|
|
Post by sempersmom on May 11, 2020 14:23:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 12, 2020 7:34:40 GMT -6
 Sorry if that seems pessimistic but I'm not convinced we'll see baseball this year.  |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358 
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 12, 2020 10:04:40 GMT -6
I just can't get enthused. I bet the games aren't even carried on Reddit since there is no anti trump element. I HATE every single modification. I can't fathom the Player's Union going along with reduced compensation. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 12, 2020 11:42:20 GMT -6
The MLBPA has already rejected the salary portion of it so far. Going to take some more discussions before anything gets approved. They appear headed in the right direction though.
|
|
|
|
Post by sempersmom on May 12, 2020 12:38:06 GMT -6
The MLBPA has already rejected the salary portion of it so far. Going to take some more discussions before anything gets approved. They appear headed in the right direction though. Thank you for not being as negative as some people around here. It's a start. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 12, 2020 13:52:43 GMT -6
The MLBPA has already rejected the salary portion of it so far. Going to take some more discussions before anything gets approved. They appear headed in the right direction though. Thank you for not being as negative as some people around here. It's a start. At least they have one side ready to go, and the plan seems doable. Not ideal for us playing so many west coast teams, but it is doable. The players don't want to see any reduction in pay due to lower attendance, which I get, but they're going to have to compromise some. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't just get paid at a prorated salary for a partial season. Most people don't get paid when they don't work, and it should be similar for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 12, 2020 15:43:11 GMT -6
Thank you for not being as negative as some people around here. It's a start. Nothing would please me more than being wrong about this. But right now, I'm just not feelin' it. Sorry ... |
|
|
|
Post by abregmanfan on May 12, 2020 20:20:58 GMT -6
Thank you for not being as negative as some people around here. It's a start. At least they have one side ready to go, and the plan seems doable. Not ideal for us playing so many west coast teams, but it is doable. The players don't want to see any reduction in pay due to lower attendance, which I get, but they're going to have to compromise some. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't just get paid at a prorated salary for a partial season. Most people don't get paid when they don't work, and it should be similar for them. Those poor players. Instead of making 30 million dollars this year, they may only make 15 million. Who could imagine? |
|
|
|
Post by blcoach8 on May 12, 2020 22:16:22 GMT -6
The MLBPA has already rejected the salary portion of it so far. Going to take some more discussions before anything gets approved. They appear headed in the right direction though. players demanding being paid for a full season when they won't play but half the time is ridiculous. They should not expect their full salary. |
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 13, 2020 3:12:18 GMT -6
The MLBPA has already rejected the salary portion of it so far. Going to take some more discussions before anything gets approved. They appear headed in the right direction though. players demanding being paid for a full season when they won't play but half the time is ridiculous. They should not expect their full salary. If the owners can’t recoup losses for half the season, I don’t see why the players should get paid full value. |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 13, 2020 5:18:46 GMT -6
The MLBPA has already rejected the salary portion of it so far. Going to take some more discussions before anything gets approved. They appear headed in the right direction though. players demanding being paid for a full season when they won't play but half the time is ridiculous. They should not expect their full salary. The teams signed contracts and took the risk. I rarely side with greedy players, but contracts are contracts. The younger players with minor leauge major league contract splits won't be paid as major leaguers if their contracts permit. Same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ɮօʀȶǟʐ on May 13, 2020 5:44:57 GMT -6
players demanding being paid for a full season when they won't play but half the time is ridiculous. They should not expect their full salary. The teams signed contracts and took the risk. I rarely side with greedy players, but contracts are contracts. The younger players with minor leauge major league contract splits won't be paid as major leaguers if their contracts permit. Same thing. Only a fool would cling so tenaciously to the letter of a contract that it financially ruined his employer. |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 13, 2020 7:17:57 GMT -6
Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the MLBPA CAN reject MLB's plan for a modified contract, for any reason (or for no reason at all). But thinking MLB is on the hook for the entirety of the players' salaries is incorrect. In contract law, a contract can become void if circumstances (such as public policy) make the original terms and conditions of the contract impossible. To suggest that lockdown laws which preclude a normal length season (or anything remotely close) don't void the 2020 contract with MLB and the MLBPA is just flat-out wrong. If the season had to start two weeks late and be shortened by two weeks, any court in the land would say: "Suck it up, MLB. Just pay the salaries." Likewise, you won't find any court willing to force MLB to pay full salary to the players for a half-season of play. Not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 13, 2020 8:18:50 GMT -6
Per mlbtraderumors:
"Players have already agreed to a game-for-game reduction in salaries. With something like a half-season on the table, they stand to sacrifice about half of their anticipated annual earnings even without taking further cuts. But MLB is reportedly angling to limit salaries to 50% of certain league revenues — it’s not clear what would be included — in order to boost team balance sheets."
|
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 13, 2020 8:57:10 GMT -6
The teams signed contracts and took the risk. I rarely side with greedy players, but contracts are contracts. The younger players with minor leauge major league contract splits won't be paid as major leaguers if their contracts permit. Same thing. Only a fool would cling so tenaciously to the letter of a contract that it financially ruined his employer. So what's your point? The MLBPA has never shown itself not to be fools. |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 13, 2020 9:00:26 GMT -6
Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the MLBPA CAN reject MLB's plan for a modified contract, for any reason (or for no reason at all). But thinking MLB is on the hook for the entirety of the players' salaries is incorrect. In contract law, a contract can become void if circumstances (such as public policy) make the original terms and conditions of the contract impossible. To suggest that lockdown laws which preclude a normal length season (or anything remotely close) don't void the 2020 contract with MLB and the MLBPA is just flat-out wrong. If the season had to start two weeks late and be shortened by two weeks, any court in the land would say: "Suck it up, MLB. Just pay the salaries." Likewise, you won't find any court willing to force MLB to pay full salary to the players for a half-season of play. Not gonna happen. I don't believe COVID-19 will qualify as an Act of God. Particularly since none of the teams faces demise in missing one season. There is no guarantee of year to year profitability.
However; Lawyers are likely to earn more this season than either players or owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 13, 2020 9:15:31 GMT -6
The teams signed contracts and took the risk. I rarely side with greedy players, but contracts are contracts. The younger players with minor leauge major league contract splits won't be paid as major leaguers if their contracts permit. Same thing. Only a fool would cling so tenaciously to the letter of a contract that it financially ruined his employer. While I don’t necessarily agree with Marshall, I think we shouldn’t automatically side with the owners even if the players are being whineasses. |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 13, 2020 9:15:41 GMT -6
I don't believe COVID-19 will qualify as an Act of God. Particularly since none of the teams faces demise in missing one season. There is no guarantee of year to year profitability. Act of God? Why would you throw a red herring like that into the mix? I said "public policy". And that definitely is a factor here. You can't just make up your own personal arbitrary standards when it comes to contract law. Oh, and why do you think the MLBPA is even discussing a modified contract if their salaries are absolutely and unequivocally guaranteed the way you falsely imagine they are? Because they're nice guys and just want to get along? lol |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 13, 2020 9:25:44 GMT -6
While I don’t necessarily agree with Marshall, I think we shouldn’t automatically side with the owners even if the players are being whineasses. I agree. We really need to learn more about what the owners are offering.They definitely won't have the same revenue this season. Not even half of what was expected. TV revenue will be about half but gate receipts for empty stadiums for at least part of the 'season' will take a bite out of their revenue stream. And merchandising and concessions will also be hit hard. |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 13, 2020 14:31:35 GMT -6
What's the use of having a contract if you just throw it away when the wind changes directions. I bring up Act of God because it is a well known legal principal in dismissing or modifying contracts which are otherwise valid and would be in breach. Even then, great pains are taken to rescind only the most egregious portions of the contracts such as performance requirement dates unavoidable extended are extended to keep the contract in force if possible.
It's not about what you would do if you start over, it's how you adjust to an unforeseeable event.The first question is did you have insurance? If not, why not? Why should we void an otherwise valid contract if you simply failed to take reasonable precautions.
I honesly don't know the answers to those questions, but they are relevant before even thinking about modifying the contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 13, 2020 15:48:06 GMT -6
What's the use of having a contract if you just throw it away when the wind changes directions. I bring up Act of God because it is a well known legal principal in dismissing or modifying contracts which are otherwise valid and would be in breach. Even then, great pains are taken to rescind only the most egregious portions of the contracts such as performance requirement dates unavoidable extended are extended to keep the contract in force if possible. It's not about what you would do if you start over, it's how you adjust to an unforeseeable event.The first question is did you have insurance? If not, why not? Why should we void an otherwise valid contract if you simply failed to take reasonable precautions. I honesly don't know the answers to those questions, but they are relevant before even thinking about modifying the contract. A lot of worker bees out in the real world are having to take pay cuts, lesser hours, etc. during all this. Why should it be much different for the players? My wife is working for 20% less pay than she was hired at, and her only other options is to quit. (I'm not complaining, these days it's just good to have jobs...) |
|
|
|
Post by abregmanfan on May 13, 2020 18:08:03 GMT -6
What's the use of having a contract if you just throw it away when the wind changes directions. I bring up Act of God because it is a well known legal principal in dismissing or modifying contracts which are otherwise valid and would be in breach. Even then, great pains are taken to rescind only the most egregious portions of the contracts such as performance requirement dates unavoidable extended are extended to keep the contract in force if possible. It's not about what you would do if you start over, it's how you adjust to an unforeseeable event.The first question is did you have insurance? If not, why not? Why should we void an otherwise valid contract if you simply failed to take reasonable precautions. I honesly don't know the answers to those questions, but they are relevant before even thinking about modifying the contract. A lot of worker bees out in the real world are having to take pay cuts, lesser hours, etc. during all this. Why should it be much different for the players? My wife is working for 20% less pay than she was hired at, and her only other options is to quit. (I'm not complaining, these days it's just good to have jobs...) I agree 100% |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 13, 2020 18:49:02 GMT -6
What's the use of having a contract if you just throw it away when the wind changes directions. I bring up Act of God because it is a well known legal principal in dismissing or modifying contracts which are otherwise valid and would be in breach. Even then, great pains are taken to rescind only the most egregious portions of the contracts such as performance requirement dates unavoidable extended are extended to keep the contract in force if possible. It's not about what you would do if you start over, it's how you adjust to an unforeseeable event.The first question is did you have insurance? If not, why not? Why should we void an otherwise valid contract if you simply failed to take reasonable precautions. I honesly don't know the answers to those questions, but they are relevant before even thinking about modifying the contract. A lot of worker bees out in the real world are having to take pay cuts, lesser hours, etc. during all this. Why should it be much different for the players? My wife is working for 20% less pay than she was hired at, and her only other options is to quit. (I'm not complaining, these days it's just good to have jobs...) Only a small fraction of employees work under an employment contract. They work under employment at will. Either party can walk away without consequence. A change of terms allows either party to request/demand a change the situation. Your wife could have demanded a 20% raise and the employers could only say yes, no or counter. But neither is obligated to continue the association because there is no contract.
Professional Athletes are different. A contract is hammered out and the details of who absorbs risk is spelled out. Injury is a frequent concern, but the player doesn't usually bear the consequences during the term of the contract. The team often obtains insurance against significant injury to mitigate the risk. They may even have a more comprehensive policy for such significant situations such as this or a strike. But I don't see a judge declaring this unforeseen situation as sufficient to justify abrogating the contract.
But as flexible as judges are with explicit law and Constitutionally protected rights these days, who knows. I wouldn't have believed a local Judge would threaten a church with permanent closure for following an article of faith to assemble. But that's been done. We're in a Brave New 1984 World right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by abregmanfan on May 13, 2020 20:38:42 GMT -6
A lot of worker bees out in the real world are having to take pay cuts, lesser hours, etc. during all this. Why should it be much different for the players? My wife is working for 20% less pay than she was hired at, and her only other options is to quit. (I'm not complaining, these days it's just good to have jobs...) Only a small fraction of employees work under an employment contract. They work under employment at will. Either party can walk away without consequence. A change of terms allows either party to request/demand a change the situation. Your wife could have demanded a 20% raise and the employers could only say yes, no or counter. But neither is obligated to continue the association because there is no contract.
Professional Athletes are different. A contract is hammered out and the details of who absorbs risk is spelled out. Injury is a frequent concern, but the player doesn't usually bear the consequences during the term of the contract. The team often obtains insurance against significant injury to mitigate the risk. They may even have a more comprehensive policy for such significant situations such as this or a strike. But I don't see a judge declaring this unforeseen situation as sufficient to justify abrogating the contract.
But as flexible as judges are with explicit law and Constitutionally protected rights these days, who knows. I wouldn't have believed a local Judge would threaten a church with permanent closure for following an article of faith to assemble. But that's been done. We're in a Brave New 1984 World right now.
Marshall, if you are my boss and I am supposed to work 40 hours per week and only work 10, are you still going to pay me my 40? |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 13, 2020 21:21:51 GMT -6
I honesly don't know the answers to those questions, but they are relevant before even thinking about modifying the contract. Nope. Those questions are completely irrelevant and are just a fabrication based on your lack of knowledge regarding contract law. For goodness sake, take two minutes and google using the search parameters 'contract' and 'void'. This is second week material in Contract Law 101. The MLB/MLBPA contract for the 2020 season has already been made void by the unprecedented change in public policy. The MLBPA knows this. They have experts in contract law advising them. Not some know-nothing who makes up things in his own mind and tries to rationalize according to the way he thinks things should be. What's the use of having a contract if you just throw it away when the wind changes directions. That's a laughable hyperbole of the present situation. When has the entire US economy EVER had ALL non-essential businesses be forced closed by government regulation? Seriously, even if you continue to ignore all other points I've brought up, I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire until you answer this.
Oh, and even if the MLB and MLBPA reach an agreement in principle, it's still not certain they will be permitted to operate in a modified fashion, having no fans in the stands. Maybe if they can show their isolation protocols will be reasonably effective in not promoting the spread of Covid-19 they might get approval. But they could also be shut down indefinitely if there are numerous cases of new infections in the players, team staff, umpires, camera crew, etc and/or their families. |
|
|
|
Post by ɮօʀȶǟʐ on May 13, 2020 23:31:02 GMT -6
Only a fool would cling so tenaciously to the letter of a contract that it financially ruined his employer. While I don’t necessarily agree with Marshall, I think we shouldn’t automatically side with the owners even if the players are being whineasses. Congrats on becoming the first 1492er |
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 14, 2020 4:51:39 GMT -6
While I don’t necessarily agree with Marshall, I think we shouldn’t automatically side with the owners even if the players are being whineasses. Congrats on becoming the first 1492er Thank you, sir. I didn’t even realize. |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 14, 2020 6:56:04 GMT -6
Only a small fraction of employees work under an employment contract. They work under employment at will. Either party can walk away without consequence. A change of terms allows either party to request/demand a change the situation. Your wife could have demanded a 20% raise and the employers could only say yes, no or counter. But neither is obligated to continue the association because there is no contract.
Professional Athletes are different. A contract is hammered out and the details of who absorbs risk is spelled out. Injury is a frequent concern, but the player doesn't usually bear the consequences during the term of the contract. The team often obtains insurance against significant injury to mitigate the risk. They may even have a more comprehensive policy for such significant situations such as this or a strike. But I don't see a judge declaring this unforeseen situation as sufficient to justify abrogating the contract.
But as flexible as judges are with explicit law and Constitutionally protected rights these days, who knows. I wouldn't have believed a local Judge would threaten a church with permanent closure for following an article of faith to assemble. But that's been done. We're in a Brave New 1984 World right now.
Marshall, if you are my boss and I am supposed to work 40 hours per week and only work 10, are you still going to pay me my 40? If you have a contract that states you will be paid X, then you would be paid X if you are available to work. It is the risk taken when you sign the contract. You as an employee under contract cannot work for a competitor for the term of the contract.
Like I said, I don't expect the players to take any pay cut.
It's not about what you should expect in an employment at will situation. It's an employment contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 14, 2020 6:59:55 GMT -6
We may not like what Marshall says on this matter, but he’s right. Contracts are there for a reason.
|
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 14, 2020 7:08:13 GMT -6
I honesly don't know the answers to those questions, but they are relevant before even thinking about modifying the contract. Nope. Those questions are completely irrelevant and are just a fabrication based on your lack of knowledge regarding contract law. For goodness sake, take two minutes and google using the search parameters 'contract' and 'void'. This is second week material in Contract Law 101. The MLB/MLBPA contract for the 2020 season has already been made void by the unprecedented change in public policy. The MLBPA knows this. They have experts in contract law advising them. Not some know-nothing who makes up things in his own mind and tries to rationalize according to the way he thinks things should be. What's the use of having a contract if you just throw it away when the wind changes directions. That's a laughable hyperbole of the present situation. When has the entire US economy EVER had ALL non-essential businesses be forced closed by government regulation? Seriously, even if you continue to ignore all other points I've brought up, I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire until you answer this.
Oh, and even if the MLB and MLBPA reach an agreement in principle, it's still not certain they will be permitted to operate in a modified fashion, having no fans in the stands. Maybe if they can show their isolation protocols will be reasonably effective in not promoting the spread of Covid-19 they might get approval. But they could also be shut down indefinitely if there are numerous cases of new infections in the players, team staff, umpires, camera crew, etc and/or their families. I said this before, but I repeat. I do not believe this is an Act of God situation. Your comments reflect a different opinion. It is not ignorance of the law, it is a difference of opinion which can be litigated and probably will be. Were all the player contracts nullified when a game was rained out? Or flooded out? No. But were those people working the concessions paid? No. They work under different legal status. Are the players expected to walk away from their contracts next year? They could if the contract is voided.
There's a lot more to consider than just an apples and oranges comparison.
|
|
