There is one thing that I absolutely guarantee will happen if Hartman makes the majors.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
What are they thinkong???
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
What are they thinkong???
51767D5E130 wrote: There is one thing that I absolutely guarantee will happen if Hartman makes the majors.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
This is why I don't like mandated retiring of numbers. I think it's more of a tribute to someone to want to wear the same number they wore than to order teams he never played for to retire it. I love when I hear about players on other teams wearing 21 to honor Clemente. I hope MLB never orders teams to retire 21. No Pirate will ever again wear it and that's what matters. Others should wear it in tribute if they wish. I wish they had done that with 42 as well.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
This is why I don't like mandated retiring of numbers. I think it's more of a tribute to someone to want to wear the same number they wore than to order teams he never played for to retire it. I love when I hear about players on other teams wearing 21 to honor Clemente. I hope MLB never orders teams to retire 21. No Pirate will ever again wear it and that's what matters. Others should wear it in tribute if they wish. I wish they had done that with 42 as well.
What are they thinkong???
I don't normally pick sides between millionaires and billionaires squabbling over money, but in this case, I side with the MLBPA.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
What are they thinkong???
072C3B344D0 wrote: I don't normally pick sides between millionaires and billionaires squabbling over money, but in this case, I side with the MLBPA.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
Good stuff, Javy. The owners have been screw-ups since way back in the 1800s, starting with both the Reserve Clause and the Gentleman's Agreement. They've rarely gotten it right when it comes to the treatment of the players and the consideration of the fans. They've consistently placed their greed above all else. And they've never seemed to learn from their mistakes. It's hard to side with them, ever.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
Good stuff, Javy. The owners have been screw-ups since way back in the 1800s, starting with both the Reserve Clause and the Gentleman's Agreement. They've rarely gotten it right when it comes to the treatment of the players and the consideration of the fans. They've consistently placed their greed above all else. And they've never seemed to learn from their mistakes. It's hard to side with them, ever.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
What are they thinkong???
6234223639233338352210373D31393C7E33500 wrote: I don't normally pick sides between millionaires and billionaires squabbling over money, but in this case, I side with the MLBPA.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
Good stuff, Javy. The owners have been screw-ups since way back in the 1800s, starting with both the Reserve Clause and the Gentleman's Agreement. They've rarely gotten it right when it comes to the treatment of the players and the consideration of the fans. They've consistently placed their greed above all else. And they've never seemed to learn from their mistakes. It's hard to side with them, ever.
It's impossible to choose between these 2 skunks. I'm so tired of the lack of loyalty of players, and owners to the fans. I have no use for a player who blackmail the team who took a chance on them invested in the player and jumps ship for a few dollars more how much money do you really need. I also have no use for owners who pay real star players peanuts because they haven't reached free agency. If owners would be more fair with the younger players they might feel some loyalty. I realize you would have to be careful here and might do it according to whose their agent. I wouldn't trust any player who used Boras period.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
Good stuff, Javy. The owners have been screw-ups since way back in the 1800s, starting with both the Reserve Clause and the Gentleman's Agreement. They've rarely gotten it right when it comes to the treatment of the players and the consideration of the fans. They've consistently placed their greed above all else. And they've never seemed to learn from their mistakes. It's hard to side with them, ever.
It's impossible to choose between these 2 skunks. I'm so tired of the lack of loyalty of players, and owners to the fans. I have no use for a player who blackmail the team who took a chance on them invested in the player and jumps ship for a few dollars more how much money do you really need. I also have no use for owners who pay real star players peanuts because they haven't reached free agency. If owners would be more fair with the younger players they might feel some loyalty. I realize you would have to be careful here and might do it according to whose their agent. I wouldn't trust any player who used Boras period.
-
WildwoodDave
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 am
What are they thinkong???
6335233738223239342311363C30383D7F32510 wrote: I don't normally pick sides between millionaires and billionaires squabbling over money, but in this case, I side with the MLBPA.
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
Good stuff, Javy. The owners have been screw-ups since way back in the 1800s, starting with both the Reserve Clause and the Gentleman's Agreement. They've rarely gotten it right when it comes to the treatment of the players and the consideration of the fans. They've consistently placed their greed above all else. And they've never seemed to learn from their mistakes. It's hard to side with them, ever.
Now Manfred is talking about a 50 game season. Hardly worth it
E.G., they were approached in March about pro-rated salaries, which they agreed to. Now, the shifty billionaire owners see that when the game opens back up, they will be out the revenues they normally got from attendance.
So, they proposed revenue sharing, which the MLBPA rejected because it is a form of a salary cap, which they are opposed to.
Then they offered a sliding scale pro-rated salary, which would affect the higher paid players more than the lower end guys (insert Pirates related sarcasm here) - The players flat out rejected that one too.
Now, they have offered multiple scenarios of reduced games with different percentages of pro-rated salaries, which all equate to the about the same numbers dollar-wise for the players. The union saw through that as well, and countered with a higher total of in-season games. The owners don't want that because it is more cash out of pocket for salaries. They want to get to the post-season as fast as possible because the majority of the money goes to MLB, and not the players.
Now comes word of a multi-billion dollar deal with TBS for televised games - none of which goes to the players.
So the owners want their cake and want to not only eat it too, but have the players feed it to them.
Like I stated before, I'm not in the habit of supporting multi-million dollar players when a lot of this country is standing in unemployment lines, but the owners greed is shining through here. They are the ones who give the 20-30 million dollar salaries, and now they want the hired help to protect them from themselves.
I wouldn't make any wagers on there not being a work stoppage after the 2021 season.
Good stuff, Javy. The owners have been screw-ups since way back in the 1800s, starting with both the Reserve Clause and the Gentleman's Agreement. They've rarely gotten it right when it comes to the treatment of the players and the consideration of the fans. They've consistently placed their greed above all else. And they've never seemed to learn from their mistakes. It's hard to side with them, ever.
Now Manfred is talking about a 50 game season. Hardly worth it
What are they thinkong???
Not for the fans, or likely the players. That is where the cut-off is for the players to receive 1`00% of their pro-rated salaries.
The owners will like that because they get their post-season money.
I did read that there are some owners who don't want to start the season at all..can't imagine that one of them isn't Nutting. If they wind up with 8 or more owners vetoing the atrt of the season, it will shut it down completely, and, will make Manfred look like a fool.
The owners will like that because they get their post-season money.
I did read that there are some owners who don't want to start the season at all..can't imagine that one of them isn't Nutting. If they wind up with 8 or more owners vetoing the atrt of the season, it will shut it down completely, and, will make Manfred look like a fool.
-
WildwoodDave
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 am
What are they thinkong???
72594E41380 wrote: Not for the fans, or likely the players. That is where the cut-off is for the players to receive 1`00% of their pro-rated salaries.
The owners will like that because they get their post-season money.
I did read that there are some owners who don't want to start the season at all..can't imagine that one of them isn't Nutting. If they wind up with 8 or more owners vetoing the atrt of the season, it will shut it down completely, and, will make Manfred look like a fool.
It would be interesting to see who thew owners are who would veto it.
The owners will like that because they get their post-season money.
I did read that there are some owners who don't want to start the season at all..can't imagine that one of them isn't Nutting. If they wind up with 8 or more owners vetoing the atrt of the season, it will shut it down completely, and, will make Manfred look like a fool.
It would be interesting to see who thew owners are who would veto it.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
What are they thinkong???
4C616C7D7A6B7C3C3F0E0 wrote: There is one thing that I absolutely guarantee will happen if Hartman makes the majors.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
This is why I don't like mandated retiring of numbers. I think it's more of a tribute to someone to want to wear the same number they wore than to order teams he never played for to retire it. I love when I hear about players on other teams wearing 21 to honor Clemente. I hope MLB never orders teams to retire 21. No Pirate will ever again wear it and that's what matters. Others should wear it in tribute if they wish. I wish they had done that with 42 as well.
Wasn't it Jose Tabata who wanted to wear 21?
I hardly find Jose Tabata wearing 21 to be all that much of a "tribute" to Roberto Clemente.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
This is why I don't like mandated retiring of numbers. I think it's more of a tribute to someone to want to wear the same number they wore than to order teams he never played for to retire it. I love when I hear about players on other teams wearing 21 to honor Clemente. I hope MLB never orders teams to retire 21. No Pirate will ever again wear it and that's what matters. Others should wear it in tribute if they wish. I wish they had done that with 42 as well.
Wasn't it Jose Tabata who wanted to wear 21?
I hardly find Jose Tabata wearing 21 to be all that much of a "tribute" to Roberto Clemente.
-
Bobster21
What are they thinkong???
784D5A5A51685A5A51565A3F0 wrote: There is one thing that I absolutely guarantee will happen if Hartman makes the majors.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
This is why I don't like mandated retiring of numbers. I think it's more of a tribute to someone to want to wear the same number they wore than to order teams he never played for to retire it. I love when I hear about players on other teams wearing 21 to honor Clemente. I hope MLB never orders teams to retire 21. No Pirate will ever again wear it and that's what matters. Others should wear it in tribute if they wish. I wish they had done that with 42 as well.
Wasn't it Jose Tabata who wanted to wear 21?
I hardly find Jose Tabata wearing 21 to be all that much of a "tribute" to Roberto Clemente.
The Pirates retired 21 so that was never an issue. I said OTHER teams should not be forced to retire numbers. Obviously neither Tabata or any other Pirate will wear 21. So I don't see your point.
He'll change his jersey number. He wore "42" at App State.
This is why I don't like mandated retiring of numbers. I think it's more of a tribute to someone to want to wear the same number they wore than to order teams he never played for to retire it. I love when I hear about players on other teams wearing 21 to honor Clemente. I hope MLB never orders teams to retire 21. No Pirate will ever again wear it and that's what matters. Others should wear it in tribute if they wish. I wish they had done that with 42 as well.
Wasn't it Jose Tabata who wanted to wear 21?
I hardly find Jose Tabata wearing 21 to be all that much of a "tribute" to Roberto Clemente.
The Pirates retired 21 so that was never an issue. I said OTHER teams should not be forced to retire numbers. Obviously neither Tabata or any other Pirate will wear 21. So I don't see your point.