Jason Grimsley naming names in baseball.

[Stogiefanatic182]

baseball is fuked, plain and simple. It pains me to turn on sportscenter every morning and hear more crap about roids but its better to get the people who are doing roids outa the sport asap.

[Wetterhorn]

And now Grimsley wants to still get paid by the D-backs. Unreal.

[cb25]

Originally Posted by gw-smith

Grimsley's a dickhead - he should keep his mouth shut and take his lumps. Why go and tattle on everyone else and who knows whether he's telling the truth or making this shit up as he goes.

well said.

i honestly don't care about who uses, etc...i know the baseball purists are screaming bloody murder about this "scandal" but i could care less.

and floydp had a great point about bonds too. if he was the nicest guy in the history of the game, this whole ordeal would've played out a lot differently. but he's not, he's an ass, so everyone's gunning for him.

[jcruz1027]

In a perfect world he wouldn't get paid...but in a country where we are governed by law, Grimsley will get paid. I know the Diamondbacks filed papers not to pay him but if you look at the technical merrits of the case, he never failed a MLB drug test and hasn't been found guilty or even charged with anything thus his release falls under the category of every other player who gets released and they get paid under the CBA. Right or wrong, thats how it will shake down. Innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. The Diamondbacks don't have a leg to stand on according to the CBA.

Originally Posted by Wetterhorn

And now Grimsley wants to still get paid by the D-backs. Unreal.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by jcruz1027

In a perfect world he wouldn't get paid...but in a country where we are governed by law, Grimsley will get paid. I know the Diamondbacks filed papers not to pay him but if you look at the technical merrits of the case, he never failed a MLB drug test and hasn't been found guilty or even charged with anything thus his release falls under the category of every other player who gets released and they get paid under the CBA. Right or wrong, thats how it will shake down. Innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. The Diamondbacks don't have a leg to stand on according to the CBA.

Actually your comments are incorrect

The only way to know definitively whehter or not he will be paid is to:

1) Look at the contract he signed, and the clause or clauses being cited by the Diamondbacks for not paying him. I'm assuming the Diamondbacks "have a leg to stand on", otherwise they wouldn't even bother refusing to pay him.

2) Look at the CBA and again, the clause or clauses being cited by the Diamondbacks for not paying. Same rationale applies as above.

3) Unless I'm mistaken, Grimsley has admitted using illegal or banned substances. The Diamondbacks don't have to "prove" anything.

[tadams17]

There are so many using Illegal drugs in [SIZE="5"]all[/SIZE] sports not just baseball. Baseball's just under the microscope right now... At least they are trying to get it right...I really dont care who they name...I'll still watch baseball and continue to support it..

[jcruz1027]

(1) And what are the clauses? In his own comments the managing partner said they believe they are doing the "moral" thing. He didn't say it was the legal or common sense thing but the moral thing by refusing to pay.

(2) The manner inwhich Grimsley was released was an "unconditional release" which historically means the player receives his pay due according to the CBA since MLB nor the team has suspended him for failing a MLB drug test. If he failed a test he would be suspended for 50 games and pay for those 50 games would be withheld. The team nor MLB has suspended him for violating the substance abuse policy.

The CBA states:

A Player whose Contract is terminated by a Club during the season under paragraph 7(b)(2) of the Uniform Player’s Contract
for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability shall be
entitled to receive termination pay from the Club in an amount equal
to the unpaid balance of the full salary stipulated in paragraph 2 of his
Contract for that season.

There are many clauses in the CBA dealing with convinction of buying or distributing banned substances but not of them have to do with forfeiting the remaining seasons pay and as pointed out earlier, Grimsley hasn't even been charged with a crime or even suspended by the team or league.

I agree he shouldn't be paid but in the end I think he will.

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

Actually your comments are incorrect

The only way to know definitively whehter or not he will be paid is to:

1) Look at the contract he signed, and the clause or clauses being cited by the Diamondbacks for not paying him. I'm assuming the Diamondbacks "have a leg to stand on", otherwise they wouldn't even bother refusing to pay him.

2) Look at the CBA and again, the clause or clauses being cited by the Diamondbacks for not paying. Same rationale applies as above.

3) Unless I'm mistaken, Grimsley has admitted using illegal or banned substances. The Diamondbacks don't have to "prove" anything.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by jcruz1027

(1) And what are the clauses? In his own comments the managing partner said they believe they are doing the "moral" thing. He didn't say it was the legal or common sense thing but the moral thing by refusing to pay.

(2) The manner inwhich Grimsley was released was an "unconditional release" which historically means the player receives his pay due according to the CBA since MLB nor the team has suspended him for failing a MLB drug test. If he failed a test he would be suspended for 50 games and pay for those 50 games would be withheld. The team nor MLB has suspended him for violating the substance abuse policy.

The CBA states:

A Player whose Contract is terminated by a Club during the season under paragraph 7(b)(2) of the Uniform Player’s Contract
for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability shall be
entitled to receive termination pay from the Club in an amount equal
to the unpaid balance of the full salary stipulated in paragraph 2 of his
Contract for that season.

There are many clauses in the CBA dealing with convinction of buying or distributing banned substances but not of them have to do with forfeiting the remaining seasons pay and as pointed out earlier, Grimsley hasn't even been charged with a crime or even suspended by the team or league.

I agree he shouldn't be paid but in the end I think he will.

pm sent