PDA

View Full Version : Authorization of strike vote nears


Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 12:44 PM
Strike (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20020716&content_id=83825&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp)

The executive board of the Major League Baseball Players Association will have the authority to set a strike date by the middle of August if negotiations on a new basic agreement do not move significantly forward, said Todd Zeile, the Colorado Rockies' player representative.

Dadawg_77
07-17-2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Strike (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20020716&content_id=83825&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp)



Sept 16 is the most likely date.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Sept 16 is the most likely date.

That's nice. Five days after the nation mourns the first anniversary of the terrorists attacks, baseball will shutdown. I guess we can declare the post-9/11 patriotic fever officially over.

The REAL national pastime: arguing over who gets more money.

God Bless America, baseball sucks!

Friggin' hypocrites to wear flags all over their uniforms, too.

Cheryl
07-17-2002, 01:19 PM
I was thinking they were deliberately waiting until after the anniversary to avoid that kind of criticism.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I was thinking they were deliberately waiting until after the anniversary to avoid that kind of criticism.

Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it Cheryl.

I'm praying for baseball's apocalypse. If it happens, let them stay out 3+ years. Only then will the insanity end. The owners learned NOTHING for ruining the game in 1994-96, all in the name of squeezing more money for themselves.

If I ran things, I would use the bully pulpit to insist every major league team take the flags off all their uniforms and merchandise IMMEDIATELY. I would shame the living hell out of both sides.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I was thinking they were deliberately waiting until after the anniversary to avoid that kind of criticism.

I think it's more of the fact that they don't want to miss a paycheck.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm praying for baseball's apolcalypse. If it happens, let them stay out 3+ years. Only then will the insanity end. The owners learned NOTHING for ruining the game in 1994-96, all in the name of squeezing more money for themselves.


Same here. Something has to change in terms of the economic system. Either the salaries come down, or the current owners sell to someone who can pay the salaries.

SI1020
07-17-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it Cheryl.

I'm praying for baseball's apocalypse. If it happens, let them stay out 3+ years. Only then will the insanity end. The owners learned NOTHING for ruining the game in 1994-96, all in the name of squeezing more money for themselves.

If I ran things, I would use the bully pulpit to insist every major league team take the flags off all their uniforms and merchandise IMMEDIATELY. I would shame the living hell out of both sides. The thought as occurred to me that maybe it would be best if bsseball melted down and had to start all over again. The arrogance of the players and the stupidity is mind boggling. In case they haven't noticed baseball and has not been the national pastime for quite some time. If anything is it's the NFL.

Cheryl
07-17-2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I think it's more of the fact that they don't want to miss a paycheck.

They don't really think they're going to stay out for only two weeks, do they?

Daver
07-17-2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl


They don't really think they're going to stay out for only two weeks, do they?

They will have been paid most of their contract amount by then,they would only miss the final payday of Sept. 30th.

Cheryl
07-17-2002, 05:03 PM
Okay. I was having a brain cramp earlier. They only lose one paycheck this way.

Still, I have to think postponing the strike until after the 11th was at least partially a PR move. They were talking earlier in the year about going out around August 1.

Daver
07-17-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Okay. I was having a brain cramp earlier. They only lose one paycheck this way.

Still, I have to think postponing the strike until after the 11th was at least partially a PR move. They were talking earlier in the year about going out around August 1.

The August strike date was discussed mainly to give hope that the World series could still be played if an agreement was reached quickly,that possibilty is unlikely to occor,so a later strike date is preferrable to the players.

BTW your probably right about the PR move. :redneck

ma-gaga
07-17-2002, 05:56 PM
My buddy here at work who is about the biggest sports fan I've ever met says that he thinks they'll play this season out and then we won't see baseball in 2003...

TheBigHurt
07-17-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
My buddy here at work who is about the biggest sports fan I've ever met says that he thinks they'll play this season out and then we won't see baseball in 2003...

i guess that means the whole 2003 season right?

Daver
07-17-2002, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
My buddy here at work who is about the biggest sports fan I've ever met says that he thinks they'll play this season out and then we won't see baseball in 2003...

The players lose any leverage they might have without a strike,because the owners will impose their new rules as soon as the season is over.

A strike is imminent.

ma-gaga
07-17-2002, 06:15 PM
ahh. The owners can impose whatever rules they want. The players don't have to report to spring training if they don't like the contract.

The main reason is that he doubts either side will be stupid enough to take the PR hit. Leverage be damned.

Daver
07-17-2002, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
ahh. The owners can impose whatever rules they want. The players don't have to report to spring training if they don't like the contract.

The main reason is that he doubts either side will be stupid enough to take the PR hit. Leverage be damned.

The players are playing without a contract right now for the most part,the owners would just use replacement players,and line their pckets with the payroll they are saving,and the MLBPA knows this as well as I do.

They won't let that happen without a fight.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 06:46 PM
If the owners are stupid enough to announce a labor impasse exists and attempt to institute a new set of work rules unilaterally, the MLBPA will go straight to the NLRB.

Since the underpinnings to MLB's claim to need new work rules are all economic, and the owners have refused to make their case with true financial statements, the NLRB will rule for the players, and seek and receive an injunction from a district judge.

After reviewing the details of the case, the judge will rule that good-faith negotiations have not been entered into by MLB, rule in favor of NLRB and the MLBPA, and thus threaten the owners with treble damages if they are foolhardy enough to use replacement players. The owners will fold.

This is exactly what happened in 1994-95, and the issues and circumstances are exactly the same.

One bit of good news: a pair of Forbes economists have pointed out that the owners are highly leveraged and couldn't sustain the financial drain a long labor war would require. They predict a short strike, much shorter than 1994-95.

We'll see.

Daver
07-17-2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If the owners are stupid enough to announce a labor impasse exists and attempt to institute a new set of work rules unilaterally, the MLBPA will go straight to the NLRB.

Since the underpinnings to MLB's claim to need new work rules are all economic, and the owners have refused to make their case with true financial statements, the NLRB will rule for the players, and seek and receive an injunction from a district judge.

After reviewing the details of the case, the judge will rule that good-faith negotiations have not been entered into by MLB, rule in favor of NLRB and the MLBPA, and thus threaten the owners with treble damages if they are foolhardy enough to use replacement players. The owners will fold.

This is exactly what happened in 1994-95, and the issues and circumstances are exactly the same.

One bit of good news: a pair of Forbes economists have pointed out that the owners are highly leveraged and couldn't sustain the financial drain a long labor war would require. They predict a short strike, much shorter than 1994-95.

We'll see.

I would be willing to go out on limb and say that if there is a protacted strike/lockout you will see a couple teams file for bankruptcy protection,and you can bet that the players union is going to make it a point in the negotiations that players contracts be backed by MLB in the event of that happening during a season.

ma-gaga
07-18-2002, 09:23 AM
I agree with both of you (daver/PHG). Just to let you know, my friends "solution" would be to only allow one-year contracts. Every year is a free-agent year.

Can you imagine a world where there are 5 or 6 Royce Claytons competing for 2 jobs? He'd be paid his true value.

Chisox353014
07-18-2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Can you imagine a world where there are 5 or 6 Royce Claytons competing for 2 jobs?

I believe the word for this world you're describing is "hell".

Daver
07-18-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
I agree with both of you (daver/PHG). Just to let you know, my friends "solution" would be to only allow one-year contracts. Every year is a free-agent year.

Can you imagine a world where there are 5 or 6 Royce Claytons competing for 2 jobs? He'd be paid his true value.

The owners could have had that 20 years ago when they insisted on setting up the salary arbitration process,which has gone out and utterly killed them.Anyone that is siding with the owners keep in mind,THEY created this whole mess.

Daver
07-18-2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
I agree with both of you (daver/PHG). Just to let you know, my friends "solution" would be to only allow one-year contracts. Every year is a free-agent year.

Can you imagine a world where there are 5 or 6 Royce Claytons competing for 2 jobs? He'd be paid his true value.

Hey Ma,have your friend read this. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020718daily.shtml)

Maybe then he will understand what we are talking about.