About Brien Jackson

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

6 thoughts on “Sabathia prepared to opt out

  1. And here's possibly where I diverge from the ethos behind the name of this site. Depending on the reasons for the opt-out being put in the contract in the first place, I really hate that a guy being paid >$20 million a year to do something I'd do for nothing would take advantage of a chance to try and get even more for himself. Let's be clear – if he was doing so so that the extra money could be diverted away from the Steinbrenners' pockets into relief of third world poverty, I'd be right behind him.

    • Well I guess your mileage may vary, but I just can't get too worked up about these things. I guess because to me, once you start down that logical path, I don't see anyway to stop the train until you get back to the point of well paid slaves.

  2. I think one of the things that makes slaves slaves is that they don't get paid. If you want to substitute "servants" or some other term, feel free.

    I come firmly from the perspective that if you don't want to do the job because it doesn't pay enough, feel free to go elsewhere (and I'm a teacher, not a business owner). Employment in MLB in the year 2011 is completely removed from anything that Marx would have recognised or that could remotely resemble servitude, indentured or other, and I suggest that it would be as well to recognise that in assessing the behaviours of the protagonists in this sort of dealing. I reassert my initial point. If CC wants more money to cure cancer or solve Ethiopian famine, I'm right with him. If he just wants more money, I'm completely against him in this situation.

    • The "well paid slave" line was a reference to Curt Flood's famous turn of phrase.

      As to the morality of the situation, I basically just find it all to be amoral. If the Yankees held a club option on A.J. Burnett or Alex Rodrgiuez right now they'd be tripping over themselves to buy out the rest of the contract, and none of us would think anything of it. I fail to see why things shouldn't work both ways in this respect. But other than that, I'm ambivalent.

  3. Appreciate your reply. Amoral is perhaps a good way to put it. I tend to describe football (soccer to you) as a morally bankrupt game. Your description is a neutral assessment of the situation. Now that I am a little older than I once was, I don't care to moralise overly, but I still want actively to decry the behaviours you characterise as amoral. I just don't wish to accept the amorality we are discussing as standard and I want the games i watch to have a stronger moral platform.

    I can kind of detach this stuff from the actual playing of the games (which is where soccer, immensely skillful and committed as are the proponents in this country and Europe generally, turns me off) but i still want to shout out loud that it makes me unhappy or uncomfortable.

  4. By the way, read up on Flood since your reply. Interesting and with some parallels to the position in soccer here about the same time, though without such emotive language. I note that even at the time, a number of those sympathetic to Flood's case were uncomfortable with his choice of language. I suggest it is several tens of thousands of times more inappropriate now in CC's case!