Nick Markakis Opts Out Of 2020 Season

[Ruzious]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

So seeing them take risks and getting sick made him want to play more? That is bizarre. 

Maybe seeing that nobody outside of the Marlins had anyone test positive since they started playing again had an effect.  

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Maybe seeing that nobody outside of the Marlins had anyone test positive since they started playing again had an effect.  

Maybe but that is not what he said. Also the Reds have two positive cases since play started and Soto tested positive right before opening day. 

[OFFNY]

1 hour ago, weams said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

 

Guess the wife and kids were driving him crazy.  

 

o

 

Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in a South African prison ........ beaten and tortured every day for 27 years, and did with with no f-ing problem. Made it through hard labor in 100-degree South African heat for 27 years, and did it with no problem. 

He got out of jail after 27 years, spent 6 months with his wife, and said, "I can't take this shit any more" !!!

 

 

Chris Rock, on Nelson's Mandela's divorce from his wife after 6 months

 

o

[Enjoy Terror]

No one's pointed out that Markakis is pretty close to some big hitters milestones, I'm going to speculate that it could have something to do with that.

[MurphDogg]

Curious whether the union has anything to say about the GM calling him and telling him they could use him. Assuming he didn't reach out to management first, since I have seen no reports to that effect.

[eddie83]

59 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Welcome back and all, but absolutely no reason to throw players that did opt out (or those who still may) under the bus. Classless, in my opinion.

No need to say (or imply) anything negative about players that opted out, just say that he saw that the team could use him and decided it was the right decision for him.

And he was guilted into it by his GM? Super gross.

You have no idea if he was guilted into anything. He may have touched base with management and they gave him him options. 

[MurphDogg]

Just now, eddie83 said:

You have no idea if he was guilted into anything. He may have touched base with management and they gave him him options. 

It was reported that management called him, I don't think that is appropriate. 

You may not like guilted, as a term, but if, as reported, management reached out to him rather than the other way around, I think that is wrong and I am comfortable with saying he was guilted.

If, the facts are different than reported and as you surmise, he made the initial contact, then he may not have been guilted.

[eddie83]

Just now, MurphDogg said:

It was reported that management called him, I don't think that is appropriate. 

You may not like guilted, as a term, but if, as reported, management reached out to him rather than the other way around, I think that is wrong and I am comfortable with saying he was guilted.

If, the facts are different than reported and as you surmise, he made the initial contact, then he may not have been guilted.

Nick said he felt guilty. 

This is why the media drives me crazy nowadays. They need to clarify and put context into the story here. 

I find it hard to believe they called him and then he had a change of heart. Hope to find out the truth. 

[SteveA]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

It was reported that management called him, I don't think that is appropriate. 

You may not like guilted, as a term, but if, as reported, management reached out to him rather than the other way around, I think that is wrong and I am comfortable with saying he was guilted.

If, the facts are different than reported and as you surmise, he made the initial contact, then he may not have been guilted.

I don't see the problem.   In the end, it is 100% the players' decision.   But I don't see anything wrong with them asking him to think about his decision.   I don't think they have any leverage over him, by opting out he is forfeiting lots of $.   I don't see it necessary to have some sort of enforced non-communication between the GM and the player.

[MurphDogg]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Nick said he felt guilty. 

This is why the media drives me crazy nowadays. They need to clarify and put context into the story here. 

I find it hard to believe they called him and then he had a change of heart. Hope to find out the truth. 

Yeah, I am just going off the info available. It absolutely matters who reached out to whom. Regardless, I think he statement was inappropriate because it made other players that opted out look bad.

[MurphDogg]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't see the problem.   In the end, it is 100% the players' decision.   But I don't see anything wrong with them asking him to think about his decision.   I don't think they have any leverage over him, by opting out he is forfeiting lots of $.   I don't see it necessary to have some sort of enforced non-communication between the GM and the player.

The ability to opt out was part of the agreement to hold a season. I haven't read the agreement and I don't practice labor law,  but it is potentially a labor relations issue.

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

The ability to opt out was part of the agreement to hold a season. I haven't read the agreement and I don't practice labor law,  but it is potentially a labor relations issue.

As long as no pressure was applied, the ability to opt out wasn't taken away from Nick.   He just changed his mind.   If he comes back, it is his choice, even if something the GM said might have helped change his mind.   Once again -- as long as no pressure or leverage was exerted.   And I honestly don't see what leverage the GM could have given that Nick had forfeited his salary by opting out.  

If the GM said, if you don't come back, we'll never sign you to an extension, I guess that would be bad form.   But calling him to say, "Hey, we miss you, we could use you, any chance you'll change your mind?".   Nope, I still say I don't see how that could be a problem.   It's still Nick's choice to make.

[OFFNY]

18 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

 

The ability to opt out was part of the agreement to hold a season. I haven't read the agreement and I don't practice labor law, but it is potentially a labor relations issue.

 

o

 

This sounds reasonable.

It's one of those things in which at first glance, you would presume that there would be no harm in asking him to reconsider. It might even be considered flattering by a player whom is being told that his team needs him. But there is the potential that a line could be crossed, in which case the player may not take it as a "friendly suggestion", and may feel somewhat coerced/pressured ........ and to avoid confusion and/or any blurring of that line, it's probably most efficient for all parties to simply forbid requests/suggestions for a player to start playing again for those whom have decided to opt-out.

 

o

[MurphDogg]

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

If the GM said, if you don't come back, we'll never sign you to an extension, I guess that would be bad form.   But calling him to say, "Hey, we miss you, we could use you, any chance you'll change your mind?".   Nope, I still say I don't see how that could be a problem.   It's still Nick's choice to make.

Although I haven't read the agreement, the first statement would almost certainly violate the agreement. There is no way that players would agree to be allowed to opt out if teams could hold it against them, certainly not saying so directly. And it is possible that the second statement does as well.

Again, I hope this is cleared up, I have no more to say on the topic until we have more info.

[Ruzious]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

Maybe but that is not what he said. Also the Reds have two positive cases since play started and Soto tested positive right before opening day. 

That was a false positive.