Players’ union in awkward position in Aroldis Chapman case
New York Yankees' Aroldis Chapman throws during spring training at George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, Feb. 26, 2016. Credit: Newsday / Thomas A. Ferrara
TAMPA, Fla.
Numerous times during Sunday’s 32-minute briefing with reporters at Steinbrenner Field, union chief Tony Clark had to defer to the unknown, the wide swath of gray area that exists in Major League Baseball’s domestic-violence policy.
With Aroldis Chapman awaiting a likely suspension that could be announced as early as Monday, Clark was probed with questions about what the Yankees’ new closer might face in the weeks ahead. In reality, no one knows for sure. Not Clark, and not even commissioner Rob Manfred, whose ruling ultimately will be subject to an independent arbitrator, with Chapman already stating publicly his desire to appeal any suspension.
As one union official put it, this is all “uncharted territory,” and the framework the Players Association agreed to last August gives Manfred wide-ranging powers, with a variety of disciplinary action at his disposal. The policy’s language allows for no “minimum or maximum” penalty. Manfred also can put a player on paid administrative leave, such as removing him from spring training, before the suspension takes hold for the regular season.
Compare that with the structured terms of MLB’s PED policy, which features mapped-out terms of specified bans, from 80 games for a first offense, 162 for a second and lifetime for a third. Dealing with domestic-violence issues, however, is a slippery exercise, with a level of complexity far beyond other misconduct.
At first glance, it would appear as if the Players Association conceded too much to the commissioner in this area. Clark, and the union’s legal team, won’t know what they’re up against in these cases until Manfred reveals the punishment. Without any precedents to follow, both sides will be blazing a new trail here. And the building pressure to agree on a domestic-violence policy — after the NFL’s string of PR disasters — backed the union into a corner.
What was Clark supposed to do? Fight Manfred for maybe more equitable terms, then be subject to public scorn for delaying the process? Given the rising — and long overdue — awareness regarding domestic violence, this had to come together as soon as possible, with the sorting out to come later.
“We wanted to make sure that there was flexibility here, appreciating that these cases are all different,” Clark said Sunday. “I can’t tell you how many experts we talked to in this area, trying to appreciate what made the most sense. And when you realize they don’t agree oftentimes, having a hard-and-fast rule can be challenging and can be more dangerous than the flexibility that we can argue about.”
Manfred doesn’t have the last word, of course. That belongs to the arbitrator, the fail-safe in this “checks-and-balances” arrangement described by Clark. So if the commissioner chooses to make an example of Chapman and swing for the fences with a 30-game suspension, the union still has the opportunity to push back through appeal.
Chapman does not face criminal charges because of the absence of credible testimony or signs of physical harm, according to the police investigation, and that should help in any plea for a reduced ban.
The Chapman incident is a tricky one for Manfred, who already has his layup waiting once Jose Reyes is done with the criminal proceedings he’s facing in Hawaii on April 4. Unlike Chapman, Reyes was charged, and his wife showed evidence of abuse. Manfred placed Reyes on paid leave Tuesday, as the policy allows, until the Maui court system is through with him. Only then will Manfred deliver his own verdict, which is sure to be particularly severe.
Manfred doesn’t want to leave himself exposed to the same harsh criticism NFL commissioner Roger Goodell endured after his tone-deaf handling of the Greg Hardy and Ray Rice cases. Working inside the margins of the new policy’s relatively loose guidelines, Manfred can assume the high moral ground by dropping the hammer on Chapman and Reyes, with the union having to take the unpopular side of protecting them. It then will be up to the arbitrator to determine who’s right. Or less wrong.
“It’s a very sensitive issue to discuss, but our job is very fundamental,” Clark said. “We will defend due process and our members at every stop.”
That battle is likely to begin with Chapman this week. How it will end is anyone’s guess.
David Lennon is an award-winning columnist, a voter for baseball's Hall of Fame and has covered six no-hitters, including two perfect games.
