[todeen]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

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.

There's nothing wrong from your standpoint. I'm a union negotiator and sometimes hard decisions bite back in the wrong way. Next go round they become a priority. But as a fan, the Mariners are "suck d*** for crack" bad and refuse to bring up their name recognized prospects to bring fans into the stadium. It just means that these players will feel no guilt or remorse to stay in Seattle because their boss is a jerk who doesn't care and is willing to publicly run their name through the dirt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk