Physical Graffiti, off the top of my head. I didn't have a record player of my own until the 1980s. I may not be the best demographic for this question.
I don't believe I have, no.
They do -- but his point was that they are giving away leverage now by making those a given for 2021 and beyond -- leverage they could use for the new CBA after the 2021 season. It's him saying that they aren't giving up chips to play to get back on the field in 2020. I think it was an interesting offer, and again it speaks to him wanting to get a deal done, not impose a season.
I get where you're coming from. Maybe owners see those moves differently in hindsight, but they see this situation as its unfolding. And in the end they determine if he remains employed, not a poll of the fans. That's why I answered the question the way I did.
I cannot imagine campaign ads would be allowed. Don't fret.
It's a financial issue for those teams. The handful of owners who feel this way are making the point that the cost of putting on a game is greater than the money they'll make from a game and that having a season will only hasten or deepen their losses, and that zero is greater than negative at this point. That's their argument. It's why the Cardinals apparently come up as an example -- they are heavily reliant on ticket sales and they have high salaries, so it could be a net loss given the operating costs of a game. The Cardinals aren't making that case, and they have privately and publicly stated their interest in playing. They have been working with city officials to make that possible, and DeWitt has been one of the owners lobbying the commissioner for a season, according to two sources who should be in the know.
I have no idea, honestly. I would make an awful Goldilocks. Perhaps I'm not understanding your questions, and would welcome you to resubmit so I can give you a better answer, Jeff. My apologies.
That's the idea, yes. Uniforms are uniforms.
Great question. Probably it does -- yeah. But that's also because we wouldn't have the building, seething acrimony that comes with the approaching expiration of a CBA. If this happened in the afterglow of an agreement, it would be different. Neither side would have had a chance to be frustrated by how the deal didn't break as expected, or was more costly than they could have planned for because of unintended consequences. Shortly after a new CBA, both sides tend to feel like they lost a lot, won enough, and are glad it's over. Instead this arrives at a fragile time for baseball -- when there has been soaring revenue, clear CBA functions that favor the owners, and frustrating mounting on the player side for them to get some wins in the new CBA. This wasn't a case of a Band-Aid being ripped off to expose wounds. This was a chase of an open wound in need of stitches and goodwill to mend it, and now it's become infected. Good times.
I do not. Great adjustment to it, yes. But teams will still want a way to assure they get a draft pick as compensation for losing a free agent. It's important for smaller-market teams who feel they cannot contend for the high-dollar free agents -- and cannot keep them. That is really essential from a competitive balance point of view, and that does matter.
Sure. I would hope that they are taking all the time they can to become as informed as possible about the virus, safety plans, and also the ramifications of voting the proposal down. If it takes an extra day to avoid calamity and more acrimony, take it. Thank you for clarifying and dropping the question back in the mix.
Same reason the pitcher win has been devalued and batting average is no longer the measure of a hitter -- math. With a good helping of risk management.
Minor leaguers. There will be fewer of them. Some of the new draft picks are being paid far less than they would in a normal season, based on bonuses. And this generation won't have get the patience others have had for late bloomers.
Some people root for the laundry, not the player. So the laundry matters. I respect that. I do. But it's coming. Sure seems like it's coming. The swoosh was already here.
The Cardinals do not like being the team that skews the round -- and what I mean by that, is they aren't a team to finalize an over-slot deal when other deals around them haven't been finalized or announced. They don't want to b the team that ups the cost for the other teams around them. This has been the case for many years, and it is what it is. But that's why they tend to be slower with announcing/finalizing the over-slot deals. I've had two people confirm that Bedell has an over-slot agreement in place. We can check the draft tracker as an example: From picks 116 to 131 there has yet to be a player who signed for above slot, and indeed several of them have signed for well below the slot. Bedell is 122.
He already has an ad on his chest protector. It's for Air Jordan/Nike.