Short of paying them as outlined in their contract, and perhaps not putting them in physical danger? No. The management has no obligation whatsoever to the players.
Then you're wrong.
The management made a promise to Bard. He's within his rights to hold them to that promise. The moment they said publically that Bard was a starter, they lost their ability to not look like liars when they didn't come through on their word.
Personally? The management has done nothing to convince me that they deserve any benefit of the doubt here. Bard is holding them to their word for once, and I'm right behind them. Keeping one's word is very, very important. It's why teams are wise never to make the kind of ironclad promise that Cherington made to Bard.
If I was Bard and they broke their word to me like that this early in the process. I would respond by retaining Scott Boras as my agent. Loyalty begets loyalty, but if I'm just a contract to this team, then I'm going to behave like the mercenary they apparently consider me to be.
The management made a promise to Bard. He's within his rights to hold them to that promise. The moment they said publically that Bard was a starter, they lost their ability to not look like liars when they didn't come through on their word.
Personally? The management has done nothing to convince me that they deserve any benefit of the doubt here. Bard is holding them to their word for once, and I'm right behind them. Keeping one's word is very, very important. It's why teams are wise never to make the kind of ironclad promise that Cherington made to Bard.
Promises were made to be broken.
An employee has to abide by the company policy whether or not they agree with it. Bard needs to suck it up or don't play at all simple as that.
He's only making himself look like a fool.
__________________ Boston You're My Home!
2012-2013: The Cup Returns 6.15.11
It's not about agreeing with it. It's about holding them to their word.
Employers do need to keep their word. Any employer-employee relationship is predicated on trust. Employers can screw around for awhile, but violate that trust too severely, too frequently, and you start to gradually lose all the employees who have the ability to bolt.
And if you feel promises are made to be broken, remind me never to trust you. With anything. Seriously.
The management made a promise to Bard. He's within his rights to hold them to that promise. The moment they said publically that Bard was a starter, they lost their ability to not look like liars when they didn't come through on their word.
Personally? The management has done nothing to convince me that they deserve any benefit of the doubt here. Bard is holding them to their word for once, and I'm right behind them. Keeping one's word is very, very important. It's why teams are wise never to make the kind of ironclad promise that Cherington made to Bard.
I'm not wrong. You're idealistic.
Unless it's in his contract that he would be starting this year, it really doesn't matter what he was told, or what he was promised. A business need changed, and so did his position. It's no different from any other business, except this is being played out in the public view and potentially at higher stakes.
It's a ****** way to run an organization, but they're not doing anything "wrong". I think it will come back to bite them in the ass in many different ways down the road, but no...they are not wronging Bard in some unimaginable way.
Expecting someone to keep their word is idealistic?
Is it any particularly surprise that successive generations are increasingly more cynical?
Quote:
Unless it's in his contract that he would be starting this year, it really doesn't matter what he was told, or what he was promised. A business need changed, and so did his position. It's no different from any other business, except this is being played out in the public view and potentially at higher stakes.
It's a ****** way to run an organization, but they're not doing anything "wrong". I think it will come back to bite them in the ass in many different ways down the road, but no...they are not wronging Bard in some unimaginable way.
Do they have to be?
Remember, we're pillorying Bard for being a bad team player. The burden of proof is on those accusing Bard.
If he was digging in his heels and refusing to pitch out of the pen that's one thing. That's being a clubhouse lawyer rather than a team player. It's also not what Bard's doing. After all, he's gone along with everything they asked him to do. Just wants the FO to keep its word that over the long term he's a SP.
Expecting someone to keep their word is idealistic?
Is it any particularly surprise that successive generations are increasingly more cynical?
No. Kicking and screaming and yelling "they promised!", and expecting that to be an OK defense is idealistic. This is a multi-million (billion?) dollar organization. They play by different rules, that are governed by the bottom line, not human decency.
Quote:
Do they have to be?
Remember, we're pillorying Bard for being a bad team player. The burden of proof is on those accusing Bard.
If he was digging in his heels and refusing to pitch out of the pen that's one thing. That's being a clubhouse lawyer rather than a team player. It's also not what Bard's doing.
If he did that, he wouldn't be in MLB for very long.
Quote:
After all, he's gone along with everything they asked him to do, and only extracted a promise that the changeover would not be permanent. That's not really unreasonable.
No. Going along with everything they've asked him to do doesn't include publicly laying out ground rules around a move to the bullpen. This team is screaming for some leadership, not someone to throw more gas on the fire, and that's exactly what he did with these comments.
I don't begrudge him for being pissed off. I don't blame him for not being happy. But there's a right way and a wrong way to handle your displeasure, and this ain't the right way.
I'm usually all for athletes providing more than just a soundbyte, a cliche. In this case? That would have been the best thing he could have done.
The only reasons he's as proactive as he is, I suspect, is because of exactly that. The VERY GOOD REASON he has to fear that if he doesn't stand up for himself, he would simply be trampled by an indifferent FO. If he had reason to trust their intentions, he probably wouldn't be as insistent.
General Memo: If you want people to join you, act as if they trust you, comply quickly when asked to change their expectations, and toe the party line when it's important to you that they do so, EARN THEIR LOYALTY!
The FO has been very bad at this for a very long time.
New Jack Edwards back on 98.5 and it is the best one ever.
"It's Loo-cheech fool!"
I was audibly laughing on a very crowded orange line train, and it took everything I had not to spit my coffee out on the person that I was standing in front of when Jack started the boom shackalacka boom shackalacka booms.
New Jack Edwards was awesome. How about the idiot who won the tickets though? Guy could not have sounded less excited. He's probably going to scalp them...
New Jack Edwards was awesome. How about the idiot who won the tickets though? Guy could not have sounded less excited. He's probably going to scalp them...
I was hoping that he was still in bed.
I love a good episode of New Jack, but anyone else find it odd that for Games 1 & 2 they actually did Bruins trivia to make sure real fans got the tickets? And for a freaking Game 7 it was music based?
I was audibly laughing on a very crowded orange line train, and it took everything I had not to spit my coffee out on the person that I was standing in front of when Jack started the boom shackalacka boom shackalacka booms.
The boom shackalacka boom shackalacka was what did me in as well.
The guy across from me thought I was beyond nuts because I was trying so hard not to laugh that I ended up in a coughing fit.
"This beat is dirtier than Raffi Torres"
That guy that won sounded like a real gem. Usually they cut people like that right off so it surprised me when they didn't.
I agree KP that they need to go back to that trivia. Sadly, I knew every single answer to those and can site the play by play calls verbatim.
I was definitely saved by my phone alarm or I would have shot out of bed when they played the Jack Edwards alarm clock.
I love a good episode of New Jack, but anyone else find it odd that for Games 1 & 2 they actually did Bruins trivia to make sure real fans got the tickets? And for a freaking Game 7 it was music based?
I think it's just how the events fell. They said they didn't think he would do it again because he appears regularly on WEEI now. But Wallach saw him at Game 2 and asked him about it. Factor in the time that Rich would have needed to put the bit together, and it's available for today, and they probably didn't want to wait on it because they might not win.
I think it's just how the events fell. They said they didn't think he would do it again because he appears regularly on WEEI now. But Wallach saw him at Game 2 and asked him about it. Factor in the time that Rich would have needed to put the bit together, and it's available for today, and they probably didn't want to wait on it because they might not win.
I heard that too. It makes sense, and wouldn't even be a talking point if the guy they got to play had an ounce of energy/excitement.
Compared to when? THE Big Bad Bruins and 1970's Flyers would get their heads handed to them by about 75% of today's NHL teams in a brawl setting.
No doubt, but there are far less brawls today then back then. Which would make it less violent. I'm not talking about the shape that the players are in, I'm talking about the actual on ice violence, fighting, brawls and such. There is far less of it now then back then. I think a big problem is that people have gone soft and every idiot with a blog and a twitter account is somehow an expert on this stuff now and has completely forgotten what the sport was. Don Cherry hit the nail on the head the other night about this stuff. He said the reporters hate it for some reason, yet when a fight breaks out the entire crowd is on their feet. The player like it, the fans like, the league likes but for some odd reason the reporters don't like it?
No doubt, but there are far less brawls today then back then. Which would make it less violent. I'm not talking about the shape that the players are in, I'm talking about the actual on ice violence, fighting, brawls and such. There is far less of it now then back then. I think a big problem is that people have gone soft and every idiot with a blog and a twitter account is somehow an expert on this stuff now and has completely forgotten what the sport was. Don Cherry hit the nail on the head the other night about this stuff. He said the reporters hate it for some reason, yet when a fight breaks out the entire crowd is on their feet. The player like it, the fans like, the league likes but for some odd reason the reporters don't like it?
Well, they have to act like they are above it all, superior to us fans so to speak...it really is getting tiresome...especially the ridiculous take that KPD has on it all. Just stop, if you don't like the game, then go cover something else...you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to hockey anyway. That's my two cents.
He's easily the weakest link on that lineup. Anyone other than Gresh would have been okay and made Zo somewhat tolerable. As it stands now, the combo of those two is pretty much unlistenable. It's like nails on a chalkboard to me. I want to stab myself in the ears when they try to talk like experts on anything other than football. Painful.
Pizzes me off when he says the phone lines are jammed, while they play silly little clips of some coach somewhere giving some speech to some team.
