Clipping:The Brotherhood and the salary limit and advances as signing bonuses
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, February 8, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from a letter from Ward] The League seems to have met some difficulty in carrying into effect one of the—to the playher—most important clauses of the new contract. I am informed that Carroll, of Pittsburg, received a communication from President Nimick asking his signature to a contract for $2,000, 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. Eitehr I have been misinformed, or there is some misunderstanding on Mr. Nimick's part. It was perfectly understood between the League and Brotherhood committee that paragraph 1, under section 13, 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 player were signed from 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. It was upon the 15th and 18th sections that the two committees were for a long time unable to agree, and the 15th, as it now stands, is not at all the original one presented by the Brotherhood committee, but a new one drawn up by the League committee and accepted as a compromise in consideration of the League committee's acceptance of the 18th. In the discussion of the section the names of several players were mentioned who received above the limit, and these were cited by the League committee as special instances in which the section would work an unfairness to one or two clubs. This shows that there was no misunderstanding on the committee's part as to the intent of the section. It was therefore only in furtherance of this plain understanding that the League asked the American Association at Cincinnati to repeal entirely the $2,000 limit rule. The Association, it is true, refused, but that the League would offer this as a pretext for failing to keep its compact with its players is scarcely credible. 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.” It would indeed be a peculiar sense of honor which would insist upon keeping faith in respect to a rule which is continually violated when such an insistence involved a direct breach of faith of a serious nature. That would be a face in which some of the League officials would not care to play a part. Moreover, the 19th section of the contract reads:--”And it is further understood and agreed that the rights, duties, privileges and powers of the respective parties hereto are to be governed, limited and determined by the covenants and conditions herein, and the express terms of the this contract, and not in any wise by the terms, covenants or condition of any foreign or other document or instrument to which either party hereto may be a part, etc.” That is to say the player may at any time learn all the relations which exist between himself and his club by a reference to his contract, and whatever agreements the club may enter into to regulate its relations with other clubs or persons it cannot make any which will affect its agreement with him, nor will he be bound by any such. Conceding the compact with the Brotherhood, the League could not, then, conscientiously offer the refusal of the American Association as an excuse for a failure to carry out that compact. But 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; and I am still further convinced of this by the straightforward declaration of President Smith, of Detroit, that the salary should be written in full and that he would make no further efforts to sign his men until the matter is settled. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| 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" />