The 2020 Cleveland Indians

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,798
Reaction score
12,238
Points
123
Ownership allegedly deserves to make profit off the work of the players because they take on the risk.

When risk comes and smacks them in the face, they expect the players to bend the knee and save them?

Fuck that noise.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
37,608
Points
148
Ownership allegedly deserves to make profit off the work of the players because they take on the risk.

When risk comes and smacks them in the face, they expect the players to bend the knee and save them?

Fuck that noise.
The owners can save themselves without the players by not having games at all, which they can do under the contract.

The players likewise can exercise their contractual rights by refusing to play for less than full salaries. They can then claim a win because they didn't have to "bend the knee".
 

Sebastian

Maréchal d'Empire (AKA King Stannis)
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
23,675
Points
135
I get that, but it feels like to me the organization values control a lot and from reports, that is the thing he lacks the most. He does translate as a RP way better at the end of the day, but how much are they willing to spend on an RP?

The idea though makes complete sense to me and I wouldn't be against it at all, just wondering if that's the target or not.
Hey, how are you doing?

For some reason I had not seen you post in a while.
 

bronko

ex Flash
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
176
Reaction score
191
Points
43
The owners can save themselves without the players by not having games at all, which they can do under the contract.

The players likewise can exercise their contractual rights by refusing to play for less than full salaries. They can then claim a win because they didn't have to "bend the knee".
This is where things stand now. I don't see the owners playing a partial season that costs them more money than if they didn't play at all. They could shut it down and be doing a public health service without much argument in these times. The union doesn't like the public offer of 50/50 because it sets a precedent, albeit temporary, of a salary cap. The union realize that they'll have to give in to some degree, possibly with a deal that flexes based on games with or without fans. The virus could fade out or come back with a vengeance, a deal will have to work around many possibilities. Both sides need an agreement, baseball's health is declining and going without games due to contract issues would be damaging to it's long term health.
Already cutting down on minor league teams, could be a good time for wholesale change in professional baseball.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
37,608
Points
148
This is where things stand now. I don't see the owners playing a partial season that costs them more money than if they didn't play at all. They could shut it down and be doing a public health service without much argument in these times. The union doesn't like the public offer of 50/50 because it sets a precedent, albeit temporary, of a salary cap. The union realize that they'll have to give in to some degree, possibly with a deal that flexes based on games with or without fans. The virus could fade out or come back with a vengeance, a deal will have to work around many possibilities. Both sides need an agreement, baseball's health is declining and going without games due to contract issues would be damaging to it's long term health.
Already cutting down on minor league teams, could be a good time for wholesale change in professional baseball.
I do labor relations for a living, and obviously, terms and conditions of employment are covered by CBA's. The coronavirus has presented a whole bunch of circumstances not contemplated by the CBA where rigorous adherence to the CBA is in the interests of neither party. So, we talk to the union about temporary adjustments to some provisions of the CBA that will, in the end, be of net benefit to both the company and the union. Even though -- if we were to consider it a precedent -- neither would want to do those things.

One example was that we had a major increase in overtime requirements, and so rather than mandating overtime -- as we had the right to do -- we wanted to offer overtime bonuses on an as-required basis. We wouldn't have to negotiate the amount with the union ahead of time, and would be free to end the bonuses at any time. Now normally, a union doesn't want to give employers the unilateral right to change wages, and we obviously don't want to surrender our right to require overtime without a bonus. But in these particular circumstances, it was the better result for both sides.

So it's pretty simple -- we enter a side agreement, state that it does not constitute a precedent, and that it is only in effect for a specific period of time, and then describe the agreement itself. It's no big deal.

Rigid insistence on the terms of a CBA for its own sake is simply dumb, because there are easy ways to contract around the issue of precedent.
 

jup

Towel Waver
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
123
Reaction score
112
Points
43
I do labor relations for a living, and obviously, terms and conditions of employment are covered by CBA's. The coronavirus has presented a whole bunch of circumstances not contemplated by the CBA where rigorous adherence to the CBA is in the interests of neither party. So, we talk to the union about temporary adjustments to some provisions of the CBA that will, in the end, be of net benefit to both the company and the union. Even though -- if we were to consider it a precedent -- neither would want to do those things.

One example was that we had a major increase in overtime requirements, and so rather than mandating overtime -- as we had the right to do -- we wanted to offer overtime bonuses on an as-required basis. We wouldn't have to negotiate the amount with the union ahead of time, and would be free to end the bonuses at any time. Now normally, a union doesn't want to give employers the unilateral right to change wages, and we obviously don't want to surrender our right to require overtime without a bonus. But in these particular circumstances, it was the better result for both sides.

So it's pretty simple -- we enter a side agreement, state that it does not constitute a precedent, and that it is only in effect for a specific period of time, and then describe the agreement itself. It's no big deal.

Rigid insistence on the terms of a CBA for its own sake is simply dumb, because there are easy ways to contract around the issue of precedent.
If you are negotiating in a private venue.

Baseball CBA's are negotiated publicly, and that causes different dynamics, because of the PR aspect. You may not believe that and that is your right, but it doesn't change what actually happens. And once the players agree to any type of revenue sharing/salary cap, it will be used against them in the future. They would be foolish to even entertain going down that road.

If you are going to let ownership reduce your CONTRACTED amounts further, set a fixed amount, DO NOT SET A PRECEDENT by any kind of revenue sharing where they DO NOT INCLUDE ALL INCOME STREAMS and live with it for 80 or so games.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
37,608
Points
148
Baseball CBA's are negotiated publicly, and that causes different dynamics, because of the PR aspect. You may not believe that and that is your right, but it doesn't change what actually happens. And once the players agree to any type of revenue sharing/salary cap, it will be used against them in the future.
Exactly how would it be used against them? Because the owners would bring it up in the next CBA negotiations? So what? The players can always say "no, that is a non-starter, forget it." Happens all the time in negotiations. Or they can avoid even that by executing an agreement, effective through 2027 or whatever, banning linking salaries in any manner to revenue sharing. Take it right off the table before negotiations on a CBA for 2021 even begin.

And if you're that worried about the PR aspect, I suspect the players opting not to play at all wouldn't be a great PR move for them either.

They would be foolish to even entertain going down that road.
I think cancelling the entire season and earning nothing would be even more foolish from the perspective of an individual player. Especially since nothing prevents the owners from bringing up revenue sharing in 2021 anyway.

If you are going to let ownership reduce your CONTRACTED amounts further, set a fixed amount, DO NOT SET A PRECEDENT by any kind of revenue sharing where they DO NOT INCLUDE ALL INCOME STREAMS and live with it for 80 or so games.
Well...then don't play. And then potentially have to fight the issue of revenue sharing in 2021 anyway. Personally, I think the players are in a stronger position to reject revenue sharing in 2021 if they have a signed 2020 agreement from MLB stating that they won't seek revenue sharing in 2021, then if you just cancel the season and do 2021 negotiations without that prior agreement not to have revenue sharing. That's especially true if you put weight on PR in negotiations. The owners would look absolutely terrible if they tried to force revenue sharing just a year after agreeing publicly that they wouldn't do that.
 

jup

Towel Waver
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
123
Reaction score
112
Points
43
Exactly how would it be used against them? Because the owners would bring it up in the next CBA negotiations? So what? The players can always say "no, that is a non-starter, forget it." Happens all the time in negotiations. Or they can avoid even that by executing an agreement, effective through 2027 or whatever, banning linking salaries in any manner to revenue sharing. Take it right off the table before negotiations on a CBA for 2021 even begin.

And if you're that worried about the PR aspect, I suspect the players opting not to play at all wouldn't be a great PR move for them either.



I think cancelling the entire season and earning nothing would be even more foolish from the perspective of an individual player. Especially since nothing prevents the owners from bringing up revenue sharing in 2021 anyway.



Well...then don't play. And then potentially have to fight the issue of revenue sharing in 2021 anyway. Personally, I think the players are in a stronger position to reject revenue sharing in 2021 if they have a signed 2020 agreement from MLB stating that they won't seek revenue sharing in 2021, then if you just cancel the season and do 2021 negotiations without that language.
Your right to view it how you do.

The owners have been beating the players at the contract table for 20 to 30 some odd years, because they have taken a wolf in sheep's clothing long term approach that has allowed them to cap multiple streams - amateur draft, international draft and soft cap with luxury tax at the MLB level. And there is no doubt the long term goals of the owners are part of this short term proposal. Players beware or you will find yourselves down the road with even less income drivers than you have today.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
37,608
Points
148
And there is no doubt the long term goals of the owners are part of this short term proposal. Players beware or you will find yourselves down the road with even less income drivers than you have today.
As I said, the players can use this situation to get a guarantee of no revenue sharing in the 2021 deal. At the very least, they could make it a permissive rather than mandatory subject of bargaining, and so essentially shut down any discussion of it immediately.

That would be a better position for 2021 than they're in right now.
 

MadThinker88

In the Rotation
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
481
Reaction score
563
Points
93
That’s what I’m curious about.

What are they seeing in the profile of these HS arms? Absurd spin rates? Something in their delivery?

I trust the organization to find and develop talent, so I’m interested in why they’re bucking the trend in this instance because the new age thinking is to avoid prep arms early in the draft.
Derek,
Thru twitter I noticed another mock for the 2020 MLB draft.. The reason I am bringing it up here was something written by that author and perhaps it helps to answer your question (in bold above). The part underlined below made me think - Is the answer just simply an new vision from the person now directing the Tribe draft & nothing more..

There may not be a team in baseball that targets prep players at the top of the draft more aggressively than Cleveland. Since Mike Chernoff moved into the GM chair in 2016, Cleveland has taken 11 prep players and just 4 college players in the first three rounds. They tend to love very young players,

 

sportscoach

Snarly's Gaming Rival!!
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
5,434
Reaction score
1,845
Points
113
@sportscoach and his brother had a 100 meter dash competition last week.

Sportscoach just finished.
I mean i can still run a 100m in less than 13 seconds and I haven't competed in that in 15 years lol

@Sebastian
I've been pretty much 12 hours every day so I haven't felt like talking much on here and its not like there is any news

@Stark
I so agree with being bored. I need baseball now and I think as a nation as a whole I think having sports on TV, would make things get more back to normal in my mind.
 

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,200.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Advertisement

Radio

Top