Grievance against contraction

gyb13 · 04-24-2002, 12:43 PM

This is yesterday's, but since no one else mentioned it:

Players, owners agree to let arbitrator decide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Baseball players and owners agreed Tuesday to submit the union's grievance against contraction to an arbitrator on June 6.

Lawyers for the sides are due to exchange briefs May 22 and scheduled oral arguments for June 6. It is not known how long arbitrator Shyam Das will take to decide the case.

Owners voted Nov. 6 to fold two franchises, and their labor negotiators later told the union that Minnesota and Montreal were the targeted teams. Players filed a grievance claiming the decision violated their labor contract, which expired Nov. 7 and remains in effect through this World Series.

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, blocked by a Minnesota injunction that forced the Twins to honor their lease at the Metrodome this season, put off contraction but vowed to eliminate two teams -- which remain unspecified -- for the 2003 season.

The union continued with the grievance and intends to seek money damages if Das upholds its position that teams cannot be eliminated without the approval of the players' association.

Das heard 20 days of testimony from nine witnesses, starting Dec. 4 and ending April 10.

Meanwhile, negotiators for players and owners met in a relatively uneventful bargaining session Tuesday and recessed talks until May 2. For the second straight day, union lawyers responded to management questions about their proposal last month -- which included only a slight increase in revenue sharing and did not include a luxury tax.

"This is a necessary part of the process in terms of each side gathering information they need, feeling each other out and moving along the process," management negotiator Rob Manfred said.

Owners, looking to slow the increase in salaries and decrease the disparity in revenue among teams, want a 50 percent luxury tax on the portions of payrolls above $98 million and proposed increasing the percentage of shared local revenue from 20 percent to 50 percent, after a deduction for ballpark expenses.

The union's proposal raised the percentage of locally shared revenue to 22.5 percent, using a formula that gives a greater percentage to the teams with the least revenue and takes away a smaller percentage from the clubs with the highest revenue.

ChrisCary · 04-24-2002, 12:53 PM

The arbitrators decision wouldn't help Bud fight the injunction by Minnesota's courts would it?

Also should the players win does it block any attempts to contrat without the union's permission or would it only stop the contraction of the Expos and Twins?

Slippery Pedro · 04-24-2002, 01:10 PM

I'm not that into this, but, isn't this just a BS thing?

Meaning it's just to state that MLB cannot contract without MLBPA being part of the process? And, perhaps, MLB will be fined for trying to do it without a blessing from the MLBPA?

gyb13 · 04-24-2002, 02:44 PM

Any obstacle helps, i guess...

SmedIndy · 04-24-2002, 03:22 PM

Hopefully, this means the players will understand the public sentiment against contraction, and not just be a ploy for them to expand the rosters to 26 or 27.

tenkevcardinal · 04-24-2002, 04:43 PM

Am I the only one here that is for contraction?

BuzzBuzzard · 04-24-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tenkevcardinal
Am I the only one here that is for contraction?

No, but now with you around, I am no longer the only pro-contraction voice.

poorme · 04-24-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
No, but now with you around, I am no longer the only pro-contraction voice.

I wouldn't be against contraction. Heck, get rid of 6-8 teams, including the White Sox. Put me out of my misery.

tenkevcardinal · 04-24-2002, 04:57 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't be against contraction. Heck, get rid of 6-8 teams, including the White Sox. Put me out of my misery

Haha, why are you in misery? The Sox are the most exciting team in baseball this year.

spitball · 04-24-2002, 04:58 PM

Add me to the pro contraction club.
Hell, contract the Angels for all I care. Nobody goes to the games and it doesn't look like there's a buyer on the horizon.
Put me out of my misery.
Also the pitching is a freeking joke and the rosters are so watered down it's hard to watch.
Why pay big league admission fees to watch AAA baseball.

Skip · 04-24-2002, 05:11 PM

This thread has turned toward the dark side.

I am not pro-contraction, but am beginning to think about it as a reasonable possibility. Not because of money, etc. but just as a talent issue. I'm not ready to embrace the dark side yet though.

gyb13 · 04-24-2002, 05:51 PM

32 countries in the World Cup...now there's talent dilution for you...

SmedIndy · 04-24-2002, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skip
This thread has turned toward the dark side.

I am not pro-contraction, but am beginning to think about it as a reasonable possibility. Not because of money, etc. but just as a talent issue. I'm not ready to embrace the dark side yet though.

Don't let the overuse of LOOGYs and specialists turn you away from the forces of good and righteousness.

Think of Roberto Petagine, and what he could have done had teams decided they didn't need a Tony Fossas type lefty.

KCBOOMER · 04-25-2002, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
No, but now with you around, I am no longer the only pro-contraction voice.

I am not opposed to contraction, but am hypocrite enough to admit I don't want it to be my team.

04-25-2002, 11:25 PM

Cut 'em out.

04-24-2002, 12:43 PM	#1
gyb13 NS Omnipresent Brasilian Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Crazy George's playground Posts: 10,903	Grievance against contraction This is yesterday's, but since no one else mentioned it: Players, owners agree to let arbitrator decide -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press NEW YORK -- Baseball players and owners agreed Tuesday to submit the union's grievance against contraction to an arbitrator on June 6. Lawyers for the sides are due to exchange briefs May 22 and scheduled oral arguments for June 6. It is not known how long arbitrator Shyam Das will take to decide the case. Owners voted Nov. 6 to fold two franchises, and their labor negotiators later told the union that Minnesota and Montreal were the targeted teams. Players filed a grievance claiming the decision violated their labor contract, which expired Nov. 7 and remains in effect through this World Series. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, blocked by a Minnesota injunction that forced the Twins to honor their lease at the Metrodome this season, put off contraction but vowed to eliminate two teams -- which remain unspecified -- for the 2003 season. The union continued with the grievance and intends to seek money damages if Das upholds its position that teams cannot be eliminated without the approval of the players' association. Das heard 20 days of testimony from nine witnesses, starting Dec. 4 and ending April 10. Meanwhile, negotiators for players and owners met in a relatively uneventful bargaining session Tuesday and recessed talks until May 2. For the second straight day, union lawyers responded to management questions about their proposal last month -- which included only a slight increase in revenue sharing and did not include a luxury tax. "This is a necessary part of the process in terms of each side gathering information they need, feeling each other out and moving along the process," management negotiator Rob Manfred said. Owners, looking to slow the increase in salaries and decrease the disparity in revenue among teams, want a 50 percent luxury tax on the portions of payrolls above $98 million and proposed increasing the percentage of shared local revenue from 20 percent to 50 percent, after a deduction for ballpark expenses. The union's proposal raised the percentage of locally shared revenue to 22.5 percent, using a formula that gives a greater percentage to the teams with the least revenue and takes away a smaller percentage from the clubs with the highest revenue. __________________ Gustavo NDF Moderator Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

04-24-2002, 01:10 PM	#3
Slippery Pedro NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 999	I'm not that into this, but, isn't this just a BS thing? Meaning it's just to state that MLB cannot contract without MLBPA being part of the process? And, perhaps, MLB will be fined for trying to do it without a blessing from the MLBPA? __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator PLEASE READ: Community Standards . : ~ : PLEASE SHOP: Our Stuff! : ~ : HOW CAN YOU: Help? : ~ : BE NICE: To Your Fav Baseball Person. : ~ : ARE YOU: Posting Correctly?

04-24-2002, 02:44 PM	#4
gyb13 NS Omnipresent Brasilian Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Crazy George's playground Posts: 10,903	Any obstacle helps, i guess... __________________ Gustavo NDF Moderator Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

04-24-2002, 05:51 PM	#12
gyb13 NS Omnipresent Brasilian Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Crazy George's playground Posts: 10,903	32 countries in the World Cup...now there's talent dilution for you... __________________ Gustavo NDF Moderator Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

04-24-2002, 12:53 PM	#2
ChrisCary High and tight Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 1,281	The arbitrators decision wouldn't help Bud fight the injunction by Minnesota's courts would it? Also should the players win does it block any attempts to contrat without the union's permission or would it only stop the contraction of the Expos and Twins?

04-24-2002, 03:22 PM	#5
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	Hopefully, this means the players will understand the public sentiment against contraction, and not just be a ploy for them to expand the rosters to 26 or 27.

04-24-2002, 04:43 PM	#6
tenkevcardinal Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Memphis Posts: 189	Am I the only one here that is for contraction?

04-24-2002, 04:58 PM	#10
spitball Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Studio City, Ca. Posts: 1,751	Add me to the pro contraction club. Hell, contract the Angels for all I care. Nobody goes to the games and it doesn't look like there's a buyer on the horizon. Put me out of my misery. Also the pitching is a freeking joke and the rosters are so watered down it's hard to watch. Why pay big league admission fees to watch AAA baseball.

04-24-2002, 05:11 PM	#11
Skip NetShrine Vagabond Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisville Posts: 7,866	This thread has turned toward the dark side. I am not pro-contraction, but am beginning to think about it as a reasonable possibility. Not because of money, etc. but just as a talent issue. I'm not ready to embrace the dark side yet though.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Contraction is Alive and Well and Living on espn.com	sweaver	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	63	02-19-2002 09:37 AM
Contraction Postponed	ChrisCary	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	1	02-05-2002 03:10 PM
Report: Contraction likely off	Xanadu Dragon	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	16	01-15-2002 01:59 PM
What's Next In Minny?	Skipper Steve	2001 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	12	11-25-2001 01:28 PM
Contraction	nyy26wc	2001 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	31	11-09-2001 08:49 PM