In his testimony, Giambi described how he had used syringes to inject human growth hormone into his stomach and testosterone into his buttocks. Giambi also said he had taken "undetectable" steroids known as "the clear" and "the cream" -- one a liquid administered by placing a few drops under the tongue, the other a testosterone-based balm rubbed onto the body.At this point, I'm sad for Giambi rather than morally outraged, as he's simply the tip of a huge, huge iceberg, a convenient scapegoat at which MLB and the media can now point fingers with the full confidence of his culpability. As I read the news on Thursday morning, I fired off an email to a few friends. "Pass the Match-Lite," I wrote, "MLB can't touch him, but the dude is going to get fucking barbecued. In the words of Hunter S. Thompson, the hog is in the tunnel, the fat is in the fire."
The 33-year-old Yankee said Anderson had provided him with all of the drugs except for human growth hormone, which he said he had obtained at a Las Vegas gym. Anderson also provided him syringes, Giambi said.
While I want to see the game I'm so passionate about come up with a sensible way to handle the problem, I see the failure to do already in the context of a labor-versus-management war that has waged continuously for the past 35 years. The owners have historically shown a strong aversion to bargaining in good faith and produced union-busting tactics such as collusion and replacement players, and they've offered up a general dishonesty about the game's financial state as well. None of this justifies the players' use of such substances, but the owners' actions haven't engendered the kind of trust necessary for the Major League Baseball Players Association to join the owners in constructing an effective and proactive means of combatting their usage either. While the players' conduct in this matter hasn't ben exemplary, their hands have yet to be forced, and the MLBPA didn't get to be the most powerful labor union in history by selling out its rank and file just to appease a casual fan's notion that everything was a chemical-free hunky dory.So rather than outrage, my first thought as the news broke was simply, "void his contract." I spend a lot of time studying the Yankee payroll, and I've referred to Giambi's portion of it as an albatross whether or not he's able to regain some semblance of his former productivity. As the market has shifted dramatically and it's become increasingly clear that Giambi's body is breaking down, the contract (seven years, $120 million, signed in December 2001) looks worse and worse:
Age/Year $(Base + S.B) WARP3 MDMWThe dollar amounts are in millions, of course. S.B. is the signing bonus, broken down based on the info here. MDMW stands for "marginal dollars per marginal win," calculated as Giambi's salary minus the minimum divided by win above replacement level. In 2002, the Yanks paid just under a million dollars per win above replacement for Giambi. In 2003, that figure rose to over 60 percent to about 1.6 million per win, and in 2004, well, it's an ugly $13.4 mil per win. Over the three years, the Yanks have paid $1.86 million per win, already a high figure -- that's like paying $18.6 million for a player who's 10 wins above replacement, obscene dollars for a level that's All-Star but not MVP in productivity. That's a figure that's unlikely to improve; to beat that in 2005, Giambi would have to put up 8.7 WARP, which might be attainable if the lights are with him all the way, but it's up to 10 WARP for a 35-year-old G in 2006, and 11.4 WARP for a 36-year old in '07. Absent some magic potions -- the problem to begin with, of course -- that isn't going to happen, and so any above-the-board opportunity for the team to get out of this deal (as opposed to some Howard Spira-type dirt-digging) should be pursued.
31/2002 8.0 + 3.0 10.9 0.98
32/2003 9.0 + 4.0 7.9 1.61
33/2004 10.0 + 4.0 1.1 13.36
34/2005 11.0 + 4.5
35/2006 18.0 + 1.0
36/2007 21.0 + 0.5
37/2008 21.0
38/2009 22.0/5.0 buyout
total 120.0 minimum
• The player must agree to keep himself in first-class physical condition and adhere to all training rules set by the club.But one problem the Yankees will face in their quest to void the contract, a quest that's already underway, is that Giambi's admission has been leaked from sealed testimony under a guarantee of immunity and a promise of confidentiality; only if he's called to testify in a trial or if it's submitted as evidence in same is it supposed to be public knowledge, and there's no grounds for legal punishment. Baseball can't discipline him under its drug policy because he hasn't tested positive, though Commissioner Bud Selig could invoke his broad "best interests of baseball" powers. That would be a sure ticket to a showdown with the players' union, adding yet another ring to this already-growing circus.
• The use or misuse of illegal or prescription drugs can be interpreted to mean the player is not keeping himself in first-class physical condition.
A buyout could be attractive for the Yankees because it would sidestep the fact that Giambi's admission of illegal steroid use, contained in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle about Giambi's purported grand jury testimony in the Balco case, amounts to hearsay at this point and carries no legal heft.Getting back to the UPC, the Yanks can pursue their case along the lines of what Curry is reporting:
On the other hand, any buyout plan would have to win the approval of the Major League Baseball Players Association, and that might not be possible, no matter what the terms.
... The union's approval of any Giambi buyout would be needed because it would represent a devaluation of an existing contract, as was the case with [Alex] Rodriguez [in the failed negotiations which would have sent him to Boston last winter]. And a devaluation cannot occur without the union's approval, regardless of the player's desire.
If the Yankees no longer wanted Giambi, the union would undoubtedly maintain that the club should simply release him and pay him the remainder of his contract. Giambi would then be free to sign with any team he wanted, with that team owing him only baseball's minimum salary.
For the moment, the Yankees are incensed with Giambi. A baseball official who was briefed on a meeting between the Yankees and the commissioner's office on Thursday said the Yankees felt Giambi misled the team's medical staff while he was being treated for an intestinal parasite and a pituitary tumor last season. The official said the Yankees told the commissioner's office that the team questioned Giambi about possible use of steroids and that he denied using them, which had an impact on the medical treatment he received.In our little email coffee klatch, my brother (a frequent and intelligent contributor to the comments section of this site) pointed out the inherent contradiction of the Yanks pursuing some recourse against Giambi when they never attempted to discipline Sheffield. But the two cases aren't parallel for a number of reasons. First, there's a significant contrast to their culpability in their own testimony, and to their levels of admitted involvement in the use of illegal substances. Second, there is little to suggest that the time Sheffield missed in his lone season with the Yanks was due to that steroid use, though the man's spotty injury history over the course of his career certainly invites speculation as to whether his vulnerability to injury was chemically related. On the other hand, there are now well-connected dots regarding Giambi's time missed while under contract with the Yankees, especially with regards to his medical treatment last summer, hence the team's desire to terminate the deal.
Labels: steroids
June 2001 July 2001 August 2001 September 2001 October 2001 November 2001 December 2001 January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]