"Hitting .300" is something people care about again?

Public free agent/contract disputes between pro sports players and pro sports ownership?

One time, I'd like to see a commenter take the side of the players:

"All you need to know about the current impasse with free agents in baseball is the headline I saw the other day about Eric Hosmer looking for an 8- or 9-year deal.

Well, OK, Hosmer can look for a contract like that.

But on what planet?"

The same planet where a 65-year-old man can tweet that Justin Timberlake's halftime show was the greatest halftime show ever.


"And on what planet is a $125 million, five-year deal something about which J.D. Martinez gets to act insulted, a glorified DH who had one really great home-run year splitting time between the Detroit Tigers and the Arizona Diamondbacks?"

When the Mets sign J.D. Martinez, Lupica will compare Martinez to Roberto Clemente.



"But owners are supposed to be colluding because they’re not giving guys like Martinez the kind of seven-year deal that the Yankees gave Jacoby Ellsbury, somebody the Yankees now can’t give away."

Not sure if the owners are "supposed to be" colluding. The players and their agents are grumbling and that's what they always do. 



"And if you want to look at a longer contract than that, look at where the Mariners are with Robinson Cano, four years into his 10-year and $240 million deal.

You know how many times Cano has hit .300 in Seattle so far?

Once."

Weird about-face.

I think the Mariners will regret a 10-year deal and I always have. Cano's first four years in Seattle have been good, but not MVP worthy.

But every NY writer, including Lupica, has spent four years ripping the Yankees for letting Cano go.

So Lupica just admitted the Yankees made a smart move. But he did it indirectly and probably unintentionally.