It seems like I spend a lot of time not showing Darryl Strawberry cards even though he is/was my favorite player and that I have so many of his cards: nearly 1300 unique ones.
The most recent cards to come into my PC varying between decades and centuries and millennia.
I traded on TCDB for this one, the 1990 Collectors Marketing Action Photos 8x10. I don't really want an 8 x 10 as it presents storage issues, but I had some cards to jettison and the trade partner accepted.
This came in the original packaging but that means little to me so it's gone.
Next up was an eBay purchase. 1997 Donruss Pennant Edition. Any time he's in the other NY uniform it's a little weird, but this is a nice looking card and whenever I see Donruss giving more than five years of stats like they did predominantly in the 1980s and early 1990s, I'm thrilled.
Another eBay purchase was this 2025 Topps insert "Classic Swings" card. It's got the weird unrelated "All-Star Game" foil thing going on.
The trade deadline came and went! And the week was a sad one due to Ryne Sandberg's passing.
Bryce Harper also made the news for telling Rob Manfred to leave their clubhouse; though he did so less politely it was reported. Manfred is a lame duck jackass (I'm mixing my animals here). But Harper's obtuse. He said that players aren't afraid to miss 162 games. Sure, he's not. But what about the guy making "minimum" wage? Or someone making only $4 million a year? I firmly believe three things.
One, I would like to see a salary cap in baseball. The Harper's of the world don't want it because it means he can make a lot of money; but in other sports the salary cap has enabled the "lower" classes of players to be paid more. Frankly they all make too darn much money...
Two, I'd rather see a salary floor. Teams "have" to spend a certain amount of money on their roster and the failure to do so should mean loss of drafting privileges and other perks, such as maybe holding an all-star game. I'd also be in favor of cheap-o owners losing out on home games. If you don't want to spend the "right" amount of money, then your team has six extra road games. There is a certain honesty about owners who don't fund real, major league rosters. We know they are just taking the money for themselves; but that's hardly in the nature of competitiveness. (Neither here nor there, but I might also like to see a trade deadline cap; this would prevent what teams like Minnesota and Baltimore did.)
Three: the thing I feel most strongly about is the length of a contract. I'd waive the salary cap thing if contracts were maxed out at 6 years. Giving players anything more is really dumb investing by the ownership. Not one of these contracts be it Pujols, Stanton, or even Trout, will be a good investment. Sure, players want stability and to be in one place for a long time: then after your six years it's really rather simple: sign another contract for a reasonable amount of money. If the player gets greedy and wants more money, that's on them. I can't stand paying for past performance when the near or far future has been very well illustrated to show that production will decrease. Father Time and Mother Nature are undefeated.
Two, I'd rather see a salary floor. Teams "have" to spend a certain amount of money on their roster and the failure to do so should mean loss of drafting privileges and other perks, such as maybe holding an all-star game. I'd also be in favor of cheap-o owners losing out on home games. If you don't want to spend the "right" amount of money, then your team has six extra road games. There is a certain honesty about owners who don't fund real, major league rosters. We know they are just taking the money for themselves; but that's hardly in the nature of competitiveness. (Neither here nor there, but I might also like to see a trade deadline cap; this would prevent what teams like Minnesota and Baltimore did.)
Three: the thing I feel most strongly about is the length of a contract. I'd waive the salary cap thing if contracts were maxed out at 6 years. Giving players anything more is really dumb investing by the ownership. Not one of these contracts be it Pujols, Stanton, or even Trout, will be a good investment. Sure, players want stability and to be in one place for a long time: then after your six years it's really rather simple: sign another contract for a reasonable amount of money. If the player gets greedy and wants more money, that's on them. I can't stand paying for past performance when the near or far future has been very well illustrated to show that production will decrease. Father Time and Mother Nature are undefeated.
Thanks for stopping by.
Comments
Post a Comment