MLB Replay, Collision Issues Near Solutions NFL Workplace Rules Could Change Resurgent MLB Teams Not Spending ESPN Pulls Van Gundy From Knicks Game Cubs Get Approval For More Wrigley Changes MLB's Dan Halem Promoted Mets Unlikely To Make Another Splash In Free Agency Bettman Says NHL Fielding Expansion Inquiries Phillies Not Planning To Increase Payroll John Skipper Sits For Q&A
SBD/20/Leagues Governing Bodies
BASEBALL HELD HOSTAGE -- DAY 221: "THIS IS IT"
Published March 20, 1995
As both sides make the necessary arrangements to meet this week with the start of the season hanging in the balance, Peter Gammons lays out the choice: "This is it, defoliation or compromise." MLBPA Exec Dir Don Fehr and acting MLB Commissioner Bud Selig are expected to meet before the resumption of formal talks, which could be as early as tomorrow. Gammons argues that the owners "already have won" because of the revenue losses the game has undergone already from the strike. According to Red Sox CEO John Harrington, the projections are that clubs will lose around $400-500M if they play with replacements, $600-700M if they stay closed. Harrington adds: "The radio and TV advertising dollars are essentially gone through June" (BOSTON GLOBE, 3/19). As Gammons explained on ESPN: "What you're looking at is a market where general managers can say 'Hey, we don't have any money.' Once they do that and they force about 200 Jody Reed's out on the market, next year when they have very limited arbitration, they'll have had a profound effect. But for some reason, the owners are scared of a free market" ("Sports Weekly," ESPN, 3/19). INJUNCTION JUNCTION: As expected, NLRB General Counsel Fred Feinstein asked the five-member board for an injunction to restore the old system. NLRB Chair William Gould said the board will meet Thursday on the issue. Fehr has said the players will end the strike if there is an injunction, but the NLRB is no "quick solution." A hearing could not take place before next week, "and no one can be certain when a ruling would come" (Mark Maske, WASHINGTON POST, 3/18). Selig: "We're not going to worry about the NLRB. With the appeals process, this could take months" (Larry Whiteside, BOSTON GLOBE, 3/18). Noting Fehr's no- strike promise, Tracy Ringolsby writes, "Fehr, however, has not discussed whether the fact that the NLRB filed a complaint on only a portion of the union's charges would impact his recommendation" (ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, 3/18). In New York, Murray Chass reviews the legal precedents which could come into play should the owners lock out the players (N.Y. TIMES, 3/19). WHAT'S THE HOLD-UP? Special Mediator William Usery, on Sunday night: "Not a thing is set at this point. We should know something Monday" (Hal Bodley, USA TODAY, 3/20). The union, and some on management's side, "believe Selig is stalling in the hope that striking players will begin to break ranks and return to their teams in the two weeks before the season starts" (Ross Newhan, L.A. TIMES, 3/18). COUNT 'EM: Should replacement games not count, Jayson Stark asks, "How long until the first lawsuit is filed by the first disgruntled ticket-buyer? The early over-under is 11 seconds" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 3/19). Phillies President Bill Giles: "We'll be having people suing us, or at least asking for their money back. I think it's another reason you never start with replacement players." Adds columnist Frank Dolson, "Keep the stubs" (PHILA. INQUIRER, 3/20). ESPN's Bob Ley reported that management has said there "will be a way found to preserve the integrity of Cal Ripken's consecutive games streak" ("SportsCenter, 3/17). THE BARN'S ON FIRE: While MLBPA officials are claiming that owners pressured Reebok to pull out of the proposed players' "barnstorming" tour, sources close to Reebok "said it was a myriad of problems: a lack of an interested television outlet, few commitments from star players whose individual contracts require permission from their team to play in games; problems finding suitable stadiums, and the prohibitive cost of insurance" (Tracy Ringolsby, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, 3/19). Gammons reports Reebok pulled out a month ago when the union "didn't deliver promised signed forms that players would actually play, and when Reebok rep Frank Thomas was asked if he would play, he said he would not, nor would Barry Bonds. Some players have asked their agents to get them out of their Reebok contracts because of what they were told [by the union], so Reebok has asked agents to come in and get the facts" (BOSTON GLOBE, 3/19).