I think Florida has very low taxes, that came into play when T-Mac and Hill signed with the Magic

 

 

Florida has NO state tax. Makes a big difference.

I work at a union. It may not be exactly the same, but my understanding of labor law is that as long as the terms of the agreement are not in conflict with the collectively bargained agreement (which only stipulates a minimum salary, from what I understand), the union can't do jack s*** about a player signing for less than they think he should. The A-Rod situation violated those terms, so the union took action. In this instance, they can't and won't do anything.

Any word on if Mark is asking for some kind of a "no trade" clause?

If he got a full no trade clause I would be surprised (ie over the life of the contract) but you never know, it is obviously a possibility and if the Sox were to give one of those out to any player it would probably be Mark.

 

Also, there have been absolutely no reports aside the possibility of a 5th year option (the only things reported aside from that are the Dollar amounts and years).

 

There is, they did not allow Arod to take less money to go to the Red Sox. Its not exactly the same as ARod wanted to modify his current contract, but it is an instance of the union sticking its nose into contract negoitiations.

Still, I find a major difference in a player giving back money from an already signed contract and a player taking a home town discount. I also think 14 mill is more than fair for Buehrle per season. The only thing the union would have any sort of case about is him taking a 4 year deal as opposed to the 6 or 7 he could get on the open market (worth a maximum of 16-17 million per year).

If he got a full no trade clause I would be surprised (ie over the life of the contract) but you never know, it is obviously a possibility and if the Sox were to give one of those out to any player it would probably be Mark.

 

Also, there have been absolutely no reports aside the possibility of a 5th year option (the only things reported aside from that are the Dollar amounts and years).

 

I am asking because I was trying to brainstorm about details that could be holding the deal up, besides the obvious of dollars and years.

I work at a union. It may not be exactly the same, but my understanding of labor law is that as long as the terms of the agreement are not in conflict with the collectively bargained agreement (which only stipulates a minimum salary, from what I understand), the union can't do jack s*** about a player signing for less than they think he should. The A-Rod situation violated those terms, so the union took action. In this instance, they can't and won't do anything.

 

The ARod deal violated the MINIMUM...? Not even close.

 

 

It's really moot to continue to discuss the union end. Obviously they are snooping around. If they didn't have an interest, they wouldn't be. If they do anything remains to be seen, but to say they can't do anything is ridiculous. They can do whatever they want - in terms of reviewing and holding things up, and they will if they choose to.

The ARod deal violated the MINIMUM...? Not even close.

It's really moot to continue to discuss the union end. Obviously they are snooping around. If they didn't have an interest, they wouldn't be. If they do anything remains to be seen, but to say they can't do anything is ridiculous. They can do whatever they want - in terms of reviewing and holding things up, and they will if they choose to.

 

I meant that the Arod deal violated the terms of the collectively bargained agreement, which prevented him from renegotiating for less money when more money had been agreed to (probably a better terms and conditions clause).

 

As far as salary amounts go, it only stipulates a minimum, which relates to buehrle in this case. Sorry for not being clear.

I'd love to be a member in a union that works for a racket.

 

The antitrust exemption continues to boggle my mind when it comes to MLB.

... Interesting. So his contract offer from the Orioles was higher, but he would have taken less money home after taxes. OT, I wonder how often that comes into play in contracts?

 

No wonder the state of Illinois has a $ problem, we tax athletes half as much as anybody else.

 

This has always been a big factor, that is why FL / TEX have big advantages no income tax...also why playing in Canada has been looked poorly upon (bad exchange rates also), what is really interesting is how states charge visiting athletes income taxes for road games (ie. Illinois charges, Shap, A-Rod, etc.) for the six days they work in IL, it is big money.

This has always been a big factor, that is why FL / TEX have big advantages no income tax...also why playing in Canada has been looked poorly upon (bad exchange rates also), what is really interesting is how states charge visiting athletes income taxes for road games (ie. Illinois charges, Shap, A-Rod, etc.) for the six days they work in IL, it is big money.

I think when the Blue Jays signed Burnett and Ryan the GM basically came out and said one of the reason the $$ was so high on both were tax reasons

The ARod deal violated the MINIMUM...? Not even close.

They can do whatever they want - in terms of reviewing and holding things up, and they will if they choose to.

 

btw, this statement is patently untrue. Just because Major League Baseball's union is the most powerful one in the world does not make it exempt from the NLRB's jurisdiction. There are some things that a union simply cannot do, particularly whimsical obstruction of normal contract negotiations.

Konerko did not take less money. (near the bottom of the page.

 

Konerko's deal still looks great, and we lucked out that the market didn't blow up until after that deal was signed.

I meant that the Arod deal violated the terms of the collectively bargained agreement, which prevented him from renegotiating for less money when more money had been agreed to (probably a better terms and conditions clause).

 

As far as salary amounts go, it only stipulates a minimum, which relates to buehrle in this case. Sorry for not being clear.

 

 

Thanks. I don't know specifics about how all that works either.

 

I'd love to be a member in a union that works for a racket.

 

 

 

B)

 

btw, this statement is patently untrue. Just because Major League Baseball's union is the most powerful one in the world does not make it exempt from the NLRB's jurisdiction. There are some things that a union simply cannot do, particularly whimsical obstruction of normal contract negotiations.

 

 

In this case, and any with a reason, they most definitely can call for a review. And in this case where the $$'s are what they will call "under market" they will site the best interest of the player as their reason.

In the end, if this is the deal Mark takes, I would guess the worst that happens is he's called stupid by others in his talent class as they collect higher contracts.

 

 

And he can sit back, kick up his feet and blind them with the luster that is his 2005 World Series Championship ring.

 

This has always been a big factor, that is why FL / TEX have big advantages no income tax...also why playing in Canada has been looked poorly upon (bad exchange rates also),

 

The exchange rate isn't that bad anymore. At least not like it used to...but the taxes there are still high.

 

And the lack of a State Income Tax in Texas and Florida is why a lot of athletes have homes in those states. I believe Scottie Pippen had a home in Houston, as did Shaq before he went to the Heat.

The ARod deal violated the MINIMUM...? Not even close.

It's really moot to continue to discuss the union end. Obviously they are snooping around. If they didn't have an interest, they wouldn't be. If they do anything remains to be seen, but to say they can't do anything is ridiculous. They can do whatever they want - in terms of reviewing and holding things up, and they will if they choose to.

 

I think they will ask questions and snoop really hard and they should but if they hold anything up and something happens to the deal, could they not be held liable? They can not prove what he is going to get in the open market. Buerhle needs to stay healthy and pitch well to get a huge deal. There is a huge risk should they cause the deal to fall through and something happens that precludes Buerhle from getting $56M guaranteed down the road.

... Interesting. So his contract offer from the Orioles was higher, but he would have taken less money home after taxes. OT, I wonder how often that comes into play in contracts?

 

No wonder the state of Illinois has a $ problem, we tax athletes half as much as anybody else.

No, he would have taken home more from Baltimore. By just a little, though.

 

Illinois is a flat tax state. Steve Forbes would be proud.

I think they will ask questions and snoop really hard and they should but if they hold anything up and something happens to the deal, could they not be held liable? They can not prove what he is going to get in the open market. Buerhle needs to stay healthy and pitch well to get a huge deal. There is a huge risk should they cause the deal to fall through and something happens that precludes Buerhle from getting $56M guaranteed down the road.

 

I would imagine the MLBPA would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Buehrle could get more years AND more money on the open market. Which would be IMPOSSIBLE to do since GMs aren't going to come out before then and say, "Suuuurrrrrre, I'll give him 7/126 just like Zito!!!"

And he can sit back, kick up his feet and blind them with the luster that is his 2005 World Series Championship ring.

 

 

Right after he digs it out and dusts it off. Seriously, those rings mean more to us than they do to them.

...so, I take it from the insistent pissing contest we are no longer worried Buehrle will actually be signing a contract extention with the Chicago White Sox?

Edited June 29, 200718 yr by AddisonStSox

...so, I take it from the insistent pissing contest we are no longer worried Buehrle will actually be signing a contract extention with the Chicago White Sox?

Maybe you shouldn't open the dialogue with insults if you want people to actually answer your questions.

Maybe you shouldn't open the dialogue with insults if you want people to actually answer your questions.

 

...maybe you should take the pissing contest elsewhere. Attempting to follow the ebb and flow of the contract negotiation has been nearly impossible with all of these little quibbles.

4 years at 56 mill, where do I sign up? Hell, throw a full no trade clause in there and an option for a 5th year.

 

...maybe you should take the pissing contest elsewhere. Attempting to follow the ebb and flow of the contract negotiation has been nearly impossible with all of these little quibbles.

what do you think you're doing right now?

 

Damn, when I think I'm out, they drag me back in it!!!

The exchange rate isn't that bad anymore. At least not like it used to...but the taxes there are still high.

 

And the lack of a State Income Tax in Texas and Florida is why a lot of athletes have homes in those states. I believe Scottie Pippen had a home in Houston, as did Shaq before he went to the Heat.

 

 

Exchange rate isn't bad at all now, used to be a larger issue. It doesn't matter where you live it matters where you earn your income so I don't think where players make their permanent residents matters much. Other than FL will protect your primary home in bankruptcy (why OJ has a mansion there that no one can take from him).

...maybe you should take the pissing contest elsewhere. Attempting to follow the ebb and flow of the contract negotiation has been nearly impossible with all of these little quibbles.

Its a message board. We discuss and argue things here, its what we do. If you just want the news, then go to a news site.

The latest information is always included in the title and subtitle of this thread.

Its a message board. We discuss and argue things here, its what we do. If you just want the news, then go to a news site.

 

--BUZZZZZ--

 

Wrong answer.

 

Nobody's impressed with the baseless conjecturing on Collective Bargaining Agreements. If you are fluent in the Major League Baseball Players Association bylaws, then, by all means, let your voices be heard. If you are fluent in collective bargaining matters and how it might relate to a specific Buehrle hang-up, again, fire away.

 

If not, take it elsewhere.