Baez and Bryant (and Russell) to Iowa

[Banedon]

Somebody call the Wahhhmbulance

 

http://i.imgur.com/36wQ0Hk.png

 

Maybe next time don't agree to a system with rules you don't like that can hurt the financial outcome of the players you represent

 

Someone should remind them that Bryant isn't a union member yet.

[RynoRules]

So go ahead and address it when the CBA expires, but shut your yap until then. Throwing shade at the Cubs via freaking social media does literally nothing to enhance your bargaining position, and the Cubs' decision kept one of your dues paying members employed at the ML level for an extra couple of weeks.

[Smack]

So go ahead and address it when the CBA expires, but shut your yap until then. Throwing shade at the Cubs via freaking social media does literally nothing to enhance your bargaining position, and the Cubs' decision kept one of your dues paying members employed at the ML level for an extra couple of weeks.

 

This is the part that gets me. It's not like the number of Cubs roster spots has changed. Who do they want kicked off the roster? Like you said, that guy is ALREADY paying dues.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soon enough sanity will be restored and we'll look back at a man with an MLB logo tattooed on his neck and laugh and laugh and laugh.

 

that's not fun or cool man wtf

 

Agreed; neck tattoos are not fun or cool.

 

Back to the Bryant issue: was Harper held back like this? Was there any kind of a similar uproar if so?

[sneakypower]

he was similarly held back, but there was no argument to be made about him being over-ripe because he was FOUR years younger than Bryant is now

[jersey cubs fan]

he was similarly held back, but there was no argument to be made about him being over-ripe because he was FOUR years younger than Bryant is now

 

oh baby

[Sammy Sofa]

Mmmmmm, so ripe.

[Sammy Sofa]

[RynoRules]

Seriously, you'd think that this union - what with its fully-guaranteed contracts and pension/healthcare benefits - would shut up and not attempt to publicly shame owners whose ass's they have collectively kicked since the collusion cases popped in the mid-80's. I get why Boras would do it, which makes me wonder if he has pics of Tony Clark snorting coke with transexual capitalist hookers.

[KingCubsFan]

Seriously, you'd think that this union - what with its fully-guaranteed contracts and pension/healthcare benefits - would shut up and not attempt to publicly shame owners whose ass's they have collectively kicked since the collusion cases popped in the mid-80's. I get why Boras would do it, which makes me wonder if he has pics of Tony Clark snorting coke with transexual capitalist hookers.

It is kind of strange that they would come out so strongly, considering Bryant will end up taking the job of one of their current members.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seriously, you'd think that this union - what with its fully-guaranteed contracts and pension/healthcare benefits - would shut up and not attempt to publicly shame owners whose ass's they have collectively kicked since the collusion cases popped in the mid-80's. I get why Boras would do it, which makes me wonder if he has pics of Tony Clark snorting coke with transexual capitalist hookers.

It is kind of strange that they would come out so strongly, considering Bryant will end up taking the job of one of their current members.

 

The union always advocates most strongly on behalf of those players that have the potential to make the most money. You can argue it has probably been a very effective concept. While the minimum wage guys are no better off today than they were 20 years ago, the "average" player can now make insane amounts of money if he ever reaches free agency, in part due to all the money teams spend on the super stars.

[JeffH]

...capitalist hookers.

 

An unnecessary adjective.

[SouthSideRyan]

Seriously, you'd think that this union - what with its fully-guaranteed contracts and pension/healthcare benefits - would shut up and not attempt to publicly shame owners whose ass's they have collectively kicked since the collusion cases popped in the mid-80's. I get why Boras would do it, which makes me wonder if he has pics of Tony Clark snorting coke with transexual capitalist hookers.

 

MLB owners have by far highest share of revenue among the big 4.

[George Hayduke]

Soon enough sanity will be restored and we'll look back at a man with an MLB logo tattooed on his neck and laugh and laugh and laugh.

Karma will have fully run it's course when Theo doesn't remember Javy's name in interviews anymore.

 

"Our farm system is still stacked with quality talent like Bryant and Russell, and some other middle infielders I think, and Kyle Schwarber....."

[Sammy Sofa]

Soon enough sanity will be restored and we'll look back at a man with an MLB logo tattooed on his neck and laugh and laugh and laugh.

Karma will have fully run it's course when Theo doesn't remember Javy's name in interviews anymore.

 

"Our farm system is still stacked with quality talent like Bryant and Russell, and some other middle infielders I think, and Kyle Schwarber....."

 

http://i.imgur.com/h2Jtf8Z.gif

[Irrelevant Dude]

Assuming that Baez shows improvement in AAA to justify being recalled (not a safe assumption), what is his service time date? Late May?

[Guest]

Seriously, you'd think that this union - what with its fully-guaranteed contracts and pension/healthcare benefits - would shut up and not attempt to publicly shame owners whose ass's they have collectively kicked since the collusion cases popped in the mid-80's. I get why Boras would do it, which makes me wonder if he has pics of Tony Clark snorting coke with transexual capitalist hookers.

 

MLB owners have by far highest share of revenue among the big 4.

define by far

[Guest]

Assuming that Baez shows improvement in AAA to justify being recalled (not a safe assumption), what is his service time date? Late May?

Somebody posted June 21st

[SouthSideRyan]

Seriously, you'd think that this union - what with its fully-guaranteed contracts and pension/healthcare benefits - would shut up and not attempt to publicly shame owners whose ass's they have collectively kicked since the collusion cases popped in the mid-80's. I get why Boras would do it, which makes me wonder if he has pics of Tony Clark snorting coke with transexual capitalist hookers.

 

MLB owners have by far highest share of revenue among the big 4.

define by far

 

I'm not sure where those numbers are generated from but from the respective CBAs:

 

NBA

18. What percentage of revenues do the players receive?

 

Contracts are individually negotiated between players and teams, and several factors control the amount each player individually can receive.

 

Collectively, the players are guaranteed to receive at least 51.15% of revenues in salaries & benefits for the 2011-12 season. Starting in 2012-13 they are guaranteed to receive 50% of forecasted revenues1, plus (or minus) 60.5% of the amount by which revenues exceed (or fall short of) the forecasts, with a lower limit of 49% of BRI and an upper limit of 51% of BRI.

 

Here are the revenue forecasts for 2012-13 through 2020-21, with 50% of the forecast value (upon which the guarantee is based):

 

 

NFL

 

Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of "all revenue," a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue.

[RynoRules]

As I said, its about more than just revenue distribution. In any case, the MLBPA is complaining about a provision it agreed to as part of the most recent contract negotiation. The current CBA expires in December 2016. Deal with it then instead of firing up a controversy at the beginning of a new season that has absolutely no chance of creating a positive outcome in the short term.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As I said, its about more than just revenue distribution. In any case, the MLBPA is complaining about a provision it agreed to as part of the most recent contract negotiation. The current CBA expires in December 2016. Deal with it then instead of firing up a controversy at the beginning of a new season that has absolutely no chance of creating a positive outcome in the short term.

 

It's not that simple. I'm still not entirely clear on it, but all sides involved seem to be acting as if there's either a CBA provision or a labor law that forbids teams from acting this way for the reasons the Cubs are doing it.

 

It may be a rule that has never been enforced, but it sure seems to be there.

[RynoRules]

As I said, its about more than just revenue distribution. In any case, the MLBPA is complaining about a provision it agreed to as part of the most recent contract negotiation. The current CBA expires in December 2016. Deal with it then instead of firing up a controversy at the beginning of a new season that has absolutely no chance of creating a positive outcome in the short term.

 

It's not that simple. I'm still not entirely clear on it, but all sides involved seem to be acting as if there's either a CBA provision or a labor law that forbids teams from acting this way for the reasons the Cubs are doing it.

 

It may be a rule that has never been enforced, but it sure seems to be there.

 

There may be a dispute over the language and what it means. There is no labor law the prevents the authorized bargaining agent from agreeing to language itself.

[jersey cubs fan]

As I said, its about more than just revenue distribution. In any case, the MLBPA is complaining about a provision it agreed to as part of the most recent contract negotiation. The current CBA expires in December 2016. Deal with it then instead of firing up a controversy at the beginning of a new season that has absolutely no chance of creating a positive outcome in the short term.

 

Eh, they "agreed" to it is hardly an argument against them complaining about it. Ownership's job is to exploit the agreement to their financial benefit. Just because you agreed to it doesn't mean you should be okay with however it is implemented. Also, it is standard operating procedure to let it be known what you are unhappy about in advance of negotiations.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As I said, its about more than just revenue distribution. In any case, the MLBPA is complaining about a provision it agreed to as part of the most recent contract negotiation. The current CBA expires in December 2016. Deal with it then instead of firing up a controversy at the beginning of a new season that has absolutely no chance of creating a positive outcome in the short term.

 

It's not that simple. I'm still not entirely clear on it, but all sides involved seem to be acting as if there's either a CBA provision or a labor law that forbids teams from acting this way for the reasons the Cubs are doing it.

 

It may be a rule that has never been enforced, but it sure seems to be there.

 

There may be a dispute over the language and what it means. There is no labor law the prevents the authorized bargaining agent from agreeing to language itself.

 

Are you allowed to agree to compensation via metrics, and then game the metrics? Or is that bad faith?

[RynoRules]

As I said, its about more than just revenue distribution. In any case, the MLBPA is complaining about a provision it agreed to as part of the most recent contract negotiation. The current CBA expires in December 2016. Deal with it then instead of firing up a controversy at the beginning of a new season that has absolutely no chance of creating a positive outcome in the short term.

 

It's not that simple. I'm still not entirely clear on it, but all sides involved seem to be acting as if there's either a CBA provision or a labor law that forbids teams from acting this way for the reasons the Cubs are doing it.

 

It may be a rule that has never been enforced, but it sure seems to be there.

 

There may be a dispute over the language and what it means. There is no labor law the prevents the authorized bargaining agent from agreeing to language itself.

 

Are you allowed to agree to compensation via metrics, and then game the metrics? Or is that bad faith?

 

Its not "bad faith", but it could be a violation of the terms of the agreement. Most likely a question for an arbitrator, depending on how the CBA operates.