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.