Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    What gives Boston fans a license to have no patience with players? Do forum posters want to be first in line to go up to the top of the Forum Hill and shout out to us that Player X is having a poor April and should leave town immediately? In my book that is not how fans should act. Fans should never feel entitled that a player should be an immediate All Star if he is payed as such. That is feeling entitled and is selfish and juvenile. We are fans and not stockholders. If players live up to expectations then that is good but if they don't then who gave you a guarantee. A high payroll is no guarantee of success. If it was then wouldn't being a fan be boring. If payroll was a guarantee of success then we should all root for the Yankees if we desire guaranteed success.

    You buy a ticket or pay for cable for entertainment and you are not being guaranteed a win or a pennant. If looking at salaries distorts your enjoyment of being a fan then you need to forget about salaries. Do you compare the salaries of actors when you watch a good movie or TV show? Should a performance by House be ten times better than another actor casted in that show? Do we know if the Fat Lady in the Opera gets the top salary, do we care?    Should a trumpet player be higher paid more than the tuba player?                               
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    Spike, I don't know what's gotten into you lately, but starting a thread is the first step to sobriety. Congratulations!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]Spike, I don't know what's gotten into you lately, but starting a thread is the first step to sobriety. Congratulations!
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I have my first drink today in my hand right now. I think that you are right that I should start more threads and I would like them to be about Red Sox history and memories. They may not be popular and many will find them boring but I will bump them up for a few days. I have noticed that many here like myself are oldtimers and maybe they have a desire or inclination to rehash the old days of the 1950s and 1960s. If bumping doesn't work then perhaps BDC will consider having a seperate forum for Red Sox history or nostalgia. I loved those years even though we were always bridesmaids to the Yankees. I would gladly leave this forum if such an alternative was available.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]What gives Boston fans a license to have no patience with players? Do forum posters want to be first in line to go up to the top of the Forum Hill and shout out to us that Player X is having a poor April and should leave town immediately? In my book that is not how fans should act. Fans should never feel entitled that a player should be an immediate All Star if he is payed as such. That is feeling entitled and is selfish and juvenile. We are fans and not stockholders. If players live up to expectations then that is good but if they don't then who gave you a guarantee. A high payroll is no guarantee of success. If it was then wouldn't being a fan be boring. If payroll was a guarantee of success then we should all root for the Yankees if we desire guaranteed success. You buy a ticket or pay for cable for entertainment and you are not being guaranteed a win or a pennant. If looking at salaries distorts your enjoyment of being a fan then you need to forget about salaries. Do you compare the salaries of actors when you watch a good movie or TV show? Should a performance by House be ten times better than another actor casted in that show? Do we know if the Fat Lady in the Opera gets the top salary, do we care?    Should a trumpet player be higher paid more than the tuba player?                               
    Posted by PawsoxPhil[/QUOTE]

     Thanks for posting this Phil, some interesting takes on things, and I must say I'm in disagreement with some of them. The April slump for example, after all the hot stove action and some promises in Spring training, it's a real downer to see some player stinkin up the joint, and that's when fear sets in, that perhaps this guy just might not be the answer. Is CC ever going to live up to his past performances? Or is he just the newer version of JD Drew?
     You're right about us being fans and not stockholders, although the emphasis should be turned around, we are more than stockholders, who care only about the bottom line. If a stock's not doing well, you sell it and cut your losses, I can't sell a lifetime of memories, good and bad and move on. You don't sell Fisk, Carbo, Yaz, Big Papi and Dave Roberts for a new IPO.
     The money a  guy gets, buys him whatever he might desire, but it also also buys EXPECTATIONS. To re-sign David Ortiz is to BELIEVE that the ball will keep landing beyond the outfield walls, and Ortiz will demand a lot of money, and I'll demand a lot of performance, if it wasn't that way then JD Drew ought to be re-signed too.
     I don't pay attention to what any actor makes, but I do expect a great movie from Johnnie Depp, and he gets paid accordingly, even if I don't keep track (he apparently makes $50M per year).
     My license to complain or criticze comes from a lifetime of caring, reading, seeing and paying for this team. So I really think that these things matter to everyone, except maybe the pink hatters of the world.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    Our parents and grandparents would collectively devote only a tiny fraction of the economy to a game such as baseball. Directly or indirectly, consciously or subconsciously, we're directing more of our financial resources to sports entertainment.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan? :  Thanks for posting this Phil, some interesting takes on things, and I must say I'm in disagreement with some of them. The April slump for example, after all the hot stove action and some promises in Spring training, it's a real downer to see some player stinkin up the joint, and that's when fear sets in, that perhaps this guy just might not be the answer. Is CC ever going to live up to his past performances? Or is he just the newer version of JD Drew?  You're right about us being fans and not stockholders, although the emphasis should be turned around, we are more than stockholders, who care only about the bottom line. If a stock's not doing well, you sell it and cut your losses, I can't sell a lifetime of memories, good and bad and move on. You don't sell Fisk, Carbo, Yaz, Big Papi and Dave Roberts for a new IPO.  The money a  guy gets, buys him whatever he might desire, but it also also buys EXPECTATIONS. To re-sign David Ortiz is to BELIEVE that the ball will keep landing beyond the outfield walls, and Ortiz will demand a lot of money, and I'll demand a lot of performance, if it wasn't that way then JD Drew ought to be re-signed too.  I don't pay attention to what any actor makes, but I do expect a great movie from Johnnie Depp, and he gets paid accordingly, even if I don't keep track (he apparently makes $50M per year).  My license to complain or criticze comes from a lifetime of caring, reading, seeing and paying for this team. So I really think that these things matter to everyone, except maybe the pink hatters of the world.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    Good response but you never responded to the lack of patience that many exhibit.  Some came in here and admitt that they had egg on their faces regarding Pedroia Papi, and Salty but you could count them on one hand. It would be nice if they just admitted that they root that way - without patience, reason, and reflection - instead they need to be impulsive, impatient, and headstrong. It is difficult for an owner to do day trading with a 20 mil. per yr. contract. It isn't a poker game where you can change your hand every ten minutes. Sometimes such as with Drew or Manny, you are stuck and can't call up your broker and take a loss and bail out. That is why we hung onto those players for so long. Expectations in stocks are hoped for also and there is no guarantee that the stock will rise despite what your broker promised you or what you paid for the stock. Wall Steet gives you no guarantee and you should not feel entitled despite the risks or outlay. It's a crapshoot to buy a stock or a ballplayer. No rose garden is guaranteed.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]Our parents and grandparents would collectively devote only a tiny fraction of the economy to a game such as baseball. Directly or indirectly, consciously or subconsciously, we're directing more of our financial resources to sports entertainment.
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]
     In the 1940's one out of every four Americans lived on a farm, specialization has given all of us more freedom from the time burden of ecking out basic survival, and that freedom has given us the explosion in the spectator sports and entertainment.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    not a bad question - i try not to let a players contract get in my way of judging him...as i stated about a dozen times before (and just referenced sort of by Hill) that they are all overpaid...i had to work 20 years to reach a million dollars in gross earnings...i dont want to hear about any player who is whining about being underpaid...

    still it is hard not to mention a player like JD who seems to be mailing it in now that he's been paid his full contract...

    and from a GM perspective signing a player like CC for 140 mil has got to have some serious impact on future moves....

    but overall Pike, I would say NO, IT DOESNT AFFECT MY ENJOYMENT OR OPINIONS...keep up the good work...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    Baseball is entertainment and entertainment is a human need and it has become a very expensive commodity.  How it got so expensive I will leave to the economists and sociologists.  YOUKILLUS20 seems to have a good grasp of that area.

    Carl Crawford's salary is ridiculous by any measure.  His performance this year merits criticism.  But you have to balance it with reasoning of the situation.  He's not out there trying to suk.

    Players even say, the paying customers are entitled to boo. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]not a bad question - i try not to let a players contract get in my way of judging him...as i stated about a dozen times before (and just referenced sort of by Hill) that they are all overpaid...i had to work 20 years to reach a million dollars in gross earnings...i dont want to hear about any player who is whining about being underpaid... still it is hard not to mention a player like JD who seems to be mailing it in now that he's been paid his full contract... and from a GM perspective signing a player like CC for 140 mil has got to have some serious impact on future moves.... but overall Pike, I would say NO, IT DOESNT AFFECT MY ENJOYMENT OR OPINIONS...keep up the good work...
    Posted by georom4[/QUOTE]

     Here's a bunch of double speak, if it doesn't affect your enjoyment, it surely has to affect your opinions. Lackey's contributions have no relativity until they are contrasted to his salary, and after that exercise, you then form an opinion of whether or not it was wise to invest in him. Strip away the contracts and CC is Mr. Baseball, and JD Drew is the Messiah. The money matters.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    Certainly the relation of performance to earnings affects your opinion.  Wakefield is going to get better reviews for posting a 5 ERA than Lackey would.  Wake is only making 2 million so he's a 'team-friendly asset'.  Aceves is only making 650K.  For that price, and what he's doing this year, people have to love him.

    Meanwhile if you're CC Sabathia making 23 million you better be damn good.  And he has been.

    Pedro was making a huge salary at the time of 12.5 million per.  But he was earning it and then some.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    jesus, if you think about it, Pedro was well underpaid.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    "What can't I do with $40 million that I could do with $100 million? At some point, you have to stop and say, 'Listen, I'm a regular human being.' Do I need a Bentley? Absolutely not. I don't care about those kinds of things. But does this set my family and my kids up forever? Absolutely."~~Dustin Pedroia

    If more players thought like this, we might not have to have threads about expecting near perfection from players making huge amounts of money..I think Its only natural to hold guys like A-Rod, both CC's or Gonzo to a higher standard. If the players think they are worth that kind of cash and the owner is willing to dish it out, thats their business. But they WILL be held to a higher standard..It is what it is.. Dustin loves this game and has no pressure to live up to a giant contract..But hes still a multi-millionaire that can pretty much have whatever he wants and take care of his family. Oh, and he's one of the BEST all around ball players/2b in the game today IMO..
    Does it ruin my enjoyment of the game as a fan? No..I understand that part of the game..When that first pitch is thrown none of that matters to me..I just want the team to win..
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]Baseball is entertainment and entertainment is a human needand it has become a very expensive commodity.  How it got so expensive I will leave to the economists and sociologists.  YOUKILLUS20 seems to have a good grasp of that area. Carl Crawford's salary is ridiculous by any measure.  His performance this year merits criticism.  But you have to balance it with reasoning of the situation.  He's not out there trying to suk. Players even say, the paying customers are entitled to boo. 
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    No. Entertainment is not a human need.
    Water and food and shelter are human needs.

    We desire entertainment, but we can surely live without it.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    it's human want, harness, and CC was Theo/Sox organization want...not need. Thank you for clearing that up.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan? : No. Entertainment is not a human need. Water and food and shelter are human needs. We desire entertainment, but we can surely live without it.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Sure you can live without it physically.  I would argue that for most people it's a psychological need.  
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from theYAZZER. Show theYAZZER's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    i think pawsoxphil is an aka for either theo epstein or peter abraham.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pschuller. Show pschuller's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    Now THIS is a good discussion, initiated by a thought provoking original post. Pawsoxphil, Youkillus20, and Southpaw77 all make excellent points, but I agree most with the insightful comment by Southpaw77 that essentially Petey (my favorite Sox BTW) has the healthiest approach, both for himself/his family and the game of baseball/RS organization. I don't know whether it occurred to Petey at the time he made up his mind to accept what he thought was fair and stay with the team he loves, without "testing" FA, but I totally agree with Southpaw77 that he essentially "earned" the right to be held to a lesser standard than all those who go out seeking the highest dollar deals, even though (ironically) he could meet the highest standards anyone wanted to set. You can't have your cake and eat it in this world--you hire a jerk agent and go after the highest contract, you are going to be scrutinized more closely, just as any high dollar hedge fund manager or CEO would be.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    m
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    m
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    m
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]Now THIS is a good discussion, initiated by a thought provoking original post. Pawsoxphil, Youkillus20, and Southpaw77 all make excellent points, but I agree most with the insightful comment by Southpaw77 that essentially Petey (my favorite Sox BTW) has the healthiest approach, both for himself/his family and the game of baseball/RS organization. I don't know whether it occurred to Petey at the time he made up his mind to accept what he thought was fair and stay with the team he loves, without "testing" FA, but I totally agree with Southpaw77 that he essentially "earned" the right to be held to a lesser standard than all those who go out seeking the highest dollar deals, even though (ironically) he could meet the highest standards anyone wanted to set. You can't have your cake and eat it in this world--you hire a jerk agent and go after the highest contract, you are going to be scrutinized more closely, just as any high dollar hedge fund manager or CEO would be.
    Posted by pschuller[/QUOTE]

    Thanks schuller..If all players had Pedey's mindset, gone would be these days of 150-200mil contracts...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan? : Thanks schuller..If all players had Pedey's mindset, gone would be these days of 150-200mil contracts...
    Posted by southpaw777[/QUOTE]

    Wouldn't you say Pedroia's contract was a give-and-take deal though...he will probably end up with less money than if he went the Papelbon route, but in return he got security that he wouldn't have had.  Same with Youkilis, Lester and Buchholz's deals. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    I never really answered Spike's thread question...so here it is...Entitled? No. Ruin? No. Does it affect a mindset? Yes, salary does drive a positive and a negative slant as both fans/media are inclined to compare one's production to one's salary. It's a time-honored tradition since Messersmith/McNally helped start free agency (kick-started by Curt Flood). Isn't it interesting that for all the "slave-owner" mentality of MLB owners for years, and years, and years about controlling players and not allowing for free agency, and all the talk about what is just, what is right, the fact remains that those old-time owners (now deceased) were probably doing the right thing all those years...Baseball players were closer to the fans and didn't have their own sense of entitlement, pampering, etc. The fear factor of owners, right or wrong, was a legitimate fear to have. But remember also there were less TV contracts, and marketing team logos/merchandise during the years of pre-free agency. Now you have 142 mil salaries and players wanted their cake, well they better get used to eating that cake and all the consequences of not earning their salaries.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Are we entitled based on a player's salary? Does it ruin your enjoyment as a fan?

    I'm not sure I could "enjoy" baseball if I took the mentality of many of our newer (bandwagon) Red Sox Nation fans.

    That we are supposed to win every game and win the World Series every year.

    When I was younger, it was enough for me to watch Yaz , George Scott, Rico, etc. play against Al Kaline, Sam McDowell , Jim McNally etc. and enjoy every inning of a Saturday afternoon ballgame. The games weren't all televised in those pre-cable (prehistoric?) times. We enjoyed watching the 2 or 3 games a week we got to see on T.V.

    Today's younger fans ( and us too) are spoiled by technology; media blitz (sports talk all day every day), having access to chat boards (like this one) and being able to see every game on T.V., computer or smartphones. In the "old" days we watched the game , chatted a little about it the next day, then went about our daily lives. Being a fan meant watching a few games , and listening to the rest on AM radio. No postgame show, no sportstalk analyzing every move, evry trade, every quote.

    We didn't know what Carl Yastrzemski was making, didn't care.

    The whole sports fan business has become media overkill.

    And it's killing the enjoyment of the game.

    We take it all way too seriously....it has become life and death since 2004.

    It's like a curse....and I don't believe in curses...but it's like one.
     

Share