2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Someone get this guy some water, bootlicking is a a tough job.   I'm sure later he is gonna need some Tylenol for offering his back for them to stand on, those poor, poor, rich billionaires 

Yeah his back must really be hurting from all the water he is carrying for the owners.

2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Someone get this guy some water, bootlicking is a a tough job.   I'm sure later he is gonna need some Tylenol for offering his back for them to stand on, those poor, poor, rich billionaires 

You should try not to be intolerant of people with different views than your own.  Name-calling is a grade school thing.

Those poor billionaires. Hopefully they won’t lose their yachts.

4 minutes ago, poppysox said:

You should try not to be intolerant of people with different views than your own.  Name-calling is a grade school thing.

Get the salt 

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Get the salt 

I don't get your metaphor.

10 minutes ago, oldsox said:

I don't get your metaphor.

That's ok 

40 minutes ago, buckweaver said:

I like this post, Tex. A couple points on this whole issue that I haven't seen yet. 1. Where are all the former star players lining up to be part of MLB ownership groups? Derek Jeter is the only one I can think of. But if being an owner was such a wonderful financial boon, I'd guess some of these other very rich men would want part of that action. 2. I believe the players would have a lot more people on their side if they advocated for their minor league brethren (I understand  they are not currently part of the union, but that could be changed...no one is taking up that mantel) and/or made a push for a significantly higher MLB player minimum salary (last year's was $570,500; make it $2 million to guarantee those guys who make it to the show actually have significant earnings. Overall, I agree more with the players this time around. Like all of us, I hope it settles without disruption to the season.

I agree with more of the player points but don't mind at all if they don't achieve any or all of their demands. To me coal miners or air traffic controllers striking for safer working conditions gets me to care. 

Selfishly I'd rather the owners prevail because any system that favors free agent signings and larger salaries works against a franchise like the Sox who aren't a destination franchise with a proven track record of above average free agents. At least under this ownership group.

To me cheering for the players to win this is cheering for continued mediocrity from the Sox. The quicker the Sox lose player control the faster our better players will be someone else's. And we'll be signing less talented young players and aging veterans to short term, incentive heavy contracts to replace them.

16 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I agree with more of the player points but don't mind at all if they don't achieve any or all of their demands. To me coal miners or air traffic controllers striking for safer working conditions gets me to care. 

Selfishly I'd rather the owners prevail because any system that favors free agent signings and larger salaries works against a franchise like the Sox who aren't a destination franchise with a proven track record of above average free agents. At least under this ownership group.

To me cheering for the players to win this is cheering for continued mediocrity from the Sox. The quicker the Sox lose player control the faster our better players will be someone else's. And we'll be signing less talented young players and aging veterans to short term, incentive heavy contracts to replace them.

You know maybe, just maybe......the owners should pay players what they're worth. 

I know how the Sox operate and I disagree with it. 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

How about this: If the owners are assuming so much risk, they lose their legalized monopoly?

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

You know maybe, just maybe......the owners should pay players what they're worth. 

I know how the Sox operate and I disagree with it. 

Sure Jack. How much more per year is a baseball player worth to society compared to you? A cop? An accountant? 10 times more? 100 times more? 1,000 times more? 

 

1 minute ago, Quin said:

How about this: If the owners are assuming so much risk, they lose their legalized monopoly?

The days when MLB team ownership involved risk was a long time ago. 

Opportunity loss is more of an issue. Compared to other investments, are MLB teams below average, average, or above average investments?

Should owners be allowed a profit compared to the stock market? Real Estate? Savings account? Owning other companies? 

 

19 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The days when MLB team ownership involved risk was a long time ago. 

Opportunity loss is more of an issue. Compared to other investments, are MLB teams below average, average, or above average investments?

Should owners be allowed a profit compared to the stock market? Real Estate? Savings account? Owning other companies? 

 

The only team that didn't gain value from 2020 to 2021 was the Tampa Bay Rays

They had one bad year vs. hand-over-fist money every other year

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Sure Jack. How much more per year is a baseball player worth to society compared to you? A cop? An accountant? 10 times more? 100 times more? 1,000 times more? 

 

As someone who rails against billionaires on the regular, I get your point....however that just ignores reality at the moment. 

How society values entertainers is a completely different argument. 

Are entertainers grossly overpaid? Absolutely. Our current society values individuals based on how much profit they generate for their employer. (I think that's wrong, but that's another story) 

To me, it's a simple argument of labor vs management. You know where I stand on that issue. 

We're more on the same page than you think. 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

11 minutes ago, Quin said:

The only team that didn't gain value from 2020 to 2021 was the Tampa Bay Rays

They had one bad year vs. hand-over-fist money every other year

How much of a return is fair? US stocks are up about 25% this year. Is that a fair target? 

Limiting profits can benefit society in a lot of ways. Imagine if everyone in the Sox organization has a $575,000 minimum annual salary instead of $7.25 hour. I'd be way more interested in arguing for a MLB minimum wage for all employees who 20% over the livable wage rate for their location.

40 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The days when MLB team ownership involved risk was a long time ago. 

Opportunity loss is more of an issue. Compared to other investments, are MLB teams below average, average, or above average investments?

Should owners be allowed a profit compared to the stock market? Real Estate? Savings account? Owning other companies? 

 

We do know that teams can make money without having great attendance. Profits come from media contracts and corporate sponsorships more than ticket revenue. So, a team can make money without putting out a winning product. Their risk has to be lower.

Jerry Reinsdorf was part of an investment group that purchased the controlling interests from Bill Veeck for about $20 million. Reinsdorf, as I understand it, didn't put in anywhere near the $20 million. I think he got a pretty good return on his investment.

Corporations like baseball franchises get plenty of help from governments and taxpayers. There are tax abatements. Improvements in the infrastructure.  In the case of the White Sox, a new stadium that has now been in existence for over 30 years. 

I realize how crazy salaries are, but it is hard for me to cry for the owners. They get plenty of help along the way that an everyday person will never get.

The goal should be a fair contract with no games lost in the season. I have no sympathy for a goal of crushing the players' union.

36 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Limiting profits can benefit society in a lot of ways. Imagine if everyone in the Sox organization has a $575,000 minimum annual salary instead of $7.25 hour. I'd be way more interested in arguing for a MLB minimum wage for all employees who 20% over the livable wage rate for their location.

^^^

The MLB players have a union. The rest of the MLB employees don't. Maybe they should unionize? 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

35 minutes ago, Texsox said:

How much of a return is fair? US stocks are up about 25% this year. Is that a fair target? 

Limiting profits can benefit society in a lot of ways. Imagine if everyone in the Sox organization has a $575,000 minimum annual salary instead of $7.25 hour. I'd be way more interested in arguing for a MLB minimum wage for all employees who 20% over the livable wage rate for their location.

Then they can sell the team and invest in the stock market!

3 hours ago, Texsox said:

Already rich people are fighting over making one group slight less rich and another group slightly more rich. It's not quite the French Revolution. If there was a proposal on the table that teams had to set aside 25% of their revenues for charitable work, I'd passionately take a side. 

This is where I'm at. I'm going to side with labor on principle, but this is a fight that is so inconsequential to labor issues that actually, y'know, matter and affect people that are legitimately disadvantaged so it's more of a just figure it out thing for me. 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by mqr

11 minutes ago, Quin said:

Then they can sell the team and invest in the stock market!

So owning a team should not involve turning a profit or having your assets appreciate in value?

15 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

^^^

The MLB players have a union. The rest of the MLB employees don't. Maybe they should unionize? 

I think everyone should. And profits should be controlled by the government.

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

So owning a team should not involve turning a profit or having your assets appreciate in value?

Except that they are...?

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

Just now, Texsox said:

I think everyone should. And profits should be controlled by the government.

Profits being controlled by the government through high taxes actually creates jobs, because companies would rather invest in their employees and research than pay taxes. Novel concept, but it goes against conventional wisdom. People should be allowed to get rich, but people shouldn't be allowed to get rich to the point where they can corrupt the system. That is what has happened. 

9 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

There's a large labor movement going on among working people right now and I view any wins for labor as a positive. It's black and white from my pov. I will support labor no matter who it is.  I definitely give a shit about the average working person and I think a win on a level like this could help the larger labor movement in general. 
I stand in solidarity with anyone fighting for better working conditions. 

The thing that sucks is that the strongest unions in the country represent pro athletes. We need more private sector unions. (I think everyone should have and want one) 

I don't understand how people can watch what the MLBPA does for their group and say "Why can't I have that at my job?"

 

Props to the people at Kellogg's and John Deere for their recent wins.  

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

7 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

Can't disagree with anything you said here.