Cup of Coffee

November 2, 2011: Pay Me

114 Comments

I'm locked in some pretty tense negotiations right now, and I'm so tense and angry all the time I'll probably be scarce for a couple of days. As meat and E can perhaps attest, a lot of people believe they deserve their art for free (or close to it), and they get pissy when you draw a line in the sand. This is where negotiations stand right now.

114 thoughts on “November 2, 2011: Pay Me”

  1. Whangdoodle is on hiatus right now. Apologies, I have a severe lack of time.

    If anyone would like to put something together in it's stead, you have my blessing.

  3. I don't think people like to pay for any services. They're just willing to pay for stuff.

    I also think people focus on convenience over quality.

    1. I've had more than one experience end with someone telling me that they're going to rip off my images because they don't want to buy a print from me. That's flattering on one hand, and on the other hand it's really insulting. I'm fairly certain that I'm not charging a fortune for my work, and I totally understand that times are always tight when it comes to buying art, but it takes the cake when people want to haggle you down or blatantly rip you off.

      1. I hate when people think they are doing you a favor. I've got dozens of horror stories, but the most egregious was the dude who verbally agreed to a purchase price of X000.00 for my piece Tiny Town. The day before I was to deliver it to his "mansion" (no other other word for his domicile), he called to tell me he still wanted the piece, but he was cutting his offer in half. The original price was fair for both parties--especially the buyer. The 50% discount? Not so much. I put up a brave (and cocky) face, and told him he could take his new offer and shove it. I didn't want his money. Now, had he negotiated in good faith, or with a modicum of civility I would have certainly come down on the price. But, to low-ball me with a take it-or-leave it offer at the 11th hour was a huge insult. Bear in mind, this clown wore shoes that cost more than my monthly rent, and that X000.00 to him was roughly the equivalent to me of what you would find under your couch cushions. Small change. But he had to the big shot. And I wouldn't let him.

        The best "revenge ending" would be that someone else came in and paid full price, but the reality is I ended up giving much of the construction away to friends and family. Sometimes you can put a price tag on integrity. In this case, it was X000.00.

        1. What an ass.

          I'm very glad to hear that a prick like that didn't end up with your art.

          A lot of people - even some close to me - give me "the opportunity" to do my thing for free, for this thing they have to get together. In one case, a girl was getting paid to provide the entertainment for an event, and she figured I would write and direct a show for her, for free, while she pocketed $5000 for being savvy enough to find me and ask me to do 100% of the work. She was amazed when I wouldn't do this without pay - even suggesting that doing it was "doing the right thing" - as if I went to school in the hopes of someday being so good at something, people would constantly ask me to do it for no pay while sacrificing hours at my day job and with my family.

        2. Ugh. I've had folks wait me out and offer to buy when I'm more than desperate for the cash, and then haggle me down further. I'm a sucker, but when you make multiples it comes with the territory.

    1. Am I the only one that thinks the infield defense is a bigger priority than pitching? I know the pitching could use improving but if you continue to have an infield that can't turn balls-in-play into outs, it wont matter who pitches.

      Plus, I think it will be cheaper to upgrade infield defense than pitching.

      1. Well, I don't think it should be any surprise that it was the ground-ball pitchers that all took steps back this season. Also, the outfield defense was vastly improved and suddenly Scott Baker has his best season.

        1. Wait, vastly improved? How? I can see that it was improved with Cuddyer playing first and Young traded, but I'm not sure about vastly. Plus, Baker upped his strikeout rate some more, which certainly helps.

          1. The defensive metrics showed them vastly improved across the board. Fangraphs UZR has them going from -14.6 in 2010 to 16.7 in 2011. They went from 13th in the AL to fourth.

      2. I always think that when you've got a lot of holes in the pitching staff, it's a good idea to look at upgrading your defense.

    2. The Twins' best chance at [a front line starter] seems to be a low-cost, medium-risk, high-reward guy.

      And 29 other teams.

      1. I'd think the Twins best chance at a front line starter would be even-year Francisco Liriano. I wouldn't consider the corpse of Ben Sheets, or anyone in free agency (unless Darvish gets posted, but he would be a very high risk guy) for that matter, a front line starter. If the Twins are going to go after a starter, my preference would be Edwin Jackson or Burly if they can be had for a reasonable price.

        1. Or, you know, Scott Baker. He's actually kinda good.

          The Twins might be interested in another Japanese import: Hisashi Iwakuma. They bid on him last year but came in second. Unfortunately, it seems he had a shoulder injury this year.

          1. he's also a free agent instead of a posted player. coming off a shoulder injury, perhaps he could be had for a cheaper price (i say this with no knowledge of his stats or abilities, just knowing that he was considered a commodity last year).

    3. Out of that article, this is even funnier yet: "Tsuyoshi Nishioka could, we suppose, surprise everyone and rebound in 2012."

      Exactly what would define a "rebound" when he never demonstrated any production in the first place? On that note, it would be nice if Revere could "rebound" and become at least a AAA-level hitter, and "rebound" and demonstrate a junior-high arm. But it ain't happening.

      (This gives Moss an opportunity to mention a pet peeve as an aside: when an announcement is made that a player was "recalled" from the minors, when in fact he had never been in the majors before. Can't they just say the guy was "called up"??)

      1. This. Also, how about when an athlete "sustains" an injury. I don't think anyone is trying to keep themselves injured.

  7. A few months ago, I cut down the amount of Beyoncé on my iPod. Probably to make room for that Plastikman box. Now I'm bummed, she's all I want to listen to today, and I've only got nine songs here plus four by Destiny's Child. Hmph. Time for "Countdown" again...

    1. Since Beyonce isn't a topic of conversation around here very often, this is the best chance I'll ever have to mention that I met Beyonce. I rushed into a hotel elevator in the Mankato Holiday Inn, and they were there with their bodyguard. I was toasted, as it was a theater gala evening and it was about one in the morning.

      Me: "It's Destiny's Child. Huh."
      Bodyguard: "Don't talk to them."
      Me: "Piss off. I was talking to myself."

      All of Destiny's Child laughed at that. Yes, I have bragged about it many, many times.

    1. Moss has a copy of A Well-Paid Slave sitting on the nightstand...need to get on that.

      The real step that needs to be made is to divorce athletics from academics. What was once an extra-curricular became an objective in itself. A school that is honest with itself would get rid of the problem by getting rid of athletics, or at least the kind where you don't have to be a student first and foremost.

      1. I read that book over Labor Day weekend. Very, very well-researched interesting. I loved how much Brad Snyder dove into the court documents and also painted the complete (and depressing) picture of Curt Flood.

      2. I've often agreed with Moss that college athletics should be separated from college but I think Joe Poz had a good point when he said that without the college affiliation, it is just minor league sports.

        I think they need to keep the college affiliation but let the scholarships apply to any point in the athlete's life. If we were really concerned about education, we would admit that a fulltime athlete will have trouble being a fulltime student and let him/her go to school when sports are out of the picture.

        1. What's wrong with it just being minor league sports? I'm curious what your/Poz's rationale is.

            1. to elaborate/refine

              I'm fine with major universities sponsoring/owning sports teams as part of their marketing efforts and as a way to raise funds. I'm not fine with universities colluding and using the police power of the state to suppress wages for the athletes. Nor am I fine with the universities colluding and using the police power of the state to appropriate athletes' images in perpetuity without fair compensation.

              If paying college football players means gutting scholarship programs in non-revenue sports, so be it. Most college football programs don't even pay for themselves anyway (particularly once you incorporate capital costs associated with them, such as stadia and practice facilities).

              According to a recent NCAA report, only 50-60 percent of D-I football and men's basketball programs make profits.

              Meanwhile, according to the NCAA's figures,

              Ticket sales and contributions from alumni and others continue to
              carry the load for revenues. The former account for approximately
              29 percent of generated revenues and 23 percent of total revenue,
              while the latter account for approximately 26 percent of generated
              and 21 percent total. Together, these two line items account for over
              one half of generated revenues. (3.14)
              • Similarly, two line items make up almost 50 percent of total expenses
              for the subdivision. Salaries and benefits at about 33 percent and
              grants-in-aid at 16 percent are the dominant expense lines.

              That's right. Salaries and benefits for coaches and staff consume 33 percent of revenues, while benefits to the athletes account for only 16 percent of revenues. The coaches and staff (for all sports at D-I schools, not just football/men's hoops) are taking twice as much from the kitty as the players (for all sports), even though the players vastly outnumber the coaches/staff. (granted, some players also receive need-based aid).

                1. They were lower, certainly, but I don't personally see why I should care about television ratings for college sports.

                  1. I suppose one could argue that your/our solution could potentially destroy a big pot of GDP. College sports as currently constructed generate a lot of revenue. If we simply did away with them, that business activity would cease (although some, presumably, would be reinvented elsewhere), shrinking the economy.

                    My preferred solution is not to destroy college sports, but rather to create clearer separation between universities' educational missions and activities, on the one hand, and their marketing/ancillary business arms on the other. University athletic departments should not be allowed directly to cross-subsidize non-revenue sports with funds from revenue sports. Those operating profits should be plowed into university general funds, and the universities should make transparent choices as to how to spend those profits.

                    But I'm all for letting universities create semi-autonomous football departments with paid staffs (including players), run for the purpose of marketing the university and putting money into the general fund of the university. Have the director of football operations report to the VP-Development or separately incorporate the football operation as a wholly owned subsidiary of the university.

                    1. and before anyone gets up in arms about the concept of a university running an "ancillary business arm", may I remind you all of (a) law schools and (b) business schools/MBA programs.

                      Medical schools, I'm less certain about the financial structure. But I'm pretty sure that business schools and law schools are cash grabs.

                    2. If people stop watching college sports on television, it's not at all clear to me that it would hurt the economy. For one, as it stands now, those who are at risk to lose the most are coaches and execs, and there aren't too many of either. For another, if a big part of the revenue from college sports comes from television revenues, the the economy really only takes a hit if people stop watching television. (And there are plenty of close substitutes to college athletics on television.) If people keep watching television, ad revenue will continue to flow to someone. If people stop watching television, who knows? There could be benefits to the economy from that, too.

                      It's not like I'd be doing a happy dance if college athletics get wiped off the popular culture map, but it's a chance I'd be willing to take in order to clean up the system.

                    3. But I'm pretty sure that business schools and law schools are cash grabs.

                      I must be a sucker, because I have both an MBA and JD.

        2. If we were really concerned about education, we would admit that a fulltime athlete will have trouble being a fulltime student and let him/her go to school when sports are out of the picture.

          I've tried to respond to this several different ways, and all of them end up sound pretty defensive and that's not my intent. With that preface, the idea that we would give someone 4 years of college scholarship to use after their playing career is ridiculous at best. Every D1 school has lower admission standards for its athletes than it does for regular students. Giving athletes a free pass to use when they're serious, with lower admissions standards, and paying them a wage for playing minor league quality football / basketball / baseball / volleyball is a slap to the face of every academically minded student that has to play by the rules.

          The vast fortune that the SEC, big 10, et al amass isn't reinvested into academics, and for programs that fail completely (see the Gophers football program) they are actually borrowing money from the academic programs to pay off the coaches they've had to fire. UNM spent seven million dollars on an indoor practice facility for their football team a few years back. They've won 2 games in the 2.5 seasons since building the facility. The impact of that money has not improved the overall quality of the education for UNM's students, and certainly hasn't improved the quality of the football team.

          1. I should add that the absurdity of building an indoor practice facility in New Mexico is off the charts. The city routinely sees 280 days of at least partial sunshine a year and has an average precipitation of 8.5 inches per year.

          2. Giving athletes a free pass to use when they're serious, with lower admissions standards, and paying them a wage for playing minor league quality football / basketball / baseball / volleyball is a slap to the face of every academically minded student that has to play by the rules.

            I strongly disagree, meat. First, very few of these schools are particularly "selective" in their admissions to begin with. Second, what's wrong with negotiating a compensation package that includes tuition and fees (either concurrent or deferred)? It's just another form of money.

            1. Again, not being defensive, but I feel very strongly that proposals like this are bad for the university system in general. Saying a school isn't really selective in the first place doesn't address the problem of the double standard. I don't care if the difference is .1 or 1 million percent. Double standards lower the integrity of the institution and detract from the overall educational experience.

              Paying young athletes a wage to play sports for your school is one of the most absurd things I can imagine, but then to give them a free education as well?

              1. well, again, they aren't being "given" a free education. Currently it is the only form of compensation allowed for their athletic services to the school's program.

                I'm just pointing out that D-I schools currently reap hundreds of millions in profits (very unevenly distributed across schools) by, in significant part, colluding to restrict wages for their performers. Performers who (a) get one-year contracts that (b) ALSO restrict them from moving to another school to play unless they sit out a year. THOSE are some absurd conditions.

                as for admissions criteria, I'm no expert there, but I do know that test scores are dubious measures with which to absolutely rank admissions candidates, since they can vary noticeably when kids repeat the exams. I don't reject your assertion that some (many) schools give special preferences in admissions to sought-after jocks, because I'm sure that they do. But they also can and do give special preferences for other skill sets. Liberal arts colleges, for example, are notorious for using all sorts of oddball criteria for choosing their admissions sets.

                1. I absolutely, 100% agree that it's outrageous for the NCAA and the University to profit forever from the likeness of their athletes especially with regards to ad revenue and video game sales. What I can't stand the thought of is a branded U of _ team paying players a salary and then offering them a scholarship to attend school after their playing career is over as part of their compensation package.

                  In fact, the current system of granting scholarships to athletes as their compensation essentially fosters the idea that a college degree is a commodity to be purchased.

                    1. scholarship does not guarantee graduation, btw. Those are still supposed to be "earned" through completing coursework.

                      That said, I'd be cool with just paying the jocks money.

                    2. Sure, doc, you have to earn the degree, but, once again, by lowering your admission standards and offering courses and programs designed specifically for student athletes to pass the University's educational community suffers.

                      State universities shouldn't be in the business of sports. They shouldn't be in business period. The mission should be to provide a quality education that is accessible, affordable, and ethical. I think that we agree that the current structure of sports at the university level isn't any of those things.

                  2. Major league baseball offers players who sign out of high school a scholarship when their playing days are over. So, a kid out of high school can sign with the organization that drafts him, get coaching and care with the idea the goal that he someday play in the bigs (instead of pitching till his arm falls off in college) and if it doesn't work out, well, he can go get an education at a school of his choice. I would imagine that means he's gotta, you know, get in. It seems to me that this is equitable.

                    And here's another thing: no one, NO ONE! talks about how college would make baseball players better in the majors. If basketball had a decent minor league system, it could be the same way. Instead, there's an unholy alliance between the NBA, with their atrocious age policy (only for US players, foreigners, come on in when you turn 18!) and the NCAA, which gets substantially ALL of its revenue from its basketball tournament. We are told that players who play one effing year of college basketball (and attend one semester of classes) are somehow better equipped to play in the NBA. That's crap. The straight to the pros was only a problem because the NBA didn't do a good enough job of scouting high schools and sometimes picked players who couldn't play. If only Kobe Bryant had gone to college, he'd be something! Or LeBron James. Or Kevin Garnett. Or Dwight Howard. Or Dirk Nowitzki, who specifically avoided college basketball, because he didn't want to have to play with his back to the basket for 1-4 years.

                    1. I'm going to end up saying something that I regret, so I'm going to stop after this, I'm not entirely sure what you meant above. I didn't really pay attention to college sports talk at the old site, and to be truthful I'm reacting negatively to this because I'm filling out academic job applications.

                      Carry on, nothing to see here.

                    2. meat, I think you and I and the Boss Emeritus (and ubes, and...) are on the same page for the really big stuff here. Sorry if I picked at a scab too long.

      3. Right, mainly the kind where you don't have to be a student first and foremost. Get rid of the television cameras, the million-dollar coaches, and everything else that's really not important for students to participate in sporting activities.

    2. Hence, out of both selfishness and a kind of innate sense of fairness, most people are more satisfied with the sausage than they are horrified at how it's made.

      That's a beauty of a metaphor.

      1. The other night I was making beanie weenies for dinner (yes, I occasionally have the palate of a seven year old), and while I was flipping through the TV I ended up watching How It's Made, and they were making hot dogs. It made the first bite of dinner a little tough, but I perservered and enjoyed my dinner regardless.

          1. Haha, I was! I was amusing only myself, I think, but I thought it was hilarious to "livetweet" something that no one else probably gave a rip about.

        1. Maybe the FO is controlling, and didn't want any prospective managers to bring in their own guys? It's bad business, but I've seen it happen in things other than sports.

          1. I thought the team always (mostly?) controlled who the manager, hitting, and pitching coaches were in the minor leagues. Might just be the Twins though, since I don't keep track of other teams' coaching changes.

              1. from the Repository article on Minor League Baseball:

                Major league Rule 56 governs the standard terms of a Player Development Contract (PDC) which is the standard agreement of association between a minor league team and its major league affiliate. Generally, the parent major league club pays the salaries and benefits of uniformed personnel (players and coaches) and bats and balls, while the minor league club pays for in-season travel and other operational expenses.

  10. Why is NFL commentary so confrontational?

    all the writers points makes sense to me, and is pretty much why I avoid all the NFL shows during the week and pregame shows on Sunday.
    I will also add one place where the MLB triumphs the NFL is blogging/fan sites. Because baseball is played pretty much every day for 6 months there is always something to talk about

  16. In the nightly update of what is on NBA TV, we have the 1990 Slam Dunk Contest. This will be followed by the Slam Dunk contests of 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. You know, in case anyone was wondering what was on NBA TV.

      1. Maybe this is inappropriate given the conversation above but you still couldn't pay me to watch the college product. I am just waiting for NBA TV to be playing Euroleague games. I Will DVR them in the morning and watch them at night.

          1. And yet, I saw parts of several NCAA games last year (non-con, conference and tourney) that were thrilling affairs. Two of which featured the T-Pups number one pick.

            Go figure.

            2. I have been thrilled watching ants race before, too. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer watching horses.

                1. The last time I watched that video there were sock puppets involved. Where did they go?

            3. I heard this was the case - that the tournament was surprisingly bad - and everything I saw in the tournament, indeed, was fundamentally wrecked.

            4. Northern State of Aberdeen, SD beat Butler, the two-time runner up in the NCAA tournament last night.

      2. Things like the below "tweet" just get me so pumped up. And then I get so let down.

        Kanter on Rubio: "First of all, his pass is unbelievable."

        My buddy buys knock-off jerseys from overseas and I had him pick me up a Rubio. Seriously, I now have a Ricky Rubio jersey. That is how bad I have it right now. It is bad.

  17. instead of participating in werewolfturbo tonight, i decided to embark on my safari of breaking bad. how come no one here mentioned that that show

    Spoiler SelectShow

    ?

Comments are closed.