Bryant, other MLB players whining about signings

CSF77

Well-known member
Poorly written article in the same vein that implies owners shouldn't make the players angry cause then they would be angry. And you shouldnt make 25M/year guys angry. LOLOLOLOLOLO

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/01/18/players-are-waking-up-and-getting-ready-to-fight/
1994 ring a bell?

In response to a worsening financial situation in baseball, the owners of Major League Baseball teams collectively proposed a salary cap to their players.[2] Ownership claimed that small-market clubs would fall by the wayside unless teams agreed to share local broadcasting revenues (to increase equity amongst the teams) and enact a salary cap, a proposal that the players adamantly opposed. On January 18, 1994, the owners approved a new revenue-sharing plan keyed to a salary cap, which required the players' approval.[3][4] The following day, the owners amended the Major League agreement by giving complete power to the commissioner on labor negotiations.

The dispute was played out with a backdrop of years of hostility and mistrust between the two sides. What arguably stood in the way of a compromise settlement was the absence of an official commissioner ever since the owners forced Fay Vincent to resign in September 1992. Vincent said the owners had colluded in the signing of free agents, which led to "a $280 million theft" by Bud Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf, which "polluted labor relations in baseball" and left Donald Fehr, executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, with "no trust in Selig."[5] On February 11, 1994, the owners greatly reduced the commissioner's power to act in "the best interests of baseball."[6]

Owner representative Richard Ravitch officially unveiled the ownership proposal on June 14, 1994.[7] The proposal would guarantee a record $1 billion in salary and benefits.[8] But the ownership proposal also would have forced clubs to fit their payrolls into a more evenly based structure. Salary arbitration would have been eliminated, free agency would begin after four years rather than six, and owners would have retained the right to keep a four- or five-year player by matching his best offer.[9] Owners claimed that their proposal would raise average salaries from $1.2 million in 1994 to $2.6 million by 2001.[8]

Fehr rejected the offer from the owners on July 18. He believed a salary cap was simply a way for owners to clean up their own disparity problems with no benefit to the players.

On July 13, 1994, Fehr said if serious negotiations between the players and the owners did not begin soon, the players could go out on strike in September of that year, threatening the postseason. On December 31, 1993, Major League Baseball's collective bargaining agreement ran out with no new agreement yet signed.[10]



Strike ends
On Tuesday, March 28, 1995, the players voted to return to work if a U.S. District Court judge supported the National Labor Relations Board's unfair labor practices complaint against the owners (which was filed on March 27). By a vote of 27–3, owners supported the use of replacement players. The strike ended when Sonia Sotomayor, then a Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a preliminary injunction against the owners on March 31.[37] On Sunday, April 2, 1995, the day before the season was scheduled to start with the replacement players, the strike came to an official end at 232 days. Judge Sotomayor's decision received support from a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the owners' request to stay the ruling.

As part of the terms of the injunction, the players and owners were to be bound to the terms of the expired collective bargaining agreement until a new one could be reached and the start of the season would be postponed three weeks, with teams playing an abbreviated 144-game season instead of a 162-game season.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Like I said. Ownership wants a cap. Players would give in if there was a league min in place also. That way these small markets can't profiteer off MLB revenues.
 

Castor76

New member
Like I said. Ownership wants a cap. Players would give in if there was a league min in place also. That way these small markets can't profiteer off MLB revenues.
I also think they'll go to an NBA style of contract length restriction giving re-signing teams the option to sign a player for more years than other teams along with the players reaching FA sooner. Control probably going to go down to 4 years and they eliminate the loophole.
 

SchwarberRuth

New member
They need to adopt an nfl style spending cap and minimum. Team control should be cut shorter with some sort of franchise tag available. Their are tons of solutions out there but the system now clearly isn’t working.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
I also think they'll go to an NBA style of contract length restriction giving re-signing teams the option to sign a player for more years than other teams along with the players reaching FA sooner. Control probably going to go down to 4 years and they eliminate the loophole.
It has worked in other sports.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
They need to adopt an nfl style spending cap and minimum. Team control should be cut shorter with some sort of franchise tag available. Their are tons of solutions out there but the system now clearly isn’t working.
The strike was all about a cap a d revenue sharing. In the after math a lux tax was implanted.

What I would like is a 100M min and 200 max. Staying inside those you don't endure penalites.

So on the surface the small markets get screwed. Big markets turn better profits and the players have more opertunity with these small markets forced to actually spend vs roll out a 50M budget.

The Pads are on board now with what Theo did. I'm proved the experience which brings in the fans.

This is the thing. Bad teams do not draw fans. There is no incentive to show up. So by nature humans are reward driven. If there is no reward device there is less desire to attend.

Add to it teams should have a sort of local black out function like football does. Keep the freeloaders down.

If all that is in place and teams still can't fund a product then that team should be pushed into a forced sale driven by a party willing to move the team to a stronger market.
 

anotheridiot

Active member
Super two was put in place to get the players who were kept down just to save control. Funny how so many people would say how stupid I was to have let KB start the season, the job he earned, right out of spring training. Then players got Arbitration, which probably has Bryant making 12 million more than he would have without forcing the teams to pay up for players doing better than expected.

Now we are looking at getting KB for another year, not because he wants to be here, but because he has to be here. He was playing for his next team as soon as they left him at Iowa his rookie year.

so I say, you want Harper, you can forget about affording Bryant and Rizzo. You want Machado, you can forget about one of Bryant and Rizzo, most probably Javy.

10 grand to these guys is like 100.00 to us. As far as the cap, well, its been in place to just about force every team to have a superstar. That is the whole jist of this deal. MLB is stronger when all teams have someone you want to go watch. You should be able to develop yours and keep them, but there are teams out there that just do not want to keep theirs, like Tampa Bay, Miami, you can almost argue Arizona. Its amazing how what, 30 some people can actually own a professional sports franchise and they cant find 30 that want to pay superstars.
 

wklink

CBMB refugee
In all honesty, almost all of these players, Bryant included, are short sighted when they start talking about this.

I understand the money aspect and the 'respect' that it brings. At the same time guys like Harper and Bryant are throwing away an opportunity to be remembered by fans far beyond their playing days.

Everyone here remembers, and loves Ryne Sandberg. We all remember guys like Ron Santo, Ernie Banks, and Billy Williams. What made these guys so memorable in this city was the fact that they were not only stars, but our stars. For the most part these guys played the vast majority of their careers here and because of that they were household names, and honored members of the team.

Players are much more mercenary these days. That desire to get an extra 15 or 20 million is understandable but 20 years from now these guys will not be remembered as great Cubs, just as guys who played for the Cubs. Bryant has a lot of career left and I don't doubt he will be successful but if he bounces from team to team searching for that bigger better deal then he will be nothing more than a hired bat and not someone thought of as a true member of a team.

It is hard becoming a legend in a town like Chicago but Baez, Bryant, and Rizzo all have a chance to be those kinds of players. They could be the ones that we tell our grandkids about in 20 years.
 
Top