Dodgers’ contracts contain NDA provisions
ByAs the Joe Torre story broke a few weeks ago, news emerged that the Yanks were considering adding non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements to their standard contracts. When Joe wrote it about at the end of January, his post generated some interesting debates over the contract provision. Many criticized the Yanks for attempting to control the P.R. spin while others approved of the term.
Today, we learn that the Yanks would not be alone in keeping a lid on the clubhouse. The Dodgers, Torre’s current employer, already include a NDA in their contracts. Jayson Stark dropped this tidbit into his Rumblings & Grumblings column this week:
The Dodgers apparently have no reason to worry about Joe Torre’s writing a gut-spilling, sanctity-violating book about his current team. A friend of Torre says the Dodgers included a confidentiality clause in Torre’s current contract. So sadly, we’ll probably never get to read the Dodgers’ catchy clubhouse nicknames for Manny or Derek Lowe.
When the Yankees do it, they’re accused of violating their employees’ First Amendment privileges, but when the Dodgers do it, it becomes accepted industry practice and hardly registers in the news. Nope. No double standard in baseball.
Just like if we win the WS, it will be said that we simply bought it so its nothing special. And if we don’t win it, we are laughed at and are criticized… Definitely a catch-22.
And Boston won it with all it’s homegrown talent! Heh, hypocrites. Boston’s homegrown talent-Manny, Ortiz, Schilling, Beckett, Lowell.
Oh and Dice-K + J.D. Drew. Those suckers have a great farm.
Well, to be fair, they have done a nice job developing players lately. The fact that they imported the guys you mention doesn’t change that.
I am not saying they have not done a good job but just their farm alone has not won them championships like their fans, ESPN, and more want you to think. Manny and Ortiz were the key to both of their championship runs and Beckett was in 07. None of those guys came from the farm. I guess you can say Beckett because he was traded for so he wasn’t a FA but thats the same for the Yanks with Arod.
I hear you, I was just responding to your statement that “those suckers have a great farm.” I agree with your point, I just think you could leave out that one statement.
Lol
What are you LOLing at?
Chu
Thanks, I kinda figured as much. Care to elaborate?
Apparently not. My point was that your point was that you think it’s wrong that Sox supporters argue that the Sox are somehow better than the Yankees because they have more/better homegrown players than do the Yankees, and that the Yankees buy players, which is fine, but I think saying “those suckers have a great farm” at the end is a different argument altogether, and I think it cheapens your argument. I look at it as constructive criticism, apparently you see it differently and prefer to give nonsensical, one-word responses. The “Mike Pop Special,” if you will. That’s all, glad to be of assistance. I’m out.
The double standard is evident. I tend to think that NDAs violate First Amendment rights (I’m no lawyer, legal expert, or anything of the sort), so the Dodgers would be the “bad guys” here.
They don’t violate First Amendment rights. The Dodgers aren’t the U.S. government. NDAs are quite common in private industry.
Again, I don’t know the whole scope of it. But I think people have the right to express any opinion that they have under the 1st Amendment.
No, that’s just not what the First Amendment says. Without getting into too much detail (obviously these things can get pretty nuanced), the First Amendment applies to the government, not private industry/persons.
My bad, I responded before reading Ben’s more detailed response below.
The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” restricting speech. A private employer can do whatever it wants.
That is very interesting. I thought it said something to do with “government”. I say that because if a person violated a NDA, a court would rule over it; if it goes to the Supreme Court, then the Court would vote for or against the person in question, thus setting the law by their decision, and thus making a law against free speech. If that were the case, from your knowledge, how would such an argument hold up?
Your analysis is wrong. If the Court upholds a contract with an NDA provision, they’re making an unconstitutional law that violates the First Amendment. Rather, they’re simply enforcing a valid contract.
Gotcha.
/law school.
Smart move by McCourt though. No future rumors about Clayton “Bigsby” Kershaw because apparently he’s a bit racist.
lol @ Chappelle show reference
In the Larry King Live segment with Joe Torre, I think he said he did not sign such a contract clause with the Dodgers…I could be wrong though. The Yankees have clauses like that as well, but he did not sign one at the time. Anybody else catch the show? Maybe you can help me out.