1429 replies to this topic

[russsnyder]

How do salaries work if there's a work stoppage next year?  I'm assuming it would work just like the COVID shutdown - active players would not get paid, but released players would.  There's no reason other than saving money to have Davis on the roster, but he makes $1M every 7 games so it wouldn't take much of a COVID/labor stoppage to add up to a pretty substantial savings.

 

 I get it and it's not my money.

 

 But I think at this point it's worth the 14 million or so to make him go away.

 

 The team seems to be progressing and you have the distraction of Davis looming in the background.

[BaltBird 24]

Is he really looming in the background, though? I think it's pretty obvious he's never going to see OPACY from the batters box again as an Oriole.

Whether they release him or keep him on the IL with some phantom injury - they are still paying him. I guess the only issue is really in the off-season when he uses up a potentially useful roster spot.

[JeremyStrain]

Regarding saving money, I THINK it depends on if it’s a strike or a lockout. If the players initiate I think they forfeit salary but if owners lock them out they are still obligated to pay them. I’m not 100% sure but there has to be something in place to stop owners from just not feeling like paying money and locking them out to save cash.

[russsnyder]

Is he really looming in the background, though? I think it's pretty obvious he's never going to see OPACY from the batters box again as an Oriole.

Whether they release him or keep him on the IL with some phantom injury - they are still paying him. I guess the only issue is really in the off-season when he uses up a potentially useful roster spot.

 

  Good point, 

 

  He's not looming in the way of taking any appreciable time form anyone.

 

  His contract is hanging out there and there is a question as to how the Orioles are going to handle Davis.

[russsnyder]

Regarding saving money, I THINK it depends on if it’s a strike or a lockout. If the players initiate I think they forfeit salary but if owners lock them out they are still obligated to pay them. I’m not 100% sure but there has to be something in place to stop owners from just not feeling like paying money and locking them out to save cash.

 

   The players are only paid if games are played.

 

   It makes sense, since the salaries were prorated during the shortened Covid season.

 

   The players would not get paid during a lock out.

[JeremyStrain]

   The players are only paid if games are played.

 

   It makes sense, since the salaries were prorated during the shortened Covid season.

 

   The players would not get paid during a lock out.

There was a whole negotiation revolving around them getting paid during Covid though, but I'm guessing that's because they weren't shut down by either group, and instead an outside influence.

 

Something about them owing terms of a contract, since those are per year, unless there's something specifically in there about being a rate against games played?

 

I dunno the mechanics here just don't make much sense to me...but I guess if there's a lockout or strike they aren't making that revenue from TV or gate either...so it's not that they get out of the expenses...but I guess  my concern is that they can effectively shorten every contract on their books by a year and not have to pay them.

 

For huge market teams with a couple bad contracts, that's a boon for them, for a small market team that is more concerned with player control, cost effectively, that's a negative. With the O's it's probably a bit of both with that albatross of a contract out there...but is not paying one year of that deal worth the year of control you lose on guys like Mancini, Means, Mullins, etc? I mean I know I would jump at the chance to pay $21m but have an extra year of control on every player on your roster.

 

Ok, maybe I get it more now that I've talked it out...

[russsnyder]

There was a whole negotiation revolving around them getting paid during Covid though, but I'm guessing that's because they weren't shut down by either group, and instead an outside influence.

 

Something about them owing terms of a contract, since those are per year, unless there's something specifically in there about being a rate against games played?

 

I dunno the mechanics here just don't make much sense to me...but I guess if there's a lockout or strike they aren't making that revenue from TV or gate either...so it's not that they get out of the expenses...but I guess  my concern is that they can effectively shorten every contract on their books by a year and not have to pay them.

 

For huge market teams with a couple bad contracts, that's a boon for them, for a small market team that is more concerned with player control, cost effectively, that's a negative. With the O's it's probably a bit of both with that albatross of a contract out there...but is not paying one year of that deal worth the year of control you lose on guys like Mancini, Means, Mullins, etc? I mean I know I would jump at the chance to pay $21m but have an extra year of control on every player on your roster.

 

Ok, maybe I get it more now that I've talked it out...

 

 I think it comes down to that while the players have a right to strike, management has the right to lock out the players.

 

 So, if they are not playing no one is getting paid. ( Players or management)

 

 I guess it's a way of keeping everyone negotiating in good faith.

 

 I never have belonged to or worked for a company that had an active union.

 

 I guess if the players thought they were being locked out unfairly ( the owners didn't feel like paying them) they could take 

 management to court,

[Old Man]

 I think it comes down to that while the players have a right to strike, management has the right to lock out the players.

 

 So, if they are not playing no one is getting paid. ( Players or management)

 

 I guess it's a way of keeping everyone negotiating in good faith.

 

 I never have belonged to or worked for a company that had an active union.

 

 I guess if the players thought they were being locked out unfairly ( the owners didn't feel like paying them) they could take 

 management to court,

 I think if their Player's Association Contract is expired, then they lose their rights to sue.

[russsnyder]

 I think if their Player's Association Contract is expired, then they lose their rights to sue.

 

   I think that they could still sue.

 

   They would have to prove that the basis of the lockout was to cut off their pay.

 

   That's why I think the owners will only lock out the players over specific collective bargaining issues.

[Old Man]

   I think that they could still sue.

 

   They would have to prove that the basis of the lockout was to cut off their pay.

 

   That's why I think the owners will only lock out the players over specific collective bargaining issues.

I think it has to depend on the circumstances. Remember past lockouts, no play, etc

 

The players were not always clean on their side either, lots of blame on both sides.

 

Both sides want to be richer, and both sides think they are right and the other side needs to kneel and kiss their feet.

 

Both sides will be sending tons of money on high priced lawyers. 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Regarding saving money, I THINK it depends on if it’s a strike or a lockout. If the players initiate I think they forfeit salary but if owners lock them out they are still obligated to pay them. I’m not 100% sure but there has to be something in place to stop owners from just not feeling like paying money and locking them out to save cash.

 

Makes sense, but it looks like there's never been an MLB lockout that cancelled any games, so who knows.

[JeremyStrain]

Makes sense, but it looks like there's never been an MLB lockout that cancelled any games, so who knows.

Yeah I'm just stuck thinking of it from an accounting/finance standpoint. I would think that whoever is responsible for the lack of play would be at fault, strike = owners wanted to play, players wouldn't show up, forfeit salary. Lockout = players wanted to play and owners wouldn't allow them to perform their job, owners still have to pay.

 

But like I was reasoning out in my other post, it could be more complicated than that. The no play/no pay thing makes sense too, but just seems like it's breaking contracts to be on the hook for $10m one year, lock them out so they can only play half and then only pay $5m. You'd think they'd have to incur some risk if they wanted to lock out, or they'd do it every time they wanted their way over something. Yeah no revenue would suck, but no expenses to go along with that. I imagine owners have big enough pockets they could handle the little overhead that comes from not playing for quite a while.

 

I dunno...just thinking out loud and it didn't seem right to me.

[Mackus]

Players do not get paid during a lockout.

[russsnyder]

Players do not get paid during a lockout.

 

  Yep.

[BaltBird 24]

Angels just released Pujols so maybe there's hope for Davis to be released.

[Mike B]

Wow, that is a sad end for a first ballot HOF guy.  Or does he wind up going to the Yankees and hit 20 home runs?

[CantonJester]

Knowing Cashman? Probably. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

Balt Sun: Orioles’ Chris Davis undergoes season-ending hip surgery, expected to be ready for spring training of contract’s final year

https://www.baltimor...UOrcw4i42b0YkvI

[Mackus]

Guess it wasn't a phantom injury, then.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Guess it wasn't a phantom injury, then.

It was probably a tattoo.