|
That was my second choice, so that's good. I am also glad the thread got extended until December, because I will be ordering the book used, and it will take a week or two to arrive.
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
I bypassed ordering it online entirely, because I happened to be at my old campus and picked up a copy at the library (still have library privileges until 2018!), so I am ready to start reading at any time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I am not sure that we need to finish the book in its entirety to have some discussion of it. I finished a huge portion of it last night (or what felt like a huge portion, but it was only the first three chapters). It's funny that the issue of player's salaries is not a recent invention, but something that has been around since the beginning of the game. Also funny how some of the players were so conservative, that they took issue with their own pay. I don't have the book in front of me, but there was the one player who had issue with accepting a $100K salary because he didn't have a good year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Kundus posted:I concede! I used a bad example! Is Matt Harrington the player you are looking for? Drafted in 2000, 7th overall. Wanted a $4.95m signing bonus, ultimately turned down $4m. Re-entered the draft, and was drafted in the second round by the Padres. Turned down their offer of $1.2m. Drafted in 2002, this time in the 13th round by the Rays, and he didn't agree to a contract. He was drafted in 03 and 04, but didn't sign. He continued to play (he only sat out the 2001 season), but he was terrible, which is why he kept sliding down the draft. e: Here is his story: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=090423/harrington
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I looked it up, and it was Al Kaline (I was thinking Ralph Kiner, but knew it was wrong, which is why I withheld the name in my original post), and here is the quote:p.12 posted:The top of the pay scale was $100,000 (first reached by Hank Greenberg in 1947), and players -- as surely as owners -- had to feel worthy of accepting it. "I don't deserve it," said Al Kaline, reminding Detroit general manager Jim Campbell he'd only hit .278. "Give me the same thing as last year, $93,000. Then I'll have a good year and make you really pay me." Although Helyar doesn't give a date, this would have been after the 1960 season, when Kaline had an uncharacteristically average year. However, Baseball-Reference lists his contract at $40,000 in 1960, and $39,000 in 1961 according to "Michael Haupert research of HOF contracts". This is a large gap, but I am going to side with Helyar's numbers, just because B-R doesn't even have Greenberg listed as a $100,000 man in 1947. Either way, there is a difference between the Matt Harringtons and Al Kalines, as Kaline rejected money because he didn't feel he was worth that much, while Harrington rejected the money because he thought he was worth more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Deathlove posted:Oh, just because I'm a gossip whore - was it ever revealed what O'Malley had on Messersmith that was so personal that he wouldn't resign with the Dodgers no matter what? A quick search of the internet brings up nothing. Maybe someone knows? Also, I am around the veiled collusion of the mid- to late-80s, and it's amazing how the owners tripped over themselves offering ridiculous contracts (I am not sure if they were actually ridiculous, but Helyar does state that the offers were pretty wacky, and that marginal players were getting paid beyond their abilities), and then tried to "correct the market" by offering no contracts. Because I live in the future, I know how this turns out, but I am interested to see what happens. Although, I did laugh when Jack Morris went on a multi-city trip to drum up offers, and had to quit after the second city.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
I understand other people probably haven't gotten to this part, but lol at the Mets/Yankees TV deals in the eighties.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
I finished two weeks ago and am just waiting for everyone to join me before I start discussing the book.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
I didn't realize there was an updated version after the '94 strike, because the narrative pushes the idea that a strike is imminent, so it ends just before the storm hits. I will never know what happens with post-94 baseball I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Xenophon posted:I just got to the ruling in the Seitz case (obviously I'm a bit behind!). Holy poo poo are the owners obstinate. I actually feel really bad for John Gaherin, since he seems so level-headed and patient even while working for a group of such assholes. But to be fair to both sides, (a) Helyar has some clear biases and he's extremely good at presenting the players' side favorably and (b) the owners are horrible monsters and sometimes reality does have a liberal bias. Christ almighty, Busch is basically a cartoon villain. Well, I think he has a bias, but I am unsure of how you would present the labour dispute between two groups in a capitalist system where one group holds all over the capital and refuses to budge. In later chapters, Helyar becomes a bit more sympathetic to the owners (the narrative changes slightly, mostly because the "old" ownership group gets phased out), but also shows that they are huge gently caress-ups that can't really control themselves when presented with a "free" market.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 23:52
|
|