Kimmi
-
Posts
27,858 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
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 Kimmi
-
I have heard a lot of stories about medical workers or front line workers who either sleep in their cars or in their garages because they are afraid of infecting their families. I heard of a grocery store clerk who is a high school senior who moved out from his parents' house and hasn't seen them in months because one of his parents is high risk. I heard a story of a nurse who quit her paid position at a hospital in her hometown, moved to NYC, has been living out of a hotel, and is volunteering there for a couple of months to help out NYC with their overwhelming number of hospitalizations. She is not getting paid, and she has not seen her kids in 2 months. The stories like these go on and on and on. Blake Snell needs to get a clue.
-
Also, baseball players 'working conditions' will be 100 times safer than those working the front lines.
-
I'm calling BS on that statement. If he is that concerned about the health risks, then he should simply say that he's not willing to play because he doesn't want to take the risks. Period. Making it about money is just a terrible look. Let me clarify my position here. I'm not opposed to the players getting the money over the owners. I'm not opposed to the owners wanting to split the revenues. Frankly, I don't really care who gets the money. As I said, they should all donate it to people who really need it. What I'm opposed to is the players and the owners (millionaires and billionaires) bickering over money when other people can't afford food for their families.
-
But let's complain about only making $2.5 mil for 4 months of work, while sitting in our million dollar mansion with all of the conveniences that money can buy.
-
As Palmer noted in his email subject, the argument over money is petty. It would be really great if all the players would donate their unneeded 2020 salaries to front line workers, food banks, etc., the people who really need it. Yes, this is a one time compromise in unusual times. Owners are not trying to make this an ongoing thing. I'm not excusing owners either. They need to be willing to compromise also.
-
I don't hate players. I do not have any sympathy for any millionaires complaining about having to take a cut in pay when there are so many people who can't even afford food, not to mention the number of people dying and all of the other things that people are dealing with. These guys don't even need the money. Seniors care about senior prom.
-
I get that. The additional 33% cut would be from revenue sharing.
-
Also, Blake Snell: "No, I'm not splitting no revenue," 'I'm risking my life' Poor guy. If he has to take a 50% cut for only playing half the season, then take an additional 33% cut, he will only make roughly $2.5 mil this year before taxes, for approximately 4 months worth of work.
-
From Jim Palmer in an email (Subject: Pettiness) to Shaughnessy: "The players union just will never get it. People dying, out of work, can’t pay their mortgage, no Senior proms, MLB abbreviated draft to disrupt lifelong dreams, and people need a diversion, and Tony Clark doesn’t want to set a precedent! Full pay for games with no fans! The players know it’s all about revenue — less $, less pay and be glad you have a job. Otherwise, stay home and drive your wife crazy!'' Spot on Palmer.
-
Fair enough. We all just need something baseball related to talk about.
-
On a relatively cheap contract too!
-
Fair points. As I said, I can see both sides of this coin. Sports should not just be all about winning or who is the best player. There are a lot of players that fly under the radar who are just as important to a team as the guy who scores the most touchdowns, for instance. There's something to be said for being the player who gets has the most hustle or the player who always shows up to every practice and every game.
-
I can see both sides of the "participation awards" argument. I know how much getting a trophy meant to my kids when they first starting playing sports, and I know how disappointed and hurt they would have been if they had not received one. So, I'm glad my kids got their trophies. OTOH, is learning how to deal with that disappointment a good life lesson, along with several other life lessons? Absolutely. Perhaps participation awards for the really young kids but not the older kids? I don't know. And I don't know what the age cut off should be.
-
I can't see JD getting a better deal than the one he currently has, especially with the financial hit that owners will be taking this year. JD might be better off playing out the 2 years of the current contract and hoping the market rebounds somewhat by the time he is a free agent again.
-
I agree. Besides, why would the Sox want to trade away one of their best players when they will need him in the playoffs?
-
Here is something posted by someone at another site: "I've read in at least two different places that the agreement was predicated on playing in front of fans.* And, if the games were played off-site, or without fans, both sides were obligated to make a good-faith effort at a new deal." I didn't pay that close attention to the previous deal made. But if this is true, then the owners have every right to try to renegotiate the terms of payment. No fans makes a huge difference.
-
I think the return of sports, even without fans, will be good for our country
-
I understand that. I just don't think it's a good look for either side (billionaires vs millionaires, as one writer put it) to be arguing over money, considering how bad off many people are financially.
-
I would not put it past the owners to have a couple of ulterior motives in letting this play out in the media.
-
As I said previously, the owners need to be willing to compromise as well.
-
I'm not trying to defend owners because I think they need to compromise as well, but to me, players are coming across as selfish and entitled, at a time when there are so many people who are struggling just to eat. It's not like they need the money. I understand that baseball is not like other companies, but when other companies take losses, employees get laid off. It wouldn't hurt the players one bit to take a pay cut for half a season's worth of play.
-
The proposed playoff format is a total joke ....
Kimmi replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
The good news is, there will be a universal DH! This is one change being implemented in this proposed shortened season that I hope sticks permanently. -
This certainly does not give the players a good look, fair or not. As far as this being a salary cap, perhaps it is, but it's only for this unprecedented shortened season. It's not like it's a permanent change. As I and others have said before, both sides have to be willing to compromise.
-
Exactly Adam. Everyone has to be willing to take some of the loss.
-
I disagree with either side putting up a stink. Both sides should be more open to compromise. I'm not excusing the owners, but IMO, if a player does't want to play, let him sit out and lose his salary for this season. I'm sure there is another player willing to take his place. I just have little sympathy for millionaires sitting in their mansions with every modern convenience still available to them complaining about money and the sacrifices they have to make when there are other people who are risking their lives every day in order to keep food on their tables. Now, I am in no way saying that the players should play if it's not safe. I'm just saying that they should quit arguing about money.
