Spring Training 2020

[Kimmi]

Why's that?

 

I'm talking about loyalty to the team. Ownership doesn't play alongside the other players day in and day out. Ownership is in it mostly as a business. Supposedly, the players are in it for the love of the sport, etc, etc.

[Kimmi]

Why? Because it's fine for an owner to f*ck over an employee 'for business reasons' but it's not ok for employees to get the best deal they can for themselves?? the only way I can 'understand' that is on the assumption that all business-owners are amoral capitalist pigs, which, despite the growing evidence, I'm not (yet) willing to do. If that were the case, rather than accept it, we should all be sharpening up our pitchforks. Rich and privileged owners/entertainers/trust-funders should be held to higher moral standards than the rest of us, not lower standards.

 

I never said it was right or okay, just that I understand how or why they could be less loyal than the players. In short, they are more detached from the team than the players are.

[oldmaninthevegasdesert]

No matter how recent the past is, it is not a productive way to live in the present rehashing over matters YOU absolutely had no influence over. Betts is in the rear view mirror. Time to move on, and pray that the mercenary does not pull the second coming of Clemens in pinstripes. That might cause some in here to come down with a new syndrome..just sayin

[jad]

There never has been "loyalty". Players were only loyal to their team before because the Reserve Clause told them they had to be. Do people think Ted Williams would have played his whole career in Boston if he had any say? Or Joe DiMaggio with the Yankees (especially since they were among the lower paying teams in MLB, per David Halberstam)? Even nowadays, are the Jared Weavers and Xander Bogaerts really "loyal" because they forego free agency? Or do they just like the status quo? You know, not want to put the kids in new schools, etc...

 

I'm talking about loyalty to the team. Ownership doesn't play alongside the other players day in and day out. Ownership is in it mostly as a business. Supposedly, the players are in it for the love of the sport, etc, etc.

 

Do you think that's true? I think many owners are in it for their egos--they don't need to make decisions based purely on business factors (although they might hide behind that idea). (Dan Snyder? Jerry Jones? Even Steve Ballmer--the Clippers are a billionaire's hobby, not a business). That's why prof. sports sometimes is baffling from an economic point of view. Also, not sure about players' 'love of the sport'--they're there for fame and money. And they are good enough at what they do to get a lot of it. (That's probably what you meant by 'etc.'!)

[Bellhorn04]

I'm talking about loyalty to the team. Ownership doesn't play alongside the other players day in and day out. Ownership is in it mostly as a business. Supposedly, the players are in it for the love of the sport, etc, etc.

 

The players love the sport, but it's also their livelihood and in most cases their one shot at making enough money to make them and their families financially secure.

[S5Dewey]

The players love the sport, but it's also their livelihood and in most cases their one shot at making enough money to make them and their families financially secure.

 

Just to be clear, it's not their one shot at making themselves and their families financially secure. It's their one shot at making themselves multi-millionaires. Theres a difference.

People all over the country (world?) play games for the love of the game, the camaraderie, etc.. Too much of the joy of that gets forgotten when money gets involved.

That's what people mean when they say that money is ruining sports.

[notin]

Just to be clear, it's not their one shot at making themselves and their families financially secure. It's their one shot at making themselves multi-millionaires. Theres a difference.

People all over the country (world?) play games for the love of the game, the camaraderie, etc.. Too much of the joy of that gets forgotten when money gets involved.

That's what people mean when they say that money is ruining sports.

 

It’s their one shot at not needing another job after baseball. When you retire as young as most baseball players not named Moyer, you have to be able to afford a lot of years....

[Bellhorn04]

Just to be clear, it's not their one shot at making themselves and their families financially secure. It's their one shot at making themselves multi-millionaires. Theres a difference.

People all over the country (world?) play games for the love of the game, the camaraderie, etc.. Too much of the joy of that gets forgotten when money gets involved.

That's what people mean when they say that money is ruining sports.

 

Amateur sport is great. But professional sport is what it says. And let's face it, as spectators, most of us are much more keenly interested in the professional version.

[Bellhorn04]

As far as Mookie's next contract is concerned, I'm not hoping for him to get 420 million. As good as he is, I think that's too much. And he should not get as much as Trout. The insanity has to stop somewhere.

[notin]

Amateur sport is great. But professional sport is what it says. And let's face it, as spectators, most of us are much more keenly interested in the professional version.

 

Exactly.

 

Despite the massive difference in cost and other conveniences, I will still go to more Cubs or White Sox games every year than I will Schaumburg Boomers games...

[Kimmi]

Do you think that's true? I think many owners are in it for their egos--they don't need to make decisions based purely on business factors (although they might hide behind that idea). (Dan Snyder? Jerry Jones? Even Steve Ballmer--the Clippers are a billionaire's hobby, not a business). That's why prof. sports sometimes is baffling from an economic point of view. Also, not sure about players' 'love of the sport'--they're there for fame and money. And they are good enough at what they do to get a lot of it. (That's probably what you meant by 'etc.'!)

 

You are probably right about the owners. They probably have huge egos as well. I don't think that alters my opinion though.

 

If players are indeed playing the sport only for fame and money, and not for the love of the game, then that's a true shame. It really is.

[Kimmi]

The players love the sport, but it's also their livelihood and in most cases their one shot at making enough money to make them and their families financially secure.

 

I get that. I'm not asking any of the players to play for free. But how much money does a player need to make to give themselves and their families financial security? Seriously, is $300 million not enough?

[mvp 78]

Love of the game is overrated. I’m not an accountant because I love accounting.

[Kimmi]

Just to be clear, it's not their one shot at making themselves and their families financially secure. It's their one shot at making themselves multi-millionaires. Theres a difference.

People all over the country (world?) play games for the love of the game, the camaraderie, etc.. Too much of the joy of that gets forgotten when money gets involved.

That's what people mean when they say that money is ruining sports.

 

Most of us agree that Mookie is already financially secure before even reaching free agency.

[Kimmi]

As far as Mookie's next contract is concerned, I'm not hoping for him to get 420 million. As good as he is, I think that's too much. And he should not get as much as Trout. The insanity has to stop somewhere.

 

On this, we agree 100%.

[Kimmi]

Love of the game is overrated. I’m not an accountant because I love accounting.

 

Obviously, it is.

 

And that's very disheartening.

[Bellhorn04]

Love of the game is overrated. I’m not an accountant because I love accounting.

 

I think it's fair to say, though, that some professions have a higher percentage of people who enjoy what they do.

[notin]

I think it's fair to say, though, that some professions have a higher percentage of people who enjoy what they do.

 

 

Like a higher percentage of porn stars enjoy their job than accountants?

[vegasbob]

Nate Eovaldi doesn't seem to get a lot of love here. He does need to put an entire season together to show what he can do. But his stint against the Braves, with starters in their lineup today, showed the talent level that Nate brings to the party. A full year of that and we'll be thankful for his strong stuff.

[jad]

There never has been "loyalty". Players were only loyal to their team before because the Reserve Clause told them they had to be. Do people think Ted Williams would have played his whole career in Boston if he had any say? Or Joe DiMaggio with the Yankees (especially since they were among the lower paying teams in MLB, per David Halberstam)? Even nowadays, are the Jared Weavers and Xander Bogaerts really "loyal" because they forego free agency? Or do they just like the status quo? You know, not want to put the kids in new schools, etc...

 

I get that. I'm not asking any of the players to play for free. But how much money does a player need to make to give themselves and their families financial security? Seriously, is $300 million not enough?

 

The problem is, who gets that money if it doesn't go to the players? It won't go to you or me. And it won't go to people who really need it. Unless society and the politicians whose careers are funded by the uber-rich step up and decide that there is no reason for ANYONE to make or possess the kind of money top entertainers do and CEOs and board members grant themselves, this is what we're stuck with. (Just keep your pitchforks handy, that guillotine blade well sharpened, and hope for the best.)

[Bellhorn04]

Like a higher percentage of porn stars enjoy their job than accountants?

 

LOL good play.

[Bellhorn04]

Nate Eovaldi doesn't seem to get a lot of love here. He does need to put an entire season together to show what he can do. But his stint against the Braves, with starters in their lineup today, showed the talent level that Nate brings to the party. A full year of that and we'll be thankful for his strong stuff.

 

I'm a Nate fan. And I hate the 'if he's pitching well trade him at the deadline' premise.

[Kimmi]

The problem is, who gets that money if it doesn't go to the players? It won't go to you or me. And it won't go to people who really need it. Unless society and the politicians whose careers are funded by the uber-rich step up and decide that there is no reason for ANYONE to make or possess the kind of money top entertainers do and CEOs and board members grant themselves, this is what we're stuck with. (Just keep your pitchforks handy, that guillotine blade well sharpened, and hope for the best.)

 

I know it won't happen, but the owners should give some of that money back to the fans by way of lower ticket prices.

 

I'm not trying to defend greedy owners. However, as an owner, Henry has spent plenty on payroll.

[Kimmi]

Nate Eovaldi doesn't seem to get a lot of love here. He does need to put an entire season together to show what he can do. But his stint against the Braves, with starters in their lineup today, showed the talent level that Nate brings to the party. A full year of that and we'll be thankful for his strong stuff.

 

Very small sample, but Eovaldi has looked very good so far this spring. With both him and Sale, it's a matter of being able to stay healthy.

[Hitch]

Nate Eovaldi doesn't seem to get a lot of love here. He does need to put an entire season together to show what he can do. But his stint against the Braves, with starters in their lineup today, showed the talent level that Nate brings to the party. A full year of that and we'll be thankful for his strong stuff.

 

I think everyone likes his stuff and personality. He's just made of biscuits. Hopefully he can put together a healthy year, but I doubt it.

[notin]

Nate Eovaldi doesn't seem to get a lot of love here. He does need to put an entire season together to show what he can do. But his stint against the Braves, with starters in their lineup today, showed the talent level that Nate brings to the party. A full year of that and we'll be thankful for his strong stuff.

 

The main reason I don’t love him is summed exactly in your second sentence. And really, it’s not even Eovaldi I have antipathy for; it’s the stupid contract Dombrowski gave him that completely ignored how fragile he is...

[Bellhorn04]

The main reason I don’t love him is summed exactly in your second sentence. And really, it’s not even Eovaldi I have antipathy for; it’s the stupid contract Dombrowski gave him that completely ignored how fragile he is...

 

You've been proven right on it so far.

 

I was fine with it at the time. Some Recency Bias in there, no doubt. But I just thought for a guy with Eovaldi's stuff and his age, it wasn't an outrageous amount. We were all aware of the injury risks. I don't think anyone expected that he would have the 'loose bodies' issue again. Has any other pitcher in history who had TJS had a reoccurrence fitting that description?

[Bellhorn04]

The price of upper tier free agent pitchers has just become astronomical.

[jad]

There never has been "loyalty". Players were only loyal to their team before because the Reserve Clause told them they had to be. Do people think Ted Williams would have played his whole career in Boston if he had any say? Or Joe DiMaggio with the Yankees (especially since they were among the lower paying teams in MLB, per David Halberstam)? Even nowadays, are the Jared Weavers and Xander Bogaerts really "loyal" because they forego free agency? Or do they just like the status quo? You know, not want to put the kids in new schools, etc...

 

I know it won't happen, but the owners should give some of that money back to the fans by way of lower ticket prices.

 

I'm not trying to defend greedy owners. However, as an owner, Henry has spent plenty on payroll.

 

But they won't and that from a business pt. of view. The ticket prices, as you know, are determined by bean-counters to maximize the gate receipts, whether that means sell-outs or half-empty stadiums.

[mvp 78]

I'm a Nate fan. And I hate the 'if he's pitching well trade him at the deadline' premise.

 

I love it!