PDA

View Full Version : Frank speaks on a the possible strike


Jerry_Manuel
05-16-2002, 03:20 PM
"Sometimes our hands get tied, and you're forced into that wall," Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox said. "Sometimes there's got to be action, but to be honest, I don't think it's time. Baseball has suffered, the whole world has suffered over the last year."

DrCrawdad
05-16-2002, 03:49 PM
Well they had better not strike.

I think that if there is a strike then that's only going to hurt the White Sox further. It will only make it worse if they Sox make it to first and then there is a strike.

- DrCrawdad.

duke of dorwood
05-16-2002, 03:52 PM
A good stance to be taken by Big Frank. His maturity comes through clearly.

nut_stock
05-16-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
A good stance to be taken by Big Frank. His maturity comes through clearly.


Just wait, Im sure the Chicago media will twist this around to make Frank look bad. Oh wait, they already did by grabbing his ex wife and giving her a microphone.

KruseControl04
05-16-2002, 06:23 PM
The Big Hurt is right about this one. Now is not the time for a strike. After the events of September 11th and all the grieving the country is still going through, it would just make the players seem like a bunch of greedy pigs...... Oh wait, that's what they are.

Paulwny
05-16-2002, 06:52 PM
Here's the other side of the coin.
Let's not forget that Big Frank probably pays his ex-wife a few million $$ a year in alimony plus child support.
If they go on strike no pay days and he still has to come up with the alimony payments.

Zednem700
05-16-2002, 11:01 PM
Well as much as I would hate for there to be a strike, (I still get sad thinking about '94) it really is a case of the owners forcing the hand of the players. As of right now it appears that ownership is more than content to have no progress. If nothing changes, then soon after the end of the season ownership will declare an impasse in negotiations and attempt to implement their plans. The players will protest, but a strike won't do them a damn bit of good because they have no leverage when there are no games to play. Basically even if the owners give in, they won't do so until after the free agent signing period has passed, which will almost certainly drive down contract amounts and cause all sorts of other problems for players.

The owners' claims about not locking out the players this season is pretty meaningless as well. You don't lock out in midseason, you lock out in the offseason when you try to implement a new contract. If you lock out in midseason you kill your revenue and stand a good chance of having to pay anyways. If you lock out during the offseason you try to make the players nervous and hope they'll give in. Good luck, ownership hasn't won a single labor fight yet, they aren't going to win this one either.

voodoochile
05-16-2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Here's the other side of the coin.
Let's not forget that Big Frank probably pays his ex-wife a few million $$ a year in alimony plus child support.
If they go on strike no pay days and he still has to come up with the alimony payments.

No, he can have it reduced if he is not earning his salary. I remember Bonds had that happen in 1994. After the case, the judge asked for his autograph...

doublem23
05-16-2002, 11:17 PM
Millionaires fighting with billionaires.....

Sigh...

Money fight!!!

voodoochile
05-16-2002, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Well as much as I would hate for there to be a strike, (I still get sad thinking about '94) it really is a case of the owners forcing the hand of the players. As of right now it appears that ownership is more than content to have no progress. If nothing changes, then soon after the end of the season ownership will declare an impasse in negotiations and attempt to implement their plans. The players will protest, but a strike won't do them a damn bit of good because they have no leverage when there are no games to play. Basically even if the owners give in, they won't do so until after the free agent signing period has passed, which will almost certainly drive down contract amounts and cause all sorts of other problems for players.

The owners' claims about not locking out the players this season is pretty meaningless as well. You don't lock out in midseason, you lock out in the offseason when you try to implement a new contract. If you lock out in midseason you kill your revenue and stand a good chance of having to pay anyways. If you lock out during the offseason you try to make the players nervous and hope they'll give in. Good luck, ownership hasn't won a single labor fight yet, they aren't going to win this one either.

This was exactly what Fehr was talking about the other day in the Tribune. Not that he makes much sense, but he was dead on on that point. He specifically mentioned that the players do not want to end up like the players in the NBA (yeah, that would totally suck, huh?) He is definitely rattling the saber. If the players are going to strike they will have to do it earlier, because if it happens within a few weeks of the 1-year anniversary of 9-11, the press is going to have a field day with them...

voodoochile
05-16-2002, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Millionaires fighting with billionaires.....

Sigh...

Money fight!!!

You know, love him or hate him, Clinton made a great point during the last strike. People were urging the White House to get involved and he said, "I don't understand what the issue is. You have a few hundred people fighting over $2 billion+." Those numbers are higher, yet the number of people fighting over it has not increased dramatically...

Daver
05-16-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


This was exactly what Fehr was talking about the other day in the Tribune. Not that he makes much sense, but he was dead on on that point. He specifically mentioned that the players do not want to end up like the players in the NBA (yeah, that would totally suck, huh?) He is definitely rattling the saber. If the players are going to strike they will have to do it earlier, because if it happens within a few weeks of the 1-year anniversary of 9-11, the press is going to have a field day with them...

Bud has covered his bases well,the media will have a field day anyway,because the owners have already guaranteed that they will not force a work stoppage,so the public perception will be to blame the players no matter what.

voodoochile
05-16-2002, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by daver


Bud has covered his bases well,the media will have a field day anyway,because the owners have already guaranteed that they will not force a work stoppage,so the public perception will be to blame the players no matter what.

Now the question will be, do they care? My guess is no...

Daver
05-16-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Now the question will be, do they care? My guess is no...

Do the players care? I believe they do.But do they believe in the best interest of the game or in thier own best interest? That is the question that both sides need to answer,the owners as well as the players.

Paulwny
05-17-2002, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


No, he can have it reduced if he is not earning his salary. I remember Bonds had that happen in 1994. After the case, the judge asked for his autograph...

Won't be reduced if the judge is a flubs fan.

MisterB
05-17-2002, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by daver
Do the players care? I believe they do.But do they believe in the best interest of the game or in thier own best interest? That is the question that both sides need to answer,the owners as well as the players.

The MLBPA is only concerned with getting the most money for the players. It has no interest in dealing with issues of competitiveness or quality of the 'product' of baseball. Don Fehr himself has called the minor league player development system a waste of the owner's money (read: less cash for the ML players). Apparently he'd prefer all players be signed to ML contracts right out of college/high school/sandlot. I think the union would be just fine with there being, say, four uber-teams in the majors that would be paying the top 100 players $10 million+ a year each, and to hell with any other teams. Sadly, the owners are the ones responsible for acting in the best interests of the game, and we know what kind of bang-up job they're doing at it... :whiner:

Zednem700
05-17-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by MisterB


The MLBPA is only concerned with getting the most money for the players. It has no interest in dealing with issues of competitiveness or quality of the 'product' of baseball. Don Fehr himself has called the minor league player development system a waste of the owner's money (read: less cash for the ML players). Apparently he'd prefer all players be signed to ML contracts right out of college/high school/sandlot. I think the union would be just fine with there being, say, four uber-teams in the majors that would be paying the top 100 players $10 million+ a year each, and to hell with any other teams. Sadly, the owners are the ones responsible for acting in the best interests of the game, and we know what kind of bang-up job they're doing at it... :whiner:

Oh please, the owners are only concerned with getting more money for the owners. They don't care about competitiveness or quality of the product any more than the players do. they want to lower salaries that's it. they want bigger profits and that's fine, but the players aren't stupid. They aren't going to say "you know what guys, you deserve to make more money off of us we'll take less money than we're worth because frankly you guys are just swell."

that's idiotic, players care about competitiveness and quality of product because they aren't stupid. They know that if no one watches games they don't make any money. to say the union would be fine with 4 teams where everyone gets paid a ton is just plain silly. Do you really think hundreds of players will go along with a plan that destroys their jobs so some other players can make more money? Come on. they aren't buying ownerships claims because ownership is full of it. The competitive balance claims are junk, the Yankees are NOT that dominant, they've done an amazing job in the playoffs, but they are not running away with things every year. If they were pulling a '98 every year maybe I could buy the unstoppable Yankees claims, but they've gotten lucky when they needed to and played well enough. Atlanta has had a better record over the last few years than the Yankees, but they've lost a few close playoff series. Oakland at the beginning of the 90s was more dominant than the Yankees now, but the Dodgers pulled off a miracle one year and Cinci was extremely hot another so they only won one World Series. If they had won those three WS would MLB been right to whine about competitive balance problems? Of course not, dynasties happen, and they eventually end. Just because we've ben in the midst of one recently doesn't mean the end of real baseball is near. the Yanks were A LOT more dominant in the 50s and everyone seems to think that was baseball's golden age.

Paulwny
05-17-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700

the Yanks were A LOT more dominant in the 50s and everyone seems to think that was baseball's golden age.

You would have to bring back those memories, I won't be able to sleep tonight. :smile: