Of sports and stupidity.
Offline Saw this in passing on the tv, didn't catch the player's name. But I don't know who is more stupid, the Yankees for not signing a player for not cutting his beard, or the player who refuses to cut his beard?
I get to some extent uniform standards in businesses, but what the fuck? If I am the owner and think this player can win me a championship, fuck it, let him keep the beard. But conversely, this idiot turned down big money because he wanted to keep the beard.
Is this a superstitious issue or is this simply both playing the other for better deals?
It seems for both sides a really stupid thing to argue over. Ok also keep in mind I am not a baseball fan at all. I do know that in many sports the players and or owners can be quite superstitious. Thoughts?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
The Yankees implemented the rule for the same reason the military does, to promote discipline and team unity. And since they kick ass more than any other team in mlb history, their rules seem to work. As far as Brian Wilson was concerned they parted early in the negotiations, neither side made a serious offer so it isn't really just the beard- even if either side gave in on that they were far from working out a contract.
And from Cashman's perspective (gm) if a prospective player isn't willing to shave, would you count on them being a team player? There are going to be other great closing pitchers in free agency who will be half the price.
From Wilson's perspective, he is guaranteed a good contract anywhere he goes, probably in the $7-9 million range (which will put him in the top two or three highest paid relief pitchers) and since his beard makes him the most easily recognizable pitcher it could help him get some large endorsement deals like it did after 2010 before he was injured.
The Yankees have the pockets to offer a ridiculous amount of money for him that would probably change his mind, but I don't think he would be worth the expense and apparently, neither do the Yankees. They might be willing to pay a decent amount for him, but not the high amount if it became a serious bidding war.
I think the whole beard angle is simply hype from a bored sports media and in reality any deal between Wilson and the Yankees was unlikely all along.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Kinda figured that was the bulk of it. I know in other sports players have been fined for not wearing the same shoes and crap like that.
I know in my work career absolutism like that in cookie cutter format stifles moral as much as it tries to keep it. I hate script crap. If I owned a business I would of course have a final say, but I am not going to be so rigid as to make my employees bots.
I find that when you have co workers that have a sense of independence and control what they do instead of someone dictate to them and blow them out of the water at the slightest infraction, when you let us do our thing, we do tend to be more productive.
I can tell you I didn't keep my job for 7 years by obeying the script handed to me when I first got my job.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It's call bigger market share. They have more money, then spend more money, they tend to be in the playoff's more often. Though if you remove the early years (since they have been around a very long time) they are not as awesome as they seem to be.
To each their own. Some people thrive in environments with strict rules, others thrive in anarchy. Personally, I don't play well in strict environments which was a constant source of friction for me in the military even though I was in an MOS that granted more independence than most. Funny that you say you oppose that when politically you consistently oppose letting people do what they want and support pretty much every rule proposed.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No doubt money plays a major role, less so today because more teams have enough to be competitive. I don't think any club could be as dominant as the Stengel era with 7 World Series victories in 10 years in the 50's. But even with "only" 5 World Championships in the last 20 years they are dominant. Only Boston has 3 wins and few teams have 2 (Giants, Cardinals and Blue Jays)
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Stop, this is bullshit and you know it.
When I talk about independence I am not advocating no regulation. If you want to buy a sports car common law still says you cant do 100mph in a school zone.
I am talking about private business and the environments I work better in as an employee. You know that so don't try to pretend we are talking about the same thing.
Government is OURS, it is not there to protect one class, it is OURS. When you understand that, you'll understand this post.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If a lack of rules is good at a micro level, why isn't it also better at the macro level? And no, we are not talking speed limits- no doubt every place of employment has rules against activities that directly threaten others. We are talking about rules like the government dictating you purchase health insurance that the government deems "good" which is a lot like a boss who demands you wear a certain uniform and makes you pay for it. And no, the government is not "ours", I have no representation and no likelihood of getting any. This government is clearly yours.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Because lack of rules on the big scale creates a power vacuum and unless you have the resources to take that top spot when the vacuum creates that spot, you get fucked.
It cuts both ways moron. You bitch about my positions, but if I was a billionaire and there were no regulations to stop me from oppressing you because I don't agree with you, it would be very easy.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Beyond, imagine if I had Bill Gates money like the Koch brothers, knowing what you know about my positions. Would you want me to have that kind of power simply because I have money? THAT MORON is why it is OUR government and WHY we have elections.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If you had Bill Gates money exactly how would you oppress me without using government?
BINGO!
Think about that and then you'll understand why it is not an issue of wealth but MONOPOLIES OF POWER!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
?? I am asking because I seriously have no fucking clue and you claim it would be "easy". So if you had $65 billion exactly how would you oppress me without using government? I have a pretty creative business mind and I can't imagine how I would oppress anyone even if I had a trillion. Money only matters to the extent that someone else wants it. If you don't want my money, I have no power over you no matter how much I have.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
lol apparently Brian is incapable of answering that question. I could do it: hire a bunch of thugs.
I'd just have no interest in doing so. It's too expensive and dangerous to oppress people. Inevitably there's more of them than of you, and inevitably they'll hurt or kill you for it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
i really think the sonofabitch has gone completely off his rocker...at least every now and then...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Sure you could, but that would be illegal and you hardly need billions to do it. Statistically, I am far more likely to be beaten and robbed by poor thugs than wealthy ones. All you would need to do is tell the thugs you know where my valuables are. Having billions would just make it more likely that any trial if you get caught would draw international attention.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
If you can hire enough thugs you can swing an election and change the law.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
ah, the old tammany hall approach...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson