Clipping:Ward on the $2000 limit
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Thursday, February 9, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | President John Ward of the Ball-Players' Brotherhood has taken up the salary problem with Fred Carroll's case as an example, and writes as follows from California: “The league seems to have met some difficulty in carrying into effect one of the—to the player—most important clauses of the new contract. Ia am informed that Carroll of Pittsburg received a communication from President Nimick asking his signature to a contract for $2,500, offering to pay him the balance of his salary as an advance, and alleging as a reason for this request that President Young would refuse to promulgate a contract calling for any sum in excess of $2,000. Either I have been misinformed or there is some misunderstanding on Mr. Nimick's part. It was perfectly understood between the league and the brotherhood committee that Paragraph 1, under Sec., 18, contemplated the insertion in the contract of the full amount of salary to be received, and when the league committee's work was accepted by the league that was the virtual repeal, so far as the league and its players are concerned, of the so-called $2,000 limit rule. “There was one set of cases spoken of in which it was understood an exception was to be made and the entire sum paid to the player not inserted. Those were the cases in which players were signed with some outside association, in which cases, it was claimed by the league committee, it was always necessary to pay the player a larger sum the first season than he was really worth because a part was in reality a bonus to him for the right of reservation acquired over him. “The association refused the league's request to repeal the $2,000 limit rule, but it is scarcely credible that the latter would offer this as a pretext for failing to keep its compact with its players. There has never been among the clubs, even from the first, the slightest pretension to keeping the rule, and its continued existence is one of the absurdities of base-ball law. Inasmuch as the meaning of the section was thoroughly understood at the time of its adoption, and the league afterwards acted upon that understanding, and since the brotherhood has not been officially notified in any way that any difficulty has arisen, I am much inclined to believe that President Nimick was laboring under a mistaken impression. |
| Source | Chicago Tribune |
| 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" />