AngelsSurfer

So does the MLBPA have to review every specific contract before it's approved and signed? If they did review the contract and let that sort of language into the contract when it was first signed, and Hamilton and his agent knowingly agreed to it, it could get sticky.

According to the original posts on this, they were expecting him to be resuming baseball activities in three weeks and be out for six-eight weeks total. If he had the surgery in early February, we're past 6-8 weeks now. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/josh-hamilton-needs-shoulder-surgery--doubtful-for-opening-day-001103883.html It sounds as though he had this surgery, since they talked about shaving down the bone. According to this site, " Many patients regain normal use of their arms within three weeks with the help of physical therapy. However, recovery time after distal clavicle excision greatly varies depending on your body’s natural ability to heal and build scar tissue in your AC joint." http://www.iskinstitute.com/kc/shoulder/acromioclavicular_joint_arthrtis/t2.html According to Johns Hopkins, even patients who have more complicated AC joint surgery are back to normal activities within three months. http://www.hopkinsortho.org/ac_joint.html

I hope they will give him some time to develop and then give him another shot.

Wasn't the original plan to platoon Cowgill and Joyce in LF for now? I surely hope that plan has gone out the window. Cowgill has demonstrated that he should be playing every day. I'd rather see Green there than Joyce as a backup.

Ruckinski's so rattled at this point. But I still think he could be great. Richards wasn't awesome on his first outings either.

First MLB start, the nerves are kicking in. And those two runs were on Joyce, not Rucinski. That should have been an easy catch for Trout.

At this point I actually can see them releasing Hamilton, because it seems as though they just want him gone, cost or no cost. I can also see them trying to go to court to recoup some money or avoid paying him 100% of his salary.

Point taken. But the guys on the field don't have anything to do with the lockers, do they? They've stuck up for him, even expressing dissent against Dipoto's comments. And Scioscia seems to be publicly still commenting on him as he would comment on any other player. So...Even if he couldn't come to the clubhouse because the Powers that Be told him he wasn't wanted there, couldn't he at least say something to support his teammates? A tweet, a short press release, anything?

I have to agree with this. Their reaction is too visceral for something not to have happened.

And there's this: Is anyone still doubting that he's ditched his teammates?

It seemed as though he wasn't defending Trout, in a sense, by implying that the trajectory of the line drive was deliberate and that Ventura was somehow justified in saying anything...not okay. Interesting who CJ chooses to defend, or not.

Depends on where they work, but it's against their professional code of ethics and they can be cited, suspended or lose their licenses if they're found to be under the influence on the job. The question still stands...do you want someone doing your dental work who is high on something and can't clearly tell what they're doing? It isn't a morality issue, it is a safety one.

Depends on the job. And drug tests sometimes look for legal drugs, like prescription opiates. For many jobs it is extremely dangerous to have someone under the influence of anything...legal or not. Do you want your firefighters or airplane pilot or dentist to be drunk or high? That's what it is about, safety.

Here's the thing with the whole "if he were producing, nobody would care" comment. It's a bit of a simplifcation. Maybe it should be more, "if he were contributing to the team in some way, nobody would care." It's a baseball team, not a rest home. They need guys there who can help the team. They will support those players. Why is that such a bad thing? The Angels have certainly had players on their team who haven't done well in one respect, but shone in another. I'm thinking of John McDonald last year. If you looked at his batting average you might have wondered what he was doing there, but he was a defensive wizard and was also said to be a very positive and encouraging presence around the clubhouse. If that were Josh - he wasn't getting a lot of hits but had other positive qualities around the clubhouse - would the reaction still be different? I think it would be. The thing is, Hamilton's got absolutely nothing. Not good at-bats, not good defense. No reports that he's encouraging or positive in the clubhouse. So he's really bringing nothing to the team at this point. Add in the relapse and one has to wonder why any team would be compelled to keep him. One also has to wonder why any team would be villified for trying to cut a player like that loose.

Josh hasn't "demonstrated value" in the two years he's been with the Angels, and now he's supposedly "rehabbing" an injury with no timeline or drive to come back to the game. Even before the whole drug reporting fiasco went down, you never really heard him saying "yeah, I can't wait to come back, I'm working hard to get in shape and help the team!" Why would anyone think even for a moment that returning him to play would have any positive outcome? All it would do is create an empty spot in the batting lineup and deny another player -- someone who HAS worked hard and been a team player -- the ability to play.

What CJ is missing is that there's merit to that. If Hamilton were putting up good numbers, he would be contributing something to the team. If he had terrible ABs but was a defensive wizard, he would be contributing. If he were simply a guy who was a positive and encouraging teammate and helped his peers off the field, ditto. But he's got nothing. There is absolutely nothing he is adding either on or off the field. And one would be hard pressed to figure out why the front office would support a player in that instance.

I noticed they don't even have Hamilton stuff on the bargain racks...you can still get a Trumbo jersey but there's nary a Hamilton shirt there. They really have removed all traces.

Yeah, I took exception to that too. The Angels have a pretty decent track record with how they treat their players. They are not known to be like, say, the Wilpons who shit all over their players on the Mets team publicly. I remember the ish where they insinuated that Ike Davis liked to party too much and it actually ended up following him for years...turned out the dude.had Valley Fever and didn't party hard at all.Anyway, if there's a drug addict player out there, yeah, they might be saying, "the Angels won't put up with relapses, better stay away." Anyone else? I doubt it. This is one player, with whom they have reason to be pissed...and whom they have treated with kid gloves up until now.

He was not present at spring training. He wasn't even issued a locker. There were no photos or accounts of his being there even in the stands. Compare that to Tyler Skaggs who won't even be back this year, but was there running drills. He has not been present in Anaheim. Again, compare that to Skaggs and Richards, who have made road trips with the team voluntarily while on the DL. Everything that has been said and verified with the press has said that he has spent the entire spring training with a "friend" in Texas. He wanted to do that. The Angels let him do it - again, trying to act in his best interests. They could have ordered him to show up to ST and rehab with the Angels trainers. They didn't. The fact that he stayed away voluntarily speaks volumes, imho. He hasn't so much as even written a public tweet saying "hey good luck guys," has he?!

When you repeat a mistake, it is not a mistake anymore: it's a decision. -- Paolo Coelho But none of that absolves Hamilton of his responsibility or means he should not be held fully accountable for his actions. Let's try this with another illness. Let's say our Player X has Type 1 diabetes. Some people in my family have that so let's use it here. It's genetic. He can't help having it at all. It's sometimes hard to control, especially since it is affected by all sorts of outside factors, as well as fluctuating hormones, etc. Player X has to wear an insulin pump. The owner of the team is fully aware that Player X has some needs that are different from other players because of his illness. The owner is also aware that if Player X has some sort of complications he might be out of commission for a little while. If Player X takes off his insulin pump, blows off his doctors' appointments, has a bad attitude, is foggy because of his constant high sugar and keeps going into hypoglycemic shock, would it be fair to say that he is not maintaining his health? Would it also be fair to say that he should be removed from the team for HIS OWN health and for the health of the other players on the field? Is he being removed because he has an illness or because he's not taking care of that illness? Now what if Player X had a situation where his diabetes was totally out of control, but he was doing his damndest to help himself? If he worked with the owner and coaches and said "this is out of control right now, but let's work on it until it's maintained again." Would the front office's response likely be different? Yes, it would be. Because several Player Xs actually exist. Hamilton did this to himself. He's the one who hasn't kept an accountability person. He's the one who hasn't even bothered showing up to support his teammates, the way the other injured players have. The front office made excuses for him and tried to support him for two years; they know all about forgiveness with him. Time to shut the door. As the saying goes,

I agree. Leave the kids alone. Enough of their family's struggles have already been public and with the reality show that onky stands to get worse. The kids need privacy.

Maybe they're just not admitting it...

Doesn't the MLBPA have to approve the contract when it is initially signed? If they, Hamilton and Hamilton's agent all gave it the green light, how can they say it isn't enforceable now?

I don't remember them doing it right away last year either. Perhaps it will make an appearance later on.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I have to think that this is going to be one of the talking points whenever the CBA is re-negotiated. There has to be a compromise somewhere that would protect players overall but allow owners to discipline players or end contracts in cases like this. At this point I do think there's a distinct possibility that they will release Hamilton and eat the contract.