Moose Stuff
Active Member
Seems as good a place as any for this.
This one brings back memories ... his rookie. Arsa were a hot item
Joel Sherman recently did a piece on another ill-fated New York prospect, Gregg Jefferies.
It’s hard to accurately describe just how much hype he had coming up in New York at that time.
The article is a pretty good read about his time in the Mets clubhouse and how much of a mismatch he was for that team at that time.
Really sad story.
Didn't he get in a bar fight and break his hand?
@Moose Stuff The above asserts optimism yet after reading it a couple of times I'm not sure why. If the 50-game thing is activated, what implications are there for players if they decide to just strike?
I'd have to know who he spoke to to know whether the optimism is justified or not. If the players just strike then there is no baseball (obviously) and they don't get paid another cent. Assuming they're all OK with the health risks (I'm told this is not an issue at all for the overwhelming majority of those involved) then as a player you're choosing between zero games/zero salary and 50ish games/one third or so of your salary. Seems like an easy decision to me.
No obvious implications for the upcoming collective bargaining process though? I just wondered if there was something that might force the players to play 50 games or risk their positions in the next negotiation. Can't seem to understand why owners might be confident that they could compel a 50 game season at this point.