I am a relentless note-taker when it comes to ideas and thoughts. If it’s a one-liner, a marketing concept or even a note to call Mom, I am writing down stuff constantly. The only issue is that I don’t have a central place to house all of this stuff, hence the collection of scraps of paper around my house. I’m getting better, but old habits die hard. But with the Patriots off this Sunday, I did a little cleaning and collected a lot of these notes for this post, a mental junk drawer of thoughts I’ve had over the past six months.
-When I tune into a media outlet, whether it’s ESPN, Fox News or any of the hundreds of channels devoted to opinion and news, I like when I actually hear experts on the issues. While what constitutes being an expert is debatable 75% of the time, there’s a reason why these people are on air: they have more expertise on a certain subject than the viewers do. That’s why I get irritated when I see networks continually pander to their viewers by trying to get them involved, either by reading chat room posts, random emails or however else they get people to interact with them. Talk radio is based on this interaction principle, giving listeners a voice and a conduit in which they can spout their opinions.
Honestly, I can’t stand it. I watch news shows and absorb media to get away from the everyday opinions of those around me, because they’re just that: everyday opinions. Do I care if ‘BamaFan12’ is upset at Nick Saban for losing to Miss. State this past weekend? No, because it’s safe to assume any Alabama fan would be upset at this defeat. Should I feel impassioned to see a movie if MSNBC posts a message by ‘Minivanmomma’ that it was great? Doubtful. I just don’t see the point in all-inclusive media. It may sound strange, but I like that “fourth wall” feeling of being talked to and not involved. I’d rather the media providers focus on getting the best out of their analysts rather than decide what anonymous poster to feature in their Talk Back segment.
-I feel like we are entering an era of bandwagon Red Sox fan bombardment to an extent like we’ve never seen before. If more fans come on board, so be it. I’m just preparing for the us vs. them mentality that takes place with those that feel like they’re more entitled to cheer for the team because they understand the ramifications of nabbing draft picks if a free agent leaves. Then again, I can appreciate fans that understand a little more about the team than ‘David Ortiz is my favorite player’ and ‘Hey, that Manny is wacky!’ Two titles in four years will do that to a person, I guess.
-Lisbonbathroomwrecka just texted in that he is hoping Mike Lowell re-signs with Boston. More fan opinions coming up!
-Remember the days when there was two 1 pm football games and two 4 pm games, regardless of who was playing? I miss those days.
-In September, I went to a Jimmy Buffett concert and as most shows do, the music inspires people to stand up and dance. In our row, we had some people next to us that wanted to dance a bit so they did just that. Within minutes, there were being yelled at by the people behind them to sit down. What followed was a near-brawl between the standers and sitters, all while the most anti-violent music of all time was playing in the background. Eventually, the dancers moved along to prevent any further issues but as I normally do, I started to think about this subject. I should preface this with saying that I mostly watch shows from the seats and rarely on the floor for a variety of reasons, most involving not wanting to stand up for two or three hours while being shoulder-to-shoulder with strangers.
I’ve been to roughly 30-35 concerts in my life and have found myself in both situations. On one hand, you want to just stand up and just let the music move you and most times, everyone else is standing up so it’s not a big deal. However, there some shows that are more laid-back and you might just want to sit and enjoy it from a sitting position. Then, that one person in front decides to start rockin’ out at the most random time, irritating you and everyone else in Section 119.
It’s completely random as to when the ‘sit down or stand up’ situation arises, but my take is this: if you are a dancer, always go to the floor. If you’re not, let the situation dictate what you should do. If everyone is standing up, it’s majority rule. But if you’re the only person in your section jamming out like you’re auditioning for Flashdance, be respect of those around you. You had the opportunity to get a ticket where everyone wants to stretch their legs out, so unless you want a hot dog thrown at your head, be prepared to park your ass.
-During the Red Sox’ ALCS comeback win over the Indians, a number of understandably bitter Cleveland fans brought up how it was unfair that there was no salary cap and how clubs like Boston and New York can spend on their teams like there’s no tomorrow. (I found this puzzling since three of four teams in the LCS had sub-$62 million payroll, but who am I to argue with fans of Chief Wahoo?) Being a fan of a major market team like Boston certainly comes with advantages, but it was the guys that make minimal salaries (Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jonathan Papelbon) that made the difference for the Sox in the postseason. Even if you add in Josh Beckett, his $10 million salary seems reasonable for one of the game’s top hurlers.
The fact the Yankees have continually held the mantle of baseball’s top spenders has not made a bit of difference in the postseason where they haven’t won a World Series in seven seasons. Yet, people talk of a cap like it will be the end all, be all for their team being able to compete. How? If MLB implemented a $150 million hard cap, suddenly the Kansas City Royals would be a team prime to make it to the postseason? When discussion centers around a cap, my question is this: how will this help your team win? The answer: it won’t. If there was a cap, does that mean the cheap Twins owner Carl Pohlad would suddenly spend the maximum and keep Torii Hunter and Johan Santana? No, he wouldn’t. All a cap does is potentially restrict the amount players can make and if you think that will get through the union, you may have been struck by something in your head recently. Every team has the opportunity to spend unlimited funds, including yours.
My rebuttal for those that complain about big-market spenders and the need for a cap is to instead argue for a salary floor, a minimum payroll amount that any team must spend in order to sustain a Major League Baseball team. This would force those clubs like the Twins, Royals and Devil Rays to spend a certain amount on their rosters every season, therefore increasing their odds in being able to keep certain players. Is there anyone that would be against this? In looking at numbers, I think any minimum has to start at $50 million. If your ownership group can’t afford that, they shouldn’t be an owner to begin with.
Owning an MLB team isn’t a right, it’s a privilege and if you cannot pay the price to give your fans a chance at winning, you shouldn’t own a team. With the amount of revenue in baseball today, it’s a crime that clubs like Tampa Bay, Florida, Washington and Pittsburgh all have payrolls under $38 million. So all small-market clubs that continue to complain, look at what you’re complaining about. Fight for a salary floor instead of a salary cap and help your own before taking from others.
Wouldn’t you know it, there’s more scraps of paper around the apartment. Look for more Junk Drawer next week.
thanks for reading,
Josh
Josh Nason.com 