Leaving $$$ on the table

[Dick Whitman]

I'm always surprised at how anti-union this site can be.

That's not a value judgment, even though I think it's clear which side of the fence I stand on.

In a way, it's praise for journalists, who are accused of being "liberal" so often, but actually seem to be independent thinkers.

How exactly is it anti-union to support Cliff Lee's right to choose what he wants even if it means taking less money?

Not necessarily that. Moreso some of the posts like "screw the union" and that "his obligation is to his family, not the union." Also, look up the old thread on Bob Kravitz's column about Sean Payton.

 

[outofplace]

I'm always surprised at how anti-union this site can be.

That's not a value judgment, even though I think it's clear which side of the fence I stand on.

In a way, it's praise for journalists, who are accused of being "liberal" so often, but actually seem to be independent thinkers.

How exactly is it anti-union to support Cliff Lee's right to choose what he wants even if it means taking less money?

Not necessarily that. Moreso some of the posts like "screw the union" and that "his obligation is to his family, not the union." Also, look up the old thread on Bob Kravitz's column about Sean Payton.

If the union gives Lee **** about this deal, then yes, I say screw them, too. It is his right and his choice. That does not mean I am anti-union.

 

[JC]

We're not talking about a guy turning down a $50,000 a year job To stay at his minimum wage gig at McDonald's here. Is there really anything you can't do with $120 million that you could have done with $160? Even as a Phillies fanboi let's not make Lee out to be some kind of Messiah here.

Give $40 million to charity? Spread $40 million around to help fulfill the dreams of extended friends and families? Spend $40 million to start a business?

Bottom line: Lee took less money than he is worth to sign with Philadelphia.

So what? He is not obligated to take the highest bid, his obligation is to is family and himself.

I think he also has some obligation to the union which put him in this position. Solidarity is the foundation of an effective union.

Do you even understand the modern day union? Honestly, I don't think you do. I'm as pro-union as anybody here and the union has done its job. They have provided Lee with the "opportunity" to take advantage of these conditions. "Opportunity" is not something MLBPA has always had. Union negotiations aren't always about just money, it can be about benefits and working conditions as well.

Once again you are trying to come across as the smartest guy in the room, you are not. this is not the 50's through 80's where I would agree that he would have had an obligation to the union. His value is what he was offered, he did his job.

 

[Dick Whitman]

We're not talking about a guy turning down a $50,000 a year job To stay at his minimum wage gig at McDonald's here. Is there really anything you can't do with $120 million that you could have done with $160? Even as a Phillies fanboi let's not make Lee out to be some kind of Messiah here.

Give $40 million to charity? Spread $40 million around to help fulfill the dreams of extended friends and families? Spend $40 million to start a business?

Bottom line: Lee took less money than he is worth to sign with Philadelphia.

So what? He is not obligated to take the highest bid, his obligation is to is family and himself.

I think he also has some obligation to the union which put him in this position. Solidarity is the foundation of an effective union.

Once again you are trying to come across as the smartest guy in the room, you are not.

Why can't you make your point without this nonsense?

 

[cranberry]

Baseball history suggests Lee's deal will have little to no impact on other union member salaries. There are many cases of players accepting less than total maximum dollar deals to go to or remain with a team they were happy playing for. A Phillie, Mike Schmidt, is one example, Kirby Puckett another. Both got big money, but could have made more.
By the same token, there will always be star players greedy/competitive (mostly the latter) enough to seek the most money possible in free agency, and those guys will drive the market as they always have.
When the law of supply and demand is in its favor, individual player salary decisions will not drive the economics of the union.
"Overpaid" is a value judgment which, for better or worse, America as a society does not make, or at least, doesn't act on its judgments.

This isn't entirely right. ALL contracts affect others, but obviously some have more affect than others. There are different markets for different classes of player -- from second basemen to post-arbitration corner outfielders to slugging first basemen to back-up catchers. Instead of one bar being raised, imagine a lot of smaller bars based on all the different classes of player. Even a guy like David Ross, who signed a nice, two-year deal with Atlanta, helped his fellow back-up catchers.

 

[spnited]

So Whitman you think Lee had an obligationto the union to take the Yankee dollars and be unhappy instead of taking a few million less per year and being happy in Philly?

Figure it this way. The Yankees offer was $22 mill-$23 mill per year avg. The Philly deal looks like $20 mill per avg.
Consider than Pennsylvania State income tax is a few percent lower the NY State and that Philly does not have city income tax which I think is 2 1/2-3% in NYC and how much difference is there really .... a million a year. No big deal.

The union has no problem with a pitcher taking $20 mill a year

 

[JC]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are? You are wrong on this, dead wrong.

He is worth what he is offered, not what he accepted. He did his job, the union has no right to be pissed

 

[Dick Whitman]

So Whitman you think Lee had an obligationto the union to take the Yankee dollars and be unhappy instead of taking a few million less per year and being happy in Philly?

I guess I think that each player has a moral obligation to at least consider the effect of a contract on the union and, therefore, his fellow players.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are?

I don't.

I'm just strongly union.

Why the personal stuff? Why can't you just argue the point?

Do you want me to leave the board? Would that make you happy? I will.

 

[spnited]

I think each player has a moral obligation to himself and his family ... no one else.
And I am not anti-union.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think each player has a moral obligation to himself and his family ... no one else.

We shall agree to disagree.

 

[cranberry]

We're not talking about a guy turning down a $50,000 a year job To stay at his minimum wage gig at McDonald's here. Is there really anything you can't do with $120 million that you could have done with $160? Even as a Phillies fanboi let's not make Lee out to be some kind of Messiah here.

Give $40 million to charity? Spread $40 million around to help fulfill the dreams of extended friends and families? Spend $40 million to start a business?

Bottom line: Lee took less money than he is worth to sign with Philadelphia.

So what? He is not obligated to take the highest bid, his obligation is to is family and himself.

I think he also has some obligation to the union which put him in this position. Solidarity is the foundation of an effective union.

Do you even understand the modern day union? Honestly, I don't think you do. I'm as pro-union as anybody here and the union has done its job. They have provided Lee with the "opportunity" to take advantage of these conditions. "Opportunity" is not something MLBPA has always had. Union negotiations aren't always about just money, it can be about benefits and working conditions as well.

Once again you are trying to come across as the smartest guy in the room, you are not. this is not the 50's through 80's where I would agree that he would have had an obligation to the union. His value is what he was offered, he did his job.

Players do have an obligation to the union. They understand that people before them fought for the benefits they have and they understand it's their obligation to preserve and enhance those benefits for future generations.

With that said, the union has no issue with this deal. The AAV is strong and the player is choosing the club he wants to join.

 

[spnited]

I agree with that cran but that does not mean Cliff Lee taking a million or two per year less and for fewer years has any negtive affect on what the union has accomplished.
How many other pitchers are making $20 mill a year ... Sabtahia and Halladay?

 

[JC]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are?

I don't.

I'm just strongly union.

Why the personal stuff? Why can't you just argue the point?

Do you want me to leave the board? Would that make you happy? I will.

I don't give a **** who leaves and who stays, has no effect on my life.

Again, I am as pro union as anyone but all you're doing is spewing rhetoric. Save it for when it is needed and it is definitley needed in most union-management negotiaitions, this isn't one of them.

 

[JC]

We're not talking about a guy turning down a $50,000 a year job To stay at his minimum wage gig at McDonald's here. Is there really anything you can't do with $120 million that you could have done with $160? Even as a Phillies fanboi let's not make Lee out to be some kind of Messiah here.

Give $40 million to charity? Spread $40 million around to help fulfill the dreams of extended friends and families? Spend $40 million to start a business?

Bottom line: Lee took less money than he is worth to sign with Philadelphia.

So what? He is not obligated to take the highest bid, his obligation is to is family and himself.

I think he also has some obligation to the union which put him in this position. Solidarity is the foundation of an effective union.

Do you even understand the modern day union? Honestly, I don't think you do. I'm as pro-union as anybody here and the union has done its job. They have provided Lee with the "opportunity" to take advantage of these conditions. "Opportunity" is not something MLBPA has always had. Union negotiations aren't always about just money, it can be about benefits and working conditions as well.

Once again you are trying to come across as the smartest guy in the room, you are not. this is not the 50's through 80's where I would agree that he would have had an obligation to the union. His value is what he was offered, he did his job.

Players do have an obligation to the union. They understand that people before them fought for the benefits they have and they understand it's their obligation to preserve and enhance those benefits for future generations.

With that said, the union has no issue with this deal. The AAV is strong and the player is choosing the club he wants to join.

I agree Cran and him getting an offer of 160 from the Yankees he more that did his job for the union.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are?

I don't.

I'm just strongly union.

Why the personal stuff? Why can't you just argue the point?

Do you want me to leave the board? Would that make you happy? I will.

I don't give a **** who leaves and who stays, has no effect on my life.

Then why do you guys pick on me all the time?

Just leave me alone. Argue the points if you want, but stop attacking me personally. I'm sick of it.

 

[JC]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are?

I don't.

I'm just strongly union.

Why the personal stuff? Why can't you just argue the point?

Do you want me to leave the board? Would that make you happy? I will.

I don't give a **** who leaves and who stays, has no effect on my life.

Then why do you guys pick on me all the time?

Just leave me alone. Argue the points if you want, but stop attacking me personally. I'm sick of it.

Wow, please don't go tell the teacher on me. Toughen up for **** sakes, it's a god damn message board.

By the way, who are you guys? People have arguments all the time on here why do you take it so personal?

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Rivera has left money & years on the table the last few years (until this year).

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are?

I don't.

I'm just strongly union.

Why the personal stuff? Why can't you just argue the point?

Do you want me to leave the board? Would that make you happy? I will.

I don't give a **** who leaves and who stays, has no effect on my life.

Then why do you guys pick on me all the time?

Just leave me alone. Argue the points if you want, but stop attacking me personally. I'm sick of it.

Wow, please don't go tell the teacher on me. Toughen up for **** sakes, it's a god damn message board.

By the way, who are you guys? People have arguments all the time on here why do you take it so personal?

Because you make it personal.

And you know exactly who "you guys" are.

 

[JC]

Why do you have to be the board contrarian to try to show how smart you are?

I don't.

I'm just strongly union.

Why the personal stuff? Why can't you just argue the point?

Do you want me to leave the board? Would that make you happy? I will.

I don't give a **** who leaves and who stays, has no effect on my life.

Then why do you guys pick on me all the time?

Just leave me alone. Argue the points if you want, but stop attacking me personally. I'm sick of it.

Wow, please don't go tell the teacher on me. Toughen up for **** sakes, it's a god damn message board.

By the way, who are you guys? People have arguments all the time on here why do you take it so personal?

Because you make it personal.

And you know exactly who "you guys" are.

No actually, I don't. You have quite the persecution complex.