Didn’t see this being discussed anywhere.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/yoenis-cespedes-ankle-fractures-came-during-incident-with-wild-boar/
https://es.pn/2ZNhS5C
My take: I’d rather have the union’s case than the Mets’ case. There’s nothing the union cares more about than the sanctity of guaranteed contracts, and an arbitrator who wants repeat business would be hard-pressed to invalidate a contract in a case that was less than open-and-shut. That said, it wasn’t a slam dunk — the circumstances were highly unusual, and if the contract contains broad language forbidding the player from engaging in dangerous activities, common-sense would argue that dealing with a trapped wild boar violates the contract. The downside of losing at arbitration was much worse for Cespedes than the Mets, so I’m not surprised the case settled on terms more favorable to the Mets than my armchair opinion of their odds of success would suggest.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/yoenis-cespedes-ankle-fractures-came-during-incident-with-wild-boar/
The union and the Mets have agreed to a restructuring of his contract that allows him to keep the $14.8 million he was paid in 2019 (out of what was supposed to be $29 million in guaranteed salary) and reduces his 2020 salary from $29.5 million to $6 million, with incentives that could increase that amount to $11 million. The agreement staved off an arbitration proceeding where the Mets would have sought to void Cespedes’s contract.According to multiple people who were informed of the incident, Cespedes has traps on his ranch for a variety of reasons, including to keep boars away from people. But one boar was removed from a trap — perhaps by Cespedes — and either charged toward Cespedes or startled him, causing Cespedes to step into a hole. Cespedes suffered the fractured ankle at a time when he was recovering from surgery to both heels that already was jeopardizing his playing status in 2019. The ankle fracture guaranteed that he would not take an at-bat last season.
https://es.pn/2ZNhS5C
My take: I’d rather have the union’s case than the Mets’ case. There’s nothing the union cares more about than the sanctity of guaranteed contracts, and an arbitrator who wants repeat business would be hard-pressed to invalidate a contract in a case that was less than open-and-shut. That said, it wasn’t a slam dunk — the circumstances were highly unusual, and if the contract contains broad language forbidding the player from engaging in dangerous activities, common-sense would argue that dealing with a trapped wild boar violates the contract. The downside of losing at arbitration was much worse for Cespedes than the Mets, so I’m not surprised the case settled on terms more favorable to the Mets than my armchair opinion of their odds of success would suggest.