Comments on: Chat wrap http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/05/09/chat-wrap/ Media, Baseball, Boston, the Red Sox, Music, Literature, and Mnookins Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:50:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: chris http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/05/09/chat-wrap/#comment-39821 chris Wed, 09 May 2007 20:00:23 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/05/09/chat-wrap/#comment-39821 So Seth... is it time to finish your sentence about Torre's handling of the bullpen? :-) So Seth… is it time to finish your sentence about Torre’s handling of the bullpen? :-)

]]> By: TheVoiceofReason http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/05/09/chat-wrap/#comment-39668 TheVoiceofReason Wed, 09 May 2007 15:46:43 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/05/09/chat-wrap/#comment-39668 I agree with your general point regarding a poor system of incentives rife with conflicts of interests for medical staffs to pro teams, but am concerned when you say this: <b> I don't know the article specifically, but I do know of players -- usually in football -- who are told of the (oftentimes terrifying) risks of returning to the field and the players deciding they want to suit up. That, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to happen. </b> This strikes me as a relatively simplistic and paternalistic analysis. We can all certainly agree that it is tragic when a player suffers a career-ending, life-altering, or worst of all, fatal injury, especially when they were warned in advance. At the same time, the serious risk that these athletes face is one of the chief reasons that they are so well compensated. The market for professional athletes salaries reflects the danger of the job. A football player who chooses to continue to play in spite of the risk is nothing more than a grown man making a a calculated decision. The wisdom of that decision is certainly up for debate, but your conclusion that such a scenario "shouldn't be allowed to happen" is unjustified. Who are you to interpose your own beliefs and life-priorities in deciding for the player what is best for him? I agree with your general point regarding a poor system of incentives rife with conflicts of interests for medical staffs to pro teams, but am concerned when you say this:

I don’t know the article specifically, but I do know of players — usually in football — who are told of the (oftentimes terrifying) risks of returning to the field and the players deciding they want to suit up. That, in my opinion, shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

This strikes me as a relatively simplistic and paternalistic analysis. We can all certainly agree that it is tragic when a player suffers a career-ending, life-altering, or worst of all, fatal injury, especially when they were warned in advance. At the same time, the serious risk that these athletes face is one of the chief reasons that they are so well compensated. The market for professional athletes salaries reflects the danger of the job. A football player who chooses to continue to play in spite of the risk is nothing more than a grown man making a a calculated decision. The wisdom of that decision is certainly up for debate, but your conclusion that such a scenario “shouldn’t be allowed to happen” is unjustified. Who are you to interpose your own beliefs and life-priorities in deciding for the player what is best for him?

]]>