PDA

View Full Version : Basball is not


Daver
02-16-2002, 03:51 PM
Out of the woods yet on the labor issue.

http://www.sportingnews.com/baseball/articles/20020216/383410.html


I fear this will result in a in an appearance before the NLRB around mid-season,with both sides saying they have negotiated to an impasse.

voodoochile
02-16-2002, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by daver
Out of the woods yet on the labor issue.

http://www.sportingnews.com/baseball/articles/20020216/383410.html


I fear this will result in a in an appearance before the NLRB around mid-season,with both sides saying they have negotiated to an impasse.

Isn't that what the owners want? In the event of an impasse, they can unilatlerally change the rules and almost force the players to accept a salary cap and other concessions.

Daver
02-16-2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Isn't that what the owners want? In the event of an impasse, they can unilatlerally change the rules and almost force the players to accept a salary cap and other concessions.

No they can't,it would probably result in another work stoppage.

voodoochile
02-16-2002, 04:08 PM
My understanding is that if the Owners can get to next Fall without a workable deal, they can claim they are at an impasse and that the players are unwilling to work with them to make a new labor deal that works for both sides. Then they can impose a new set of labor rules and legally say, "These are the rules that we are going to play with, anyone who wants to play for us can, but you have to accept these rules." In effect they would no longer be bound by the current CBA which requires them to bargain in good faith and restricts the moves they can make unilaterally.

If the players then chose to go on strike (which they would) the owners would have to come up with a solution which in the end if they were willing to be hard asses, could lead to replacement players and the eventual breaking of the MLB union. Not like there isn't enough money floating around for both sides to be happy - what's the latest pot figure, $3+ Billion?

Daver
02-16-2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
My understanding is that if the Owners can get to next Fall without a workable deal, they can claim they are at an impasse and that the players are unwilling to work with them to make a new labor deal that works for both sides. Then they can impose a new set of labor rules and legally say, "These are the rules that we are going to play with, anyone who wants to play for us can, but you have to accept these rules." In effect they would no longer be bound by the current CBA which requires them to bargain in good faith and restricts the moves they can make unilaterally.

If the players then chose to go on strike (which they would) the owners would have to come up with a solution which in the end if they were willing to be hard asses, could lead to replacement players and the eventual breaking of the MLB union. Not like there isn't enough money floating around for both sides to be happy - what's the latest pot figure, $3+ Billion?

Both sides would have to appear at an NLRB inquest,which would hear both sides of the case and make their recomendations towards reaching an agreement.

MLB can't make a hard line stance and go with replacement players because they would the lose the fans,baseball is different from football,people go to see the players more so than to see the game,unlike football which is the opposite.

voodoochile
02-16-2002, 04:24 PM
Daver, the players made it last time for a month before coming back. If the owners play hardball the players will eventually crack. The fans root for guys like Frank and Burly-Mon, but in the end it is the uniform they root for.

Think a guy like Magglio is going to sit out 2 years when he has a guaranteed $10 million per just to show up? I would give it 3 months tops before the big guys would cross the line and accept the new rules.

Fans would come back in 5 years or so at most - most of them the next time their team made a playoff run. If the owners manage to play the WS from now on, the fans won't really care. Besides, most of us agree that some kind of salary cap, slary floor and maximum salary are necessary for the long term survival of the game. The owners could work that and work that and the players would look like greedy idiots even more so than they already do.

Honestly, isn't $15 million/year enough money for anyone to play a kids game? Get baseball healthy, share the revenue, make the players become partners and in the end, everyone wins...

Paulwny
02-16-2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Honestly, isn't $15 million/year enough money for anyone to play a kids game? Get baseball healthy, share the revenue, make the players become partners and in the end, everyone wins...

Big Frank doesn't think $10 mil/yr is enough.
These guys are all egotists, they all become envious when another star earns more then them.
The state of ml baseball is the last thing on a players mind.

SOXSINCE'70
02-16-2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Big Frank doesn't think $10 mil/yr is enough.
These guys are all egotists, they all become envious when another star earns more then them.
The state of ml baseball is the last thing on a players mind.

And here I was thinking Jason Giambi was making over 100 mil for the next 7 years GUARANTEED because he looked good in the uniform. :D: :D: :D: *****!! You want to solve some of baseball's so called financial woes?? STOP GUARANTEED CONTRACTS!!

Dadawg_77
02-16-2002, 09:15 PM
The era of baseball now is the backlash which was caused by owners screwing the players in the past.
What should happen is the players and owners figure out a spilt of MLB total revenue, like the NBA which is 55% players, 45% owners. (I think these aren't exact but is close to the real split) If the players in total make more then the allocated % of revenue, each player is charged a 2% or the difference (whichever is lesser) of thier salary. This money would back to the owners to be spilt however the owners see fit.
That would be good solution to this mess. The bumps in the road would be defining whats is baseball related revenue, probally a floor such as the players need to make 50% of baseball related revenue.
Honestly, i hope they don't use an NFL style cap, but more of an NBA style cap. Where there is a max of what a player can make and current teams can pay more then others.

voodoochile
02-17-2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by SOXSINCE'70


And here I was thinking Jason Giambi was making over 100 mil for the next 7 years GUARANTEED because he looked good in the uniform. :D: :D: :D: *****!! You want to solve some of baseball's so called financial woes?? STOP GUARANTEED CONTRACTS!!

Now here I disagree. Without guaranteed contracts, the signing bonuses get outrageous. What would A-Rod's signing bonus have been under a non-guaranteed system - $100 million? It is probably cheaper to pay him the way they are...

Besides, most of the big contracts are guaranteed. If a star cannot fulfill his obligations because of injury, it doesn't cost the team a dime, in fact, they can stop paying insurance premiums and save even more...

Daver
02-17-2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Now here I disagree. Without guaranteed contracts, the signing bonuses get outrageous. What would A-Rod's signing bonus have been under a non-guaranteed system - $100 million? It is probably cheaper to pay him the way they are...

Besides, most of the big contracts are guaranteed. If a star cannot fulfill his obligations because of injury, it doesn't cost the team a dime, in fact, they can stop paying insurance premiums and save even more...

MLB is having some large diffuculties in finding insurance providers nowadays,and the premiums are getting to the point that they may as well pay the salaries.

ode to veeck
02-17-2002, 02:28 PM
What should happen is the players and owners figure out a spilt of MLB total revenue, like the NBA which is 55% players, 45% owners. (I think these aren't exact but is close to the real split) If the players in total make more then the allocated % of revenue, each player is charged a 2% or the difference (whichever is lesser) of thier salary. This money would back to the owners to be spilt however the owners see fit.

nice idea, but it would require a couple of things the owners don't do: (1) open their books to anyone, and (2) show any intelligence whatsoever--neither one of these are likely to happen any time soon, witnessed by bud's recent congressional testimonies and the whole contraction BS ... another couple of years and it'll be hard to tell baseball from boxing