ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Just now, GmenSeattle said: It will also set up a system that will allow players to play longer. Ortiz...for example. It's not like hitting a baseball is an easy task...and pitchers shouldn't be doing it. It allows more players to get paid. There are already defense first players on teams, usually on the bench but if they're good enough they play (Billy Hamilton for example). I'm not arguing whether the product would be better (it would be). I don't think anyone else is. We are arguing that the MLBPA should not agree, because the players would make less money as a result. $550k for an extra roster spot is not a lot of money in the scope of utility players making big money. Look at the number of infield utility guys that have turned that role into pretty big money - Ben Zobrist is the head of the pack here. There's multi-million AAV deals that teams are looking to cut down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmenSeattle Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 18 minutes ago, mse326 said: No it does the opposite. It allows 1 more player per team to get a bigger contract at the expense of 5+ of his teammates If the one player is contributing more he deserves to get paid more...that's...how it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 minute ago, GmenSeattle said: If the one player is contributing more he deserves to get paid more...that's...how it works That has nothing to do with it. The question is whether the Union should support a rule change that results in that. The answer is no because it hurts more of it's membership than it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmenSeattle Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, mse326 said: That has nothing to do with it. The question is whether the Union should support a rule change that results in that. The answer is no because it hurts more of it's membership than it helps. But the Union doesn't care about the low level guys. It cares about the vets getting paid the most. That's why the young guys get held down, paid less, yadda yadda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, GmenSeattle said: But the Union doesn't care about the low level guys. It cares about the vets getting paid the most. That's why the young guys get held down, paid less, yadda yadda. That's the biggest truth of all. Until the MLBPA helps out the minor leaguers, i'm pro-owner. I know non-40 man roster players (98% of milb players) are not technically in the union, but just about everyone in baseball was in their position at one point. I'd much rather see the MLBPA fight to get $10 mil a year per team directed towards minor league salaries than get Bryce Harper an 8th-10th year on his guaranteed contract instead of having to settle for 6-8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, GmenSeattle said: Facts are hard. No need for your condescending remarks, buddy. Is the definition I provided one of the definitions of disabled? YES. That is a FACT. 32 minutes ago, GmenSeattle said: I believe you'll find that those who are actually disabled (1a) might take offense to those who actually aren't and making millions being SO NOT DISABLED yet calling themselves disabled. This logic is laughable at best. Let me break it down for you: 1) Injured people fit within one definition of disabled (1b) - FACT 2) People who are permanently disabled fit within the other definition of disabled (1a) - FACT Your point is that people in 1a are 'offended' that people in 1b go on a list meant for people who are too injured to do their jobs … do you understand how stupid that sounds? both groups have the same right to be classified within the term 'disabled' EQUALLY people who think Californians are soft have never been to the state of Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmenSeattle Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, N4L said: No need for your condescending remarks, buddy. Is the definition I provided one of the definitions of disabled? YES. That is a FACT. When one is being intentionally obtuse by cherry picking the part of the facts that supports what they're saying while leaving out the rest that doesn't support it...then yes. Take care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 20 minutes ago, THE DUKE said: Until the MLBPA helps out the minor leaguers, i'm pro-owner. I know non-40 man roster players (98% of milb players) are not technically in the union, but just about everyone in baseball was in their position at one point. I'd much rather see the MLBPA fight to get $10 mil a year per team directed towards minor league salaries than get Bryce Harper an 8th-10th year on his guaranteed contract instead of having to settle for 6-8 years. The owners are currently lobbying the state of Arizona to make sure MiLB aren't subject to minimum wage. Describing yourself as pro-owner because you don't like the treatment of MiLB players is...insane. The owners are the reason MiLB players aren't paid more. Full stop, end of discussion. If they wanted MiLB players to earn a fair salary or living wage, they could fix that overnight and choose not to. And for as much as the MLBPA hasn't protected players in the past, this is progress: Quote The Major League Baseball Players Association doesn’t represent minor league players, but union officials said they oppose exempting players in the minors from state law. “It is fundamentally unjust to deny professional baseball players the basic protection of the minimum wage laws, especially at a time when clubs are reporting record revenues,” said Ian Penny, general counsel for MLBPA. You could argue that words are meaningless, but I don't think so. There's public sentiment to pay MiLB players that there hasn't been 5 years ago. You could (more cynically, and more accurately) argue that this is insincere from the MLBPA, really they're trying to make sure the MiLB players are going to be more likely to support the players in the upcoming strike/lockout. I don't think either of this matters though. Being pro-owner because of MiLB treatment when the owners are spending millions in lobbying to keep MiLB players as poor as they are makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The owners are currently lobbying the state of Arizona to make sure MiLB aren't subject to minimum wage. Describing yourself as pro-owner because you don't like the treatment of MiLB players is...insane. The owners are the reason MiLB players aren't paid more. Full stop, end of discussion. If they wanted MiLB players to earn a fair salary or living wage, they could fix that overnight and choose not to. And for as much as the MLBPA hasn't protected players in the past, this is progress: You could argue that words are meaningless, but I don't think so. There's public sentiment to pay MiLB players that there hasn't been 5 years ago. You could (more cynically, and more accurately) argue that this is insincere from the MLBPA, really they're trying to make sure the MiLB players are going to be more likely to support the players in the upcoming strike/lockout. I don't think either of this matters though. Being pro-owner because of MiLB treatment when the owners are spending millions in lobbying to keep MiLB players as poor as they are makes no sense. I guess pro-owner is the wrong phrase. I suppose saying the MLBPA stance of shafting the minor leaguers every CBA leaves me with little sympathy for the MLBPA after they got worked in the last round of CBA negotiations by the owners because of MLBPA's piss poor leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 4 hours ago, GmenSeattle said: But the Union doesn't care about the low level guys. It cares about the vets getting paid the most. That's why the young guys get held down, paid less, yadda yadda. Again, not the point. No one doubts the accuracy of the report that this is what the union is doing. The response is about what they should do. This isn't a difficult concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, THE DUKE said: I guess pro-owner is the wrong phrase. I suppose saying the MLBPA stance of shafting the minor leaguers every CBA leaves me with little sympathy for the MLBPA after they got worked in the last round of CBA negotiations by the owners because of MLBPA's piss poor leadership. Neither the owners or the MLBPA are responsible for the MiLB players. I get being frustrated at the MLBPA for not doing more, because I am, but the owners do not only everything the MLBPA does to screw minor leaguers, but far more. Basically, that stance still makes no sense. There are 2 people negotiating and impacting a 3rd party. Neither of the 2 people represent the 3rd party. You only blame one of them when the 3rd party gets shafted. If you say "the situation is absurd", I agree and so does everyone else with half a brain. But that's not what you're saying. You're basically excusing the owners for doing worse than the MLBPA is doing because you have higher expectations for the MLBPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 MiLB players are future MLBPA members, they have a clear motive to promote their interests. Virtually 0 MiLB players are future owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmenSeattle Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 5 hours ago, mse326 said: Again, not the point. No one doubts the accuracy of the report that this is what the union is doing. The response is about what they should do. This isn't a difficult concept. Again, there's no point in discussing what they SHOULD do as they're clearly not going to do it. Don't be obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 1 hour ago, GmenSeattle said: Again, there's no point in discussing what they SHOULD do as they're clearly not going to do it. Don't be obtuse. That is literally what a forum is for. To discuss what some organization should do. Are you telling me you restrict your comments about what a team should do based on what they will do? That is just silly. Discussing why they are making a poor decision absolutely has a point in so much as anything we say on this board actually matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbuff23835 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Yankees offered Manny a 220 million dollar deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.