Photo

Miami Marlins


  • Please log in to reply
417 replies to this topic

#81 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:55 PM

http://www.cbssports...er-mike-redmond

 

Loria up to it again.  He mandated that they switch starters for a doubleheader hours before the first game.  I really wish Showtime was still following the Marlins.  Would have loved to see footage of that decision and relaying it to the manager.

 

Redmond is a tool for not standing to his choice.  Not that it matters if those crappy players respect him or not, but you can pretty much guarantee they don't.

 

Redmond is a dead fish. He wants to do what's right by the players and the game and the owner wants to do something different. If he gets fired in the middle of his first season he's lucky to get another interview ever. He really can't win here, Loria is twice as bad as Angelos from what I hear. And those rumors of him putting out a bad team and making money off revenue sharing? Absolutely true according to a person I met in the know.


@JeremyMStrain

#82 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:32 PM

Redmond is a dead fish. He wants to do what's right by the players and the game and the owner wants to do something different. If he gets fired in the middle of his first season he's lucky to get another interview ever. He really can't win here, Loria is twice as bad as Angelos from what I hear. And those rumors of him putting out a bad team and making money off revenue sharing? Absolutely true according to a person I met in the know.

It seems that way re: Loria-Angleos, but some here disagree about that.

 

If they're going to have revenue sharing, they need to have some guidelines in place to prevent against this kind of thing. Not that I'm expecting to happen.


@levineps

#83 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:34 PM

It seems that way re: Loria-Angleos, but some here disagree about that.

 

If they're going to have revenue sharing, they need to have some guidelines in place to prevent against this kind of thing. Not that I'm expecting to happen.

 

I hear MLB is NOT happy about it and some are working on things from taking control of team away, to contraction to re-working revenue sharing. SOMETHING is going to happen.


@JeremyMStrain

#84 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,014 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:43 PM

I hear MLB is NOT happy about it and some are working on things from taking control of team away, to contraction to re-working revenue sharing. SOMETHING is going to happen.

 

That would be something...to contract a team with a 2-year-old stadium.


There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#85 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,832 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:44 PM

Move the Rays there.



#86 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 27 April 2013 - 01:23 AM

That would be something...to contract a team with a 2-year-old stadium.

Contraction is very unlikely to happen, not to mention you'd need a second team. Players Union would never go along with that. Then you'll have a multitude of lawsuits. 


@levineps

#87 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 07:35 AM

That would be something...to contract a team with a 2-year-old stadium.

Contraction is very unlikely to happen, not to mention you'd need a second team. Players Union would never go along with that. Then you'll have a multitude of lawsuits. 

Union will have no say in contraction. Remember how close it came a few years back. It is the least likely plan of action but eliminating the team and moving another franchise (rays) to the stadium has been discussed.

 

They are THAT ready to get rid of Loria, and kicking themselves for not contracting MIA right before this stadium deal like they wanted to (tied to realignment with HOU) but hangup was couldn't decide what other team to cut.


@JeremyMStrain

#88 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:56 AM

Union will have no say in contraction. Remember how close it came a few years back. It is the least likely plan of action but eliminating the team and moving another franchise (rays) to the stadium has been discussed.

 

They are THAT ready to get rid of Loria, and kicking themselves for not contracting MIA right before this stadium deal like they wanted to (tied to realignment with HOU) but hangup was couldn't decide what other team to cut.

The Union has to approve it else they would've done contraction a decade ago. It's a negotiating ploy. It's really not that realistic.


@levineps

#89 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 10:06 AM

Union will have no say in contraction. Remember how close it came a few years back. It is the least likely plan of action but eliminating the team and moving another franchise (rays) to the stadium has been discussed.
 
They are THAT ready to get rid of Loria, and kicking themselves for not contracting MIA right before this stadium deal like they wanted to (tied to realignment with HOU) but hangup was couldn't decide what other team to cut.

The Union has to approve it else they would've done contraction a decade ago. It's a negotiating ploy. It's really not that realistic.

The union has no say in how many franchises mlb chooses to operate. They get to govern players rights but that they don't govern the sport. Its not 50/50 union and mlb. It just seems that way sice so many things are tied to the cba.
@JeremyMStrain

#90 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 27 April 2013 - 10:13 AM

The union has no say in how many franchises mlb chooses to operate. They get to govern players rights but that they don't govern the sport. Its not 50/50 union and mlb. It just seems that way sice so many things are tied to the cba.

Yes they do, one of those "things" is contraction, they prevented contraction a decade ago, the owners voted unanimously for it. Besides you have TV contracts, stadium deals, minor league contracts, etc which would get tangled up in the courts.


@levineps

#91 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,843 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:11 PM

Its crazy to say that the union has no say in contraction. Of course they do. You can't just eliminate 50 jobs without asking them. Or reshuffle by making 28 teams with 27 mann rosters.
  • Oriole85 likes this

#92 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:44 PM

Its crazy to say that the union has no say in contraction. Of course they do. You can't just eliminate 50 jobs without asking them. Or reshuffle by making 28 teams with 27 mann rosters.

 

At the end of the day, MLB has the legal right to contract, so grievances or whatever they want to do, if the union goes to court, they lose. They can and will try to negotiate the best deal they can get (increasing roster size is the smartest play), but at the end of the day, they don't have the right to say MLB can't eliminate teams. It's all what happened back in 2001-2002. There was a compromise made on relocation and some other stuff instead, but if things went litigation, the union has no legs to stand on. Especially if they don't actually eliminate any ML jobs.


  • You Play to Win the Game likes this
@JeremyMStrain

#93 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,843 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:46 PM

I just think its crazy to think contraction could happen without the union getting major concessions.

Zero chance, IMO.

#94 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:51 PM

I just think its crazy to think contraction could happen without the union getting major concessions.

Zero chance, IMO.

I think MLB would try to play nice and would give them something in exchange for sure. No sense in making things worse between the two, and with the CBA expiration in like 2 years or so, it would give the union a HUGE bargaining chip if MLB wants them to go quietly. Was reminded by someone recently that they absolutely do have the power to do it if they want to go that route. Not favorite option of most, but majority of owners want Loria gone.


@JeremyMStrain

#95 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

The MLBPA absolutely has a place in any discussion involving the jobs available to their membership. There is no way that MLB would contract without their cooperation, because even if they have the legal right to do so, the union would make the next CBA negotiation absolute, unadulterated Hell.

 

There would be major concessions to the union: a permanent additional roster spot on every team, league-wide DH, possibly more.

 

The Marlins are far more likely to move than contract. And honestly, Miami would shut down I-95 and the port before allowing that team to leave after all of the crap with the new park.

 

I don't even think MLB would be successful in removing Loria. He is enough of an unrepentant ass that he would fight that move all the way, and because of the deal that MLB made where they took the Expos off of his hands and allowed him to take over the Marlins, he probably wins.

 

Really, their best bet might be to hire the ex-pat Cubans that are always going after Castro and hope an easier target leads to more success. That's the only way they are ending the Loria era on terms other than his own.


@DJ_McCann

#96 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

The MLBPA absolutely has a place in any discussion involving the jobs available to their membership. There is no way that MLB would contract without their cooperation, because even if they have the legal right to do so, the union would make the next CBA negotiation absolute, unadulterated Hell.

 

There would be major concessions to the union: a permanent additional roster spot on every team, league-wide DH, possibly more.

 

The Marlins are far more likely to move than contract. And honestly, Miami would shut down I-95 and the port before allowing that team to leave after all of the crap with the new park.

 

I don't even think MLB would be successful in removing Loria. He is enough of an unrepentant ass that he would fight that move all the way, and because of the deal that MLB made where they took the Expos off of his hands and allowed him to take over the Marlins, he probably wins.

 

Really, their best bet might be to hire the ex-pat Cubans that are always going after Castro and hope an easier target leads to more success. That's the only way they are ending the Loria era on terms other than his own.

 

They removed Schott easily enough, and the displeasure for him is similar to the rascist evil one.


@JeremyMStrain

#97 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:38 PM

They removed Schott easily enough, and the displeasure for him is similar to the rascist evil one.

No they didn't. She sold in the face of a suspension (which would have been her third, so that obviously wasn't that critical to her) and a revolt of the rest of her ownership group. MLB didn't actually oust her.

 

They might be able to suspend Loria, but they really don't have cause outside of "best interests of baseball", and again I think Loria fights and wins.


@DJ_McCann

#98 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

No they didn't. She sold in the face of a suspension (which would have been her third, so that obviously wasn't that critical to her) and a revolt of the rest of her ownership group. MLB didn't actually oust her.

 

They might be able to suspend Loria, but they really don't have cause outside of "best interests of baseball", and again I think Loria fights and wins.

 

No, MLB gave her an ultimatim and forced her out. Undermining the revenue sharing is "best interests of baseball" and it doesn't matter what he fights, I'm sure there are tons of clauses in those ownership contracts that give them ways to get rid of owners. They just have to want to pull the trigger...between the stadium debacle and now this, MLB is NOT happy.


@JeremyMStrain

#99 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:13 PM

No, MLB gave her an ultimatim and forced her out. Undermining the revenue sharing is "best interests of baseball" and it doesn't matter what he fights, I'm sure there are tons of clauses in those ownership contracts that give them ways to get rid of owners. They just have to want to pull the trigger...between the stadium debacle and now this, MLB is NOT happy.

MLB literally put him in the position after he did the same things in Montreal. I can't see them having a leg to stand on.

 

I think you are very confident in obscure legalese. I tend to think that once an owner is approved by the other owners, they are there for as long as they want. MLB operates on precedent more than most institutions.

 

Speaking of owners and precedent, the other owners will think long and hard before allowing one of their own to be summarily removed.

 

Again, there were other circumstances, both external and internal, involving Schott. They didn't remove Steinbrenner, even with the evidence against him (though I've seen evidence suggesting he was railroaded in the investigation and may have been able to fight removal). They aren't removing other owners who make a mockery of revenue-sharing, or who destroy fanbases, or commit just short of outright fraud on cities.


  • You Play to Win the Game likes this
@DJ_McCann

#100 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,416 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:45 PM

MLB literally put him in the position after he did the same things in Montreal. I can't see them having a leg to stand on.

 

I think you are very confident in obscure legalese. I tend to think that once an owner is approved by the other owners, they are there for as long as they want. MLB operates on precedent more than most institutions.

 

Speaking of owners and precedent, the other owners will think long and hard before allowing one of their own to be summarily removed.

 

Again, there were other circumstances, both external and internal, involving Schott. They didn't remove Steinbrenner, even with the evidence against him (though I've seen evidence suggesting he was railroaded in the investigation and may have been able to fight removal). They aren't removing other owners who make a mockery of revenue-sharing, or who destroy fanbases, or commit just short of outright fraud on cities.

 

You'd be surprised how high up the food chain these things are coming from...


@JeremyMStrain




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=