| 0 |
Subject: ARod - Manny trade rejected by MLBPA
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [6142019] Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 17:15
Breaking news from TV: ARod isn't going to Boston. So Nomar's not going anywhere either. |
| 1 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 17:20
|
Too much money flying around.
Apparently a player cannot lose money in a deal. Seems to me if the player (with advisers out the whazoo) wants to do a deal, the MLBPA should not be involved.
pd
|
| 2 | R9
ID: 7115044
Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 17:23
|
Arod to MLBPA: 'I make more money then all the rest of you combined, so stuff it.'
I mean really, why piss off your top gainer? If I was Arod now I'd pull a Barry and refuse to sign the MLBPA licencing contract.
|
| 3 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 18:00
|
It is not a dead deal yet...I am sure they will figure out how to get it done...just have to go back to the drawing board and figure it out.
|
| 4 | clv
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 18:06
|
Definitely don't think that should ever be the case Perm Dude. This soap opera is playing out just as it should - usually it's the "overpriced" players' contracts that hamstring teams from being able to make deals to improve themselves, now it's reversed. A-Rod and Manny's contracts were nuts when they signed them, now they're the reason the deal can't get done. Hilarious to me personally. The union's policy has always been that a player can't rework a deal unless he receives some added benefit, and that benefit doesn't include something intangible like being traded to a better team or situation. As interesting as I think it might have made the upcoming season, I kind of hope it doesn't go through. I love A-Rod as a player, but as for his ethics (as well as Nomar and Manny), I don't rate him near the top. Come on guys, you signed contracts (equaling the GNP of several countries) to play baseball for the organization you're already being pampered by - your team doesn't get something if you perform below expectations, so why should you be able to force a trade just because your team isn't performing up to your expectations? Grow up and fulfill YOUR commitment to the people who have agreed to take care of you for life or just retire !!!
|
| 5 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 18:12
|
clv, it's the fact that they can't accurately measure "benefit" that makes the clause have no meaning.
"Benefit" is in the eye of the beholder--the fact that the MLBPA forces "benefit" to be monetary compansation is what drives those contracts to be so high in the first place.
As for their contracts, it's my understanding that they are acting under their contractual terms. In other words, they are, indeed, following the terms of their contract, just not a term that happens to benefit the teams.
pd
|
| 6 | clv
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 18:27
|
I agree PD. My point is that while I am a stern defender of the idea that there shouldn't be a salary cap and that players deserve whatever contract they can negotiate, I'm also growing weary of hearing them bitch and moan when their team can't build a winner. The lone reason the Rangers can't build a winner is A-Rod's contract - they can't go out and sign a Schilling or the like because they owe him too much money. You can't have it both ways - IF you agree to a contract with such stratospheric numbers, you should be prepared to have less chance at a championship because you've taken away some of the team's (in almost every case other than the Yankees) ability to surround you with other stars.
|
| 7 | Revvingparson
Sustainer
ID: 59856912
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 09:01
|
Is this just a ploy by Bud to make himself look good? If it happens it would be interesting to see what an arbitrator would decide.
Bud to step in?
Though I agree that ARod and his fellow spoiled mates have made their bed with these high salaries, it seems that if a player wants to move on and give up salary it should be his decision and not the unions. It's not like Arod or any other palyer is actually headed to the poor house.
|
| 8 | clv
ID: 371139188
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 09:52
|
That was my point Rev, but a little different take I think. The problem I'd have if A-Rod was to give up some money to make the deal happen, then the system is never going to work - the players and the union scream all the time that the organizations never show any loyalty to the players when they're working on contracts as their careers are winding down (i.e. Glavine). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the Braves offered Glavine the same yearly salary as the Mets did to give him the opportunity to retire as a Brave and he chose to pass because the Mets offered two extra years - years that he obviously will be useless to them. Now I just feel it's time for some of the players to be called on the carpet to show their loyalty - I'd have no problem if A-Rod were to restructure to allow the Rangers more flexibility to bring in more people to help him, but I don't like the fact that the only way he's willing to restructure is IF they trade him to a contender. Like I said before, he doesn't give the Rangers or their fans a refund if he doesn't put up better numbers than any other player (which is what he's getting paid for), so why should the Rangers be forced to give him up because they haven't won? He signed the contract - now he needs to honor it.
|
| 9 | Species
Leader
ID: 569221717
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 12:41
|
Expanding on PD's "benefit" point - who is to say that getting out of Texas to a contender isn't a benefit? The chance to win a World Series isn't a benefit? Sheesh!!
It should be the players choice to waive that if he chooses. How lame.
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 12:46
|
I agree--it's funny that it is the one thing all players want, too, but it's contractually not considered a "benefit."
I need to re-iterate a point, though, that ARod is acting contractually in his demands. He's not asking the Rangers to ignore the contract (as some athletes do, demanding "renegotiation" bah!), but asking them to respond to a demand he is allowed to contractually make of them.
pd
|
| 11 | Pi314159
Donor
ID: 21311112
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 12:53
|
I read that AROD is standing by the union. Since AROD has to approve the deal, it wouldn't matter a rat's ass if Big Bad Bud bucks the union again. AROD has the right to say he won't waive the no-trade without Boston satisfying the union, no matter what Bud does.
I don't know AROD well enough to judge his motives, but I've always thought it was unfair to accuse him of being greedy. They guy simply took what was offered to him by Texas, and that makes him a bad person? If my bosses offered me 25 million per year to do what I do, I'd take it too. I've never heard AROD say anything that was so filled with self-interest or greed as to be grouped in with the likes of Barry Bonds.
Either AROD's standing by the union out of self interest to see if Boston will up the ante, or he's doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do. If it's the latter, then you have to give him some credit, even if you can't stand the union (like me)
|
| 12 | Razor
Donor
ID: 190612
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 12:58
|
The player isn't the only party in this contract. Teams sign players to long term contracts so they can actually have them on the team for the term of the contract. I agree with clv that A-Rod should be restructuring to help the Rangers, not so he can go off and try and win a championship with another club. It is sickening when a player starts angling for a trade after taking the money and running. KB reportedly wanted out of LA so he could be closer to his home. Hmmm...LA paid you $105,000,000 so that you'd forget it is far away from your home and come here and now that isn't good enough? And his contract includes jet service and hotels and stuff for when his friends and family want to come. Ridiculous. Players should honor their contract and stop bitching about what they want. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Either sign the big money and shut up or take less money and play close to home or for a contender. It's not like being the Rangers are mistreating A-Rod by not trying to compete. I could see if he wanted out because they scrapped the team, but they are trying to assemble a decent club and has a owner that spends a lot of money trying to win.
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 13:12
|
Teams should honor the contract as well, and abide by all the conditions, then, even ones that are not in their best interest.
If a player contract allows them to demand a trade, then they are, indeed, honoring the contract.
pd
|
| 14 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 14:00
|
Razor's pretty well got what I meant all along. I completely understand that A-Rod wants to play for a contender, and I respect that. However, if he's going to renegotiate that behemoth of a contract to help anyone win, it should be the Rangers first - oh how quickly the fact that THEY have ALREADY paid him $75 million is forgotten. I'm not knocking him, far from it, I have thought for several years that he was the best player in the game, and love to watch him play. The question for me is - "Where does this all stop?" What happens if the deal goes through, the Yankees still make the Series this season, and we find out that NO clubhouse is big enough for Pedro, Schilling, AND A-Rod's egos? IF the aforementioned right to demand a trade does exist in his contract (hadn't heard that one before), can he then go to Epstien and demand a trade to the Yankees (who we know by then will serve up whatever extension the union wants them to)?
|
| 16 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 155592811
Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 23:43
|
question...what business does Selig have stepping in and setting a deadline for this trade to happen? I do not understand this...as far as I would think the teams involved should be able to sit and talk about this trade until July 31st the trade deadline? I do not understand why the commish is involved in this at all. What happens if the teams continue to work on the deal?
|
| 17 | Khahan
ID: 811561711
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 07:57
|
Chicago, if the teams continue talking about the deal and reach a new agreement, they simply ask Selig for permission to talk to Rodriguez again.
However, I still don't see why the Union or the Commissioner's office should be stepping in at this point.
The negotiations and talks are absolutely none of their business. I agree with you that it seems silly that anybody is interferring with negotiations.
I still don't buy the bs that this 'transcends' baseball. What a crock.
|
| 18 | Pi314159
Donor
ID: 21311112
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 08:58
|
I think the reason Selig is involved at all is because Boston wanted permission to speak with AROD directly about restructuring his deal before a deal was actually finalized. Ordinarily, that would violate some tampering rule, so Boston needed a waiver of that rule from Selig. From what I understand, that waiver is almost never even sought, and it's lasted a couple weeks now. Boston has actually been given quite a bit of unusual flexibility to negotiate this deal and try to get every detail in place before they actually pull the plug. In some ways, Boston is being the wimpy party here, because they don't want to take any risks with respect to either AROD or Nomar, so they are trying to dot every "i" before committing to anything. And Khahan is right that they can simply seek another waiver if a new deal is arranged. I don't see the reason for Bud bashing on this one, although I do enjoy a good Bud bashing from time to time.
|
| 19 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 09:13
|
Joe Sheehan defends the union position.
Toral
|
| 20 | clv
ID: 321158198
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 10:22
|
Some pretty good reading there Toral. Definitely puts a little different spin on things. I didn't want the trade to go through to begin with before, and probably even less now. That shines the light a little brighter and explains what I was thinking much better though. My point was that A-Rod OWES the Rangers the first chance at renegotiation, and now it's becoming more obvious that if given that chance, the Rangers probably aren't interested. The union's stance (if it is indeed for the reasons listed in that article) is a little less daunting to me. On the surface it does seem that they only want it to be about the money, but I think the author explained the deeper issue pretty well. I guess I could see where this could (particularly for players of lesser stature) drastically reduce the players' bargaining stances. I'll continue to be shallow and say that's the way it should be because I still believe that the players would never have the chance to "earn" their huge salaries if the owners weren't willing to gamble on them - therefore the owners should be the ones with the bargaining power...but I do agree that if this precedent ultimately is set, owners COULD be in a position where they might be able to use it in every negotiation.
|
| 21 | Khahan
ID: 811561711
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 10:56
|
So cvl, just what rationale do you use to justify that 1 side should have bargaining power A, and the side should not?
|
| 22 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 11:29
|
The Union doesn't help negotiate every player's contract and simply by the fact that payrod and his agent agreed to the restructured contract makes me think the union has no business stepping in. If he asks the union to take a look at it, that's one thing, but like it was stated earlier in this thread, what's it worth to you to go to a contender? How many times have players signed for less just to play for a contender? Does the union step in then? I understand what the union is doing, but it's not like he is being forced to take less. This is something he wants to do.
|
| 23 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 12:15
|
Excellent article in post 19 Toral. Did you read it Ref? I doubt you did because your argument in post 21 is well refuted by Mr. Sheehan.
This situation reminds me of Shawn Kemp and his "buy out" by the Jailblazers last year. If there ever was any doubt which sport has the strongest union, well, you haven't been paying any attention.
The only way I can envision the Red Sox and ARod coming to an agreement that lessens ownership's liabilities without undermining ARod's bottom line is to get into a defered payment plan that places millions of dollars a year for the next 60 years into a charitable trust that ARod could use to pay for clean water/vacinations in Africa perhaps allowing John Henry a tax break. Might be able to save over $10 million.
|
| 24 | Caper
Donor
ID: 1535108
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 12:48
|
I read the article, but still disagree. The union is not protecting the player in this case. Instead of the hypothetical situation he proposes why not think about someone who takes a big money job in a different town. After giving it a solid try, he realizes that he will never accomplish the things he wants to working in that situation. To accomplish his goals he must give up money to go to a situation where he has a chance to fulfill his ambitions. It is quite likely that if those ambitions are satisfied, the monetary losses will be returned and his overall quality of life is going to improve.
This is not an uncommon thing. What is uncommon is the magnitude of the $$$ involved. I do expect that A-Rod could make tons more in endorsements, especially if he could actually help end that cure in Beantown. I really believe the union is taking a very shortsighted, selfish view on this.
|
| 25 | Caper
Donor
ID: 1535108
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 12:50
|
"end that curse in Beantown"
|
| 26 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 12:55
|
Good article, but still makes no apology for the union saying "benefit" can only be measured in dollars. It also spins the tired story that each dollar the players don't take from ownership will simply stay in the well-lined owner's pocket.
|
| 27 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:00
|
PD isnt this the rebuttal to that argument
I appreciate that there's an argument that Rodriguez would gain some non-monetary benefits by accepting this deal, but I don't think there's any way you can spin things to satisfy the CBA clause. There is no way that giving up as much as $81 million in guaranteed money "actually or potentially provides benefits to the player."
And as for your other comment. I think if in this trade it said Tom Hicks had to spend the money that he saves on Arod into other players to compete then the union wouldnt be as opposed to this deal going through.
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:14
|
Taste, the assumption by the union is that the money saved would not go to other players, and even if it did a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
Also, the article rejects out of hand that there is any benefit worth considering to counter the amount of the guaranteed money. But the benefit, and whether it overcomes some monetary figure, is for the player to weigh and decide. Truth be told, the union cannot say for sure what ARod will make in the future if he is out of his Texas contract, so it comes down (again) to the fact that they want what they have and they won't listen to another argument about other benefits, monetary or not, which are not guaranteed.
pd
|
| 29 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:28
|
the assumption by the union is that the money saved would not go to other players,
Thats what I am saying as well. The money Hicks saves will go into his pocket. How can anyone suggest otherwise.
I was using the hypothetical if Hicks saves 40 million and was forced to use that saved money on another player then the union might not have as much of a problem with it. But like the article says, the union doesnt want to set precedence by letting this deal go through, especially such a high profile case. And yes sadly it is about money. They are looking out for all of the players interests, not just arod's. I have no problem with the Union stepping in as this is part of the CBA and if Boston cant abide by the CBA then they dont get Arod. And Arod i think acknowledges that by also standing by the union in this matter.
|
| 30 | Pi314159
Donor
ID: 21311112
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:28
|
PD,
I don't really think it's a "tired story" to talk about the owners' pockets. On the contrary, I think that the real tired story is picking on players for making too much money. Fans seem to get annoyed at the players far more easily than the owners, but the owners are the crooks. Bud Selig -- the owners' face -- convinces taxpayers to help pay for a new stadium and then, despite 3 million fans showing up for the first year, cuts his payroll to the point of absurdity and trades away his best players. Fans should be offended at owners like him, not guys like AROD.
|
| 31 | R9
ID: 7115044
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:48
|
Can't we be offended by both?
|
| 32 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:52
|
PDude - I know you are smarter than this, come on!
The Union absolutely should not allow an owner to restructure a deal that costs a player money. If they did, then owners could easily threaten players with the bench if they don't agree to a trade knowing full well that the other team will require the player to rachet down his guaranteed contract. The Union dosen't give a rat's ass that ARod wants to move to Boston so much that he will throw away millions and it shouldn't. To allow so will give owners enough power to make guaranteed contracts useless.
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 13:57
|
My stance on municipalities being duped into paying for stadia owned by rich team owners is clear: It's a fraud.
I'm certainly not picking on ARod at all here. Truth is, if someone offered me that much money I'd take it too.
As for the $40 million question: There's no evidence at all that this would be pocketed by the owner. Why? Because it doesn't exist. This is an obligation to pay $40 million in the future, not a large account with $40 million in the owner gets the keep. The obligation depends upon revenues yet to be realized--revenues which depend (to no small extent) upon the competitiveness of the team. To a large degree that extra future revenue would depend upon ARod's continued performance under the contract, and with him no longer there there comes the real question of whether the $40 million would be generated at all. In any case, this $40 million doesn't actually exist.
pd
|
| 34 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 14:36
|
LMAO! PGunn/Jerry Lewis, how did you hack into PDude's ID?
I'm sure in the next hour or so the real Perm Dude will erase post 33 with his mighty powers so many of you won't have had the chance to read that post. Let me summarize it:
ARod should be allowed to void a portion of his future earnings, say $40 million, because it doesn't exist, it is imaginary. Silly ARod, he should have taken a cue from Al Gore and insisted upon a LOCKBOX within which the $252 million was deposited. Without being able to point to the actual cash, it is all speculation.
Posts like that make me miss Youngbuck.
|
| 35 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 15:06
|
Ha! Well, let me be clearer: I was refutting the point that the $40 million (an obligation which can only be met through future revenues) would simply be pocketed by the owner. While you might have a problem with The Man, there's no logical or fiscal reason for this assumption.
Sure, I think they owners will take what they can. But they haven't made the future money yet. And without ARod, there's a good chance they never will.
pd
|
| 36 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 17:42
|
Zen, Re: 23
Actually I did read it and just because someone has an opinion different than mine and is published by Baseball Prospectus, doesn't mean I have to give up on my opinion. You act like I made a statement of fact and that article has the ultimate source of factual representation.
I welcome differing opinions. Obviously you disagree with me and a few others on here. That is good for discussion, but don't act like everyone else's opinion is wrong. That's why I will never argue politics or religion--no matter what your opinion is on something, some people all still get bent out or whack trying to convince you their opinion how things are or should be is the way it is or should be.
Bottom line, if I am under contract with my employer and that employer mutually agrees to let me out of that contract to join another firm and that firm has a similar contract but a little less and I can be in a better situation, what business is it of anyone else? I read the articles, I've heard the arguments. I'm not swayed. That's my opinion.
|
| 37 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 19:34
|
Ref -
You obvious don't understand the point of unions. That's fine. It doesn't have anything to do with opinions.
|
| 38 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 20:13
|
Kahan - re #21...my rationale is simply that the owners SHOULD be the controlling influence simply because they are the ones who create the jobs. The players often see fit to "take their ball and go home" when they strike, as it were. If the owners ever decided they'd had enough of trying to coddle the players, they wouldn't care what the players did with their ball because when they came back there wouldn't be a field for them to play on. Be honest here - regardless of how talented or marketable the athletes are, if the owners don't continue to sign their checks, they have nothing to market. As I've said, I think the players are worth every dime of every contract they negotiate, but I believe that simply because their owners agree with them. However, it's the players who often think they're bigger than the game, not the owners. The owners are the ones with something on the line, not the players. It's the owners who pay the leases on the stadiums, the power bills, the vendors in the stands, the advertising, the clubhouse attendants, the managers, the cleanup crews at the stadiums, pay for the hotels and transportation, and so on and so on. None of these costs are incurred by the players, and they would never offer to share them. Therefore my rationale is without the owners, we have no game - if the guys currently on rosters making huge sums of money don't like the contracts offered them, they're welcome to join the rest of us in the rat race (at least those of us who are lucky enough to have jobs presently). There are tons of capable athletes who would be able to step in and play the game, even if it's not quite at the same level, but if the owners decide to close up shop everyone will have plenty of time to work on those things we ignore around the house that need done (or our golf games), because you will be pretty hard pressed to find 30 more guys with enough wealth and interest to put up with all that goes with owning a franchise.
|
| 39 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 20:24
|
Ref - re #22...I have no problems with players agreeing to substantially less money than they were making before to join a contender, but I think you're missing the boat here. The situations I think you're alluding to are situations like Gary Payton and Karl Malone. Yes they took alot less cash to hookup with Kobe and Shaq, but they DIDN'T have contractual obligations to anyone else at the time. They were free-agents at the end of last season and were welcome to sign ANY contract with ANY team for ANY amount they were willing to play for. A-Rod is not in the same situation - he is still contractually obligated to the Rangers for seven more years unless he waives his no-trade clause and the Rangers work out a deal to trade him to someone who will honor the remainder of his contract. The stumbling block here is Rangers' management. They found someone to take him, but are also asking for money on top of the player they get. If Boston could trade Manny for A-Rod straight-up, all of this would be over, and Chicago would be ironing out the terms of swapping Nomar to the Dodgers.
|
| 40 | Tastethewaste
ID: 269383120
Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 20:36
|
CLV, post 38 This has been done plenty of times. Its called a lockout.
|
| 41 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 02:58
|
clv, how many time does a player hold up their team WITH A CONTRACT demanding renegotiations!!! When the deal is renegotiated, they tear up the old contract and replace it with a new one. In this instance, a team is asking to renegotiate and the player agrees.
I understand what the union is doing. But they don't step in when a contract is renegotiated for more money. I understand that. The owners have a union too, it's called MLB and the commish is the president. The owners are the ones creating the jobs and supposedly losing money (I'll NEVER buy that one). Part of me thinks Texas made their bed with arod now they should lie in it. But when both parties agree to restructure and a 3rd party says no, that's when I'm slightly bothered.
|
| 42 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 07:37
|
That's the point Ref - A-Rod is not renegotiating with the team he's obligated to (or that's obligated to him), HE'S renegotiating with a third-party...that's the problem I have said I have with the deal all along. He's not once offered to renegotiate with Hicks so Texas could bring in someone to help build a winner there, has he? I've never bought the argument that the owners are losing money (except possibly in Montreal), and never stated such. My statement was: "It's the owners who pay the leases on the stadiums, the power bills, the vendors in the stands, the advertising, the clubhouse attendants, the managers, the cleanup crews at the stadiums, pay for the hotels and transportation, and so on and so on. None of these costs are incurred by the players, and they would never offer to share them."
As for your statement about having made their bed, I agree wholeheartedly - as long as it works both ways. A-Rod helped make the bed when he agreed to the contract, so he's got to lie in it too. All the union is saying is that it's wrong for him to be able to back out of it for less money to move to a team that's already one of the best. If this precedent is set, the downfall everyone predicts is coming because of the "Evil Empire" will be at hand...what would stop the remaining superstars from saying that they will only renegotiate their deals to provide financial relief to their current team with the Yankees or Red Sox or Braves? This is in essence what A-Rod is doing - he's saying all the right things on camera, but he's telling us that IF he stays in Texas, they're on the hook for the entire $252 million, but IF they trade him to Boston Henry can pay him less.
|
| 43 | Khahan
ID: 521117920
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 07:52
|
Seattle Zen: Post 32 If they did, then owners could easily threaten players with the bench if they don't agree to a trade knowing full well that the other team will require the player to rachet down his guaranteed contract.
...
That is a completely different scenario, in fact, nearly opposite. If that were to occur, then the Union SHOULD step in and put up a fight and some punative measures should be taken against ownership.
However, that is NOT what is happening here. In this case we have player A stating he would like to play for team B. Team B is saying we'd be happy to have you under these conditions. Player A agrees and then the union steps in and says, "No, those conditions are unacceptable."
When its put that way, does anybody else see the problem?
Two sides reach a mutually agreeable decision and third party steps in and blocks it due to possible hypothetical situations that are not even directly related.
Again, the situation we have is that Player A and Team B mutually come to a decision on a contract.
The situation the Union is hoping to avoid is that Team C strong arms player D into a restructure.
|
| 44 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 10:09
|
If I'm reading it correctly kahan, I think you get it. There are a couple of other letters (namely that team B would be Texas, so team C should be added as Boston), but that's it - the union is concerned that IF they allowed A-Rod to make this move, that the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox, Phillies - whichever organization was willing to pay the highest salaries to the best players no matter the cost - would be able to tell their lower-tier players (the 20th-25th players on their roster) "either renegotiate your salary down to the minimum if you want to play here, or we'll trade you to Montreal or release you". If they didn't renegotiate, they could be released and the roster spot would be there for Steinbrenner and other owners to tell the other superstars "now I have room for you on my team if you'll restructure your contract." This would create an even more-unbalanced league than we already have - the best players who want to play for a championship all wind up on the rosters of four or five teams, and the other 25 clubs are more-or-less AAA teams who can't compete. This would lead to several of them going under which would eliminate the one thing the union is trying to protect - the highest number of high-paying jobs for it's members.
|
| 45 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 10:16
|
I don't believe the union is saying that at all.
|
| 46 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 14:04
|
Which part Perm Dude? Obviously everything in the scenario I proposed is hypothetical, but just an elaboration of what kahan was saying - the union is afraid that if they set the precedent of allowing ONE player to renegotiate for less money without obtaining a benefit, they would have to let EVERY player do so. That would give the owners a much more distinct advantage than they presently have at the bargaining table - then they would be able to hold that over everyone's heads at the bargaining table: "A-Rod gave up $40 million dollars to come here to play for a contender - the least you can do is accept a paycut as well - then we'll have enough money left to spend on salaries to bring in Jose Vidro to play second base instead of Mark Bellhorn." This would simply give the owners more of a tool to help keep salaries more reasonable, which goes against what they are trying to accomplish in the first place - create MORE high-paying opportunities for as many of the union's members as possible.
|
| 47 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 14:43
|
Khahan, well said. That's my opinion as well. clv, while you make some valid points, I agree with PD, I don't think that's what the union is saying at all. They are saying, we don't care about making this work, you can not accept one penny less than your original contract. You see it working in the NFL, but that is apples and oranges as the NFL does it the old fasion way--no guaranteed contracts.
Baseball can't get the union to agree to a salary cap and the owners--esp the Steinbrenner's can overpay driving up the cost for the owners. Of course the players love this, but we've got some trouble--hence the salaries are now softening as some owners are saying, screw it, I can't afford those players anymore, I'll go with what I can afford. This hurts the mid-range players more than anything else.
There are so many teams affected by this deal that to void it based on what the union is saying will truly hurt the league as a whole IMO.
|
| 48 | khahan
ID: 313111819
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 18:11
|
but just an elaboration of what kahan was saying - the union is afraid that if they set the precedent of allowing ONE player to renegotiate for less money without obtaining a benefit, they would have to let EVERY player do so.
Ok, so what? Who cares if a player wants to renegotiate for less money?
If the player WANTS to do it, why shouldn't he?
You're argument is a completely different situation. I happen to agree with you that owners should not be able to go to a player and say, "Take less money or else."
The union should raise hell and the commissioner's office should step in, too.
But again, that is a completely different scenario from what is happening here.
This scenario: Player goes to team and volunteers restructure/reduction
Your scenario: Management goes to player and uses strong arm tactics and blackmail to force player into a worse position.
|
| 49 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 18:18
|
Your scenario: Management goes to player and uses strong arm tactics and blackmail to force player into a worse position.
Third scenario: like the above, except management tells the player, "Oh, and you better tell the union this is all your idea and you want to do this renegotiation, if you know what's good for you."
Toral
|
| 50 | Tastethewaste
ID: 269383120
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 20:44
|
I'd really like to know how this trade is good for baseball. This action if allowed would hurt any other guaranteed contract. In fact no contract would be guaranteed at all. Further who is this helping? It is helping owners. Hicks can save some money and Redsox ownership saves on Arod. Arod loses money. The rangers lose their only selling point and the redsox and yankees have 2 all star teams while the rest of the league lags behind. So score 1 for owners 1 for boston yankee rivalry and -28 for all other baseball teams looking to cut payroll and - however many fans of the other 28 teams who will be lucky to get in the playoffs (most of which are already eliminated next year already). I thought this luxury cap was supposed to make the league more competitive. Instead we have 2 teams that dont care about the cap and 28 other teams trying to get under the cap. If players keep taking paycuts to go to a winner i just dont see how baseball wins. The union has to intervene. If someone is violating the CBA then the union has to step in for the good of the rest of its members. Thats why there is a CBA. As i said before Arod must be aware of this because he is siding with the Union on this matter. If the union doesnt intervene than the union isnt doing its job.
|
| 51 | khahan
ID: 313111819
Sun, Dec 21, 2003, 08:24
|
TTW: You make quite a few assertions, but then do nothing to back them up.
For instance: This action if allowed would hurt any other guaranteed contract.
How? Will it cause the other over paid athletes to suddenly run out and decide to play for less money?
Next: Further who is this helping?
You kind of answer this. But in general, it is helping exactly the parties it needs to help: those that are involved.
As you said, Texas (not necessarily hicks, but Texas) saves money. Does it put 'money in Tom Hicks' pocket?' Who knows, who cares? Its up to Hicks to decide what he wants to do with his money. If he's given an opportunity to save a few million dollars and doesn't mind the drawback (ie: losing A-rod), then what concern is it of anybody elses?
Boston gains from this: They get the services of A-rod, the best position player today. They get the best trade position you can hope to be in: 2 of the top 3 players at a generally weak position, so they can trade one off.
A-rod: Well, does it help him? Apparently so, or else he would not have agreed to it. This is only assumption, but: A) It moves him out of Texas, which apparently he wants B) It moves him onto a team where his contributions can get them much closer to a World Series. He gets these 2 things despite the drawback of losing $40million. Ok, so he loses $40million...he still decided A and B were worth it.
Who else does it help? Directly..nobody. Because, directly, nobody else is involved.
Third point you claim: The rangers lose their only selling point and the redsox and yankees have 2 all star teams while the rest of the league lags behind
This is good for baseball. There is not enough talent of this caliber to go around. So instead of having 1 or 2 teams in every division with a huge lead, its all loaded in 1 place. This means, the rest of the league is more competitive with itself. The only real losers are Baltimore, Toronto and Tampa Bay. And guess what...Baltimore is stepping up to try and do something about it.
Rob Neyer explains the same thing. And while initially it does seem counter-intuitive, think about it for a moment. You'll understand.
thought this luxury cap was supposed to make the league more competitive.
Yes and no. It is merely supposed to discourage teams from spending too much. And for the teams that do, they now have to kick money back into the other teams funds. But the only way to enforce real competitiveness through caps is a strict salary cap. The luxury tax won't accomplish this.
If someone is violating the CBA then the union has to step in for the good of the rest of its members.
Yes, the union should step in and review if there is a violation of the CBA. And if that violation is harmful, they should correct it. But I don't see how A-rod taking this paycut is harmful (at least not in the way the Union is portraying it). I've explained why many times in prior posts.
|
| 52 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 11:29
|
The Rob Neyer article says that the trade Arod and Ordonez for manny and nomar is a wash. Then he says that its a good thing that all the great players are going to a select amount of teams. Isnt this trade if its a wash counter intuitive to Neyers competitive balance claim?
Secondly, how is that competitive balance? With the Wild Card (unless something drastic happens to either the yanks or sox) they are both going to the playoffs. That leaves the rest of the league fighting for 2 playoff spots and no one even cares who wins the AL Central. That also means there is little drama in the regular season for the yanks and sox against each other. Its like saying the NBA has competitive balance because the East is so bad and the West is so good. You cant tell me thats good for basketball. The divisions might be balanced but its not gonna be much fun if this trend continues and the yankees battle the 79-83 Tigers while the Wild card Redsox battle the 75-87 Angels. Oh and how exactly is Baltimore suddenly a contender? I dont think they are contending with a starting 5 of Rodrigo Lopez, Jason Johnson, Pat Hentgen, Omar Daal and Kurt Ainsworth. We'll see what kind of MVP tejada is without a starting 5 that includes zito, hudson, and mulder.
Also why is the onus on the player to take a pay cut? Why cant Hicks be grateful hes getting rid of a contract that he needs to get out of, for a player who makes less money and less years? If they cant get the deal done according to the CBA then they cant get it done.
Guaranteed contract. If you renegotiate a guaranteed contract that means its not guaranteed any more. All the pro union posts in this thread have to deal with hypotheticals since obviously nothing has happened yet. The whole stance by the union has to do with setting a precedent on guaranteed contracts in which they can be renegotiated for less money. This violates the CBA and therefore cannot be allowed to happen. They dont want football contracts where most contracts aren't guaranteed and teams frequently cut players if they don't renegotiate their deals. Obviously this Arod deal is different than an owner demanding a paycut or youre gone but its what it could lead to in the future that the union is scared about. And basically they are telling arod sure you can play for a contender, but only if you give me 40 million dollars. Just because Arod agrees doesnt make it right.
You said in post 17 The negotiations and talks are absolutely none of their business. (meaning the commish and the union). But it is the unions business if the trade talks are in violation of the CBA, which they are. The union even negotiated to make the trade more beneficial for the player while cutting Arods salary and the redsox said no. They wanted more of a paycut.
I dont know what other assertions you think i claim and didnt back up but i hope this satisfies your response.
|
| 53 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 12:10
|
Also why is the onus on the player to take a pay cut? Why cant Hicks be grateful hes getting rid of a contract that he needs to get out of, for a player who makes less money and less years?
I think he is--in fact, that's almost certainly why he's doing the deal. As for "onuses" the fact is that Texas has a poorer team without ARod there--it's the tradeoff. The onus then is on Hicks to rebuild with no one to build around.
This whole thing points to several flaws in the CBA which should be clarified. The fact that the union is interpreting "benefit" to only be in monetary terms is, IMO, a CBA violation. In lieu of an actual definition in the CBA, it is up to the player to determine what constitutes a benefit. Whether his interpretation is different than the unions is simply a difference in interpretation, not a CBA violation.
pd
|
| 54 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 12:22
|
I read last night that AROD wants to trade 12-13 million of his salary for the right to use the Red Sox logo and uniform etc. That would be big because normally those sponsors would have to pay the Red Sox and MLB but instead they would be paying him. The union says they have no problem with that. So at least they're closer.
Hicks made a Tuesday deadline or he's pulling AROD off the table. I agree with PD, his team will be worse w/o AROD but have no hope of getting better with no money to bring anyone in.
|
| 55 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 12:31
|
They will be saving 5 million per year over the next 3 years and then 25 million after mannys contract is up. Thats saving enough i think.
I mentioned that logo thing in my previous post but didnt go into detail. The redsox refused that offer from what i heard.
|
| 56 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 12:53
|
actually its 5-7 million over the next 5 years not 3, my mistake. Then they save 25 million per year. The rangers also signed a 10 year 250 million dollar television deal with fox the same year they signed Arod, a deal they probably wouldnt have gotten without arod. So the rangers are making money off of Arod without even having him on the team for the next 7 years if the deal goes through, unless of course fox is allowed to renegotiate its contract with texas.
|
| 57 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 13:00
|
It's pretty common to have a renegotiation clause in TV contracts. Nothing is really guaranteed.
pd
|
| 58 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 13:11
|
Than that is Foxs right. If renegotiation wasnt allowed than i can guarantee you Hicks would not be giving back any money to fox.
|
| 59 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 13:14
|
Oh sure. No reason for him to.
Essentially, Hicks wants a do-over (pre-ARod). He's made a little money off it, but the real long-term costs. are enormous, and the idea of building a winning squad around a guy who sucks up so much payroll has been demonstrated to be unsound.
pd
|
| 60 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 13:25
|
He doesnt just want a do over, he wants a do over and cash. He cant have it both ways. I agree with you that the union is seeing benefits as monetary gains, but thats what the union is there for. Arod shouldve realized this 3 years ago when he signed the contract. Thats what Free agents do. They can go for the big bucks and play for a loser or take less and play for a winner. Hes not a free agent anymore. He is under contract. He cant go to a new team and play for less because of the CBA. He can take a paycut and get things like the right to use the redsox logo but the redsox refused. Or he can waive his no trade clause and go to a team willing to take on his salary. This might not be what Arod wants but it is what the union wants because it doesnt want to set a trend with future players. The redsox are willing to trade Arod for manny straight up saving hicks money, but Hicks wants more, so the deal wont go through. I just dont see why the union is the bad guy in this, while the owners get off scot free and writers and fans are saying this trade would be great for baseball. It just doesnt add up for me.
|
| 61 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 13:27
|
Taste, I believe actually he can play for less. I don't believe that the union's interpretation of "benefit" is the only reasonable interpretation of the word.
pd
|
| 62 | Tastethewaste
ID: 249352813
Mon, Dec 22, 2003, 14:26
|
Right PD, i got that.
|
| 63 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 257161713
Tue, Dec 23, 2003, 17:28
|
AROD to stay as a Ranger
|
| 64 | ¤ Mario LeMoose ¤
ID: 211153240
Wed, Dec 24, 2003, 01:53
|
Text of Hicks' letter to season ticketholders
04:54 PM CST on Tuesday, December 23, 2003
The following is the text of a letter from Tom Hicks sent to Texas Rangers season ticketholders via e-mail Tuesday afternoon.
Very shortly, it will be announced that the proposed trade of Alex Rodriguez to the Boston Red Sox will not occur. Given the importance of this issue, I wanted to "speak" to you, our valued season ticket holders, directly and prior to the announcement.
The Texas Rangers Baseball Club is committed to creating a championship-caliber team on the field. As such, we are constantly exploring ways to achieve those ends. When contemplating the potential to trade Alex, the one constant was that we would only finalize an agreement if it would make our team better faster. At the end of the negotiation process, we felt what was offered in return did not satisfy that threshold.
When Alex signed to play for the Texas Rangers, we felt privileged to have the best player in baseball as a part of our team. We believed we could build a championship-caliber team around Alex. That sentiment has not changed, nor has the commitment.
We are well on our way to accomplishing that goal. Mark Teixeira, Hank Blalock, and Michael Young, along with Alex, form arguably the best infield in baseball today. Their future together has the potential for even greater success. We continue to see accomplishments at all levels of our minor league system confirming the vision of future success that John Hart and Grady Fuson created. In addition, we plan to augment this young core with appropriate free agent activity, which should begin taking place over the next several days, and/or trades. Buck Showalter is the embodiment of a Major League manager, and the Rangers are confident in his ability to lead our young, talented group to future playoff games.
Your support as a season ticket holder is instrumental in allowing us to build these future successes. I want to personally thank you for your loyalty and assure you of our commitment to reward your investment. The Rangers look forward to seeing you often at the beautiful Ballpark in Arlington in 2004. Please join me in welcoming Alex back to The Ballpark.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|