PDA

View Full Version : Remember deal has to be approved!


Lip Man 1
08-31-2002, 02:03 AM
Just throwing this out for discussion.

After the 94 labor impasse, MLB changed their by laws. Before they only needed a simply majority to approve new CBA's.

Now they need a "super majority" (23 votes) to ratify any labor agreement.

Just suppose, the so called Hawks who want to break the players union (of which Uncle Jerry is a charter member!) team up with the large market owners (like George Steinbrenner etc..) and block the labor deal.

They could do it. Supposedly seven owners are absolute Hawks and four owners are from monster sized markets.

That's 11 votes, which would torpedo the agreement.

I don't think they have the guts to do it, but never underestimate people like Reinsdorf and Steinbrenner.

Lip

DVG
08-31-2002, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just throwing this out for discussion.

After the 94 labor impasse, MLB changed their by laws. Before they only needed a simply majority to approve new CBA's.

Now they need a "super majority" (23 votes) to ratify any labor agreement.

Just suppose, the so called Hawks who want to break the players union (of which Uncle Jerry is a charter member!) team up with the large market owners (like George Steinbrenner etc..) and block the labor deal.

They could do it. Supposedly seven owners are absolute Hawks and four owners are from monster sized markets.

That's 11 votes, which would torpedo the agreement.

I don't think they have the guts to do it, but never underestimate people like Reinsdorf and Steinbrenner.

Lip



I won't put anything past George or Jerry, but I'm pretty sure
the others will go along. They got some of what they wanted.
Now that there is a luxury tax, small-market teams will be able
to use the money to buy expensive free agents to compete with
the big boys, right?

This came up for discussion on J. Hood's show. What will the
small market teams do with their new cash flow? Buy free
agents? The general feeling was that they'll pocket the money
and keep sailing along the way they have been going. It is
hard to argue with that logic. The biggest winners in the luxury
tax sweepstakes will now have money regardless of how well
or poorly they play. What will they do with it? Will they even be
motivated to go out and get a big name free agent? I'm not
sure I have the facts of the deal correct, but if I do, then I really
don't like the idea of a luxury tax. If that means that some teams
can't compete, BOO HOO. Try harder to build a winner and draw
and keep fans. (AHEM.)

PaleHoseGeorge
08-31-2002, 06:43 AM
It sure is looking like the owners used contraction as simply a bargaining chip. They tossed it away in this deal. I doubt they were ever that serious--or could have pulled it off.

One thing is certain. The owners will use the threat of contraction in the next negotiation, too. I honestly don't see where anything got solved with this deal. Worse, the hardliners like Reinsdorf are still in place, waiting around for their next opportunity for a showdown with the union.

Didn't we learn anything from giving away Czechoslavkia in 1938? You can never appease tyrants.

:reinsy
"Soon my panzers will be rolling under the Arc de Triomphe! Bwahahahaha!"

:ohno
"Our White Sox sure as hell won't."

MarkEdward
08-31-2002, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It sure is looking like the owners used contraction as simply a bargaining chip. They tossed it away in this deal. I doubt they were ever that serious--or could have pulled it off.

One thing is certain. The owners will use the threat of contraction in the next negotiation, too. I honestly don't see where anything got solved with this deal. Worse, the hardliners like Reinsdorf are still in place, waiting around for their next opportunity for a showdown with the union.


The players agreed not to fight contraction plans after 2006. So I'm sure the owners will make no effort to move a team like the Expos into a more viable market like Washington D.C.