Don

Being jealous or bitter about what other people make makes you bitter and jealous.

Yep.  And once again, if you are in the top 750 in the world at what you do, more than likely you will make a very good living.  And yes many of those times you will be making millions of dollars a year.  

It took all of about five minutes for me to install mine. That said, go ahead and tell the wife it’s an all day thing and just hide in the bathroom drinking beer and listening to music.

Impemba and Sutton on the radio are still my personal favorites among Angel broadcasters.

They're gonna need a bigger blue tile.

To be fair, this is because we as a society agreed a long time ago that tanks are rad and pencils are decidedly un-rad. It's a big part of the social contract we enter into as Americans.

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 fixed it so Jose can understand if he reads the thread.

I fixed it so Jose can understand if he reads the thread.

I fixed it so Jose can understand if he reads the thread.

I fixed it so Jose can understand if he reads the thread.

I fixed it so Jose can understand if he reads the thread.

I fixed it so Jose can understand if he reads the thread.

The chase for .400 would be huge, but really only in the last month of a season. Someone going after DiMaggio’s hitting streak would be big too, but probably only after game 40 or so.

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.

What MLB really needs is a commissioner that looks out for baseball rather than one that looks after the best interest of the owners.  Problem is the owners hire the commissioner and I highly doubt they’ll ever walk this one back.  

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.

The chase for .400 would be huge, but really only in the last month of a season. Someone going after DiMaggio’s hitting streak would be big too, but probably only after game 40 or so.

To be fair, this is because we as a society agreed a long time ago that tanks are rad and pencils are decidedly un-rad. It's a big part of the social contract we enter into as Americans.

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.

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 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 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.

I think it's a little more complex than that, and I think it's important to once again reiterate that the owners are not losing money. SOME owners may be losing money if the season eclipses 50 games with no fans in attendance.

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.