Don

It's a bit of a he said/she said. MLB leaked an internal email suggesting that language was going to be put in the March agreement. The MLBPA reps claim they agreed to a pro-rated salary with no regard to whether or not fans are in attendance.

I certainly think it's possible that he knows and hates the position he's in, but that he's doing it anyway because he thinks that's his job. That said, I don't actually think carrying the owners' water is his job. Sometimes it's a part of his job maybe, but I think the actual scope of his position is quite a bit bigger than that. One, he needs to be more proactive in dictating to the owners what is good for them, and not the other way around. They elect a commissioner to be a leader, not an errand boy (or at least that's the way it should be). That means he has to actually lead sometimes, and this isn't leadership that we're seeing now. He should be hammering the owners with the damage this ongoing dispute is doing to their overall brand. Two, he is the commissioner of baseball, not of the MLB owners' group. He has to do what is best for the sport, which includes the owners, but also includes fans, players, and other employees. Keeping the whole game and everyone involved with it in a good place translates to long-term solid profits in the end.

That would be awesome. It just seems that legal stuff like that usually doesn't move that quickly. Which means it'll probably have to be settled sometime later. And the owners now are basically asking the players to give up their right to do that too.

There's another point to this that Dallas Braden made the other day... There's a huge opportunity cost that the players take on when it comes to risking the loss of a season, and that's simply because of physiology. Every player would be losing a year in their life that their body is in playing shape and capable of generating the kind of revenue that a professional athlete can. A guy that was 30 this April will not be 30 next April. The owners don't really have that timeline imposed on them by anything other than, well, death.

The players and owners had an agreement in March. The billionaires are not willing to honor that agreement because they don't want to lose money. The greed rests with the owners and not the players. The players simply want the agreement from March to be honored.

The principle the players are trying to protect is pretty simple and it's important that they get it righted for future labor issues and negotiating power. Let's say I worked at a factory where I make $100 per day. We have to shut down for Covid in March, but before I get furloughed I sign a deal with my boss saying he will still pay me my normal rate of $100 per day whenever it's safe to come back. June rolls around and everyone says it's fine to open the factory up again. All the other factories in the area are opening up and people are going back to work. My boss calls me and says, "Yeah, let's open up and get everyone back to work here... but I can only pay you $70 per day." I say we signed an agreement saying I would come back for $100 per day. Those are the terms under which I'll come back to work. Then he says, "Cool. We'll totally get you that $100 per day, but you can't come back until August. I know everyone else is opening up, and we're ready to go here, but we just can't pay everyone their full daily salary until August." I'd be pissed for two primary reasons. First, that would be my employer effectively holding me wage hostage. I could come back with everyone else in the area for a severe discount, or be out of work for another month or two if I want to stand by my principles. Second, this sets a precedent that my boss can choose to enter into any agreement he wants with me (or anyone else) on paper, but might go back on his word and change the terms at any time. And that second part is a much bigger deal.

I think the Reagan-era rebranding of the Republican Party as the party of evangelical Christianity plus law and order had a lot to do with it too.

I sincerely doubt they'll get that, but they should definitely take them to court. They should be getting at least 50% of their full pay. I'm not sure if they should be looking for ST compensation from March and June/July as well, but maybe so.

I mean he'll just get on there and trash the MLBPA and their leadership, right? Seems like a pretty easy playbook. I don't agree with it at all of course, but just keep repeating "We've made reasonable proposals that the union refuses to accept or negotiate from due to misguided leadership." Just hammer it. Answer every question just like that.

Yeah, I guess I just don't think the fact that people do commit crimes should have an effect on police brutality. They are just two completely separate issues in my mind. Sure, I'd like it if people committed less crimes. But at the end of the day, cops still need to be held to a certain standard in how they deal with people, regardless of what those people have or haven't done, and regardless of whether or not the cop is having a tough day.

That seems like an unnecessary "both sides!" there. It really sounds like another version of "Well, I heard he was a bad dude, so he probably had it coming." I'm not sure if that's exactly what you're saying, but that's what it sounds like for sure.

Manhattan was/is an awesome place to live for someone in their twenties.

Shit man. That’s just terrible. It’s so difficult when those random things happen. I know that long term co-workers become real friends, and I’m sorry for your loss. I’m hoping his family is reasonably ok.

I’ve been going through the “Supernova in the East” series from Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast lately. Pretty freaking interesting.

BA in geography with an emphasis on GIS and a minor in history from Kansas State.

That bit is hilarious. Dude does have an odd voice, which I think he addresses in one of his specials actually. He's more a storyteller comic for sure, but the writing, pacing, and delivery are all just so polished. He's one of the four or five guys doing standup that I get legit excited for when I hear a new special is gonna come out.

I get what you're saying now. And that sucks if it does play out that way.

Fishbulb says this guy's character is irrelevant in regard to the action taken against him... You respond with "lol maybe to you". That just leads me to believe that you disagreed with Fishbulb's claim that the guy's character is irrelevant.

Why would it be relevant to you?

Pretty sure I’ve seen that episode of Black Mirror.

Oh, they’re still on the force.

Those two officers have been suspended, and 57 have resigned from the emergency response team (not from the police department) to show their disagreement with the suspensions. And that right there is all you need to know about how out of touch all those officers are.

I’ll gladly represent for the K-State family here. The amount of shit she’s gotten for this is inexcusable. #family

I think she filed like REAL QUICK after the incident became public. Either it was in process before all this happened, or it’s the fastest divorce filing I’ve ever heard of. The incident happened last Monday, and I remember hearing this on Thursday or Friday of last week.

I just enjoy drinking with sketchy people.