Is this implying something nefarious by the front office?

Do not know who was prior union rep. I cant see this FO or Pohlad's making decisions like that.

Speaking of new CBA, has anyone seen complete copy? Summaries I've seen offer some intriguing tidbits tucked into the nether regions of the doc, but cannot find a complete copy anywhere. Anybody else?

3 hours ago, laloesch said:

Is this implying something nefarious by the front office?

A fair question, and while I don't think my purpose was quite that direct, I did think it fair to point out the timing, plus ask for additional information.

It's also the case that these two players are of an age where a team might be looking to make a change.  Among the data that I don't have is whether that is a common situation for other teams as well - union reps probably are chosen from players with more than a little major league experience, but I don't know this for certain, or whether it's universal.  Maybe it's common for reps to be traded, even in years where relations between owners and players weren't so strained.

I'd love to get an informed opinion from an investigative reporter like Ken Rosenthal, rather than wing it with half-baked questions.  I almost never use Twitter but maybe this is an instance worth trying to catch his eye with a question.

3 hours ago, Game7-91 said:

Speaking of new CBA, has anyone seen complete copy? Summaries I've seen offer some intriguing tidbits tucked into the nether regions of the doc, but cannot find a complete copy anywhere. Anybody else?

I don't know either.  There is a document called MajorLeagueRules.pdf, which is different than the usual Official Baseball Rules that tell you what the Infield Fly Rule says, documenting the processes that govern rosters and so forth.  The most recent copy I found online is dated 2021, and it's not surprising to me if they haven't had time to update it yet.  However, that 2021 version still makes reference to the actual CBA, so the Rules do not actually define anything in the CBA, they merely reflect it.  Bottom line: see my first sentence.

15 minutes ago, ashbury said:

A fair question, and while I don't think my purpose was quite that direct, I did think it fair to point out the timing, plus ask for additional information.

It's also the case that these two players are of an age where a team might be looking to make a change.  Among the data that I don't have is whether that is a common situation for other teams as well - union reps probably are chosen from players with more than a little major league experience, but I don't know this for certain, or whether it's universal.  Maybe it's common for reps to be traded, even in years where relations between owners and players weren't so strained.

I'd love to get an informed opinion from an investigative reporter like Ken Rosenthal, rather than wing it with half-baked questions.  I almost never use Twitter but maybe this is an instance worth trying to catch his eye with a question.

I honestly cannot remember 1 time the subject of a player being "the Union rep" ever came up in any type of discussion of moving on from a player, either by trade, waivers, or release.

2020 is described as Taylor Rogers' first season as union rep.

I found a cite for Brian Dozier as the Twins union representative in 2018.

Glen Perkins was cited as a rep as early as 2012, and as late as 2017.

Before that, Kevin Slowey, and way before that, Denny Hocking.

Kyle Gibson was called an "alternate union representative" in a 2016 article.

Edit to add: Gibson apparently served as union rep in 2019, between Dozier and Rogers.

10 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

2020 is described as Taylor Rogers' first season as union rep.

I found a cite for Brian Dozier as the Twins union representative in 2018.

Glen Perkins was cited as a rep as early as 2012, and as late as 2017.

Before that, Kevin Slowey, and way before that, Denny Hocking.

Kyle Gibson was called an "alternate union representative" in a 2016 article.

 

My God.  They're ALL off the team!  This goes deeper than I thought!

Thanks for digging.  Nothing to be gleaned from this, as far as I can guess.  I mean, I'll reply to further responses if it seems called for, but this is as far as I ever had in mind going.  It's just... interesting.

3 hours ago, jdgoin said:

I honestly cannot remember 1 time the subject of a player being "the Union rep" ever came up in any type of discussion of moving on from a player, either by trade, waivers, or release.

Probably a pertinent data point.  Thanks for the insight.

Maybe they should call up Jake Cave to be player rep. He seems to be well-liked by the players, and is batting .500. Sorry, I gave up emojis for Lent.

1. I'm guessing that there are very few union reps who haven't already reached arbitration eligibility. Not because that's a requirement, but just because it would be the rare player who's seen as that kind of a leader only a couple years into a career. If I was in a union, I'd certainly be voting for my reps to be those who have been around the block a time or two.

2. I don't know union law, but I'd think that if there was any hint of a team taking revenge on a player rep, the team would be in deep doo-doo. And if not from a legal standpoint, the team would surely suffer significant blowback in future negotiations with players.

3. By contrast, if you put any stock in the intangibles, I'd think that a team would like to have players on their team that are highly respected by their peers. If they're leaders on the couple weeks every few years when they're dealing with contract issues, they're likely leaders in the clubhouse on other days as well.

7 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

3. By contrast, if you put any stock in the intangibles, I'd think that a team would like to have players on their team that are highly respected by their peers. If they're leaders on the couple weeks every few years when they're dealing with contract issues, they're likely leaders in the clubhouse on other days as well.

Good points.  With regard to that last one, it makes it all the more, well, "interesting", that they traded away two of those intangibles.  Maybe intangibility is both ephemeral and fungible.

On 4/9/2022 at 12:15 PM, IndianaTwin said:

1. I'm guessing that there are very few union reps who haven't already reached arbitration eligibility. Not because that's a requirement, but just because it would be the rare player who's seen as that kind of a leader only a couple years into a career. If I was in a union, I'd certainly be voting for my reps to be those who have been around the block a time or two.

2. I don't know union law, but I'd think that if there was any hint of a team taking revenge on a player rep, the team would be in deep doo-doo. And if not from a legal standpoint, the team would surely suffer significant blowback in future negotiations with players.

3. By contrast, if you put any stock in the intangibles, I'd think that a team would like to have players on their team that are highly respected by their peers. If they're leaders on the couple weeks every few years when they're dealing with contract issues, they're likely leaders in the clubhouse on other days as well.

 

1. I think you're right. And the union reps in baseball are often not the biggest stars, but more mid-tier guys, veterans who are liked in the clubhouse and are interested in doing the work.

2. You're 100% right on this. The union will pull out every stop against any team that they think is retaliating against a player for serving as the union rep. Union leadership watches this kind of thing very closely and there are potential very serious consequences for someone who pulls this crap. (hello, Unfair Labor Practice, we'll see you in federal court)

Pretty sure this one is just a fluke; Rogers had been in trade discussions last season and there's been speculation about Garver as a trade option for more than a year as well. I don't think them getting moved had anything to do with the CBA negotiations.

13 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

1. I think you're right. And the union reps in baseball are often not the biggest stars, but more mid-tier guys, veterans who are liked in the clubhouse and are interested in doing the work.

2. You're 100% right on this. The union will pull out every stop against any team that they think is retaliating against a player for serving as the union rep. Union leadership watches this kind of thing very closely and there are potential very serious consequences for someone who pulls this crap. (hello, Unfair Labor Practice, we'll see you in federal court)

Pretty sure this one is just a fluke; Rogers had been in trade discussions last season and there's been speculation about Garver as a trade option for more than a year as well. I don't think them getting moved had anything to do with the CBA negotiations.

I think it's a coincidence as well.

On 4/7/2022 at 8:52 PM, ashbury said:

A fair question, and while I don't think my purpose was quite that direct, I did think it fair to point out the timing, plus ask for additional information.

It's also the case that these two players are of an age where a team might be looking to make a change.  Among the data that I don't have is whether that is a common situation for other teams as well - union reps probably are chosen from players with more than a little major league experience, but I don't know this for certain, or whether it's universal.  Maybe it's common for reps to be traded, even in years where relations between owners and players weren't so strained.

I'd love to get an informed opinion from an investigative reporter like Ken Rosenthal, rather than wing it with half-baked questions.  I almost never use Twitter but maybe this is an instance worth trying to catch his eye with a question.

I don't know.

One thing that stands out to me in the list of Twins Union Reps above is the lack of diversity. On a team where there are players from many different countries every single union rep for the Twins on that list going back more than a decade is a white guy... maybe it's time for a Latino or African American player to be the Twins Union Rep.