Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
What you're really saying is that fans should have to pay a guy even though he wasn't able to make himself available to play. If a golfer couldn't play in a tournament (for this same reason,) then he wouldn't get paid.He wouldn't consider it punishment.This guy wasn't able to play.It was a personal matter that was involved.He wasn't hurt(which is how most athletes get paid while not producing a product called entertainment.)I think golf got it right(pay athletes based on performance.)Jason Schmidt got paid $15,703,946 for doing nothing this year.He didn't produce a product called entertainment.Does anybody take responsibility for the fans having to pay this guy? No,the G.M. is not punished...Only the fans get punished.So,no,I am not for paying athletes that don't play games.This bullshit is the reason the cost to go to games is out of hand.If they get injured,and it's of course nobody's fault,then why doesn't the athlete have to give up half his money,and the fans pay him half money(for doing nothing.)The Viking player should be allowed to take off whatever time he needs to take off,but don't expect to get paid when ya don't show up.This is a 100% performance based business.Time to start running it that way.This is not a fireman's job.Somebody just as good is not gunna always be around to do the job.We didn't quite have another Jason to pitch.
|
Scuds...I have to disagree..There are always exceptions to the "100% performance based business"..and they exist all the time in sports. How can you call this "bullshit"?
Wait ..I missed another one "This...is the reason the cost to go to games is so out of hand"??