Reality check, part 1.

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

    Reality check, part 1.

    Professional athletes need a reality check.

    Examples from S.I. article "Going, Going..., Gone?" (April 11, 2011):

    Jack Cust ,"I hear all the time about how guys can't stand it. It's not that DH's don't make what they used to. It's harder than people think it is.Guys would rather have the day off than have to do it (DH).

    REALITY: No sh*t , Jack, I would rather have the day off than do my job , too. Problem is, when I take the day off, I don't get paid.

    Adam Dunn, "Let's be honest, being a DH these days -it's like having one foot out the door. You're one step from the retirement home."

    REALITY:  Only thing is this :an MLB player can retire with millions at 37 years old. Adam, you just signed a 4-year , $65 million contract. I'd retire at 34 if I had that kind of dough! AND I WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT!

    Cust again, "My agent told me that if I could just go to an NL team and play a full year and not even hit much, maybe 18 or 20 HRs and .270 , then I'd make more money than hitting 30 HR's in the AL."

    REALITY: You could also make more money if you knew how to use a glove and understand that defense is part of the game , too." I wish I could do half a job and still get lots of money.

    REALITY: Harold Baines, "I'm thankful the DH was around when I was playing, I had knee problems my 9th and 10th seasons. I couldn't play defense, but I could still hit and without the DH , I would have been out of baseball, instead I played another 12 seasons."

    We need more players like Baines, who know how lucky they are.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    Great op! Fortunately, unions are on the way out in the public opinion circles. Child labor and brutal working conditions isn't getting paid milliong to DH for a few minutes a day.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    I loved Harold Baines.  Unassuming.  CLUTCH.  Sweet swing, and, some of the best hair of the early 80s (pretty sure he was actually Kool of Kool & the Gang)
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    Ask the 400,000 workers in Wisconsin on how they really feel about unions.  Wicsonsinites are retracting all the politicians that got in office this past year that were running on a "more jobs" and "budget reform" platform only to turn into union-busting scummb@gs.  "Fortunately, unions are on the way out in the public opinion circles." Yeah, right. That's why workers are signing petitions to get rid of these Conservative, Union-busting a$$holes all over middle America.  Nice try though, queef.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    Reality?

    Check.

    I think...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    Both extremes in the union, anti-union debate are pathetic.

    There is a place for unions, and unions have done a lot to help the working class. Having said that, they have often overreached and like generals who fight the last war, union leaders do the same and are slow to react to changing times. You often saw that with Donald Fehr. He sounded in the '80s and '90s like he was fighting the same battles that Marvin Miller was fighting, when the situation and issues were signicantly changed.

    I began having problems with unions back in the early '80s. I forget what steel company it was, but it kept insisting that it needed help from the unions and that if the union struck, it would have to shut down and go bankrupt. And as I recall, that's exactly what happened. So much for the unions protecting jobs.

    Unions are effective when businesses are growing and when there are extreme situations -- worker safety, for example. Unions fail miserably in changing economic times and in normal down business cycles. (There are a couple of other ways where I feel unions hurt businesses, which in the long term hurt workers, but I won't get into all those details here.)

    The modern baseball union is one of the most warped unions that has ever existed. In the early days, Marvin Miller, like him or not, had the moral high ground in many of the battles he fought with the owners. There were legitamate issues where the players were wronged and/or taken advantage of. There was a need for many of the things he accomplished, even before the onset of free agency.

    However, over time, the union became one that seems to focus on protecting the highest-paid players and cheats, often at the expense of the lowest-paid players, the honest players and the health of the players.

    It's funny to hear union leaders fight for the highest salaries. They'll say it helps raise the salaries of lower-paid. Hmmm .... trickle-down economics. Isn't that what liberals used to mock Reagan about?

    And it's funny to hear the complaint about how salaries for DH's have gone down. Well, that's the market. Isn't that how the players and union leaders defended high salaries -- market value.


    I've never had a problem with the high salaries. Fans complain about the overpaid athlete who doesn't produce. Well it's entertainment. It happens. How is that different than a movie star who gets paid a ton for a movie and the movie tanks?

    It's wrong to be totally anti-union because the owners and businesses have shown numerous times that they will take advantage of the situation.

    But all unions have to realize that we've come a long way since the conditons of the early 20th century. It's a different world and economic enviroment.Today, unions and business should be able to work together and stop fightning 19th and early 20th century battles in the 21st century.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    not sure how we got here but

    great job

    roy
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    In Response to Re: Reality check, part 1.:
    [QUOTE]Great op! Fortunately, unions are on the way out in the public opinion circles. Child labor and brutal working conditions isn't getting paid milliong to DH for a few minutes a day.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]


    You forgot to put on ur make-up, dear.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    In Response to Re: Reality check, part 1.:
    [QUOTE]Both extremes in the union, anti-union debate are pathetic. There is a place for unions, and unions have done a lot to help the working class. Having said that, they have often overreached and like generals who fight the last war, union leaders do the same and are slow to react to changing times. You often saw that with Donald Fehr. He sounded in the '80s and '90s like he was fighting the same battles that Marvin Miller was fighting, when the situation and issues were signicantly changed. I began having problems with unions back in the early '80s. I forget what steel company it was, but it kept insisting that it needed help from the unions and that if the union struck, it would have to shut down and go bankrupt. And as I recall, that's exactly what happened. So much for the unions protecting jobs. Unions are effective when businesses are growing and when there are extreme situations -- worker safety, for example. Unions fail miserably in changing economic times and in normal down business cycles. (There are a couple of other ways where I feel unions hurt businesses, which in the long term hurt workers, but I won't get into all those details here.) The modern baseball union is one of the most warped unions that has ever existed. In the early days, Marvin Miller, like him or not, had the moral high ground in many of the battles he fought with the owners. There were legitamate issues where the players were wronged and/or taken advantage of. There was a need for many of the things he accomplished, even before the onset of free agency. However, over time, the union became one that seems to focus on protecting the highest-paid players and cheats, often at the expense of the lowest-paid players, the honest players and the health of the players. It's funny to hear union leaders fight for the highest salaries. They'll say it helps raise the salaries of lower-paid. Hmmm .... trickle-down economics. Isn't that what liberals used to mock Reagan about? And it's funny to hear the complaint about how salaries for DH's have gone down. Well, that's the market. Isn't that how the players and union leaders defended high salaries -- market value. I've never had a problem with the high salaries. Fans complain about the overpaid athlete who doesn't produce. Well it's entertainment. It happens. How is that different than a movie star who gets paid a ton for a movie and the movietanks? It's wrong to be totally anti-union because the owners and businesses have shown numerous times that they will take advantage of the situation. But all unions have to realize that we've come a long way since the conditons of the early 20th century. It's a different world and economic enviroment.Today, unions and business should be able to work together and stop fightning 19th and early 20th century battles in the 21st century.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    If UR comparing Movie stars and baseball stars, a team can tank but the high-priced player can have a great year. Thus, he's fulfilled his end of the bargain.

    A movie can tank but that doesn't mean the star was responsible. He/she could have given a great performance.

    Unions don't determine failure. That's on the organization - whether they own ball clubs or make flics.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    In Response to Re: Reality check, part 1.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Reality check, part 1. : If UR comparing Movie stars and baseball stars, a team can tank but the high-priced player can have a great year. Thus, he's fulfilled his end of the bargain . A movie can tank but that doesn't mean the star was responsible. He/she could have given a great performance. Unions don't determine failure. That's on the organization - whether they own ball clubs or make flics.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    The athlete-movie comparision had nothing to do with unions. I was just pointing out how in entertainment, there's a lot of money being thrown around. They're in a profession where a bench player who bats .230 in 50 games but gets paid $300,000-$400,000, whatever the minimum is.

    You can't, of course, make an exact sports-movie comparision because they're different industries..

    A movie star could $20M for a movie and the movie bombs. Sure the star might not be responsible, but, the reason the star gets that money is because the producers feel he/she has enough star power to carry the picture. Sometimes they do, often they don't. But even if the movie scked so bad that star power couldn't carry the movie, or if the star stunk in the movie, the star still made the money, just like an athlete who may or may not have "earned" the money.

    Players get big money because sports is entertainment and the money is there to be divied up. It's up to the owners to decide how much a player is worth or how much they want to pay. Some players "earn" the money; some don't; and some (Drew) are controversial. Most fans say he hasn't "earned" the money, but by some rankings, he has "earned" it.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    Both entities are business ventures that are in business to entertain. How these businesses are run largely determines success of failure.
    My point is, if a ballplayer under-performs, he is not living up to his expectations. Fan reaction is usually justified.

    If a movie star gives a lousy performance, he/she too hasn't lived up to his/her contract. And they usually deserve the response from critics/fans alike.

    The responsibility of team/movie  success/failure is dependant on organizational approach. A player/performer's star attraction is but a lure. It guarantees nothing.
    The other pieces have to be in place. It's not the "star's" fault if these pieces are missing.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    Great op! Fortunately, unions are on the way out in the public opinion circles. Child labor and brutal working conditions isn't getting paid milliong to DH for a few minutes a day.

    If this ain't softy, then I'm Ronald Rayguns.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    ZILLAGOD I am for players earning based on performance - I would not even award for home-runs as they would all be swinging for the fences - just .obp, rbi, and runs.  Defensively you could be penalized for errors.

    Simple.

    Everyone makes a base of $500k - with superstars earning as much as $5 million based on achievable stats.  

    Now tell me who would choose an alternate career over this?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Reality check, part 1.

    I'm not Softy, and you aren't Barry Obamanation
     

Share