage and prevail.
BTW, Mississippi State in #1 in the BA Poll. I expected a flurry of posts...but I know you are too reserved to "brag".

quote:

He signed a contract with Texas at a position that has brought him prosperity and renown. Demanding that he perform at a position other than the stated or implied position without his agreement voids the contract.

Willie, suggesting that the contract is for Soriano to play 2nd base as opposed to playing baseball is a pretty big leap, I think. While crazy things happen, I haven't seen anything to suggest his contract is to play 2B.
To suggest that it is an implied term of the contract seems the best you can argue. While Soriano is not "property" his contract clearly is and that is what has been traded and what Soriano signed. That is why I support the players in almost every situation... except I really have a problem with this one.

Infielddad....agree.....if Soriano prevails....then he sets a precedent that a player can pick and choose their position...... That would be devastating....for all owners....not to mention the managers. Can you really see that happening? Hope not.....

Playing for Frank Robinson, one of the greatest and truly toughest players of all time, could be the best thing that could ever happen to Soriano. Let's face it, the Yankees gave up on him because he strikes out too much and can't field his position adequately. Rangers followed suit. At some point he needs to stop being a selfish player who loves hitting the long ball and put in the work to be a complete player.

Contrast this to a guy like Chipper Jones, who willingly went to LF and then got bounced back to 3B, as and when his team needed. That's why he has an MVP and a lot of playoff experience on his resume. Or how about a guy like Craig Biggio? Is it any wonder the Yankees gave up Soriano (who refused to move positions) to get A-Rod (who moved willingly)?

Soriano needs a swift kick in the butt, so that he can learn what being a winner is all about. Luckily for him, he plays for Frank Robinson, and he'll get exactly what he needs. This is probably the turning point in Soriano's career, and as soon as he gets his head out of its current darkened location and sees some sunshine he just might appreciate that.

Look at Nomar Garciaparra. There was a time when he would sulk over things like this. Now, he recognizes how lucky he is to be playing MLB. He went to 3B and now 1B to try to play and help his team. Kudos to him! Now let's see Soriano follow suit.

LadyNmom, the owners have traditionally hired "baseball men" to run their teams. When those baseball men get into legal situations, they tend to handle them like...baseball men.
If it is true that Bowden met with or tried to meet with Soriano before the trade to discuss a move to the outfield, didn't get that issue resolved, and then made the trade, he may well have acted like a "good baseball man." Probably saved a few dollars in legal fees...on the front end and may pay dearly in the long run.

If Sorianno is oferred an agreement to play for the Texas Rangers (where he has been playing second base), and Texas knowingly makes the offer and trade knowing that the Nationals are seeking an outfielder, an element of fraud enters the equation.

Sorianno would have been denied reasonable consideration of his duties in the contract.

When Sorianno finds that he has been defrauded, he must refuse to perform. He is thusly withholding his assent to the new terms or conditions.

Omar and the Mets would be glad to have him at second base.

Willie, being "ignorant" and perhaps "egocentric" on both sides does not equate to fraud. There isn't any fraud here.
BTW, I got to watch the Dominican team on Saturday. Soriano did not start at 2B probably because he was 0-WBC. Came up as a pinch hitter with 2 outs in the 9th. If there were such a thing as a "fraud" on the baseball field, that at bat looked to qualify.

Sorry, Willie, but you're nuts. Go to work tomorrow, have your boss change your job description, and refuse to do the job. Real world...you're canned.

Part of the problem with these pampered multimillionaires is that they have no touch with reality.

There is no way "we" can know what Soriano was told when he left Texas (just like we don't know if the Yankees "gave up on him" cuz he couldn't hit or couldn't field!)
LOL
4 time All Star.

What I would like to know is what the National's have done to prepare him to play this new position? Anyone?

Knowing a little bit about what is involved or what SHOULD be involved in a position change at this level, makes me a little curious about penciling him in to LF without proper preparation. Who's been working with him out there? I read since he's been back in camp he's only taken infield?

Of course I think he should play where the team needs him but the club should also put him in a position to succeed. Maybe they have?
We don't know, do we?

Sounds like both sides need some adjustments.

One element of fraud is taking undue advantage or having superior knowledge.

Since this is not a contract of indentured servitude, the contract should be voided or Texas should be liable for his salary.

Sorianno may be the most productive second baseman in the history of the game.

Interesting legal question here. Do I understand correctly from the discussion so far that Soriano went to arbitration and got the $10 million contract through that process? This is what infielddad says. If so, it could be very much the next step in the Curt Flood precedent. Does arbitration still work the same way it used to? You go in you say, I am a 2B who hits .270 with 30 home runs a year with 10 errors [hypothetical, of course]. The player says, I am worth 20 Million Dollars to my present ball club hitting that in that position and the club says, no you are worth $10 million. Arbitrator picks one figure or the other. No compromise unless made outside of arbitration. If so, might be very interesting how this plays out.

Curt Flood refused a trade to Philidelphia from St. Louis and sat out a year with no pay to try and void his one year contract. Courts ruled that the contract was binding on a player for as long as MLB wanted and said Anti-trust laws did not apply to MLB.

So far, Soriano did not veto the trade [don't know if he could] nor has he quit or retired. He refuses to play outfield, a position where his batting average and home runs will probably not make him worth $10 million in arbitration next time around when compared to other outfielders with the same batting average, home runs, etc. Might make for some very interesting legal manuverings on the part of both sides. Doubt if either side [union or owners] want that fight but that doesn't mean Soriano might not want it and has legal counsel that will fight it. In that way [being left out to dry by the union] it might turn out to be like Curt Flood.

TW344

quote:

Originally posted by WillieBobo:
One element of fraud is taking undue advantage or having superior knowledge.

Since this is not a contract of indentured servitude, the contract should be voided or Texas should be liable for his salary.

Sorianno may be the most productive second baseman in the history of the game.

Watching him field is taking undue advantage of the fans ... does that mean that he should be liable for the ticket prices of everyone who came to see him????

Get real WB ..... the big words sound nice and fancy, but you don't have a leg (and neither does Soriano) to stand on.

Without specific language in the contract calling for Soriano to dictate to the organization which position he plays, he is groundless and in violation of the agreement. It is no more complex than that.

Unless his Texas contract that was traded to the NATS stipulates (and hit may these days!) that he is to play 2B, don't see how he or the union have a leg to stand on.

His parents had a meeting in Frank Robinson's office this morning. We'll have to wait and see. Rumor has it that there may be another parent waiting also.

BTW, he lost his arbitration case and was awarded the 10 Mil the Nationals offered.

Williebobo,

It is up to the Nats to determine whether they make the trade or not...no fraud there. They just didn't do their homework and made the trade anyway.

I feel for them, but I am glad the Rangers got rid of him. The Mets want him, they should trade for him and watch him butcher ball after ball at 2nd.

If the Nats GM did try and meet with Soriano before he made the trade, and if that discussion was to discuss a move to the outfield from 2B, and then made the trade when TX refused to allow the meeting, Soriano may have an argument that playing 2B was an "implied" term of the contract that was recognized by both sides. If the GM did not think it was part of the "deal" so to speak, then he will have to explain why he wanted to discuss this with Soriano. By making the trade knowing Soriano's position and without clarifying things, Bowden opened himself up for this. Like I said before, "good baseball men."
Willie, I think you made a valid point with the "implied" term in the contract. Can't buy in to the rest though.

Willie, you are correct in stating that Soriano has the right to refuse to play. The Nationals then have the right to place him on the suspended list. Everyone has rights.

Willie, he is not an employee-at-will who may quit or be fired at any time. He signed a contract. Maybe the contract covers the situation, but I doubt it.

This has been an interesting discussion. At first glance, it indeed appears that Soriano is the party in breach of contract. I hadn't really considered the potential implied terms of the contract as noted above.

I know this would not happen, but suppose they asked Soriano to catch or pitch. I doubt his contract stipulates against those endeavors. Many would probably then favor Soriano's position if they asked something unreasonable like that from him. Maybe he feels it would be unreasonable to play the outfield based on the implied terms and thus, maybe he can make an argument. I know this is a stretch, just something to consider.

I just read the latest newswire release....and not to make light of the situation, but it does sound so Little League....obviously it's not childish to Soriano....he must have his reasons, but it doesn't look good for him.

I've only worked with manufacturing labor agreements/contracts...know they are very different from an MLB contract.....but we would never negotiate language into the contract....or set a precedent.....that would allow an employee to decline to work an assigned position.....why would the Nationals?

I had to laugh at Willie's suggestion that Soriano is maybe the most productive 2B in MLB history. Soriano loves to hit the long ball, and he certainly is adept at that. But he also K's with disturbing frequency and he is regarded as a liability in the field.

Better than Joe Morgan? Ryne Sandberg? Heck, I'd take Craig Biggio over him and maybe Jeff Kent, too.

As for whether he's been prepared to play OF: This is spring training. He just got to his team's camp, and the first thing they did was try to get him some work out there, now, when it doesn't count. He refused.

If he wanted to play 2B, he had all sorts of time to work on his defense and try to supplant Vidro. Doesn't look like the Nats think he made it that far.

I imagine Mickey Mantle would be in the same boat as Soriano with all his strike outs.

Soriano was traded to Texas when Texas already had a second baseman. I would think that it can be unsettling to an athlete to never know what days you'll be playing.

We can say that a player should win his spot every time out, but these guys are high strung primadonnas.

I hope whatever decision is made is in favor of Soriano.

Bowden seems to have known in advance that Soriano had no interest in playing outfield.

I hope the Carps are watching and ready to bring him back to Japan.

First Five Full Seasons

Soriano.........902 hits,159 hr,461 rbi,281 avg
Morgan..........693 hits, 48 hr,219 rbi,267 avg
Sandberg........901 hits, 74 hr,345 rbi,287 avg

When he came to Texas, the Rangers wanted to move him to SS and he refused. They kept him a 2b.

Glad that man is gone from Arlington.

Again, without a specific stipulation providing Soriano with the ability to choose his position and superceding the manager, he hasn't got a leg to stand on legally. He's free and in the United States, so he has the right not to go to left field if he doesn't want to. But for every action in this situation there will be an equal and opposite reaction, which includes the suspended list. My gut tells me that Soriano is attempting to force a trade, knowing that the Nats aren't moving him to 2B. Too bad he has to make himself look so bad in the process.

Take a different angle. Today he goes to left field and again tomorrow and again the next day. Doesn't make a single play, do they keep him in left or find another spot? I believe when he came up with the Yankees it was right around the time Chuck Knobloch went to left..