WBWSF Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Cano recently tested hot for drugs. He's not the first player and won't be the last player testing positive for drugs. I've always wondered why the owners don't cover themselves when it comes to players using dope. I would think that owners wouldn't want to be responsible for the remainder of the players contract after his suspension was up. The Mariners will still owe Cano some serious money when his suspension is over. I'm surprised that the owners don't have some type of clause in their contracts that they're not responsible for the rest of the contract if the player gets suspended for drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Because the owners dont mind making money when the "hot" player is performing well. When you are GM you can put that clause into contracts though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Unless you got all the other owners to take a similar pledge (opening yourself up to collusion charges for limiting players’ potential earnings)...you would put yourself at a huge competitive disadvantage. It would be like if teams refused to ever give player options in their FA contracts or never worked with Scott Boras clients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnin' two Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, WBWSF said: Cano recently tested hot for drugs. He's not the first player and won't be the last player testing positive for drugs. I've always wondered why the owners don't cover themselves when it comes to players using dope. I would think that owners wouldn't want to be responsible for the remainder of the players contract after his suspension was up. The Mariners will still owe Cano some serious money when his suspension is over. I'm surprised that the owners don't have some type of clause in their contracts that they're not responsible for the rest of the contract if the player gets suspended for drugs. It is my understanding that something like this would have to be addressed in a collective bargaining agreement and can't just be put into individual contracts until that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 21 minutes ago, turnin' two said: It is my understanding that something like this would have to be addressed in a collective bargaining agreement and can't just be put into individual contracts until that happens. This. Pretty sure it wouldn't fly with the union either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.