SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 1:24:30 GMT -5
I was just thinking this in the Pablo Sandoval thread but it applies more to here in the CBA negotiations thread.
There needs to be a "amnesty clause" in baseball. Basically voiding out a contract that a team signs in baseball to get rid of a useless player. It would be great if you could do this once a year like in the NBA. I would even be up for it if the team that signed that player can only void out the contract, like again with the NBA.
It would be great to talk about getting rid of useless contracts (like Sandoval) instead getting stuck with them for years at a time. Of course the players association would never go for this, so really this is all fodder talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 3:15:17 GMT -5
I was just thinking this in the Pablo Sandoval thread but it applies more to here in the CBA negotiations thread. There needs to be a "amnesty clause" in baseball. Basically voiding out a contract that a team signs in baseball to get rid of a useless player. It would be great if you could do this once a year like in the NBA. I would even be up for it if the team that signed that player can only void out the contract, like again with the NBA. It would be great to talk about getting rid of useless contracts (like Sandoval) instead getting stuck with them for years at a time. Of course the players association would never go for this, so really this is all fodder talk. You can't do it once a year in NBA. It was a one time thing, if I remember right because of the new CBA. You also couldn't void contract, you paid contract in full, player was free and the contract was off your books for the salary cap. Without a salary cap it really has no place in Baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 3:36:34 GMT -5
I was just thinking this in the Pablo Sandoval thread but it applies more to here in the CBA negotiations thread. There needs to be a "amnesty clause" in baseball. Basically voiding out a contract that a team signs in baseball to get rid of a useless player. It would be great if you could do this once a year like in the NBA. I would even be up for it if the team that signed that player can only void out the contract, like again with the NBA. It would be great to talk about getting rid of useless contracts (like Sandoval) instead getting stuck with them for years at a time. Of course the players association would never go for this, so really this is all fodder talk. You can't do it once a year in NBA. It was a one time thing, if I remember right because of the new CBA. You also couldn't void contract, you paid contract in full, player was free and the contract was off your books for the salary cap. Without a salary cap it really has no place in Baseball. I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2016 11:27:02 GMT -5
You can't do it once a year in NBA. It was a one time thing, if I remember right because of the new CBA. You also couldn't void contract, you paid contract in full, player was free and the contract was off your books for the salary cap. Without a salary cap it really has no place in Baseball. I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. There's a good reason to not sign fat players in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 26, 2016 12:00:07 GMT -5
You can't do it once a year in NBA. It was a one time thing, if I remember right because of the new CBA. You also couldn't void contract, you paid contract in full, player was free and the contract was off your books for the salary cap. Without a salary cap it really has no place in Baseball. I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. Is that what they're calling it now? |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 12:10:10 GMT -5
I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. Is that what they're calling it now? Well there is no such thing as a amnesty clause for MLB. I would love to the chance to say amnesty one day in the MLB though. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2016 12:33:13 GMT -5
You can't do it once a year in NBA. It was a one time thing, if I remember right because of the new CBA. You also couldn't void contract, you paid contract in full, player was free and the contract was off your books for the salary cap. Without a salary cap it really has no place in Baseball. I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. "I don't understand how this works but I think it'd be a good idea!" |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 12:44:53 GMT -5
I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. "I don't understand how this works but I think it'd be a good idea!" You're right I don't know how it exactly works, but a amnesty clause in baseball isn't a bad idea to my original point. No need to be rude about it. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 12:54:43 GMT -5
To be fair though, there is a rule like this in baseball like this. If you outright Pablo off the 40 man roster, his salary doesn't count towards the luxury tax. So at least there's still that option I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 13:08:03 GMT -5
To be fair though, there is a rule like this in baseball like this. If you outright Pablo off the 40 man roster, his salary doesn't count towards the luxury tax. So at least there's still that option I suppose. No wrong again , that's only for guys with under 5 years service time. You gotta look into facts if you wanna post things like this. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 13:10:47 GMT -5
To be fair though, there is a rule like this in baseball like this. If you outright Pablo off the 40 man roster, his salary doesn't count towards the luxury tax. So at least there's still that option I suppose. No wrong again , that's only for guys with under 5 years service time. You gotta look into facts if you wanna post things like this. Yes he can declare himself a free agent, yes I forgot about that portion of the rule. Is the amnesty clause such a bad idea if it's put into these terms then? I think not. At least these contracts wouldn't count towards the luxury tax if there was one. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 13:30:17 GMT -5
Your talking about something that none of the major 4 sporting leagues have. The closet thing is Football, but even then when you waive a guy he still gets his guaranteed money and it still counts against salary cap.
Would owners love it sure, but it's never going to happen. It's just one of those things that's players will never agree to. If the owners dug in on this issue it could bring on the longest strike in Baseball history and threaten the games future.
The Red Sox should have put weight clauses in Sandoval contract, this whole mess is on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 13:32:35 GMT -5
Your talking about something that none of the major 4 sporting leagues have. The closet thing is Football, but even then when you waive a guy he still gets his guaranteed money and it still counts against salary cap. Would owners love it sure, but it's never going to happen. It's just one of those things that's players will never agree to. If the owners dug in on this issue it could bring on the longest strike in Baseball history and threaten the games future. The Red Sox should have put weight clauses in Sandoval contract, this whole mess is on them. Well to my original point, I said this was all fodder talk anyways. I realize it would never happen. It's one of the things that should happen though because baseball players have way too many guarantees in their contracts. It should be lessened in some way so the players have to actually start earning what they make as opposed to just having the option of sitting back and collecting checks as it looks like some players do when they get their contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 26, 2016 14:17:56 GMT -5
Is that what they're calling it now? Well there is no such thing as a amnesty clause for MLB. I would love to the chance to say amnesty one day in the MLB though. Notably not part of the definition is "allowing ownership to disregard contracts they regret having signed". |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 14:22:40 GMT -5
Well there is no such thing as a amnesty clause for MLB. I would love to the chance to say amnesty one day in the MLB though. Notably not part of the definition is "allowing ownership to disregard contracts they regret having signed". Okay probably wasn't the best word to call it. Just know that I didn't make up the actual rule that actually applied at one point in time in the NBA at least. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 26, 2016 14:25:16 GMT -5
Whatever you want to call it, what you're advocating for is the erosion of guaranteed contracts in MLB, which benefits nobody except ownership. And ownership is doing just fine as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 14:57:03 GMT -5
Whatever you want to call it, what you're advocating for is the erosion of guaranteed contracts in MLB, which benefits nobody except ownership. And ownership is doing just fine as it is. Well not when it comes to paying players that can't play but yes for the most part I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Nov 26, 2016 15:00:51 GMT -5
Well to my original point, I said this was all fodder talk anyways. I realize it would never happen. It's one of the things that should happen though because baseball players have way too many guarantees in their contracts. It should be lessened in some way so the players have to actually start earning what they make as opposed to just having the option of sitting back and collecting checks as it looks like some players do when they get their contracts. If teams think players have too many guarantees in their contract, then the best thing to do is not offer contracts with so many guarantees. No one is forcing teams to offer players anything they aren't comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 15:28:17 GMT -5
Well to my original point, I said this was all fodder talk anyways. I realize it would never happen. It's one of the things that should happen though because baseball players have way too many guarantees in their contracts. It should be lessened in some way so the players have to actually start earning what they make as opposed to just having the option of sitting back and collecting checks as it looks like some players do when they get their contracts. If teams think players have too many guarantees in their contract, then the best thing to do is not offer contracts with so many guarantees. No one is forcing teams to offer players anything they aren't comfortable with. This is probably the best answer to these problems in the meantime, I agree. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962 
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 28, 2016 7:14:27 GMT -5
Well there is no such thing as a amnesty clause for MLB. I would love to the chance to say amnesty one day in the MLB though. Notably not part of the definition is "allowing ownership to disregard contracts they regret having signed". You're thinking not of amnesty but of a selective "seisachtheia" or cancellation of debts (literally "shaking off of burdens"), as under the Athenian leader Solon, or on Mr Robot. wwwmyblogtblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2015/01/solon-seisachtheia-reforms-by-debt.html |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 28, 2016 9:47:42 GMT -5
Whatever you want to call it, what you're advocating for is the erosion of guaranteed contracts in MLB, which benefits nobody except ownership. And ownership is doing just fine as it is. Well not when it comes to paying players that can't play but yes for the most part I agree with you. Think about what you're saying here. The owners and their FO would have after-the-fact release from their own poor decision making. While we have no idea what role injuries played in his collapse, lots of people on the board took note of the trends in Sandoval's performance. There were plenty of red flags. No one forced the team into this, they convinced themselves. Baseball already has an antitrust exemption. What you're saying here is that they should also be given a free pass from market forces. If I remember right, that feedback is supposed to be a useful part of the capitalism game. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 28, 2016 17:02:18 GMT -5
If there seems to be consensus to expand to 26 players then why not just make the DH universal in both leagues? Or even make it "optional" on a game-to-game basis (team elects before the game to either have the pitcher hit or use a DH), giving the NL their illusion of continuing to play "pure baseball" whenever they want? |
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Nov 28, 2016 17:42:01 GMT -5
If there seems to be consensus to expand to 26 players then why not just make the DH universal in both leagues? Or even make it "optional" on a game-to-game basis (team elects before the game to either have the pitcher hit or use a DH), giving the NL their illusion of continuing to play "pure baseball" whenever they want? I could be wrong but isn't that what the rule already is for the AL? I don't have a reference for this, or even a year, but I remember watching a Rays game once where Maddon messed up his line up card, specifically on Longoria and Zobrist both being listed at 3B, and after the game it was reported that the Rays should have been ineligible to use a DH for the game. Again I could be, and probably am, wrong. But I'm pretty sure you don't *have* to use a DH. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Nov 28, 2016 17:50:21 GMT -5
If there seems to be consensus to expand to 26 players then why not just make the DH universal in both leagues? Or even make it "optional" on a game-to-game basis (team elects before the game to either have the pitcher hit or use a DH), giving the NL their illusion of continuing to play "pure baseball" whenever they want? I could be wrong but isn't that what the rule already is for the AL? I don't have a reference for this, or even a year, but I remember watching a Rays game once where Maddon messed up his line up card, specifically on Longoria and Zobrist both being listed at 3B, and after the game it was reported that the Rays should have been ineligible to use a DH for the game. Again I could be, and probably am, wrong. But I'm pretty sure you don't *have* to use a DH. I was wrong, sort of. www.tbo.com/sports/rays/lineup-mishap-sees-rays-forfeit-dh-pitcher-at-bat-88369The pitcher did in fact have to hit because he listed Longo and Zobrist at 3B. Andy Sonnanstine (haven't heard that name in a long time,) had to bat. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 28, 2016 18:07:16 GMT -5
I'm not too familiar with anything related to NBA but baseball would be a lot better with some sort of amnesty. These guaranteed contracts for fat players that don't want to play anymore is maddening for owners I'm sure. The way Pablo showed up last year was a spit in the face to upper management last year, basically saying I don't care and you're paying me anyways, I'll do what I want. Honestly, it's really not a baseball problem. All types of business have worker perfomance problems. Hell, maybe I have been that at times over the years. That is their hiring risk. Employment is an agency contract. They can get rid of whomever they want, most of the time without cause, and many times with discriminatory practices. MLB players may not be the working class, but their union should never sign on to something remotely resembling this. In case you haven't noticed, and sorry to be facetious, workers have been getting royally f**cked the last 30 or so years. The owners (1%) have been making out like bandits. |
|
|
