James Russell Released And the Spring Training Market

The Braves have released pitcher James Russell (51) seen here pitching during the fourth inning of a spring training baseball game against the New York Yankees at Champion Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Reinhold Matay-USA TODAY Sports

This morning Mark Bowman confirmed the release of James Russell. Does this narrow the field or make room for someone new from the spring training market?

Russell’s release wasn’t a particular surprise. When the Braves traded for him everyone wondered why because they were seeking a LOOGY type and Russell was the opposite. He was okay last season and even made a spot start where he did well enough over four innings but this spring’s been a disaster. His inability to get a left handed hitter out became an issue as every lefty hit him like a batting practice pitcher.

The release exercised the Braves option under clause 7 (2) B of the uniform players contract, the one discussed here in reference to Alberto Callaspo earlier this off season, and will cost the Braves 45 days pay. For those who missed the explanation of that clause and want to know why Russell and not Callaspo a brief explanation follows. If you’ve read this before skip to the next page.

Uniform Player’s Contract Stuff

The clause allows the release of players signed to a major league contract who arrive at camp unfit or the team deems  unable to perform. There’s noise about a difference between arbitration contracts and so called guaranteed contracts, to be clear there is only one UPC.  To find the difference between players like Russell and Callaspo I reached out to Mike Ferrin and Jim Duquette of Sirius/XM radio. Duquette said that major league teams allow veteran players to line out that clause while arbitration eligible players don’t get that option.

When I took an intro to contract law as part of a college seminar it was explained that when a party is tendered a contract they have the right to review it, line and clauses  they disagree with and return it as part of the negotiation. With a collectively bargained contract format some parts can be negotiated while others are nonnegotiable.

Why a GM would give up his only protection from a paying a players who turns up in awful shape of has lost his arm or bat over the winter I have no idea. That’s particularly the case when – as in Callaspo’s pre-signing discussions he was specifically asked about his plan to lose the weight he’d gained. A player who asks for that clause to be removed should answer the question, “Are you planning to be subject to the clause because if you are we probably need to look elsewhere?”  Apparently even the best GM’s – presidents of baseball operation – whatever don’t do that.