OnlyBucs

7E535E4F48594E0E0D3C0 wrote: I heard yesterday that some researcher says that 90% of the risk occurs indoors.  If people stay outdoors, they're probably going to be OK.  That's one of the reasons that gyms in many states, including mine, are still closed.  A clubhouse is a locker room, and I wouldn't go to my gym right now- mask or no mask- even if I was allowed to.  I feel safer working out on my own at home.



If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't play.  I'm saying that I would give it a lot of thought before I made a decision.



I get a kick out of all this.



We don't like it when a player is candid and tells the truth.  At the very least, we might not like the tone in which he says it



We don't like when some cheapskate owner lies to us.



Hard to keep track of what we like and don't like anymore. @@@@@
I don't think anyone here is being hypocritical. I think we would all sympathize and support a player's decision not to play because of the risk. But that's not what Snell said.



He said: "Y'all gotta understand, man, for me to go -- for me to take a pay cut is not happening, because the risk is through the roof," Snell said while answering questions on his Twitch channel. "It's a shorter season, less pay.



"No, I gotta get my money. I'm not playing unless I get mine, OK? And that's just the way it is for me. Like, I'm sorry you guys think differently, but the risk is way the hell higher and the amount of money I'm making is way lower. Why would I think about doing that?"



https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/291 ... ced-salary



That's fine. Then don't play. I would completely understand that decision. And no one here has said different. It's not about whether he plays or not. It's about his demand to not take less than $7 million for playing a reduced schedule. 



He's willing to play a reduced schedule which means reduced risk. But he wants all the money. All 7 million. I'm sure a lot of unemployed people right now would take more risk in a full rather than reduced schedule for a fraction of what he won't settle for.



You say, "If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing." I totally agree. But if you said you were wealthy beyond most people's imagination and willing to play but wanted full pay for reduced play I would have to disagree. That's what people in this thread are saying and I fail to see the hypocrisy of what you can't keep track of anymore.   




Read my post above. I do think you are mistaken here. I'm thinking Snell is good with the 3.5 million , he's just objecting to a further reduction in pay. I also am reading many other players are equally upset.



https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/five ... 20-season/

2720312231606D540 wrote: I heard yesterday that some researcher says that 90% of the risk occurs indoors.  If people stay outdoors, they're probably going to be OK.  That's one of the reasons that gyms in many states, including mine, are still closed.  A clubhouse is a locker room, and I wouldn't go to my gym right now- mask or no mask- even if I was allowed to.  I feel safer working out on my own at home.



If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't play.  I'm saying that I would give it a lot of thought before I made a decision.



I get a kick out of all this.



We don't like it when a player is candid and tells the truth.  At the very least, we might not like the tone in which he says it



We don't like when some cheapskate owner lies to us.



Hard to keep track of what we like and don't like anymore. @@@@@
I don't think anyone here is being hypocritical. I think we would all sympathize and support a player's decision not to play because of the risk. But that's not what Snell said.



He said: "Y'all gotta understand, man, for me to go -- for me to take a pay cut is not happening, because the risk is through the roof," Snell said while answering questions on his Twitch channel. "It's a shorter season, less pay.



"No, I gotta get my money. I'm not playing unless I get mine, OK? And that's just the way it is for me. Like, I'm sorry you guys think differently, but the risk is way the hell higher and the amount of money I'm making is way lower. Why would I think about doing that?"



https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/291 ... ced-salary



That's fine. Then don't play. I would completely understand that decision. And no one here has said different. It's not about whether he plays or not. It's about his demand to not take less than $7 million for playing a reduced schedule. 



He's willing to play a reduced schedule which means reduced risk. But he wants all the money. All 7 million. I'm sure a lot of unemployed people right now would take more risk in a full rather than reduced schedule for a fraction of what he won't settle for.



You say, "If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing." I totally agree. But if you said you were wealthy beyond most people's imagination and willing to play but wanted full pay for reduced play I would have to disagree. That's what people in this thread are saying and I fail to see the hypocrisy of what you can't keep track of anymore.   




Read my post above. I do think you are mistaken here. I'm thinking Snell is good with the 3.5 million , he's just objecting to a further reduction in pay. I also am reading many other players are equally upset.



https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/five ... 20-season/


My understanding was that Snell said he would not accept any reduction and did not support the players' agreement to take half pay for a half season.



"Bro, I'm risking my life," Snell said. "What do you mean it should not be a thing? It should 100% be a thing. If I'm gonna play, I should be getting the money I signed to be getting paid. I should not be getting half of what I'm getting paid because the season's cut in half, on top of a 33% cut of the half that's already there -- so I'm really getting, like, 25%."

183538292E3F28686B5A0 wrote: I heard yesterday that some researcher says that 90% of the risk occurs indoors.  If people stay outdoors, they're probably going to be OK.  That's one of the reasons that gyms in many states, including mine, are still closed.  A clubhouse is a locker room, and I wouldn't go to my gym right now- mask or no mask- even if I was allowed to.  I feel safer working out on my own at home.



If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't play.  I'm saying that I would give it a lot of thought before I made a decision.



I get a kick out of all this.



We don't like it when a player is candid and tells the truth.  At the very least, we might not like the tone in which he says it



We don't like when some cheapskate owner lies to us.



Hard to keep track of what we like and don't like anymore. @@@@@
I don't think anyone here is being hypocritical. I think we would all sympathize and support a player's decision not to play because of the risk. But that's not what Snell said.



He said: "Y'all gotta understand, man, for me to go -- for me to take a pay cut is not happening, because the risk is through the roof," Snell said while answering questions on his Twitch channel. "It's a shorter season, less pay.



"No, I gotta get my money. I'm not playing unless I get mine, OK? And that's just the way it is for me. Like, I'm sorry you guys think differently, but the risk is way the hell higher and the amount of money I'm making is way lower. Why would I think about doing that?"



https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/291 ... ced-salary



That's fine. Then don't play. I would completely understand that decision. And no one here has said different. It's not about whether he plays or not. It's about his demand to not take less than $7 million for playing a reduced schedule. 



He's willing to play a reduced schedule which means reduced risk. But he wants all the money. All 7 million. I'm sure a lot of unemployed people right now would take more risk in a full rather than reduced schedule for a fraction of what he won't settle for.



You say, "If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing." I totally agree. But if you said you were wealthy beyond most people's imagination and willing to play but wanted full pay for reduced play I would have to disagree. That's what people in this thread are saying and I fail to see the hypocrisy of what you can't keep track of anymore.   




Read my post above. I do think you are mistaken here. I'm thinking Snell is good with the 3.5 million , he's just objecting to a further reduction in pay. I also am reading many other players are equally upset.



https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/five ... 20-season/


My understanding was that Snell said he would not accept any reduction and did not support the players' agreement to take half pay for a half season.



"Bro, I'm risking my life," Snell said. "What do you mean it should not be a thing? It should 100% be a thing. If I'm gonna play, I should be getting the money I signed to be getting paid. I should not be getting half of what I'm getting paid because the season's cut in half, on top of a 33% cut of the half that's already there -- so I'm really getting, like, 25%."






I see where you're coming so I read through 3-4 more accounts of what Snell posted. It's really hard to say what's really the case.



MLB tentatively agreed earlier on 50% pay for an 81 game season. They are now proposing something that works out less. It's hard to figure out if Snell is objecting to this new proposal which he figures will pay him about 25% of his 7 mill or if he won't play for anything less than 7 mill. I have a feeling he's objecting to this new proposal that pays him much less than half. Hard to say but he did say he should be getting his contract money , so maybe you and the others are correct.



That said , I think the man has a legitimate point. He feels it's not worth it to play for around 2.5 million everything considered. He has a 50 million $ contract , so make it 43 mill if he sits the year out. Not a lot of difference between around 46 mill or 43 mill. Taking into consideration he will be on lockdown , away from his family and friends . Not to mention the health risks. I think he came off very poorly the way he worded this and he appears to feel he should have better stated this.

2E29382B3869645D0 wrote: I heard yesterday that some researcher says that 90% of the risk occurs indoors.  If people stay outdoors, they're probably going to be OK.  That's one of the reasons that gyms in many states, including mine, are still closed.  A clubhouse is a locker room, and I wouldn't go to my gym right now- mask or no mask- even if I was allowed to.  I feel safer working out on my own at home.



If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't play.  I'm saying that I would give it a lot of thought before I made a decision.



I get a kick out of all this.



We don't like it when a player is candid and tells the truth.  At the very least, we might not like the tone in which he says it



We don't like when some cheapskate owner lies to us.



Hard to keep track of what we like and don't like anymore. @@@@@
I don't think anyone here is being hypocritical. I think we would all sympathize and support a player's decision not to play because of the risk. But that's not what Snell said.



He said: "Y'all gotta understand, man, for me to go -- for me to take a pay cut is not happening, because the risk is through the roof," Snell said while answering questions on his Twitch channel. "It's a shorter season, less pay.



"No, I gotta get my money. I'm not playing unless I get mine, OK? And that's just the way it is for me. Like, I'm sorry you guys think differently, but the risk is way the hell higher and the amount of money I'm making is way lower. Why would I think about doing that?"



https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/291 ... ced-salary



That's fine. Then don't play. I would completely understand that decision. And no one here has said different. It's not about whether he plays or not. It's about his demand to not take less than $7 million for playing a reduced schedule. 



He's willing to play a reduced schedule which means reduced risk. But he wants all the money. All 7 million. I'm sure a lot of unemployed people right now would take more risk in a full rather than reduced schedule for a fraction of what he won't settle for.



You say, "If I'm wealthy beyond most people's imagination, and can afford to take a year off....and, if I have a family to consider, I have to admit- I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on playing." I totally agree. But if you said you were wealthy beyond most people's imagination and willing to play but wanted full pay for reduced play I would have to disagree. That's what people in this thread are saying and I fail to see the hypocrisy of what you can't keep track of anymore.   




Read my post above. I do think you are mistaken here. I'm thinking Snell is good with the 3.5 million , he's just objecting to a further reduction in pay. I also am reading many other players are equally upset.



https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/five ... 20-season/


My understanding was that Snell said he would not accept any reduction and did not support the players' agreement to take half pay for a half season.



"Bro, I'm risking my life," Snell said. "What do you mean it should not be a thing? It should 100% be a thing. If I'm gonna play, I should be getting the money I signed to be getting paid. I should not be getting half of what I'm getting paid because the season's cut in half, on top of a 33% cut of the half that's already there -- so I'm really getting, like, 25%."






I see where you're coming so I read through 3-4 more accounts of what Snell posted. It's really hard to say what's really the case.



MLB tentatively agreed earlier on 50% pay for an 81 game season. They are now proposing something that works out less. It's hard to figure out if Snell is objecting to this new proposal which he figures will pay him about 25% of his 7 mill or if he won't play for anything less than 7 mill. I have a feeling he's objecting to this new proposal that pays him much less than half. Hard to say but he did say he should be getting his contract money , so maybe you and the others are correct.



That said , I think the man has a legitimate point. He feels it's not worth it to play for around 2.5 million everything considered. He has a 50 million $ contract , so make it 43 mill if he sits the year out. Not a lot of difference between around 46 mill or 43 mill. Taking into consideration he will be on lockdown , away from his family and friends . Not to mention the health risks. I think he came off very poorly the way he worded this and he appears to feel he should have better stated this.


Yeah, if he chooses not to play due to the health risk, I support that. If he accepts less pay for less play, I support that. However, his quote--unless incorrectly phrased--indicates he wants full pay for less play. Can't support that.

Snell comes across as a petulant child. Now that we appear to be getting a glimmer of hope on the money negotiations it will be interesting to see if he remains, at least publicly, as greedy as he was when he made his pathetic statement. Let's face it, he is at greater health risk grocery shopping than he is on the pitcher's mound.

Do you think guys like him GO to grocery stores?

546176767D4476767D7A76130 wrote: Do you think guys like him GO to grocery stores?


A guy with his size bank account most likely has a concierge do his shopping for him. His grocery orders are most likely delivered using "no-touch" rules.

People with that kind of stash just wiggle their noses or ears and, presto!  Stuff just shows up at their doors.  No invoice, either.



He probably hasn't seen the inside of a grocery store since he hit the stage.



Pirates players, on the other hand?  They're the people who are bagging the groceries, thanks to BOB.