RAYS PITCHER WANTS FULL PAY OR WILL NOT PLAY

[El Paso Eagle]

In a time where pay cuts are all around, he want's his full salary even if the season is cut short. Maybe no pay and sitting out would be a good thing in his case.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29174318/rays-ace-blake-snell-says-refuses-play-reduced-salary

 

Sorry, but when people across the world are suffering financially  this guy comes across as a greedy and selfish ass 

Edited May 18, 2020 by El Paso Eagle

[El Paso Eagle]

 So question - You think it's OK for the player to be paid for the full season if they play only part of the season?

Got no problem with his concerns about safety, my issue is wanting his full salary.

[cwb]

[TheTastyGreek]

13 minutes ago, cwb said:

Whatever that poor dog's picture wants, it ought to get. 

He's proven he's willing to leave on his own terms if he doesn't get it. 

[Stix]

56 minutes ago, cwb said:

Thanks - I  couldn't find it!

Ray definitely deserves a "Ray" vote

[THOR]

4 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

In a time where pay cuts are all around, he want's his full salary even if the season is cut short. Maybe no pay and sitting out would be a good thing in his case.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29174318/rays-ace-blake-snell-says-refuses-play-reduced-salary

 

Sorry, but when people across the world are suffering finical this guy comes across as a greedy and selfish ass 

he totally is and i hope he doesn't play.  in america, we all have a choice...work or not...get paid or not.  he doesn't want to work if he can't get all his cash, so he won't work.  good for him.  everyone has choices to make.  he made his.  someone else will take his place and earn money for working.  

[UNTLifer]

Bro can sit.  What an ass.

"Bro, I'm risking my life," Snell said. "What do you mean it should not be a thing? It should 100% be a thing. If I'm gonna play, I should be getting the money I signed to be getting paid. I should not be getting half of what I'm getting paid because the season's cut in half, on top of a 33% cut of the half that's already there -- so I'm really getting, like, 25%.

"On top of that, it's getting taxed. So imagine how much I'm actually making to play, you know what I'm saying?"

 

[Rudy]

The key word here is PLAY. He's not stocking a shelf, delivering food, working in an ER, etc. He PLAYS a kids game for a living. And even making half his salary, makes more than enough to give his family everything they want and still has more left over than a majority of Americans. 

 

I hope he doesn't play...

[untbowler]

poor baby, Bye Felicia sit your a$$ out then; really he can not live off $5 million for one year, my heart just breaks. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by untbowler

[Censored by Laurie]

he's far from the most articulate, but his point is one that every one of you would be making in your jobs as well. 

the initial MLB proposal was for half salary should an 80-ish game season take place...your contract says 5 mil...here's 2.5 for half the games. the player's association was reluctant as it recognized precedent could be set moving forward, but at least somewhat amenable. 

the subsequent was a 50/50 split between owners and players for the revenue generated. I've no idea what normal seasonal revenue looks like...let's say $10B...if 50%-ish percent is usually committed to player salary and a shortened season only generates $5B, then everything is honky-dory. 

but if it generates $2B, maybe there is some loss in franchise value, but the owners aren't taking any direct hit...there is still a revenue stream. the pie for the players is considerably smaller. 

you can make fun of Snell (and Trevor Bauer) for their delivery, but on principle if you're anti-player in this situation then you're literally supporting billionaire owners in crafting an arrangement that insures minimal loss and risk on their part while the actual product is seeing their contractually agreed upon salaries get sythed-off at the knees.

[El Paso Eagle]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

he's far from the most articulate, but his point is one that every one of you would be making in your jobs as well. 
 

Not sure about where you work, but most places if they told you the hours/time you were working were reduced and you would not be paid your full salary and you told them pay me full or I will not work --- well most would be out of work.

[El Paso Eagle]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

you can make fun of Snell (and Trevor Bauer) for their delivery, but on principle if you're anti-player in this situation then you're literally supporting billionaire owners in crafting an arrangement that insures minimal loss and risk on their part while the actual product is seeing their contractually agreed upon salaries get sythed-off at the knees.

Not anti-player, but these are the same guys who will sign a monster contract and then have crappy seasons and I have yet to hear of one who offered to give it back.

It seems there are always those who are anti-owners and have no problems with them putting up the money but then seem to think they should be the only ones who ever take a finical hit.

[97and03]

On 5/20/2020 at 10:48 AM, El Paso Eagle said:

Not anti-player, but these are the same guys who will sign a monster contract and then have crappy seasons and I have yet to hear of one who offered to give it back.

It seems there are always those who are anti-owners and have no problems with them putting up the money but then seem to think they should be the only ones who ever take a finical hit.

I have never seen a coach or GM return his salary after a failed season. Nor have I ever seen an owner or GM give money back to players or season ticket holders when they dismantle teams to save money. Usually they just ask taxpayers to fund a new stadium.