Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
You really don't think not using any prospects for a whole season because it was a shortened season isnt an abuse? Sure it is within the rules, but certainly not in the spirit of what was bargained. He admitted that they were deliberately holding back players so they wouldn't get fair market value. The players suspected this was going on and now have confirmation. It's not really any different than collusion in the 80s. I think the prospects of a strike just went way up. The only ones really losing are the fans.
|
I don't know what "not in the spirit of what was bargained" means. The CBA establishes a framework that prevents teams from keeping players in the minors indefinitely. It establishes how much leeway teams have to manage when each player's clock toward arbitration and ultimately free agency begins. If it allows a team to do something at its sole discretion, why is it abuse when a team goes ahead and uses that discretion however it sees fit. It might be unwise, unfair to fans, etc. But not "abuse" of the players.
Again, the players primarily affected by this phenomena are the elite prospects who figure to make life-time security before their career is over. If it delays (for a year) a 9-figure contract for a handful of elite players in exchange for more generous minimums/benefits for players who may never see an 8-figure contract, it could easily be justified as beneficial to the union membership as a whole.
Your point about a strike might be valid. Union leadership might regret the trade-off they made last time in light of how the rules are used and might want a different deal; owner's might balk. His comments were unwise because they were unnecessary and may be used to inflame opinion going into negotiations, but "abuse" I don't get.