Union behind Yanks in Sabathia pursuit?

[actionjackson]

Sorry kenny, but to paraphrase Curt Flood, a $200-million slave is still a slave. If C.C. truly wants to go to NY more power to him, but the union has no business bending his ear. Obviously, it's self-evident that it's in the best financial interest of the players in the PA if C.C. takes that crazy money, but there's no need for the union to pressure him to do so. From what I understand, he wants to go to the West Coast anyway. To me "free agency" means the player is "free" to choose wherever he wants to sign, using whatever criteria he wants to use. Money is definitely one thing to consider, but it is only one of many. As soon as the union makes public suggestions as to where the player should sign and puts who knows what kind of private pressures on the player, as far as I'm concerned it's not "free agency" anymore. Where were these idiots when the non-users (and I believe there were some, even if it appears everyone was on something at times) needed protection? Oh, yeah that's right they were driving the bus full of neanderthal players, greedy owners, ostrich journalists, greedy agents etc forward and backward over the non-users. What a traveshamockery of a "union". Sad, sad, sad.

[TheNamelessPoet]

free agency does not mean a guy needs to sign 5-10 year deals.

I understand their reasoning, security, but they are now the ones holding the owners hostage... the tables have turned from 40 years ago

[HoustonGM]

Sorry kenny, but to paraphrase Curt Flood, a $200-million slave is still a $200-million slave. If C.C. truly wants to go to NY more power to him, but the union has no business bending his ear. Obviously, it's self-evident that it's in the best financial interest of the players in the PA if C.C. takes that crazy money, but there's no need for the union to pressure him to do so. From what I understand, he wants to go to the West Coast anyway. To me "free agency" means the player is "free" to choose wherever he wants to sign, using whatever criteria he wants to use. Money is definitely one thing to consider, but it is only one of many. As soon as the union makes public suggestions as to where the player should sign and puts who knows what kind of private pressures on the player, as far as I'm concerned it's not "free agency" anymore. Where were these idiots when the non-users (and I believe there were some, even if it appears everyone was on something at times) needed protection? Oh, yeah that's right they were driving the bus full of neanderthal players, greedy owners, ostrich journalists, greedy agents etc forward and backward over the non-users. What a traveshamockery of a "union". Sad, sad, sad.

Well said.

The union should exist to protect the freedom of the player, not the wallets of the player. TheNamelessPoet quoted the perfect paragraph from the article I linked to, and I'll quote it here again:

Their job is to protect the players and their freedom and not the salary bar. The organization has forgotten this, and it’s the players who will pay (and are paying) the price. It’s time for the MLBPA to get back to protecting the players. If the game is enjoying high revenues, the player marketplace is free and open and the union is solidly united, then salaries will continue to enjoy healthy increase.

The key is that last sentence.

[filihok]

Again, why? The PA doesn't work for Sabathia alone - they work for all the players. The theory is that if Sabathia signs for huge money that puts pressure on other players' salaries to increase. Since most people want more money - that means that Sabathia's decision affects the rest of the players, which makes it the job of the PA to speak up.

Is that ALL most people want? More money? Or is it just easier to quantify happiness when it's relegated to the digits behind a $?

For all the reasons HGM and ActionJackson have pointed out, the Union is doing a disservice to the players by expecting them to only consider the highest bid

[TheNamelessPoet]

Is that ALL most people want? More money? Or is it just easier to quantify happiness when it's relegated to the digits behind a $?

it seems the union feels that way

For all the reasons HGM and ActionJackson have pointed out, the Union is doing a disservice to the players by expecting them to only consider the highest bid

THAT was my point. They want him to take the highest bid (as Boras does with his clients) so that it sets the standard higher for the other players... Not because the player will be the happiest there... but becaus he will be the richest.... the best thing that could have ever happened (for baseball) is A-Rod getting stuck in Texas, and Hampton being stuck in Colorado... make teams pay for these stupid contracts.

The problem is the Union would call for collusion... I think what they get paid is insane but I have no right to complain since I wear a Baseball cap, watch them on TV, go to their games... I think they should have 3-4 year contracts MAX. who cares if it gets to 35+ million a year... it will be less crippeling to a franchise... Look at the Yanks... if they had a 25 million bust its not going to really CRIPPLE the team. The Braves are in no way shape or form a small market team but look what Hampton did to the braves for 2 years... we could not go out and sign another f/a pitcher or keep A.Jones (who i think they might have given the $$$) because we had to start paying his 15 million a year. Im not complaining, we traded for him (and gave up nothing ) but these long tearm contracts are the problem. Kea Igawa, Mike Hampton, A-Rod (pre-Yankee he was still good but crippeling Texas), Barry Zito, Carl Pavano (tho he WAS only 4 years albeit to a .500 pitcher), To some extent Pedro (in year 4), and I fear Manny in year 4 or 5 of his next deal.

I honestly think the dodgers have the right Idea... Pay him an obscene amount for 2 maybe 3 years and a HUGE buyout... Why give him 5 years and have to eay 15-20 million at the end... if he stinks you only have to pay 7-10 million... if he is still really good he is worth the 20-25 million

[kenny1234]

a $200-million slave is still a $200-million slave. If C.C. truly wants to go to NY more power to him, but the union has no business bending his ear.

But the only power the union has is to bend his ear. He isn't a slave to the union - he has the power to sign wherever he wants and there is nothing the union can or will do about it. This is far different from the reserve clause - because there is no actual authority behind the words of the union.

Is that ALL most people want? More money? Or is it just easier to quantify happiness when it's relegated to the digits behind a $?

No - money is not all that people want. But it is the only effect that Sabathia has on the rest of the membership. Sabathia is fully within his rights to accept lower pay to play on the team that he wants to - and nothing the union has done or said will change that. But, if he accepts lower pay it affects everyone else in the union - they are just making sure that Sabathia knows that.

Also, I think this actually helps Sabathia. If he signs anywhere but the Yankees the fans will love him, and even if he signs with the Yankees he can blame the union.

[TheNamelessPoet]

but he CAN'T blame the union based on what yuo said... they are there just to bend his ear.

having been in a union... sometimes theay can bend a little harder then they should and teally talk someone into something that might not always be the most benefitial to that single person. "the needs of the few out weigh the needs of one" or however it goes.

[dickay]

There is a TON of peer pressure to take the highest contract or something very comparable to it. Don't underestimate the significance of peer pressure. There have been alot of examples throughout the years;

Jake Peavy;

I'm certainly not after a big dollar amount. That's not what it's about. I want to be here, period. And we'll see what comes of it. But I've got to do what the market says I should do, or what's close to that. I'm certainly not going to drive this market down and do anything to upset the balance where my peers would look down on me.

That said, people will get over peer pressure in time. Time heals all. Look at Paul Byrd who crossed the picket lines during the players strike for your best example of it.

[kenny1234]

but he CAN'T blame the union based on what yuo said... they are there just to bend his ear.

You're right - it wouldn't affect my opinion of his motives at all. Then again, I don't really care who he signs with or why. But it seems like it would affect the opinions of the majority of posters on this board - and I would assume a large number of knowledgeable fans.

having been in a union... sometimes theay can bend a little harder then they should and teally talk someone into something that might not always be the most benefitial to that single person. "the needs of the few out weigh the needs of one" or however it goes.

And that is why Sabathia has an agent, probably a business manager, and various other people whose job it is to look out for his interests. I know I am in the minority here - I just don't see where the union is out of line.

The union should exist to protect the freedom of the player, not the wallets of the player.

The union exists to protect the interests of the players - not one player in particular. And when was a union ever about protecting freedom. In general, unions help their members by limiting their freedom - limiting the ability to negotiate individual wages/working conditions keeps the membership from driving those wages/conditions lower through competition. I'm not saying that is the role of the PA - just unions in general.

[dickay]

You're right - it wouldn't affect my opinion of his motives at all. Then again, I don't really care who he signs with or why. But it seems like it would affect the opinions of the majority of posters on this board - and I would assume a large number of knowledgeable fans.


And that is why Sabathia has an agent, probably a business manager, and various other people whose job it is to look out for his interests. I know I am in the minority here - I just don't see where the union is out of line.

The union exists to protect the interests of the players - not one player in particular. And when was a union ever about protecting freedom. In general, unions help their members by limiting their freedom - limiting the ability to negotiate individual wages/working conditions keeps the membership from driving those wages/conditions lower through competition. I'm not saying that is the role of the PA - just unions in general.

I'm with ya Ken and agree with all you have said. Unions have been excellent for the American worker and baseball players as well....in general. However their attempts throughout history to constantly improve the situation for the employee without regard for the employer whatsoever has been their downfault at times.

Now it's always hard to know the truth and unions have been beneficial in calling corporate bluffs.....but there are breaking points. You see it in the auto industry today, the unions are well beyond the breaking point. MLB may one day run into a similar problem but until that day comes don't expect anything less from the players union, they will always attempt to improve the position of their masses. Negotiating power is derived through the marketplace, and players taking less money for hometown discounts does hurt the masses as it convolutes the marketplace.

[HoustonGM]

The union exists to protect the interests of the players - not one player in particular.

Right. And it is in the best interest of the players that they have the freedom to make their own choice about where they play and for how much.

And when was a union ever about protecting freedom.

That's what the MLBPA was originally about. That was Marvin Miller's dream.

[kenny1234]

Right. And it is in the best interest of the players that they have the freedom to make their own choice about where they play and for how much.

Taken collectively, this is almost definitely not true. All unions restrict the freedom of their members - that is their primary function. In principle, these restrictions act to improve the welfare of everyone. As an example, players are restricted from accepting a contract for less than the league minimum. But this restriction probably increases the wages paid to a large number of (primarily) young players - which is in their interests. Not all restrictions are negative. I am not saying that all unions reflect this ideal - but the PA isn't too bad.

And yes, the PA started with an attempt to break a collusive agreement of the owners. But they have surely moved beyond that point now.