PDA

View Full Version : Union Rejects A-Rod Deal


Unregistered
12-17-2003, 02:27 PM
As it was reported in another thread, word out of Boston (WEEI) is that the Union has rejected the proposal from the teams saying the contract is de-valued in total money in the contract.

Hmmm...what now?

Palehose13
12-17-2003, 02:33 PM
:angry:

Tekijawa
12-17-2003, 02:33 PM
Magglio Now hits 74 Hr's and leads the Whitesox to the World Series!

The Big Squirt
12-17-2003, 02:34 PM
I wonder if after all of this Boston will be forced to deal Nomar anyway because of the animosity created through these talks.

MRKARNO
12-17-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
Magglio Now hits 74 Hr's and leads the Whitesox to the World Series!

You mean when he's traded in the middle of the season while on pace to break the HR record in exchange for prospects?

Jerko
12-17-2003, 02:35 PM
Good thing the union also controls trades. Why are they always upset over things again? They get multi million dollar contracts, and then when 2 owners want to make a trade, even if the player involved 'accepts' a cut, the union can negate that as a contract that is being devalued? The economics of this sport really suck and makes me sometimes not want to care anymore.

SoxxoS
12-17-2003, 02:36 PM
How about Valentin and Maggs for Nomar and Williamson?

schlomo
12-17-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
Good thing the union also controls trades. Why are they always upset over things again? They get multi million dollar contracts, and then when 2 owners want to make a trade, even if the player involved 'accepts' a cut, the union can negate that as a contract that is being devalued? The economics of this sport really suck and makes me sometimes not want to care anymore.

Yeah! And why did Selig demand that the trade talks be over by Thursday afternoon?

ChiSox7
12-17-2003, 02:39 PM
The fact that the deal hasn't gone through because of money has been on ESPN all day. Some have said that the union will present both sides with an acceptable contract this afternoon.

CHISOXFAN13
12-17-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
How about Valentin and Maggs for Nomar and Williamson?

Throw in Nixon or Damon and we have a deal.

Iwritecode
12-17-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by ChiSox7
Some have said that the union will present both sides with an acceptable contract this afternoon.

That's what I've heard...

Fenway
12-17-2003, 03:48 PM
Art Martone gave us a followup a half hour ago
Nobody in New England has a better handle on the Red Sox than Art.

http://forums.redsoxnation.net/index.php?showtopic=132&st=2250&hl=



Art Martone Posted: Dec 17 2003, 03:24 PM


Sports Editor Providence Journal


Group: Royal Rooters
Posts: 3
Member No.: 110
Joined: 1-December 03

They asked some questions over on SOSH, so I posted the following amplification:

Anyway, here's what happened:

Sean (McAdam) called at 1:55 p.m. and told me the union had rejected the deal. At that point, he hadn't had any time to look any further into it. And he won't until after 6.

He *did* say the union may -- may -- have offered a compromise solution it *would* approve. Whether A-Rod and the Red Sox find it acceptable, however, is another matter.

So, as we see it at this minute, there are three alternatives:

1) They can accept the unknown (to us) union alternative.

2) They can back out and kill the deal.

3) The Red Sox can just accept A-Rod's contract as is, and let the deal(s) go through.

And that's what we know.

Fenway
12-17-2003, 04:00 PM
from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al...rod-union_x.htm

This just came out on USA Today site...Orza quoted at 2pm as saying Red Sox are running out of time

A-Rod trade may fall through over contract terms
By Mel Antonen, USA TODAY
The Alex Rodriguez deal has hit another snag, and time is about to run out.

The Boston Red Sox and players union officials were in disagreement Wednesday afternoon about how to restructure Rodriguez's contract that would allow the team to complete a trade with the Texas Rangers for the reigning American League MVP.

"There offer is not good enough," Gene Orza, the union's No. 2 man, said in a telephone interview at 2 p.m. ET Wednesday, three hours before Major League Baseball's 5 p.m. deadline to get the contract finished. "The question is whether we can find some common ground.

"It's one thing to restructure and reduce and then offer compensation with other things. It's quite another to say, 'I will reduce your salary.'"

anewman35
12-17-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by fenway
"It's one thing to restructure and reduce and then offer compensation with other things. It's quite another to say, 'I will reduce your salary.'"

What the union doesn't understand is that if A-Rod is fine with his salary being reduced, they shouldn't stop this. They're supposed to look out for what their members (the players) want, right? Well, they aren't doing it for A-Rod...

MarkEdward
12-17-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
What the union doesn't understand is that if A-Rod is fine with his salary being reduced, they shouldn't stop this. They're supposed to look out for what their members (the players) want, right? Well, they aren't doing it for A-Rod...

Well, here's how I understand it: the CBA says you can't give money back without getting benefits in return. However, John Henry and Tom Hicks, owners of the Sox and Rangers, want money taken from Rodriguez's contract without giving anything back. You can't do that.

I'm summarizing post number 292 from this thread:
http://www.baseballprimer.com/clutch/archives/00009981.shtml

jabrch
12-17-2003, 04:13 PM
They have to be able to agree on something....give him voidable years, give him use of the owners box, a private jet, who the F*** cares? Just get the damn deal done.

maurice
12-17-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
What the union doesn't understand is that if A-Rod is fine with his salary being reduced, they shouldn't stop this. They're supposed to look out for what their members (the players) want, right? Well, they aren't doing it for A-Rod...

There's a difference between looking out for a player (A-Rod) and looking out for the players. The CBA is designed to prevent NFL-like reductions in player salries. They don't want to start down that slippery slope by approving a reduction for A-Rod unless he gets some other benefit in return.

Mammoo
12-17-2003, 04:19 PM
No big surprise there!

Unions don't take kindly to their members giving back something they gained through negotiation. It sets a bad precedent!

Lip Man 1
12-17-2003, 06:52 PM
The union can NOT allow an existing contract to be devalued towards the player, even if said player agrees to it because it sets a precedent that the union believes, (correctly) the owners would try to take advantage of.

That's why you have contracts. The union feels that if Boston wants A-Rod badly enough they'll accept the terms of the deal.

Lip

anewman35
12-17-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The union can NOT allow an existing contract to be devalued towards the player, even if said player agrees to it because it sets a precedent that the union believes, (correctly) the owners would try to take advantage of.


Why wouldn't future players just say "no" if an owner tried to do that?

gosox41
12-17-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
As it was reported in another thread, word out of Boston (WEEI) is that the Union has rejected the proposal from the teams saying the contract is de-valued in total money in the contract.

Hmmm...what now?

I think the union will cave. One of its members (A-Rod) is unhappy. He's too big of a name to create ill feelings towards. The union is just posturing for position just like Hicks and the Red Sox are.

Bob

Lip Man 1
12-18-2003, 02:29 AM
gosox:

With respect why doesn't it surprise me that you'd take management's point of view?

and to answer your question anewman because of something that may take place tomorrow. Apparently Bud Selig thinks he can unilaterally overturn the CBA agreement by allowing this deal to go through without the union's concent. If it goes to an arbitrator then in theory, ANYTIME two owners wanted to do a deal and REDUCE the player's original contract they can say 'let's go to the arbitrator and take our chances." A player saying 'no' in my opinion, would have no impact at all of what could happen, the owners would go anyway and at least try. that may be one of the reasons the union said , "no." as I said it sets a precedent that those sharp owners would certainly try to take advantage of.

Lip

gosox41
12-18-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
gosox:

With respect why doesn't it surprise me that you'd take management's point of view?

Lip

Lip,
It's more then just being on management's side. I bet this A-Rod trade gets done. Everyone loses if it doesn't. It's bad PR for the game. A-Rod, one of the games biggest superstars, will not be liked in his home park. Plus it doesn't look good for the union if they're more concerned with a player's contract then a player's happiness.

If A-Rod wants to redo his contract that's his right, especially if it gets him out of a situation he doesn't like to be in. Based on what little I've read on this, he is cool with that idea, so why not let it happen?

Bob

thepaulbowski
12-18-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Lip,
It's more then just being on management's side. I bet this A-Rod trade gets done. Everyone loses if it doesn't. It's bad PR for the game. A-Rod, one of the games biggest superstars, will not be liked in his home park. Plus it doesn't look good for the union if they're more concerned with a player's contract then a player's happiness.

If A-Rod wants to redo his contract that's his right, especially if it gets him out of a situation he doesn't like to be in. Based on what little I've read on this, he is cool with that idea, so why not let it happen?

Bob

Because that may makes sense. And the players association refuses to do anything that would enhance the game if it doesn't mean lining their own pockets. Football players restructure contracts all the time as do basketball players. But there's a reason why football is more popular now than baseball......

Dadawg_77
12-18-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Because that may makes sense. And the players association refuses to do anything that would enhance the game if it doesn't mean lining their own pockets. Football players restructure contracts all the time as do basketball players. But there's a reason why football is more popular now than baseball......

MLBPA is fighting this for the exact same reason, they don't want football style mess. It is funny that player is look down upon if the they want to restructure a deal but owner do it all the time in football. The football players union is weak and cave to the owners, while baseball players union is strong. Football is more popular now becuase it is easier to bet on.

gosox41
12-18-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
MLBPA is fighting this for the exact same reason, they don't want football style mess. It is funny that player is look down upon if the they want to restructure a deal but owner do it all the time in football. The football players union is weak and cave to the owners, while baseball players union is strong. Football is more popular now becuase it is easier to bet on.

I haven't heard too many baseball owners come out and whine to the press of how they'd like to redo a contract because the player they signed hasn't performed like he should.

I have heard players holding out to get more money.

Why can't it work both ways? A player can hold out and complain for moore money but an owner can't when the player flops. Why can't a player take less to move elsewhere if it makes him happier?

Bob

voodoochile
12-18-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I haven't heard too many baseball owners come out and whine to the press of how they'd like to redo a contract because the player they signed hasn't performed like he should.

I have heard players holding out to get more money.

Why can't it work both ways? A player can hold out and complain for moore money but an owner can't when the player flops. Why can't a player take less to move elsewhere if it makes him happier?

Bob

Because that would make too much damned sense. The next thing you know they will have to start actually treating each other like parters in an entertainment medium instead of adversarys.

One more reason to not care...

cornball
12-18-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
gosox:

With respect why doesn't it surprise me that you'd take management's point of view?

and to answer your question anewman because of something that may take place tomorrow. Apparently Bud Selig thinks he can unilaterally overturn the CBA agreement by allowing this deal to go through without the union's concent. If it goes to an arbitrator then in theory, ANYTIME two owners wanted to do a deal and REDUCE the player's original contract they can say 'let's go to the arbitrator and take our chances." A player saying 'no' in my opinion, would have no impact at all of what could happen, the owners would go anyway and at least try. that may be one of the reasons the union said , "no." as I said it sets a precedent that those sharp owners would certainly try to take advantage of.

Lip

I really don't think anytime two owners wanted to lower a players salary it would happen with this presidence. This is an extra-ordinary situation. ARod salary is 5 million less than the commisioners team will be this year.

The average salary in the league doesn't come close to these contracts.

Everyone knows this is a unque situation with the two highest paid players in the game (which are now over valued due to the reduction in market value). Truly an extra ordinary situation and the union is doing a disjustice to the game, the fans and to actual members.

It is because of this eventually this will go through. IMHO Selig could use his best for the game powers because of the unique nature of this once in a life time situation.

Dadawg_77
12-18-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Because that would make too much damned sense. The next thing you know they will have to start actually treating each other like parters in an entertainment medium instead of adversarys.

One more reason to not care...

The niether will appoarch it that way becuase niether trust each other. For them to work together, they will need to form some sort of trust for each other.

The owners won't come out and say that becuase they really have no leverage to do that. Plus if they did then they lost the highground when a player does the same thing.

maurice
12-18-2003, 08:33 PM
Considering that this is (at least) the second time that MLB management has tried to reduce a player's salary from the amount agreed upon in their contract, it's clearly not a unique situation.

Daver
12-18-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by cornball
I really don't think anytime two owners wanted to lower a players salary it would happen with this presidence. This is an extra-ordinary situation. ARod salary is 5 million less than the commisioners team will be this year.

The average salary in the league doesn't come close to these contracts.

Everyone knows this is a unque situation with the two highest paid players in the game (which are now over valued due to the reduction in market value). Truly an extra ordinary situation and the union is doing a disjustice to the game, the fans and to actual members.

It is because of this eventually this will go through. IMHO Selig could use his best for the game powers because of the unique nature of this once in a life time situation.

Bud cannot,by law,over ride the CBA,he and the league would get their heads handed to them in court if they even tried it.

There is a reason that the MLBPA is the strongest union in all of professional sports,because it was legitimitized in a courtroom,by Marvin MIller using baseball's anti-trust exemption against them to bring FA into existence,after the players had that same exemption used against them for seventy plus years by the owners.

Blame whoever you wish on this,when all is said and done the MLBPA is doing exactly what they are supposed to do,protecting the players,no matter who they are or what their contract is.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2003, 09:55 PM
This story I think is worth reading to get an explanation of why the union did what it did...

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/18/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/index.htm

Lip

joecrede
12-18-2003, 10:33 PM
A-Rod is regarded as the best player in baseball and if his contract is viewed as an albatross, as it surely would be if he had to take less money (reports of some $30M) to be traded, that's a major feather in the owner's cap. No way would the union hand the owners that kind of a bargaining chip for the next round of contract talks.

hose
12-18-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
Good thing the union also controls trades. Why are they always upset over things again? They get multi million dollar contracts, and then when 2 owners want to make a trade, even if the player involved 'accepts' a cut, the union can negate that as a contract that is being devalued? The economics of this sport really suck and makes me sometimes not want to care anymore.


Why drag the union into this mess?

Texas, Boston and A-Rod know the rules of the CBA. They should work the trade within the frame works of the contract like every one else.

thepaulbowski
12-19-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
MLBPA is fighting this for the exact same reason, they don't want football style mess. It is funny that player is look down upon if the they want to restructure a deal but owner do it all the time in football. The football players union is weak and cave to the owners, while baseball players union is strong. Football is more popular now becuase it is easier to bet on.

Yeah 70,000 people go to football games everyweekend to bet. Give me a break.

MLBPA fought because their ego's are too big for their own good. Millionaires bickering over a few million here and there proves how childish and out of touch with reality they are. Crap like this make me wonder why I even follow baseball. I should probably just give up following it now, because you know that during the next contract negotiations there is going to be problems.

thepaulbowski
12-19-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Bud cannot,by law,over ride the CBA,he and the league would get their heads handed to them in court if they even tried it.

There is a reason that the MLBPA is the strongest union in all of professional sports,because it was legitimitized in a courtroom,by Marvin MIller using baseball's anti-trust exemption against them to bring FA into existence,after the players had that same exemption used against them for seventy plus years by the owners.

Blame whoever you wish on this,when all is said and done the MLBPA is doing exactly what they are supposed to do,protecting the players,no matter who they are or what their contract is.

Everyone is missing the point....this is a friggin' game where people are getting paid millions of dollars to PLAY THE GAME! I don't care obout this other crap. These people expect us to care about their CBA & their bargaining positions, I don't. Why should I care when I'm already being overcharged to get in, overcharged to buy a beer & a hot dog & overcharged to park. I don't care about this other stuff, fix it or there will be less & less fans going to these games.

Has the MLBPA ever gone to bat for the average joe or even the Teamsters for that matter? No, they haven't. What if the union representing all the concession workers went on stike, do you think the players would honor the picket line. Hell no, they'd drive their mercedes right through it. So this drivel they talk about doesn't concern me and I'm tired of hearing about it. :angry: :angry:

FanOf14
12-19-2003, 09:28 AM
Why, in this age of players having agents, do they need a union anyways? I understand why press operators, firemen, electricians, janitors, etc need a union, but why do multi-millionaires who have agents to look out for them need a union? :?:

cornball
12-19-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Bud cannot,by law,over ride the CBA,he and the league would get their heads handed to them in court if they even tried it.

There is a reason that the MLBPA is the strongest union in all of professional sports,because it was legitimitized in a courtroom,by Marvin MIller using baseball's anti-trust exemption against them to bring FA into existence,after the players had that same exemption used against them for seventy plus years by the owners.

Blame whoever you wish on this,when all is said and done the MLBPA is doing exactly what they are supposed to do,protecting the players,no matter who they are or what their contract is.

This is precisely the problem. The union, in this case, does not care about what is best for the game. Baseball is a simple game and lawyers have made it complicated. At one time, baseball was the pastime of the nation. Now football has replaced it.

Football replaced it because each team has a chance to win with a salary cap, leadership in the commissioners office, an understandable draft which is fair, drug/steroid enforcement, understandable free agency and marketing ...to keep the list short.

If we have to open a collective bargaining agreement for every move, then a simple game has gone wrong. Unions were formed in the 1920's to protect workers from unfair work conditions from the book "The Jungle".....this union has turned the tables. While the think they are protecting the masses in their membership, they are overlooking what is good for the game and this exception to the agreement.

Don't misread me the owners are not void of fault.

Everyone understands the game and the rules/agreements of the game should be equally understood.

With all that said, (sorry for venting) this deal will go through, but once again baseball can't do it right.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 02:47 PM
Paul says: "this is a friggin' game..."

That's presicly what the owners were telling Congress when they started to get involved in the labor impasse of 1994 / 95. The reality is this is not a game...this is a business. That's why those players (and owners) make the millions that they do.

Businesses have to be run according to laws set forth in this country. One of them is that agreements reached between owners and unions can not be breeched on a whim. If charges in a contract are made they have to be agreed upon but both sides.

Like it or not, that's the way business runs.

Lip

thepaulbowski
12-19-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Paul says: "this is a friggin' game..."

That's presicly what the owners were telling Congress when they started to get involved in the labor impasse of 1994 / 95. The reality is this is not a game...this is a business. That's why those players (and owners) make the millions that they do.

Businesses have to be run according to laws set forth in this country. One of them is that agreements reached between owners and unions can not be breeched on a whim. If charges in a contract are made they have to be agreed upon but both sides.

Like it or not, that's the way business runs.

Lip

I am aware of how business runs. But, actually what I'm getting at is

A game is something you can do as a kid on playground, in the yard, etc. Baseball is a game. I haven't found too many kids on the playground playing accountant or lawyer. This is a game that is being drug through the mud and ruined by the business side. If the games continues to go down the current path, the game will eventually end up a shell of what it is today. I'm not just commenting on the current mess, I'm commenting on the mess of the game. I get tired of millionairs arguing over a million here and a million there. I don't care and I don't want to hear about it. The whining in the media by the players on how salaries are decling and stuff like that. Boo hoo. I've never seen a bunch of bigger crybabies who don't realize how lucky they are. Shut up and play the game.

maurice
12-19-2003, 03:30 PM
If you're upset about prices, you should be mad at the fellows who set the prices, not the MLBPA. The new owner of the Angels just dropped beer prices and jacked up the payroll.

If you're upset that the MLBPA doesn't make decisions to assure the best interests of the fans, you should be even more upset with the owners. The MLBPA has an exclusive duty to protect the best interests of the players, not the fans. OTOH, the fans are the owner's customers, and most owners don't give a crap about anything other than the bottom line.

:reinsy :tool
"You rang?"

hose
12-19-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Everyone is missing the point....this is a friggin' game where people are getting paid millions of dollars to PLAY THE GAME! I don't care obout this other crap. These people expect us to care about their CBA & their bargaining positions, I don't. Why should I care when I'm already being overcharged to get in, overcharged to buy a beer & a hot dog & overcharged to park. I don't care about this other stuff, fix it or there will be less & less fans going to these games.

Has the MLBPA ever gone to bat for the average joe or even the Teamsters for that matter? No, they haven't. What if the union representing all the concession workers went on stike, do you think the players would honor the picket line. Hell no, they'd drive their mercedes right through it. So this drivel they talk about doesn't concern me and I'm tired of hearing about it. :angry: :angry:



The MLBPA is legally obligated to uphold the binding agreements. Orza is only doing his job, I can't fault him or the union on this one.