10 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Didn't even have to look at the author.

Isn't greed good and what makes the world go round in capitalistic enterprises?  How much is too much?  Who gets to decide?  It's okay for big market teams to offer those contracts, but not for the White Sox?

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-insider-notes-deshaun-watsons-game-changing-deal-and-its-ramifications-hottest-topic-at-owners-meetings/

How guaranteed big money contracts for CBS will ruin small market franchises that can't compete with hundreds of millions set aside for these deals like the Watson one.

I understand that there is another point of view...as in most things.  My own view is that if I had $90M...what am I going to need with $30M more?  I would always choose to play on a team where I like the players and manager and be in a city I like living in.  Wheeler's wife and I would get along fine.  As in Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory...once the basic necessities of life have been achieved (big homes, fancy cars, fabulous vacations, giving to charities, etc.) a person should want to like where he works.  

17 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I understand that there is another point of view...as in most things.  My own view is that if I had $90M...what am I going to need with $30M more?  I would always choose to play on a team where I like the players and manager and be in a city I like living in.  Wheeler's wife and I would get along fine.  As in Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory...once the basic necessities of life have been achieved (big homes, fancy cars, fabulous vacations, giving to charities, etc.) a person should want to like where he works.  

Much of it is the competitive nature of these human beings. To get to this level they are very competitive.  It isn't always about the absolute money value it's about making more than another player they deem themselves to be better than.

Take a look at tyreek hill. He almost had a deal with the chiefs until Adam's signed that deal with the raiders. Then his demands went up because he had to make more than Adam's to be the highest paid WR.

21 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I understand that there is another point of view...as in most things.  My own view is that if I had $90M...what am I going to need with $30M more?  I would always choose to play on a team where I like the players and manager and be in a city I like living in.  Wheeler's wife and I would get along fine.  As in Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory...once the basic necessities of life have been achieved (big homes, fancy cars, fabulous vacations, giving to charities, etc.) a person should want to like where he works.  

But if you lowered that to $90k vs $120k per year?   $9 million vs. $12 million in lifetime earnings?  That’s not greedy, right?

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Much of it is the competitive nature of these human beings. To get to this level they are very competitive.  It isn't always about the absolute money value it's about making more than another player they deem themselves to be better than.

Take a look at tyreek hill. He almost had a deal with the chiefs until Adam's signed that deal with the raiders. Then his demands went up because he had to make more than Adam's to be the highest paid WR.

Or Giolito and Berrios…or Bieber, etc.

TA7 has to be looking with a bit of envy across the SS position at Francisco Lindor’s deal, Correa, Seager, Tatis, etc.

9 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

But if you lowered that to $90k vs $120k per year?   $9 million vs. $12 million in lifetime earnings?  That’s not greedy, right?

I agree 100%.  Maslow was talking about basic needs like food and shelter.  The $90M player is way beyond the basics.

Just now, poppysox said:

I agree 100%.  Maslow was talking about basic needs like food and shelter.  The $90M player is way beyond the basics.

A standard that would never be applied to Jerry Reinsdorf. He deserves every single penny.

12 hours ago, flavum said:

Probably another round of cuts coming with off day tomorrow. Good bye, Rios.

I get him mixed up with Ruiz.

12 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Much of it is the competitive nature of these human beings. To get to this level they are very competitive.  It isn't always about the absolute money value it's about making more than another player they deem themselves to be better than.

Take a look at tyreek hill. He almost had a deal with the chiefs until Adam's signed that deal with the raiders. Then his demands went up because he had to make more than Adam's to be the highest paid WR.

The competitive nature thing is very real.  It wasn't lost on me that the 8 players on the executive committee during the lockout voted to turn down the owner's offer. The players on the committee were probably chosen for their ardent views.   The 8 executive committee members seemed to view the negotiations as a completion whereas the player themselves were not invested to that extent.

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

The competitive nature thing is very real.  It wasn't lost on me that the 8 players on the executive committee during the lockout voted to turn down the owner's offer. The players on the committee were probably chosen for their ardent views.   The 8 executive committee members seemed to view the negotiations as a completion whereas the player themselves were not invested to that extent.

If the players weren’t so aggressive and all eight had voted to approve the final deal which was an incremental improvement at best, would the union members feel satisfied that they’d really fought to the fullest extent?  A big aspect was always going to be about perception.

14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

A standard that would never be applied to Jerry Reinsdorf. He deserves every single penny.

Don't put words in my mouth.  My view is that the players working for Steve Cohen are not entitled to a larger paycheck than the player working for JR.  Owners' individual wealth has nothing to do with the player's individual contracts.  I understand that the owner's wealth enables some to overpay if they so desire while the poorest owners need to proceed with care.

7 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If the players weren’t so aggressive and all eight had voted to approve the final deal which was an incremental improvement at best, would the union members feel satisfied that they’d really fought to the fullest extent?  A big aspect was always going to be about perception.

I agree.

47 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Don't put words in my mouth.  My view is that the players working for Steve Cohen are not entitled to a larger paycheck than the player working for JR.  Owners' individual wealth has nothing to do with the player's individual contracts.  I understand that the owner's wealth enables some to overpay if they so desire while the poorest owners need to proceed with care.

Like I said, you won’t apply the same standard to Jerry, and then you didn’t. 

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

I understand that there is another point of view...as in most things.  My own view is that if I had $90M...what am I going to need with $30M more?  I would always choose to play on a team where I like the players and manager and be in a city I like living in.  Wheeler's wife and I would get along fine.  As in Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory...once the basic necessities of life have been achieved (big homes, fancy cars, fabulous vacations, giving to charities, etc.) a person should want to like where he works.  

On the other hand, if you had a poor manager who kept making you lose games by not communicating with you about whether you thought you had anything left for a 7th inning, that would be a reason to leave? Fair enough.

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

On the other hand, if you had a poor manager who kept making you lose games by not communicating with you about whether you thought you had anything left for a 7th inning, that would be a reason to leave? Fair enough.

I already said I would look elsewhere if I didn't like my co-workers or the boss.  Many things go into the decision to leave an employer other than money.

Ah yes, ‘rich players have enough’ discourse that doesn’t also apply to greedy billionaires.  Love that consistency. 

13 hours ago, almagest said:

He will, but I want to see if there's a book on how to pitch him now (seems like there is).

He has a groove swing. Pitchers will stop throwing it in his swing path.  

9 hours ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

According to FanGraphs, today. They also officially listed Raudy Read.

Signing Mark Payton instead of Monte Harrison would be the Rick Hahniest move ever.

12 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Location, getting ahead in counts, differentiating the speed 10+ MPH on his secondary pitches...there are a million different angles.

For whatever reason, he seem to struggle most with runners on base or in scoring position and two outs.  So a lot of it's psychological, and/or gaining experience.

Him and Vaughn can have a group therapy session

45 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Ah yes, ‘rich players have enough’ discourse that doesn’t also apply to greedy billionaires.  Love that consistency. 

There shouldn't be total consistency here. The are in 2 different classifications. They have very different responsibilities and very different interests in the team.