ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 gasm. Don't think this changes too much but the MLBPA is finally doing something not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 They won't win, but they have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewAge Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 At the very least, they’re going to force the league to have to defend the Marlins in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewAge Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrubes20 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Good. There's also this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, NewAge said: At the very least, they’re going to force the league to have to defend the Marlins in court. This is why the MLB is going to have to at least move the needle a little bit. Do the MLB and Marlins really want to go through discovery and let the MLBPA into their books knowing a labor stoppage is coming? They may as well write their talking points for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewAge Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Much more effective than a strike. Hopefully leads to a salary floor or you lose your revenue sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 hours ago, NewAge said: what big fa's were those teams signing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 28, 2018 Author Share Posted February 28, 2018 As always, Fangraphs legal provides the best summary for non-lawyer idiots like myself: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-the-mlbpas-grievance-means/ @hrubes20 and @mse326, anything to add? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrubes20 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: As always, Fangraphs legal provides the best summary for non-lawyer idiots like myself: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-the-mlbpas-grievance-means/ @hrubes20 and @mse326, anything to add? Not really. I was happy to see them point out just how difficult it is to get arbitration overturned, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 8 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: As always, Fangraphs legal provides the best summary for non-lawyer idiots like myself: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-the-mlbpas-grievance-means/ @hrubes20 and @mse326, anything to add? The big thing to remember here is that the panel sets the burden of proof. And this can be just as much about accounting tricks as reality (See Hollywood accounting to see how this type of thing is possible). Further given that money is fungible it isn't clear when money spent is from team revenue and when it is from revenue sharing. Teams obviously aren't required to spend all of their own revenue first so again there is murky water in terms of how much of what is spent on performance is credited to which revenue stream. There is also going to be an issue regarding who gets to decide what counts as performance related and whether the panel shows any deference. Technically MLB had to approve of their use based on the letter sent to the commissioner. Does the panel give deference to that determination unless clearly prohibited by the CBA terms? Did the team not follow through with its intended use? Those questions will come up. Ultimately the MLBPA will have an uphill battle. AS AN ASIDE: I'm not completely sure that violations of revenue sharing are meant to be enforced by the MLBPA as opposed to the other owners through the Commissioner's Office. The teams can do exactly what they are doing if they don't take revenue sharing money. The requirements seem to be to protect other teams from losing revenue just to make another owner richer. They are willing to to help competitive balance though. I'm not sure where the harm to the MLBPA is in violating these terms. It seems it is the other owners that are the actual injured party. I could be wrong about that but if I'm right that background could completely derail the grievance or at least permeate the decision by the panel. 7 hours ago, hrubes20 said: Not really. I was happy to see them point out just how difficult it is to get arbitration overturned, though. Yes. The non lawyers on this board never seem to get that in regards the the football lawsuits we've seen recently. You have to have much more than just disagreement to get it overturned. Basically you have to say the panel isn't even pretending to interpret/follow the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.