Voiding K-Rod’s contract won’t be a slam dunk.

Let’s hope the Mets’ front office shows more fight, more spunk and aggressiveness in dealing with Francisco Rodriguez’s contract than it did in addressing their myriad of holes in the offseason.

RODRIGUEZ: Another Mets mess

Since this one is about saving money, bet on it.

In a punkish rage, Rodriguez hit the 53-year-old father of his girlfriend and tore a ligament in his throwing hand, and consequently will be lost for the season.

No matter the igniting words, Rodriguez was out of control did not act like a professional, but a thug. With a history of confrontations on the back of his personal baseball card, Rodriguez had know his behavior was under examination.

When Rodriguez left the clubhouse for the Family Lounge in search of his father-in-law, he was thinking of his own feelings and not his teammates or the ramifications of his actions.

Because of that, he put himself in the position where he could not physically live up the obligations of his contract and be ready to pitch.

The Mets need to hammer that point home, along with the message there is accountability and standards in this organization.

There will be a fight from the Players Association, but so be it. The Mets should go in this knowing it could get messy, but also knowing they are doing the right thing.

If Rodriguez were hurt in a game, not be able to pitch again, he’d get every dime even though he couldn’t perform.

But, Rodriguez was hurt committing assault; he was hurt breaking the law.

Rodriguez is to make $11.5 million this year and next, and has a $17.5 million vesting option with a $3.5 million buyout. The option kicks in if he finishes 100 combined games in 2010 and 2011, or 55 games in 2011.

But, these are the Mets and nothing is ever that season. Complicating matters is that Rodriguez pitched a 1-2-3 inning Saturday without apparent difficulty.

The Mets are saying Rodriguez was injured in the fight, but there are no reports of him getting treatment from the time of the incident to when he pitched.

13 thoughts on “Voiding K-Rod’s contract won’t be a slam dunk.

  1. JD: its the Mets magically Injury machine.
    Have an issue with the player well look at that. there’s a lovely spot on the DL for him.

    So far whenever the Mets needed breathing room the player in question was “injured” and DL-ed. Too much of a coincidence if you ask me.

    No matter, K-Rod was wrong he should be let go, if any one of us did this at our everyday job we would expect to be out on the street.

  2. 3. yep it just means that the mets finally got caught.
    Niese was allegedly “injured” as well when he got taken out a few days ago, which was news to Niese.

    Suffice it to say The mets need to kick this man to the curb. taki can close.

  3. (3/5) JD: I don’t get your point. There has been no sign of the Mets knowing he was injured before he pitched, and it would be unprecedented to tear a thumb ligament by throwing a pitch. And he didn’t take a pitch off his hand either. So you are speculating just for the sake of speculating.

  4. Anyway, voiding a contract especially with this players union is NEVER a slam dunk. I think if the Mets are lucky, they will be able to get the rest of this years contract voided. This is not a career ending injury. Regardless they can not let this man throw another pitch in a Met uniform.

  5. Steve O (6): I’m just saying the Players Association will use that he pitched as part of their case. … And, you’re right, he should not be allowed to pitch for the Mets again regardless.-JD

  6. 7. Steve-O i was reading somewhere 7a or b of the contract,. there’s a clause about conduct. found this in a newspaper post:

    The Uniform Player Contract in Baseball contains at least two clauses that would empower the Mets to void Rodriguez’s deal. Paragraph 7(b)(1) authorizes a team to terminate a contract if a player “fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the club’s training rules.” Paragraph 7(b)(3) similarly lets teams terminate a contract if a player “fails, refuses or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any manner materially breach this contract.”

    Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/michael_mccann/08/17/mets.krod.contract/#ixzz0wtMymm00

  7. (9) Steve C: Nothing would make me more happier than to see the Mets be able to get the entire contract voided, no matter if it leaves a bigger hole in the pen or not. I hope they do, but I doubt if the entire contract will get voided.

  8. 11. probably so. but remember i said it last night and it came true. there’s always taki.