2C272F2326273C797F083129202727662B27480 wrote: Since the Bucs are now the only team to not sign a free agent to a MLB contract this offseason, maybe it would be a good plan to sign someone now to show the Players Association they are complying with revenue sharing rules.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
I'm sure the timing of the grievance is tied to the poor market for FAs this tear. The union is angry but can't prove collusion. So they are raising the issue that some teams are just cheap. The 4 teams cited have made headlines recently for not spending on players and I think all have lowered payroll this year. I don't think the union is all that interested in these 4 teams. But they're using them to make the point that teams are being cheap when what they are really concerned about is the FA market this year. Not that those 4 teams would be big players in the FA market anyway. But the bigger spenders deny collusion and just say they are content with their rosters or are going with youth. It's hard for the union to make a case against that despite their doubts. So they're trying to make their point by going after teams that don't spend.
Players Association Files Grievance
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Players Association Files Grievance
5F727F6E69786F2F2C1D0 wrote: Since the Bucs are now the only team to not sign a free agent to a MLB contract this offseason, maybe it would be a good plan to sign someone now to show the Players Association they are complying with revenue sharing rules.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
I'm sure the timing of the grievance is tied to the poor market for FAs this tear. The union is angry but can't prove collusion. So they are raising the issue that some teams are just cheap. The 4 teams cited have made headlines recently for not spending on players and I think all have lowered payroll this year. I don't think the union is all that interested in these 4 teams. But they're using them to make the point that teams are being cheap when what they are really concerned about is the FA market this year. Not that those 4 teams would be big players in the FA market anyway. But the bigger spenders deny collusion and just say they are content with their rosters or are going with youth. It's hard for the union to make a case against that despite their doubts. So they're trying to make their point by going after teams that don't spend.
Yeah, the teams "in it" are either happy with their rosters or are spent up to the luxury limit. The teams on the outside don't see the point of throwing good money after bad.
Now it seems to me that if MLB were to divide up the TV and other deals more; then there would be more suitors for those free agents, and that would make the PA happy. But what do I know.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
I'm sure the timing of the grievance is tied to the poor market for FAs this tear. The union is angry but can't prove collusion. So they are raising the issue that some teams are just cheap. The 4 teams cited have made headlines recently for not spending on players and I think all have lowered payroll this year. I don't think the union is all that interested in these 4 teams. But they're using them to make the point that teams are being cheap when what they are really concerned about is the FA market this year. Not that those 4 teams would be big players in the FA market anyway. But the bigger spenders deny collusion and just say they are content with their rosters or are going with youth. It's hard for the union to make a case against that despite their doubts. So they're trying to make their point by going after teams that don't spend.
Yeah, the teams "in it" are either happy with their rosters or are spent up to the luxury limit. The teams on the outside don't see the point of throwing good money after bad.
Now it seems to me that if MLB were to divide up the TV and other deals more; then there would be more suitors for those free agents, and that would make the PA happy. But what do I know.
-
OrlandoMerced
Players Association Files Grievance
I assume that the Pirates are on the list because they receive the Revenue Sharing, the only basis of the grievance is that teams that receive the money aren't spending it on players. It's very narrow, so that's why the scope of the complain would ignore teams like the Phillies and Cubs who slashed payroll, but likely didn't receive revenue sharing.
It's also not going be hard, at least for the pirates, to prove that they they are spending well above the amount of revenue sharing money towards players and operations.
It's also not going be hard, at least for the pirates, to prove that they they are spending well above the amount of revenue sharing money towards players and operations.
Players Association Files Grievance
I think the union is just trying to show its members that it is taking whatever action it can to pump up money to players. The four teams named all get revenue sharing money and are consistently have payroll that is 25th or lower (maybe 24th or lower).
I can't see anyway though that the union wins this grievance or that it will change the payrolls of teams named.
I can't see anyway though that the union wins this grievance or that it will change the payrolls of teams named.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Players Association Files Grievance
5B767B6A6D7C6B2B28190 wrote: Since the Bucs are now the only team to not sign a free agent to a MLB contract this offseason, maybe it would be a good plan to sign someone now to show the Players Association they are complying with revenue sharing rules.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
I'm sure the timing of the grievance is tied to the poor market for FAs this tear. The union is angry but can't prove collusion. So they are raising the issue that some teams are just cheap. The 4 teams cited have made headlines recently for not spending on players and I think all have lowered payroll this year. I don't think the union is all that interested in these 4 teams. But they're using them to make the point that teams are being cheap when what they are really concerned about is the FA market this year. Not that those 4 teams would be big players in the FA market anyway. But the bigger spenders deny collusion and just say they are content with their rosters or are going with youth. It's hard for the union to make a case against that despite their doubts. So they're trying to make their point by going after teams that don't spend.
I agree with the timing of the complaint.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
I'm sure the timing of the grievance is tied to the poor market for FAs this tear. The union is angry but can't prove collusion. So they are raising the issue that some teams are just cheap. The 4 teams cited have made headlines recently for not spending on players and I think all have lowered payroll this year. I don't think the union is all that interested in these 4 teams. But they're using them to make the point that teams are being cheap when what they are really concerned about is the FA market this year. Not that those 4 teams would be big players in the FA market anyway. But the bigger spenders deny collusion and just say they are content with their rosters or are going with youth. It's hard for the union to make a case against that despite their doubts. So they're trying to make their point by going after teams that don't spend.
I agree with the timing of the complaint.
-
johnfluharty
Players Association Files Grievance
A thought: if the teams on the hit list have to open their books to any degree in order to prove the grievance is not true, will the MLBPA have thereby accomplished what they really set out to get- some insight into the spending of these cheapo teams?
Players Association Files Grievance
525750565E544D50594A4C41380 wrote: A thought: if the teams on the hit list have to open their books to any degree in order to prove the grievance is not true, will the MLBPA have thereby accomplished what they really set out to get- some insight into the spending of these cheapo teams?
I can't find link but I believe when this issue was raised earlier, it was said the mlb and the players association do look at reports on how the teams spend revenue sharing money. I don't think the players association gets to look at other parts of the financials.
I can't find link but I believe when this issue was raised earlier, it was said the mlb and the players association do look at reports on how the teams spend revenue sharing money. I don't think the players association gets to look at other parts of the financials.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Players Association Files Grievance
6F49485F49592A0 wrote: A thought: if the teams on the hit list have to open their books to any degree in order to prove the grievance is not true, will the MLBPA have thereby accomplished what they really set out to get- some insight into the spending of these cheapo teams?
I can't find link but I believe when this issue was raised earlier, it was said the mlb and the players association do look at reports on how the teams spend revenue sharing money. I don't think the players association gets to look at other parts of the financials.
I think they know what we know, that the grievance is going nowhere because you have no way to know what specific pot of money is getting spent where. They're bringing the wider issue more into attention for future causes.
I can't find link but I believe when this issue was raised earlier, it was said the mlb and the players association do look at reports on how the teams spend revenue sharing money. I don't think the players association gets to look at other parts of the financials.
I think they know what we know, that the grievance is going nowhere because you have no way to know what specific pot of money is getting spent where. They're bringing the wider issue more into attention for future causes.
-
johnfluharty
Players Association Files Grievance
Whatever happened to this? Any new information?