Texsox

I also think there needs to be a push to increase the number of staff hirings.

So Smith gets the job. Deserves it. I'm happy for him.

*but wish you had? I teach a course for college bound high school seniors. The fall semester is mostly about applications, scholarships, etc. As we get deeper into spring I have a lot of flexibility in curriculum. I'm always considering material to teach that will be practical. For example we explore retirement plans, career pathways, and laundry.

The commissioner reports to the owners the union head reports to the players.

See these YouTube divers crack a missing person cold case https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/06/us/adventures-with-purpose-cold-case-diving-trnd/index.html How many vehicles are in ponds?

So whose neck is more on the line for staff coaching hire decisions?

Unless it's a salary cap. ( Which I'm not advocating for) There are all sorts of problems with a salary cap that makes it a non negotiable for players. But if you want competition a hard salary cap based on the what the "have nots" could afford has everyone competitive economically for free agents. But before everyone thinks I'm suggesting that's a good idea, it's not good for players. I would like to see a minimum based on the revenue sharing amount.

I actually was expecting better. I wasn't expecting Bettman to criticize, that's what a decent human being would do. But I didn't expect a defense.

After three days with their attorneys the NFL decided a half hearted press release would make them look better. Ah, no.

Players do not get paid for Spring Training but they do get bonus money for the playoffs. So maybe the players aren't all that excited about getting to Spring Training. Who would blame them?

It's just a money grab. Players received over $90 million last year. Expand the playoffs and they would receive even more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2021/12/13/2021-mlb-postseason-player-shares-sees-record-9047-million-heres-how-the-system-works/?sh=5243490b2e15

The problem is fans don't want to lose "their team" to another city who will give away the tax revenue to bring a team to their city so the owners get cities to bid against each other. And neither side needs any water carrying. The players with thank the fans then charge a kid $10 for an autograph. The owners will keep making huge profits while fleecing the taxpayers.

No matter when this is settled I'll be back supporting the players as I always have. If the owners want to stall and lose a season I'm ok. I won't fall into the owner's trap and be upset about their lockout causing a shortened or no season. The players shouldn't feel any pressure to get the season started on time.

Well my day will be replacing a garbage disposal. Nothing like a plumbing leak to ruin a day. I'm really hoping that Insinkerator hasn't changed their mounting system in twenty years. Well that was about 100x easier than I thought. Less than 10 minutes. Plug and play replacement.

Your example is spot on but doesn't quite match. You have the option to leave and take your talents somewhere else. Something players don't have. Basically all real world examples seem to fail when looking at this. Bottom line, the owners are fleecing fans, their employees, and their communities. Sadly in my mind, the only group with leverage are the employees who are doing the best. I just hope that no city gives in to a MLB team when they cry poor and want a stadium.

Bettman publicly excuses Wirtz, says we saw his frustration. Goodbye NHL

So which will get MLB moving, fans saying we don't care if the season starts on time to take away any pressure players might feel to get the season started or fans talking boycott if the season starts late. If MLB is using the threat of starting late it seems fans should take the opposite approach. Who cares if they only play a short season?

I'm surprised the owners even try to get any fan support.

I don't believe anything in hearing, good or bad.

I believe the odds of the season starting on time was helped by the union rejecting the mediator. It's 100% back in MLB's court. Knowing that both sides could accept the other side's offer and still work in safe working conditions for a high salary or have more money the 98% of the population keeps me optimistic. I think the pressure is on MLB to make this next offer more than window dressing. If MLB does make a reasonable offer my guess is it could take less than ten days to iron out everything. But if they make another offer just testing the waters it could be weeks or months. Why would the union even bother to counter an offer that doesn't show substantial movement?

I believe it is 100% the truth. They just left out "but only if it doesn't cost us millions of dollars". I wholeheartedly believe the union has the same goal to start the season on time, but only if they get most of what they want.

Read the line after the part you bolded. Are you suggesting that Microsoft or Amazon routinely borrows funds to meet payroll? FYI too much debt lowers company values especially if you are borrowing to meet payroll. Again, their revenue and profits will allow them to increase payrolls, there isn't even a need to borrow to meet reoccurring expenses.

I'm annoyed just seeing his face.

I loved watching him call a game the Sox were not involved in. I'm hoping for a Jomboy retrospective on West's career.

The point is MLB could accept and it wouldn't kill their business. They made a counter offer of getting a federal mediator involved which was (rightfully in my mind) rejected. Now the ball is back in their court.