Jan 21, 2013, 9:43 AM EDT
Barry Jackson of the Miami Herald spoke to a source within the MLB Players Association who says that if Marlins owner Jeff Loria doesn’t increase team payroll in the coming months, the union plans to pursue the issue with commissioner Bud Selig.
This would not be the first time this has happened. You’ll recall a couple of years ago the Marlins, the league and the union entered a settlement in which the team agreed to jack up payroll after the union complained that it was pocketing copious amounts of revenue sharing money rather than spending it on players. With the latest fire sale bringing their payroll down to $35 million or so, the union believes the time is ripe to lodge such complaints again.
Jackson says, however, that the team would fight it and that it’s quite possible the league would side with the Marlins this time around. Mostly because they’re getting way less in revenue sharing now than they were a couple of years ago and because they stand to see revenue and attendance plummet going forward. Of course that’s because they’ve mismanaged themselves to the nth degree, but that’s neither here nor there for these purposes.
- Video: Jake Arrieta strikes out Chase Utley to complete his no-hitter 3
- Jake Arrieta no-hits the Dodgers with 12 strikeouts 19
- Blue Jays will name Mark Shapiro as the new team president 9
- Lance Lynn expects to make next scheduled start despite suffering ankle injury Saturday 2
- Cubs expected to call up Javier Baez on September 1 6
- Settling the Score: Saturday’s results 13
- A fan died at Turner Field after falling from the upper deck 55
- Mets acquire Addison Reed from the Diamondbacks 10
- Sarah Palin sticks up for Curt Schilling, tells ESPN to “stick to sports” (266)
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (200)
- Curt Schilling taken off of Little League World Series duty for making a really bad tweet (170)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Phillies announcer calls Mets fans “obnoxious” (123)