Teams' grooming policies

[1995hoo]

I was reading a story on ESPN.com that mentioned Kevin Youkilis being newly clean-shaven upon his arrival at the Yankees' spring training site. It made me wonder something about the teams that have grooming policies that mandate hair of no more than a certain length or that prohibit some or all facial hair: What happens when such a team trades for a player whose grooming doesn't conform to that policy and he refuses to comply? Do they just not play him? Can they suspend him without pay?

Obviously a guy who signs as a free agent has no legitimate beef—he knew, or should have known, what the policy was before signing and if his appearance mattered that much to him he could have declined to sign there. But when a team trades for a player it seems like a bit of a different situation because (unless he waives a no-trade clause) he's not going to that team voluntarily; in addition, the team certainly knew how he groomed himself and arguably could have refrained from trading for the guy if it mattered to them.

Or is there something in the standard player contract that governs these sorts of things?

[HalfSmokes]

I can't imagine that they could do anything other than bench them or send them down if they have options

[welch]

The Yankees have had this policy almost forever. When they signed Jason Giambi, he cleaned up. Probably in the contract: if you want to get paid, you follow our rules.

[1995hoo]

Yeah, but Giambi signed there as a free agent. He went there voluntarily knowing the rules. As I noted earlier, that's a bit different from being traded involuntarily. Say the Nationals traded Werth to the Yankees, for example, and he then refused to cut his hair. What kind of discipline, if any, could they impose, short of benching him (in which case he'd still be paid) or trading him again?

That's one reason why I asked whether the standard contract has some sort of provision requiring players to obey these kinds of team rules.

[Rick]

Johnny Damon had to clean up his Jesus look when he went to the Yanks.  Jose Reyes had to cut his hair for the Marlins.

[1995hoo]

Johnny Damon had to clean up his Jesus look when he went to the Yanks.  Jose Reyes had to cut his hair for the Marlins.

But again, both free agents.

[Rick]

But again, both free agents.

I dont think it matters whethere its a trade or FA. It's happened in other sports too. Unless if there is some religious reason for facial hair/long hair- i dont see a problem with teams making hair cutting mandatory. 

[HalfSmokes]

I dont think it matters whethere its a trade or FA. It's happened in other sports too. Unless if there is some religious reason for facial hair/long hair- i dont see a problem with teams making hair cutting mandatory. 

Why should the team dictate facial hair when the league has not problem with it?  Free agents make a choice,  but if a guy gets traded,  why should he have to toe the line?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

this is why Captain Lou Albano stuck to wrestling and music and stayed away from managing baseball players.

[1995hoo]

Why should the team dictate facial hair when the league has not problem with it?  Free agents make a choice,  but if a guy gets traded,  why should he have to toe the line?

That's what I was getting at and it's why I kept distinguishing players who signed as free agents. If you're traded, essentially the situation is that the TEAM wanted YOU and took you warts and all (or long hair and all).

[Rick]

Why should the team dictate facial hair when the league has not problem with it?  Free agents make a choice,  but if a guy gets traded,  why should he have to toe the line?

let me rephrase- personally, i think if a player is productive i dont care if they look like captain cavemen...i think hair cutting rules are idiotic.  Having said that, I think every team has a right to have a "dress code/hair code" type policy if they want.  The teams are selling a brand and they want their players to fit that brand. Like it or not, a player has to do go along with the dress code policy of the business that is signing their paychecks. Again- having said that, I think these hair codes are stupid.

[HalfSmokes]

Players have to go along with the uniform player contract plus any riders in their contract- if there is nothing in there,  the team can scream all they want,  but they can't do anything

[Rick]

Even if a player could legally violate a hair code- why would they? They wouldn't be making many friends on the team and the fans would quickly love to hate that player.

[HalfSmokes]

That's why the Yankees can get away with it- if a team like the pirates tried,  I'm sure it would be any easy way for players to express their desire to be elsewhere

[CALSGR8]

You're part of a team.   Like the Military in a way.   Part of the uniform with some teams.

[Slateman]

They fine him.

[comish4lif]

I was reading a story on ESPN.com that mentioned Kevin Youkilis being newly clean-shaven upon his arrival at the Yankees' spring training site. It made me wonder something about the teams that have grooming policies that mandate hair of no more than a certain length or that prohibit some or all facial hair: What happens when such a team trades for a player whose grooming doesn't conform to that policy and he refuses to comply? Do they just not play him? Can they suspend him without pay?

Obviously a guy who signs as a free agent has no legitimate beef—he knew, or should have known, what the policy was before signing and if his appearance mattered that much to him he could have declined to sign there. But when a team trades for a player it seems like a bit of a different situation because (unless he waives a no-trade clause) he's not going to that team voluntarily; in addition, the team certainly knew how he groomed himself and arguably could have refrained from trading for the guy if it mattered to them.

Or is there something in the standard player contract that governs these sorts of things?

Can they suspend the player? Absolutely. And fine them as well.

[HalfSmokes]

They fine him.

Can they suspend the player? Absolutely. And fine them as well.

The uniform section of the cba doesn't mention grooming,  nor does the player contract,  where in either document do teams get that power?

[Slateman]

The uniform section of the cba doesn't mention grooming,  nor does the player contract,  where in either document do teams get that power?

The manager makes the rules. If they apply to anyone, they are reasonable, and they don't violate a person's rights (ie, against their religion to cut their hair) then they're good to go.

The player's  contract usually has some sort of catch all wording about proper appearance and conduct.

[codedandunited]

I remember the Jerry Colangelo Era Diamondbacks had a similar grooming policy that the Yankees have.  When Randy Johnson signed with the team in 1999, it was in his contract that he was able to void the grooming policy to keep his long hair and moustache.

[blue911]

I remember the Jerry Colangelo Era Diamondbacks had a similar grooming policy that the Yankees have.  When Randy Johnson signed with the team in 1999, it was in his contract that he was able to void the grooming policy to keep his long hair and moustache.

Buck Showalter. He's had them on every team he manages.

[Count Walewski]

I believe that the Dodgers also modified their grooming policy to allow Manny Ramirez to play there.

[Lintyfresh85]

Kangaroo court isn't mentioned in the CBA. They still fine players.

[HalfSmokes]

Kangaroo court isn't mentioned in the CBA. They still fine players.

I wonder what the rate of players paying team fines is? I'm guessing something around 0

[blue911]

I sent an email to the MLBPA about grooming policies and how the union viewed them. They said that although the aren't part of the CBA, they have no issue with such policies as long as they are within reason. They haven't had a reason to view them as an issue for collective bargaining.