-
Originally posted by G Perico -
Re: MLB Off-Topic
This is why Marvin Miller was so ******* important. The union started to break during the 1981 strike, with I think Bob Boone going to Lee MacPhail offering to broker back-channel negotiations, and veterans like Robin Yount going to Miller and saying, "Look, we got our pensions, we've gotten our salaries hiked, we've even got free agency; why are we on strike to hold the line on free agent compensation? Can't we just let them have that?" Despite repeated meetings with the executive board, Miller still sensed that the union wasn't completely buying in.
So Miller brought out the big guns. He called a meeting of the union membership, with a few hundred players in attendance, and Miller didn't speak: Robin Roberts, who had witnessed the birth of the MLBPA and was personally responsible for Miller being hired in the first place, came out and addressed the players, and he gave them a come-to-Jesus talk in which he told them in no uncertain terms: "You aren't doing this for yourselves. You're doing this for the people who come after you, and the generation after them, and the generation after them. What you give up to the owners will never be gotten back, and you will have taken away that bargaining position from future players." Afterwards, a vote was taken of the full membership to see if the strike should continue, and it was unanimously in favor.
And that's why Michael Weiner's tenure as MLBPA executive director was so ruinous; he set the table for Clark. Weiner was absolutely ruled by the veterans who still control the MLBPA today, and that's how the ridiculous QO system came about : No team was going to bat an eye at surrendering a draft pick for Pujols or Prince Fielder, but when it was attached to mediocre / decent but not great players, it gave teams an excuse to be thrifty. I believe Weiner also gave up blood testing and international signing bonus limits in that same CBA in return for just about nothing, and Clark learned about CBA negotiations from him.
That said, the MLBPA does not represent the minor league players, so that’s why they don’t look out for them specifically. Players don’t get membership into the MLBPA until they sign a contract with a major league club. They would have to form their own union (and they should).Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
Each day that passes without the MLBPA firing Tony Clark is a day wasted for preparation toward negotiating the next CBA.OSHA Inspector for the NBA.Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
Yankees and Red Sox working on a deal to play 2 games in London in 2019...would be a good excuse to go to England for sure.Originally posted by G PericoComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
Where would they even play them? We don't have any baseball stadiums and Wembley is surely not big enough to have an outfield? I'm trying to picture a baseball field on top of a soccer pitch and I really can't imagine it fitting at all? It would have to be weirdly long and thin like the Polo Grounds wouldn't it?Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
I guess that has the running track that would extend it a bit if they put turf over it. That place is a nightmare though, complete white elephant. The seats would all be in the wrong place as well I'd have thought? I'll go if they do as it's by my in laws house, but I can't imagine it will be a particularly good fit. (kind of struggling to get my head around how it would fit tbh
I know it's worked with the NFL, but not only does the NFL pitch fit better, baseball is nowhere near as popular as NFL here. I guess they are banking on London being the kind of place where people will go and see just about anything if you hype it enough. It would be great if it raised the popularity enough to at least get it back on TV.Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
What about cricket grounds? Are any of them big enough? Where does the England team usually play?
Sent from my iPhone using Operation SportsComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
They'd probably be big enough but the stands aren't set up in a way that would be very helpful for spectators or a baseball game. The England team doesn't have a ground of their own, they go around the country using the top county grounds. In London you'd be looking at Lords, but that only has a 28k capacity as is and a lot of that would be lost if you made it baseball shaped. There aren't built up corners on a cricket ground for the fans to be behind home plate, the main stands would surely end up being along the foul lines.
Baseball really isn't very suited to other stadiums imoComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
Snakes and Dodgers seemed to go ok at the Sydney cricket ground.Boston Red Sox
1903 1912 1915 1916 1918 2004 2007 2013 2018
9 4 1 8 27 6 14 45 26 34
Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
Sydney Cricket ground holds like 45,000. Looking at the two grounds in London they're in the 20,000s. MLB isn't going to London to sell 20-some thousand tickets.
Sent from my iPhone using Operation SportsComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
They'd definitely try and bodge it in the London stadium though, regardless of whether it really worked. That's what they've done with it for soccer and they don't seem to care that it's been a disaster for West Ham. It's got a lot of seats and that's all they really care aboutComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
It'll be great to see baseball in arguably the country that the concepts of the game originated. I'm thinking it'll be played at a cricket stadium but if not that's cool too.
Either way, this would be a great showcase for the sport and i'm sure the players will enjoy being there. England is one of my favorite places i've visited.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
Comment