Amidst all the pennant race joy, I do feel bad for Brian Roberts

[WEAVERMAN]

I know that Brian's concussion injury was self-inclicted and frankly just a dumb thing to do.

And I know that he's making a cool $10 million this year to play in 2 weeks of games and spend time with his model wife.

But no single player suffered the agony of defeat more than Roberts in his tenure, and it's truly a shame to me that he doesn't get to be a direct part of this now. I'm not sure what the record is for a player staying with one team for the most consecutive losing seasons, but I have think Roberts is up there.

Add in the plethora of agonizing losses to NY and Boston, seeing your ballpark overrun with their fans, never playing a single meaningful game in August or September, and from an on-the-field standpoint, it had to have been a pretty miserable run.

Just a bummer to put in that much time and effort and not be able to finally enjoy the fruits of the labor.

Well said glenn, it's a shame Brian isn't apart of our 90 win season. Let's win 90 plus next season with Brian.

[Todd-O]

I have no issues with Roberts. The guy sacrificed his body and has paid the price for it. That helmet tap was a tipping point, not the injury inflictor, IMO.

It's not like he's on an island somewhere boating and fishing.

Based on interviews, he's been to some pretty dark places. I'm pulling for him to recover and have a huge comeback --- don't necessarily think it will happen... But, one never knows.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I have no issues with Roberts. The guy sacrificed his body and has paid the price for it. That helmet tap was a tipping point, not the injury inflictor, IMO. It's not like he's on an island somewhere boating and fishing. .

I recall having this discssion before, but don't you think repeatedly "tapping yourself on the helmet" like a thousand times would have something to do with it?

[blid]

BRob did play during some tough times. Remember this image/quote from Roberts?

[El Gordo]

I recall having this discssion before, but don't you think repeatedly "tapping yourself on the helmet" like a thousand times would have something to do with it?

No, the baseball batting helmet is designed to withstand the impact of a 90 mph fast ball. It is is impossible to generate anything near that kind of impact hitting ones self with a bat. The average ML player generates a 70 mph bat speed taking a full swing. Tapping yourself on the helmet is hardly comparable to a full swing. If the tapping his hemet was a cause of the concussion it had to be because of a cumulative series of impacts from sliding and being taken out in DP's etc. As with a boxer who absorbs a cumulative amount of impact to his head over the course of his career, it doesn't take a knock out punch to put him in a coma.

[mcinww0]

I really do feel bad for Brob. He was the one player we could be proud of for all those years, always giving his all and getting that big hit when we needed it. I'm glad he got to play some small part this year but sadly his time is over. Hopefully he hangs it up this offseason and comes back to work as some sort of minor league coach. The organization can always use guys like him to pass the torch to younger players.

Orioles HoFer without a doubt.

[blid]

No, the baseball batting helmet is designed to withstand the impact of a 90 mph fast ball. It is is impossible to generate anything near that kind of impact hitting ones self with a bat. The average ML player generates a 70 mph bat speed taking a full swing. Tapping yourself on the helmet is hardly comparable to a full swing. If the tapping his hemet was a cause of the concussion it had to be because of a cumulative series of impacts from sliding and being taken out in DP's etc. As with a boxer who absorbs a cumulative amount of impact to his head over the course of his career, it doesn't take a knock out punch to put him in a coma.

Just because it can "withstand the impact" of a 90mph fastball doesn't mean it doesn't jiggle the brain a bit. You don't think guys feel it when they get hit in the helmet? It hurts and Brian hurt himself every time he did that, I'm sure.

[El Gordo]

Just because it can "withstand the impact" of a 90mph fastball doesn't mean it doesn't jiggle the brain a bit. You don't think guys feel it when they get hit in the helmet? It hurts and Brian hurt himself every time he did that, I'm sure.

Obviously you don't understand my point. I'm not surprised. A single isolated incident of strikinig the helmet, couldn't cause a concussion, unless there had been prior brain damage due to impacts like sliding etc.

[Ohfan67]

A lot of people seem to believe that the MLBPA will, on it's own initiative, intervene in a player's individual business to protect its notion of what's best for all players. Whatever that is. We're not talking about a straightforward grievance situation which is its duty to prosecute on behalf of its members, but the union taking an arbitrary, activist position against one of its members to protect an abstract principle. I see no basis for this belief.

Tom Glavine, who was heavily involved in the player leadership of the PA and I think was the player leader of PA at the time, publicly called out Mike Mussina for signing a below market contract with the Orioles in 1996-1997. Those situations are usually discussed behind closed doors, but Glavine made public statements that Mussina's contract was harming all players. They don't file a grievance or anything like that, but there's no doubt that the players association tries very hard to protect contracts. They also opposed the "world series" clauses that Schilling tried to put into his contract with Boston. You don't give "earned" money back to the owners. That's an incredibly consistent and strong stance by the PA. Mussina is a prime example of what owners do with "returned" money: Mussina was trying to be "good" to the Orioles organization. How did that work out for him and the Orioles organization? That's one of the reasons he was so pissed when Thrift sold off the team for a pittance a few years later...he had basically given up money to try to help the organization (of course many thought it was time to blow up and rebuild, but that's obviously not what Mussina signed on for and you can imagine how he felt about the results of Thrift's trades). This is the way the business works...the players have worked for decades to get what they see as a fair share of the pie. The PA works hard to protect what so many former players sacrificed to get.

And this very thing, basically pay for performance in a free agent contract, is something that the PA has very, very aggressively fought against. Their rationale is that the owners get the benefit of high productivity from very to relatively cheap players for six years (young players). During those six years the player is really the one bearing the risk. If they get a career ending injury at that point, then they are SOL. But once free agency hits, then the owners are taking the risk and the players have security. The idea is that those players have "earned" that security by providing relatively cheap productivity for the owners for six years. If players started giving money back to the owners, then that would be a threat to what the PA has worked very hard to get.

Thanks to everyone with different opinions for explaining their thoughts in this thread. Very interesting dialogue and the folks with opposite opinions provided very thought-provoking insight. Good stuff.

[Can_of_corn]

Do you think the deal Weaver signed with the Angels was any less below market then the deal Mussina inked? I don't recall anyone from the PA saying a peep about the Weaver deal.

[Ohfan67]

Do you think the deal Weaver signed with the Angels was any less below market then the deal Mussina inked? I don't recall anyone from the PA saying a peep about the Weaver deal.

I can't remember. I just remember Glavine's comments about Mussina. I think it's unusual for the PA to talk publicly about these things besides opposition to the Schilling g World Series clauses and the like.

P.s. Mussina signed his orioles deal like a year after the strike. Maybe that's why glavine made public comments?

[24fps]

Tom Glavine, who was heavily involved in the player leadership of the PA and I think was the player leader of PA at the time, publicly called out Mike Mussina for signing a below market contract with the Orioles in 1996-1997. Those situations are usually discussed behind closed doors, but Glavine made public statements that Mussina's contract was harming all players. They don't file a grievance or anything like that, but there's no doubt that the players association tries very hard to protect contracts. They also opposed the "world series" clauses that Schilling tried to put into his contract with Boston. You don't give "earned" money back to the owners. That's an incredibly consistent and strong stance by the PA. Mussina is a prime example of what owners do with "returned" money: Mussina was trying to be "good" to the Orioles organization. How did that work out for him and the Orioles organization? That's one of the reasons he was so pissed when Thrift sold off the team for a pittance a few years later...he had basically given up money to try to help the organization (of course many thought it was time to blow up and rebuild, but that's obviously not what Mussina signed on for and you can imagine how he felt about the results of Thrift's trades). This is the way the business works...the players have worked for decades to get what they see as a fair share of the pie. The PA works hard to protect what so many former players sacrificed to get.

And this very thing, basically pay for performance in a free agent contract, is something that the PA has very, very aggressively fought against. Their rationale is that the owners get the benefit of high productivity from very to relatively cheap players for six years (young players). During those six years the player is really the one bearing the risk. If they get a career ending injury at that point, then they are SOL. But once free agency hits, then the owners are taking the risk and the players have security. The idea is that those players have "earned" that security by providing relatively cheap productivity for the owners for six years. If players started giving money back to the owners, then that would be a threat to what the PA has worked very hard to get.

Thanks to everyone with different opinions for explaining their thoughts in this thread. Very interesting dialogue and the folks with opposite opinions provided very thought-provoking insight. Good stuff.

Tom Glavine was a player representative and like all American citizens entitled to express his opinion. That's a much different thing than having the power to compel Mike Mussina, or any other player, to accept a contract other than the one he felt was in his best interests. The relationship between owners and players is governed by the CBA, the Uniform Player's Contract (which is schedule A of the CBA) and presumably many, many shelf feet of existing labor law. That's a pretty restricted environment.

Nobody that I can see is advocating BRob be forced to give back any money promised in his contract, so the notion of returning "earned" money is not at issue. No one is using BRob's situation as a basis for making basic contracts substantially contingent on performance. At most, the few people who think he "should do the right thing" admit that he's entitled to the rest of his contract so "play for performance" is not at issue either. The roots of the MLBPA's contract philosophy is interesting, but not relevant to the point I'm pursuing in this thread. Your paragraph two is simply a summary of the MLBPA bargaining collectively to the advantage of its membership which is the primary point of its existence.

What was at issue when I first responded in this thread is this simple question: what actual power does the MLBPA have to alter the behavior of an individual player (not players as a whole) that is not contained in the CBA? I'm not talking about the power to produce loud noises from an angry red face, I'm talking about the power to force a player to act against his will. There is none that I can see as long as the player follows his interests within clearly defined boundaries. This is exactly how it should be IMO. The power of the Player's Association to exercise judgement and "allow" an individual player something on a case-by-case basis doesn't exist as far as I can see.

[xKHx]

Ok two things here that people forget. 1. Brian has constant concussions do you want to see his medical bills after he finishes his baseball career? Are you going to be paying them? Well you might be if he doesn't continue to try to play to build enough capital for his family and I bet him and all the athletes that have concussion problems feel real bad about how you view them when they play hard and you want to forget about them as there money fades and careers end. I don't care if you don't feel bad for players like Junior Seau or the hundreds of others that have to deal with nightmarish effects after their playing days. I could tell you where to go but I like posting here.

[Can_of_corn]

Ok two things here that people forget. 1. Brian has constant concussions do you want to see his medical bills after he finishes his baseball career? Are you going to be paying them? Well you might be if he doesn't continue to try to play to build enough capital for his family and I bet him and all the athletes that have concussion problems feel real bad about how you view them when they play hard and you want to forget about them as there money fades and careers end. I don't care if you don't feel bad for players like Junior Seau or the hundreds of others that have to deal with nightmarish effects after their playing days. I could tell you where to go but I like posting here.

MLB has substantial health care coverage as part of it's pension package.

[blid]

Obviously you don't understand my point. I'm not surprised. A single isolated incident of strikinig the helmet, couldn't cause a concussion, unless there had been prior brain damage due to impacts like sliding etc.

Well but I don't think you see my point, which is that hitting yourself on the head with a bat, despite the safety metrics on the helmet, probably DOES cause a slight trauma/impact on the head itself, every single time, regardless of your concussion history. Just don't do it. Granted, a prior concussion or two or so on will make the damage worse, I agree with that, but I'm not sure what you're trying to argue... Is it that you think cracking yourself on the helmet with a bat is safe and can't cause damage under normal conditions, even if repeated hundreds of times? That's kind of going out on a limb I think, because it's doubtful the type of fastball the helmet is built to withstand really has anything to do with that theory.