With the Mitchell Report out, the Players Union is pissed... and rightfully so. Most of the report was based on hearsay and the players have all been slandered... I'm not saying it's not deserved. Anyone else worried?
2007-12-14 03:37:40 · 12 answers · asked by Reduviidae 6 in Sports ➔ Baseball
would anyone notice? It's baseball!
2007-12-14 03:41:42 · update #1
I'm sure they're angry, but I don't think they'd take any action unless MLB tried to punish the players named in the report. If Bud Selig was to announce some kind of suspensions for the alleged offenders, I'm sure there would be a quick and serious reaction from the union, including plenty of legal action.
Striking just to voice displeasure with the report would mean that the players take a financial hit, which I'm sure they don't want to do. I think they'd rather just have their say, then let this thing disappear.
2007-12-14 03:43:32 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Strike? Whatever for? That's a tool to be used when labor negotiations are deadlocked or the other side (owners) are not negotiating in good faith. Examples of each abound in baseball history, and none of them are remotely like the Mitchell report.
Now, if Seligula tries to hand down permanent bans upon every player named in the report and every one of their teammates since, oh, 1995, yes, then there would be actionable cause. Otherwise, No, there will not be a strike. Not until the current CBA expires in 2011, anyway.
2007-12-14 11:55:54 · answer #2 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the players were caught dead to rights.
How does anyone think the report is based on hearsay when there is a huge paper trail going back to the players? Mitchell has cancelled checks and shipping receipts to and from Mcnamee with the players names on them.
2007-12-14 11:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by the_meadowlander 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At this point, baseball should be worried about a strike whent he time comes to talk contract with the players union. There is no Cal Ripken streak or home run chase to dig them out of the hole this time.
2007-12-14 12:03:52 · answer #4 · answered by Andy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What would they strike for? The strike would only happen if the league now installed mandatory drug testing, including HGH testing. They should anyway, and if the Players Union doesn't like it then who cares.
2007-12-14 11:43:04 · answer #5 · answered by jimstock60 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The players are already looking like the bad guys, and if the commish pushes for outside testing and new test, they should agree to what he says. That is the only way that they are coming out of this.
2007-12-14 11:43:44 · answer #6 · answered by Carnac 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off, MLBPAA is not justified in being upset. They SHOULD be upset at themselves because they condoned what some of their members did and did NOTHING to stop it.
If they do strike, it might just be the dagger to the heart of this blood-sucking organization (MLBPAA). Fehr & Orza should be tarred and feathered by the players, along with Scott Boras.
2007-12-14 12:00:48 · answer #7 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No because if u just get 1 strike then you still have 2 more chances for a hit.
2007-12-14 11:45:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nah. Because theres 300+ MLB players and only about 25 active players got named. There's no way those other players would risk they're lively hood to cover cheaters.
2007-12-14 11:42:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope, they are far to greedy to strike on a social issue!
2007-12-14 11:47:43 · answer #10 · answered by Wounded Duck 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋