jad
-
Posts
4,477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by jad
-
Yup. Me too. I can't even jog past a tee-ball game without stopping and watching an inning or two.
-
I know. But we see that in America all the time: when there's a dispute between CEO's and workers, the CEO's tend to be the ones that get our (not yours and mine!) sympathy. I guess people admire and support NOT those whose interests they share, but rather those who most represent what they themselves aspire to be. (E.g., "I'd like to be a complete a-hole who can make sexist and racist jokes at will, belittle everyone, never do a lick of work, stiff all those who work for me, and claim I am a victim of some evil plot no one but myself can discern.")
-
Agree entirely. Add to this the fact that MLB has determined to off-load its minor-league system onto the taxpayers. (You know, like football, where the developmental league is provided by state-supported colleges and universities.). Of course, the fans mean nothing in this: those of us who might spend a few evenings a summer in a minor league game? What does MLB care about that? Cf. the NBA, which is trying to expand and control its developmental leagues. But then (unlike the NFL and the MLB), the NBA has a leader who believes in a harmonious relation between players and owners, and is not just a well-paid tool who lets owners play-act their macho fantasies through him.
-
Agree 100%. Also, I am worried about this season. Players obviously want to play (with a few exceptions, due to health and family concerns). Owners? I don't know: all the statements I've seen from them are about revenue losses. I wonder what the financial calculations are (1) a lost season vs. (2) a half season paying acc. to the players' proposal. If those figures are anywhere within shouting distance of each other, I fear the owners would take the losses for a lost season, in part to show what bad-asses they are. (If they were running a 'business' rather than working on a 'hobby' this might be different.)
-
Interpreting stats? I'm just giving the numbers. Which do not support the notion that 'the fans didn't/won't come back', as you yourself admit. And if it took 'many fan friendly initiatives' to get them back then, there's no reason to suspect that the owners won't come up with more of them in the future.
-
I'm not sure the facts back this theory up, although of course in a sense we are both right: after the strike, the fans did not IMMEDIATELY come back, as you claim, but they did come back: here are the rough stats for total attendance: 1992: 55million; 1993: 70 million (!); 1994 50 Mil. 1995 50 mil; 1996 60 mil, 1997 63million; 1998 70 million; 1999 70mil; 2000 71mil; 2001 72; 2002 67; 2003 67; 2004 72.; 2005 74; (from there fairly stable, to 68million in 2019). The fans were back to pre-strike levels by 1996. And from there, attendance looks to me to be pretty flat, no? (I'm not sure what the big spike in attendance in '93 means, since 92-95 is otherwise pretty stable--50-55million. --Any ideas on that? I suppose you might argue reasonably enough, that without the strike this spike would have continued?)
-
If I were a player (an employee), I would say "Look, I've already given up half my 'guaranteed' salary." Owners and capitalists (if they want their laissez-faire system), should not be 'guaranteed' anything. Tough luck. It's the players whose health is being put at risk.
-
Yup. (Of course, the 'lesson' the owners learned the last time was, in their minds, 'Don't worry. Fans will come back.')
-
Reading that the NHLPA just approved a plan for NHL players (a plan adopted by a committee of players and owners). So NBA's Adam SIlver--talking first with the players. But the MLB owners???? Oh no! Screw the players. Let's get together and work out a plan history suggests the players will never accept and use that as a basis for negotiation. You'd think they would have learned a lesson in negotiations from the last strike (just as, say, the NFL owners learned when they arrogantly decided to use 'replacement players' or even 'replacement referees'). Macho posturing is not the way to get this done, and any animosity that results is going to carry over into the next labor negotiations. Too bad, owners! Guess what? You're not going to make millions and billions of dollars this year: the players are ALSO losing more than half their income. It's no one's fault. Don't compound things by going to war against your best asset--your employees.
-
You need to improve your reading skills (my post was three lines long and still it seemed too much for you), your logical ones, or correct your ideological ones (communism = socialism = Stalin = hippies = ... Jesus CHrist, are we back in the 50s?? Are you a McCarthy descendent?) But as long as you are supporting societies (real or ideal) where social services are profit-based, there's little likelihood of your doing any of that.
-
Yeah, let's see. My ideal society: one in which everyone is treated equally and has access to social services, OR one in which the rich and powerful can f*ck over the weak with impuny and social services are limited to those who have money. Hmmm. You know, for a Christian, it's just so hard to decide.
-
Yes you have. But we agree on this. This is NOT the flu. Not only will a player be away from his family for the summer, he also risks losing his livelihood if he catches this. Sure, my friend who had it (very fit and athletic) and figures after a few months he's back to "80%", will still be able, say, to play golf (although likely with a cart), and still work. But a prof. athlete who gets back to 80 or 90% is likely out of a job. Given the financial naivete of many players (living, incredibly, 'paycheck to paycheck'), there will be plenty of players who will take the risk. But many of those who have managed their finances wisely may well take the year off. The owners, of course, are risking nothing.
-
As Vladimir and Estragon say: Let's have a name-calling contest! So back at you: "More capitalist pig claptrap."
-
Yup. Over and over and over. When the workers come in conflict with the massa's, the American public almost inevitably sides with the bosses. This is in part why we have people in this country like D.T. and Bezos.
-
Do you think grocery clerks and health care professionals' working conditions will improve if Snell risks his life and career ensuring that the owners get more money this year?
-
Yup. As you can see from these posts, when the bosses go to war against the workers, your average American inevitably sides with the bosses.
-
That for sure. Also, although the owners in their offices are cavalier about a few players getting this, if you are a professional athlete, even a recovery from this could mean the end of your career. (I can't be the only one here who has close friends who went through ICU care and weeks in the hospital, who claim they will never be the same again). As long as the owners are looking to use this to their advantage, there is no reason for players to capitulate unless they absolutely need the money. Also, for the owners to advance this particular proposal (one the players have always rejected out of hand) now, does not bode well for the coming CBA.
-
I don't understand. How does that look bad for the players? They are standing by the CBA and what they agreed to do in March. They have already compromised by agreeing to pro-rate their salaries based on # of games played. MVP is exactly correct: the players get what salary they agreed to; when the owners rack up excess profits, they do not share those with the players. What they are proposing here is in absolute contradistinction to what they themselves negotiated with the players in the CBA.
-
To the owners it certainly is all about money. But to the players? It's a matter of health, no? Don't you think that's going to be a major part of the negotiation? (Just got through reading the account of a good friend who 'seems' to have had CV in March-- almost a week in ICU, his family prepared for him not to make it; 19 days in the hospital w/ acute pneumonia. Now better, but not fully recovered. Are players really willing to risk this? Maybe.)
-
Ha! Fair enough. I am only thinking of discussions and accusations that were going around ... during the last CBA negotiations? (odd how memory is--I can't remember the exact 'facts'--but I can remember EXACTLY what intersection I was driving through in LA when I was listening.). This generally isn't that much of an issue in baseball (the matter of 'opening the books'), due to the way salaries are done. And wouldn't have been an issue if the March agreement were the basis of discussion. But bringing it up now seems to me to open a whole can of worms. Given how long it has taken other leagues to negotiate these 'divisions of revenue', I don't see how MLB can wave a magic wand and have it done essentially in a few weeks. But if we want baseball, we best hope they can!
-
I saw Gretzky live only once--the night he scored his 800th goal.
-
Not sure what the owners agreed to today is going to work. They already agreed with the union in March that players would get a pro-rated portion of their salaries depending on games played. Now the owners are asking for a straight 50/50 split in revenues. Why should the players agree to this, esp. in a league where the owners have pretty consistently hidden or misrepresented what revenues are?
-
You've got that exactly right. And you also point out what MLB is using as a basic assumption: if states are opening up, then that means it's safe to play. But that assumption is ridiculous. The fact that a state opens up has nothing to do with the safety of play, since states are acting largely on political and economic considerations (and sometimes on baseless ideological ones). The end of June plan? ... well, it looks silly, but since MLB officials are still being paid, they are doing well to come up with multiple scenarios; maybe one of them will fit the rapidly changing future. MLB , sadly, has no idea what the situation will be even two weeks down the road. But if thinking we can have baseball by the end of June makes us feel good about things, then fine. Personally, I don't want my hopes dashed. I'm hoping rather we can have, say, football by spring 2021.
-
That's why I rarely play more than 9.
-
? You must hit pretty well! I say that after over half my rounds!"
