Angels are considering punishment for Gary Matthews Jr...

stlmark · Post by **stlmark** » March 8 07, 3:40 pm

Angels, I've heard, are actually trying to void the contract they have with Gary Matthews Jr.

Here's the story:

The Los Angeles Angels are growing frustrated by Gary Matthews Jr.'s refusal to provide information about his alleged purchase of HGH and haven't ruled out disciplining their new $50 million outfielder if he doesn't offer details in the coming weeks, according to a story in Thursday's New York Daily News.

Matthews, who signed a five-year contract with the Angels in the offseason, and other Major League Baseball players reportedly were on a customer list of a Mobile, Ala., pharmacy, one of two raided in February in connection with a nationwide investigation into the illegal sale of steroids.

For now, Angels spokesman Tim Mead said the club "we're not going down that road now" toward punishment, but he didn't hide the fact that club management will press Matthews for information.

"We want as much information as Gary can provide, but he can't or won't tell us anything," Mead said, according to a story in the New York Daily News on Thursday. "There is a sense of frustration here because of the lack of information. Everyone understands this is a legal issue but there is a sense of frustration. We feel like this is hanging over our heads.

"We'd like this resolved by Opening Day."

[/quote]

mcgee51taguchi99 · Post by **mcgee51taguchi99** » March 8 07, 4:03 pm

Matthews is probably not permitted to talk to the team about it, knowing how the Players' Union handles this type of stuff. To make a statement that this needs to be "resolved" by Opening Day is a bit troubling. If this investigation or whatever is still going on then, which is to be expected, the team either has to back down or force themselves into doing something (a suspension?) they might not want to. In two words: bad move.

Post by **heyzeus** » March 8 07, 4:09 pm

Good luck, Angels. The Player's Union knows how to handle such things.

G. Keenan · Post by **G. Keenan** » March 8 07, 5:41 pm

They gave him a terrible contract so if they can void it they're lucky.

stlmark · Post by **stlmark** » March 8 07, 9:47 pm

G. Keenan wrote:They gave him a terrible contract so if they can void it they're lucky.

I don't think they will ever be able to void it. No chance.

Jmodene · Post by **Jmodene** » March 8 07, 10:02 pm

Actually, there is standard language in baseball contracts that would allow them to void the contract - but the Players' Union will fight that tooth and nail, just as they were (or are they still?) fighting the Ponson release from Baltimore in 2005.

Ultimately, this could prove an important test case, especially if it winds up in the courts.

Mary1966 · Post by **Mary1966** » March 8 07, 10:09 pm

Jmodene wrote:Actually, there is standard language in baseball contracts that would allow them to void the contract - but the Players' Union will fight that tooth and nail, just as they were (or are they still?) fighting the Ponson release from Baltimore in 2005.

Ultimately, this could prove an important test case, especially if it winds up in the courts.

I haven't heard anything new about Sidney's case since last August, but I presume it is still being contested. I think the Orioles have a chance to prevail in Sidney's case, I think the Angels have zero chance of voiding Matthews' contract.