SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Bill James, Red Sox consultant, catches heat for comments
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 9, 2018 10:00:52 GMT -5
Of course the game is bigger than any individual player. Baseball will go on without Mookie Betts, and masonry will go one when the best bricklayer you ever met is gone. But his statement was in direct reference to players asking for money. This wasn't some conversation about the existential place of baseball and base ball men in the universe. It was "I don't think baseball players should ask for more money because the game will go on without them because no player is indispensible." That's why unionization was so important, not just in baseball, but in general: Because while no individual is bigger than the industry he works in, the players - the labor - are the game. And Bill James works for the team that has the best players. For him to pull the lucky-to-have-a-job baloney when he's on the same payroll of this group of players, the best assemblage of players in the 21st century, that's especially daft. But that's how negotiations go. I ask you for money, you say that's too much, we start some proxy wars. We could argue forever on how questionable it was for James to side with the owners, but again, he's not philosophically wrong to say what he said. The best you can do is say that he sounded like an a-hole, which he did. And anyway they tried replacement players that time in 1995 and it was REALLY unpopular and they got together and settled things and it took three years and a lot of steroids to get the fans all the way back. So yeah, if literally every player in the union was pushed out tomorrow there would be a pretty huge fallout and baseball would suffer for a long time. So would the players. And future players and a lot of them pretty much only have this option to escape poverty. I dislike that this conversation is always about the responsibility that owners or the teams or the SPORTS have in regards to the players, but never about the players among themselves. For an argument based on defending the economically weaker link in the relation, there sure is some "f*ck you, got mine" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Nov 9, 2018 10:11:39 GMT -5
I think his comments are being completely blown out of proportion first by the players association and now by players and others.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 9, 2018 10:15:56 GMT -5
I mean, he also came at beer vendors. Dude clearly has a problem with labor, the labor movement, and the rights of workers to their share of profits, which means I have a problem with him. And he is absolutely, 100% philosophically wrong. The owners are raking in hundreds of millions off the service the baseball players perform, but the players are the ones who are "lucky" and "replaceable?" Let's put it this way - if the Red Sox really decided all of their players were replaceable and swapped out the entire team, that Mookie Betts and Chris Sale and Rick Porcello and Xander Bogaerts are ungrateful jerks who should appreciate wearing the Red Sox uniform more, you'd be kind of pissed, right? Maybe you'd still follow them. A lot of people wouldn't, at least for awhile. Now, suppose John Henry sold the team tomorrow to another and the players stayed the same. Would anyone notice? Would anyone's enjoyment of the game be altered one iota? Who is the replaceable one here? The one James is arguing should get the higher share of money. The union has not done its duty sufficiently with regards to pre-arbitration players and even more notably minor league players. It's an argument worth having and one a lot of us have made many times. But it certainly isn't Bill James' point. Bill James was simply being a pro-billionaire dick. And it's absolutely inappropriate for someone in his position to be taking that position. If he wants to be a public iconoclast or however people want to defend him, he can do that off the Red Sox payroll. And future players and a lot of them pretty much only have this option to escape poverty. This is the best argument someone could make for baseball players being paid as much as possible, the union doing everything they can to ensure that, and the players who are the best at baseball (rather than only the ones who can afford to play baseball as a hobby or "internship") are the ones who get to play baseball. There's certainly no situation where being a baseball owner is an escape from poverty.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2018 10:31:44 GMT -5
I save my outrage for people who are actually struggling to survive, not for people who want $40 million instead of $35 million. These are the same people who spit on minor league players because they don't give a s*** about them. There are more groups than just owners vs. players. It's owners vs. the elite players actually being represented by the MLBPA vs. the minor league and MLB minimum players who are represented by no one. Choose your side wisely.
It reminds me when I was in a union in high school working part time, paying the same dues that the full time union members paid, while I got absolutely zero benefit from being in the union and they refused to represent me for grievances when I had my pay reduced for no reason. They'd get double time on holidays while I got a dollar more per hour.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,666
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 9, 2018 10:50:12 GMT -5
I save my outrage for people who are actually struggling to survive, not for people who want $40 million instead of $35 million. These are the same people who spit on minor league players because they don't give a s*** about them. There are more groups than just owners vs. players. It's owners vs. the elite players actually being represented by the MLBPA vs. the minor league and MLB minimum players who are represented by no one. Choose your side wisely. It reminds me when I was in a union in high school working part time, paying the same dues that the full time union members paid, while I got absolutely zero benefit from being in the union and they refused to represent me for grievances when I had my pay reduced for no reason. They'd get double time on holidays while I got a dollar more per hour. I don't disagree with anything you say in essence. I just think it was totally a dumb tone deaf thing to say. Did the team he "consults" for not just win a world championship due to players playing like a team that cared about each other and played selflessly - for example Eovaldi as a pending free agent not caring if he goes out and wrecks his arm - all about winning the championship? Yeah, if all the players retired tomorrow eventually the best high school and collegiate talent would finally graduate to the point where they could play major league caliber baseball - maybe in those three years or perhaps it would take longer. But what's the point of this? And why be snarky about it the way he was? The players as they are now are NOT easily replaceable. It just sends such a poor unnecessary message, especially from a team that benefitted from players who played as a team - I still have trouble believing the individual talent equaled the record that they put forth - I definitely think it was a case of the team being greater than the sum of the parts, and that's a huge compliment to players who gave everything they had and then some. One days their skills will inevitably decline to where they are replaceable - that happens to everybody in all walks of life, but that doesn't make anybody any less valuable and I think that's where it looks like he's crapping on the players. Because right now those guys are the most skilled and talented players in the world and that's why they make the most money. It would be nice if they shared the scraps with the aspiring next generation in the minors but there is a line of who makes it and who doesn't and I think there's a sense of if you don't have the talent to make it the way I did why should you get the same benefits? I understand that line of thinking, but I don't really agree with it, but I think that's what's going on and I do hope it changes soon.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 9, 2018 10:50:18 GMT -5
This is the best argument someone could make for baseball players being paid as much as possible, the union doing everything they can to ensure that, and the players who are the best at baseball (rather than only the ones who can afford to play baseball as a hobby or "internship") are the ones who get to play baseball. There's certainly no situation where being a baseball owner is an escape from poverty. Yes, and that's why the situation should not get to the extreme position that James mentioned. It takes two to tango, if it ever got to that point it would mean the union f*cked up as much as the owners. You're clearly agitated by James sharing those sentiments, but apparently you're rejecting the possibility he said that due to a perception of the union overplaying its hand and how the subsequent snowball effect would be at least partially on them. Not saying that's happening or happened, but let's not ignore context. I save my outrage for people who are actually struggling to survive, not for people who want $40 million instead of $35 million. These are the same people who spit on minor league players because they don't give a s*** about them. There are more groups than just owners vs. players. It's owners vs. the elite players actually being represented by the MLBPA vs. the minor league and MLB minimum players who are represented by no one. Choose your side wisely. This is much more eloquently said than I managed to do myself, but it's exactly how I view this. People thinking that the MLBPA are badass rebels who are sticking it to the man are really misguided.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2018 10:54:56 GMT -5
I save my outrage for people who are actually struggling to survive, not for people who want $40 million instead of $35 million. These are the same people who spit on minor league players because they don't give a s*** about them. There are more groups than just owners vs. players. It's owners vs. the elite players actually being represented by the MLBPA vs. the minor league and MLB minimum players who are represented by no one. Choose your side wisely. It reminds me when I was in a union in high school working part time, paying the same dues that the full time union members paid, while I got absolutely zero benefit from being in the union and they refused to represent me for grievances when I had my pay reduced for no reason. They'd get double time on holidays while I got a dollar more per hour. I don't disagree with anything you say in essence. I just think it was totally a dumb tone deaf thing to say. Did the team he "consults" for not just win a world championship due to players playing like a team that cared about each other and played selflessly - for example Eovaldi as a pending free agent not caring if he goes out and wrecks his arm - all about winning the championship? Yeah, if all the players retired tomorrow eventually the best high school and collegiate talent would finally graduate to the point where they could play major league caliber baseball - maybe in those three years or perhaps it would take longer. But what's the point of this? And why be snarky about it the way he was? The players as they are now are NOT easily replaceable. It just sends such a poor unnecessary message, especially from a team that benefitted from players who played as a team - I still have trouble believing the individual talent equaled the record that they put forth - I definitely think it was a case of the team being greater than the sum of the parts, and that's a huge compliment to players who gave everything they had and then some. One days their skills will inevitably decline to where they are replaceable - that happens to everybody in all walks of life, but that doesn't make anybody any less valuable and I think that's where it looks like he's crapping on the players. Because right now those guys are the most skilled and talented players in the world and that's why they make the most money. It would be nice if they shared the scraps with the aspiring next generation in the minors but there is a line of who makes it and who doesn't and I think there's a sense of if you don't have the talent to make it the way I did why should you get the same benefits? I understand that line of thinking, but I don't really agree with it, but I think that's what's going on and I do hope it changes soon. Do you actually believe that damage was done? The team with by far the highest payroll in baseball will no longer be a desirable place to play? The team paying players more than any other team, which is what the players want more than anything else? I mean think about it. Poorly chosen words by some guy barely associated with the Red Sox does not say more than the actual dollars being paid to the players.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,666
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 9, 2018 11:31:30 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you say in essence. I just think it was totally a dumb tone deaf thing to say. Did the team he "consults" for not just win a world championship due to players playing like a team that cared about each other and played selflessly - for example Eovaldi as a pending free agent not caring if he goes out and wrecks his arm - all about winning the championship? Yeah, if all the players retired tomorrow eventually the best high school and collegiate talent would finally graduate to the point where they could play major league caliber baseball - maybe in those three years or perhaps it would take longer. But what's the point of this? And why be snarky about it the way he was? The players as they are now are NOT easily replaceable. It just sends such a poor unnecessary message, especially from a team that benefitted from players who played as a team - I still have trouble believing the individual talent equaled the record that they put forth - I definitely think it was a case of the team being greater than the sum of the parts, and that's a huge compliment to players who gave everything they had and then some. One days their skills will inevitably decline to where they are replaceable - that happens to everybody in all walks of life, but that doesn't make anybody any less valuable and I think that's where it looks like he's crapping on the players. Because right now those guys are the most skilled and talented players in the world and that's why they make the most money. It would be nice if they shared the scraps with the aspiring next generation in the minors but there is a line of who makes it and who doesn't and I think there's a sense of if you don't have the talent to make it the way I did why should you get the same benefits? I understand that line of thinking, but I don't really agree with it, but I think that's what's going on and I do hope it changes soon. Do you actually believe that damage was done? The team with by far the highest payroll in baseball will no longer be a desirable place to play? The team paying players more than any other team, which is what the players want more than anything else? I mean think about it. Poorly chosen words by some guy barely associated with the Red Sox does not say more than the actual dollars being paid to the players. It's a bad look. It's good how the Sox distanced themselves from that remark. They needed to. No sense in the Red Sox being associated as somebody "insulting" the players. It's unnecessary bad PR. It's not about the team paying the players more as much as it is about the current players already under contract probably wondering "Is this how management really feels about us?" It comes off as insulting. I'm glad the Sox put out the release they put out. They had to. They have to make it clear that Bill James doesn't represent their views that they're just fungible assets and not hard working human beings who are the best in the world at what they do and put their bodies on the line. Right now those guys think to themselves, "We just won 119 games. We're not that easily replaceable". If he said things in a less confrontational manner it wouldn't have been as damaging but the way he said it was confrontational and it turns into a labor vs mgmt. type of thing. Just so we're clear when they have their next strike, which I think will be around 2022 - and they're heading that way, I don't think I'm going to cry for the ballplayers or the owners. The fact of the matter is that they have a huge piece of pie to slice up and there's no real reason why they can't find an equitable way to do it. I think there will be plenty of squabbling, and like you said, some offshoot wars such as players vs minor leaguers, small market owners versus large market owners in addition to the owner versus player war.
|
|
|
Post by lostinnj on Nov 9, 2018 12:26:56 GMT -5
In one of his Abstracts, James seemed to support high player salaries. He said basically that he'd prefer to see baseball money in the hands of players rather than owners because at least players will do something with it, like spend it, and so give a little boost to the economy. I don't know if his thoughts have evolved since then, or if his being in the employ of a team has caused him to reassess. But once upon a time, it looked like he was on the labor side of this divide.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 9, 2018 15:29:16 GMT -5
Getting confused with the James comments, especially considering there is a James commenting on Bill James on here lol.
I think Tony Clark is the biggest goof for coming out and defending himself here. Like James Dunn pointed out, the players association agreed to the worst deals ever in their last agreement in the CBA. They also agreed to give 5 million dollar caps to minor league international free agents and caps to player drafts in baseball.
The players union should be embarrassed about the way that they have been manhandled the past ten years by the owners.
Everything Bill James has said when it comes to his comments is just stupid and unnecessary.
Is baseball a pure and simple game?
Yeap.
Is a pure game headed by a union full of the most talented players in the world really that simple?
Nope.
That's where the argument ends and where Bill James is completely wrong about everything. It would be a awful and unwatchable product without them. They are the product.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2018 15:42:26 GMT -5
Getting confused with the James comments, especially considering there is a James commenting on Bill James on here lol. I think Tony Clark is the biggest goof for coming out and defending himself here. Like James Dunn pointed out, the players association agreed to the worst deals ever in their last agreement in the CBA. They also agreed to give 5 million dollar caps to minor league international free agents and caps to player drafts in baseball. The players union should be embarrassed about the way that they have been manhandled the past ten years by the owners. Everything Bill James has said when it comes to his comments is just stupid and unnecessary. Is baseball a pure and simple game? Yeap. Is a pure game headed by a union full of the most talented players in the world really that simple? Nope. That's where the argument ends and where Bill James is completely wrong about everything. It would be a awful and unwatchable product without them. They are the product. You can speak for yourself, but I will watch any baseball anywhere with any players playing. I love the sport, not only watching athletic freaks of nature doing things that I can't dream of. I imagine there are lot of others that think like me. I love the sport the same way Bill Lee does, who is still playing at the age of 71 after playing about twice as long for free as he was in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 9, 2018 15:55:01 GMT -5
Getting confused with the James comments, especially considering there is a James commenting on Bill James on here lol. I think Tony Clark is the biggest goof for coming out and defending himself here. Like James Dunn pointed out, the players association agreed to the worst deals ever in their last agreement in the CBA. They also agreed to give 5 million dollar caps to minor league international free agents and caps to player drafts in baseball. The players union should be embarrassed about the way that they have been manhandled the past ten years by the owners. Everything Bill James has said when it comes to his comments is just stupid and unnecessary. Is baseball a pure and simple game? Yeap. Is a pure game headed by a union full of the most talented players in the world really that simple? Nope. That's where the argument ends and where Bill James is completely wrong about everything. It would be a awful and unwatchable product without them. They are the product. You can speak for yourself, but I will watch any baseball anywhere with any players playing. I love the sport, not only watching athletic freaks of nature doing things that I can't dream of. I imagine there are lot of others that think like me. I love the sport the same way Bill Lee does, who is still playing at the age of 71 after playing about twice as long for free as he was in the majors. I do speak for myself. I want to watch the best of the best play. It's all about entertainment. If the best aren't playing, there is no sense of me watching. I love baseball, but you can't pay me to sit and watch a ballgame that has lesser talent involved with it. I hate watching errors. I hate watching mistakes. I expect these plays to be made by professionals. I can sit through a game that my nephew plays if he's enjoying it for example because of emotional attachment, but not much beyond that. The game is getting longer and longer these days and it's hard sitting through a 162 game season as it is with my favorite sports team in the Boston Red Sox. Don't spit in my face and take away the talent they have ontop of it. If you want me to grind through that 162 game season with you as a diehard loyalist, then give me the best you have, even if you punted that season because of a reset or a rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 9, 2018 15:56:07 GMT -5
Twitter, you get roasted for speaking the truth. It's difficult but it's the truth. If there was a baseball strike, the owners would replace the players, the game would go on.“If the players all retired tomorrow, we would replace them, the game would go on; in three years it would make no difference whatsoever. The players are NOT the game, any more than the beer vendors are.”
If there was a baseball strike, and the players never came back but were instead just replaced by the next 750 best players in the world, I don't think that the game would necessarily survive that, and even if it did, it would be a shadow of it's former self for at least a generation and maybe forever. The game is not bigger than the players. The game is just a set of rules on paper, it's only worth anything to the extent that you can get a compelling group of athletes to play it. There's a reason that actual baseball is much more popular than Stratomatic.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by gerry on Nov 9, 2018 16:53:21 GMT -5
Twitter, you get roasted for speaking the truth. It's difficult but it's the truth. If there was a baseball strike, the owners would replace the players, the game would go on.“If the players all retired tomorrow, we would replace them, the game would go on; in three years it would make no difference whatsoever. The players are NOT the game, any more than the beer vendors are.”
If there was a baseball strike, and the players never came back but were instead just replaced by the next 750 best players in the world, I don't think that the game would necessarily survive that, and even if it did, it would be a shadow of it's former self for at least a generation and maybe forever. The game is not bigger than the players. The game is just a set of rules on paper, it's only worth anything to the extent that you can get a compelling group of athletes to play it. There's a reason that actual baseball is much more popular than Stratomatic. I think forever is too long. The infra-structure of pro baseball would remain in place: stadii, some type of ownership, coaches, minor leagues, equipment suppliers, food and deink vendors, some advertizers, history, HOF, awards, and a client base of homers like myself, as well international leagues, college, high school, entry level and other programs, traditions and rule books. Within this structure, the next great 750 players would be the best from the 60+ existing AAA and AA minor league teams, independent and international leagues, who would finish maturing in the Majors, which would only take a few years. Within those years, the best of today’s A-leagues, college and other programs would be getting ready for their MLB debuts. In ten years, today’s younger teenagers would look at a devasting lockout or strike as merely another asterisk, albeit a giant one, in the record books and be on the verge of selling out home parks. I agree that curmudgeon Bill James mis-spoke, and his timing was awful. I don’t know if he attacked the wages of MLB players, which would be out of character from him, or was merely reacting to Boras’ incessant whining campaign to pay $40M to Harper and Machado which, with this cap, would come at the expense of entire teams not getting equitable pay. I would agree with Bill on that, favoring better pay from the minors thru arb years. This Union has crapped the bed. BTW, I have to agree with JimEd that any kind of baseball is worth watching, at every level. Anyone who has coached from T-Ball to high school learns to enjoy the process of players learning the game, making mistakes and learning from them and learning to laugh at oneself, the joy of it, and of identifying and improving tools and skill sets has learned to love THE game. College and minor league ball, in this context, can be as enjoyable as elite performance (and their mistakes and their humor) by the best 750 in the world. So, we may be moving towards paying minor leaguers and young major leaguers appropriately, expanding MLB budgets, and laughing at Boras, all at the same time. A good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 9, 2018 21:45:18 GMT -5
Let's get down to the nut. I would only ask posters to tell us what they feel a reasonable share of the profits from MLB would be for the players. I'm good with all that talent getting 50%. That means a big pile for the owners.
How about you?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 9, 2018 21:52:05 GMT -5
Let's get down to the nut. I would only posters to tell us what they feel a reasonable share of the profits from MLB would be for the players. I'm good with all that talent getting 50%. That means a big pile for the owners. How about you? 55%-57% of the total revenue. The owners can take the rest and figure out how to make a profit
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Nov 10, 2018 20:13:52 GMT -5
Let's get down to the nut. I would only ask posters to tell us what they feel a reasonable share of the profits from MLB would be for the players. I'm good with all that talent getting 50%. That means a big pile for the owners. How about you? 60% for players. While I support most Boston teams, I will not buy tickets for inferior products on the field. You have to hit ownership in the wallet if they try to skate by skimping on fielding an inferior team.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 10, 2018 20:57:34 GMT -5
I save my outrage for people who are actually struggling to survive, not for people who want $40 million instead of $35 million. These are the same people who spit on minor league players because they don't give a s*** about them. There are more groups than just owners vs. players. It's owners vs. the elite players actually being represented by the MLBPA vs. the minor league and MLB minimum players who are represented by no one. Choose your side wisely. It reminds me when I was in a union in high school working part time, paying the same dues that the full time union members paid, while I got absolutely zero benefit from being in the union and they refused to represent me for grievances when I had my pay reduced for no reason. They'd get double time on holidays while I got a dollar more per hour. I think you're getting way more upset about an "outrage" that doesn't even really exist than anyone reacting the what James said is. I don't think many people are crying and pounding their fists on the table about it, just acknowledging that it was a pretty dumb and wrong thing to say.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 10, 2018 22:19:30 GMT -5
Let's get down to the nut. I would only ask posters to tell us what they feel a reasonable share of the profits from MLB would be for the players. I'm good with all that talent getting 50%. That means a big pile for the owners. How about you? Players 70%/Beer Vendors 30%.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 10, 2018 23:37:03 GMT -5
Let's get down to the nut. I would only ask posters to tell us what they feel a reasonable share of the profits from MLB would be for the players. I'm good with all that talent getting 50%. That means a big pile for the owners. How about you? It's a business, whatever is enough for the owners to turn out an okay profit for their capital risk is fine by me. I'm more interested in how to balance out the players salaries and work out better conditions for minor leaguers. Are people comfortable with that commitment coming 50% from the top players and 50% from the owners?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 11, 2018 3:23:22 GMT -5
I think the minor leaguers have to be part of any agreement. Even if you assume 200 players at $50K each, that's $10 million, chump change for the owners.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 11, 2018 11:28:11 GMT -5
I think the minor leaguers have to be part of any agreement. Even if you assume 200 players at $50K each, that's $10 million, chump change for the owners. They need to be part of the equation. But sadly, as it is, you have one side fighting for better pay for the top players, 10% of the 1%, and the other fighting for random businessmen in a vague conceptual debate. Like everything in life where there is a clear political position to be taken, people rush to do so in the most superficial way possible.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofrussgibson on Nov 11, 2018 12:35:48 GMT -5
I've read all the comments on this thread and withheld my comment until now. I don't live near enough to MLB to attend - and if I did, I suspect I'd only be able to afford a handful of games a year. So I catch games on TV and 'root for the flannel.' The days of a player staying with the same team for 15 years is pretty much gone. Everyone - in every company - is replaceable, for a variety of reasons. People are too ready to get butt-hurt these days. James was correct, in my view. Frankly, one of the problems with tweets/texts/emails is that intent can't be as clearly determined, since you aren't able to see someone's body language or tone of voice. Players change teams from year to year... it's the 'team' we follow. We may not be happy that xxx got traded or wasn't signed, but we love the game... the team, etc. Personally, I'd like to see more teams dump high priced players for cheaper, hungrier, controllable talent. The players union should focus more on the young players and - not sure how it would happen - the minor leaguers. I love watching the W-S Dash games (High A). Oh well...
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 11, 2018 13:29:40 GMT -5
I've read all the comments on this thread and withheld my comment until now. I don't live near enough to MLB to attend - and if I did, I suspect I'd only be able to afford a handful of games a year. So I catch games on TV and 'root for the flannel.' The days of a player staying with the same team for 15 years is pretty much gone. Everyone - in every company - is replaceable, for a variety of reasons. People are too ready to get butt-hurt these days. James was correct, in my view. Frankly, one of the problems with tweets/texts/emails is that intent can't be as clearly determined, since you aren't able to see someone's body language or tone of voice. Players change teams from year to year... it's the 'team' we follow. We may not be happy that xxx got traded or wasn't signed, but we love the game... the team, etc. Personally, I'd like to see more teams dump high priced players for cheaper, hungrier, controllable talent. The players union should focus more on the young players and - not sure how it would happen - the minor leaguers. I love watching the W-S Dash games (High A). Oh well... First of all, there are different levels of replaceable. If the Red Sox traded JBJ I'd be bummed, sure, but if the return was Mike Trout I think I'd be pretty alright with it. James' point was that the players aren't a relatively important part of the game, which is just absurd. His idea that there is no difference between players and concession workers are what I think people are critical of. Second, you and some others that have commented have this weird idea that people are hurt about what he said, which is hilariously misguided to me. There's a difference between being upset and calling out an idiot for being an idiot. Also, you should run an MLB team with your revelatory idea of trading high cost guys for younger, cheaper talent. Not sure why the Sox cut Hanley when they could've just traded him for Juan Soto or Shohei Ohtani.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 8, 2019 0:24:09 GMT -5
"All of the baseball players are replaceable" didn't end up being even close to the dumbest and least timely thing he decided to say this offseason, and I feel like you all should have joined me in dragging him when you had the chance. But you missed your chance and I'm not letting you on the bus.
|
|
|