Clipping:Player sales and the Brotherhood contract; the $2,000 limit
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, June 2, 1889 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from an open letter by John Ward] [discussing the contract negotiated by the NL and Brotherhood 11/87] One of the principal grievances presented was that in several instances clubs had used the power of the reserve rule to force the consent of players to be sold, regardless of any preferences the latter might otherwise have had. For example, the Boston club said to Buffinton and Gunning, whom it held on its reserve list: “We have sold you to Philadelphia.” But,” they replied, “we don’t want to go to Philadelphia. Our homes are here and we prefer to remain, or, if we must leave, we expect to have a voice in the choice of a new home.” To which the club answered: “You will go to Philadelphia a we direct, or, if you refuse, we will hold you at the minimum of $1,000.” And so, with the prospect of being held at a big reduction of salary and at $1,000 to $1,500 less than Philadelphia would pay, the players were forced to consent, and the Boston club pocketed a price for two players it did not itself care to keep. Realizing the danger of allowing such an arbitrary power to remain in the hands of the clubs the players’ committee insisted that the new contract provide that no player be reserved at a reduction of salary. ... ... At the meeting of the committees the obsolete $2,000 limit rule was not mentioned, because as it never had had an existence except on paper, and was violated openly by every league club from the time of its adoption, no one of the players’ committee ever dreamed that such a thing could be offered by the league as an excuse for not keeping its entire agreement. Before the joint meeting of the league and American association, held several months later, at a time when the players had gone to their homes, it seems to have occurred to the league magnates that the limit rule would prevent writing more than that amount in the contract and upon the refusal of the association to agree to strike the lie out of the national agreement the league decided to repudiate its agreement with the players. That is, in order to keep up the pretense of observing a rule which everyone knew never had been observed, whose continuance had been a disgrace to its makers and a standing evidence of their own bad faith, the league violated an important agreement, deliberately entered into with its players.... The brotherhood committee, having notified all players that the new contract was satisfactory, many went ahead and signed, and, relying upon the assurance of their committee and the faith of the league, they accepted side contracts for any amount in excess of the limit. Not until many players had already signed and when it was too late to do anything, did the brotherhood committee learn the true state of affairs. |
| Source | Cleveland Plain Dealer |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />