Cash2Burn

Looks like Jay got blindsided by this, just as much as everyone else: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=cp-n...ov=cp&type=lgns "Still Sabres player representative Jay McKee was surprised when he heard the union would accept a cap. "If that's where we were going, I wonder why now," he said. Even Redden, also in Edmonton, wondered about the timing. "If it could have been done two years ago it could have been a lot more convenient for everyone," he said. Chicago forward Matthew Barnaby was of the same mind. "We probably could've gotten this thing done in the summertime," he said. "Am I mad? No. I want to get back to work. But at the same time, I'm just a little disappointed that it went this far to play poker and to have someone call your bluff."

Take a look at Table 6.1 on the URL below and tell me unionization doesn't affect job growth: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CED/publications/milwecon/chap6.html Buffalo had the highest level of unionization (as a percent of labor force) among the 14 major U.S. metro areas studied in 1966, 1991 and 1996. In 2004, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among these same 14 metro areas, only Detroit had a larger percentage loss in private sector jobs (-1.5%) than Buffalo (-0.7%).

Actually, there's been quite a bit of reinvestment by many companies. The problem is, those investment dollars went to facilites in more business-friendly states/countries, rather than WNY. Many workers (unionized or not) fail to grasp the concept that capital flows to where it can earn the best return. Given a choice between spending to renew older, inefficient WNY plants (staffed with older, high-cost labor) versus new lower-cost facilities elsewhere, companies have voted with their feet. Again, the analogy is just like the Bills opting to go with J.P. over Drew. They're betting they can go a lot farther with the kid than with Bledsoe, who's shown everything he's got and has no more upside. (How's that for turning this thread back to football! LOL!!)

Well, I guess it depends on what career you choose. If the barriers to entry are low, and there are many, many more applicants than there are positions available, then that may be the case. But, I guess my response would be, who forced you to choose that career track? It's not only about education. It's about marketability (that good ol' supply and demand). It's not the employer's fault that 100 applicants line up for a "good" job openning. Pro football players command high salaries for a reason--they're in short supply. When the opposite situation exists, wages adjust accordingly.

The whole point of this discussion is that the responsibility lies with the worker to make them as marketable/in demand as possible. Employees, whther at the bottom, middle or top of the food chain, are always only as good as the value they can deliver to their employer. If someone can do your job faster/better/cheaper, then it's up to you to acquire better skills, lower your price or do whatever it takes to make the employer choose YOU, over your competitor. That's the dynamic that so many people just want to ignore. It's funny that this thread is on TSW. Making a roster spot on the Bills is really about labor competition in it's purest form. If a rookie can deliver more value than a 10-year vet, so be it. We're all on board with it and say it's good for the team. When it comes to the "real world," however, the pro-union position would be to protect the vet and say adios to the rook. How does that make the team stronger?

That's not the point. Wages aren't determined by how much work someone does. They're established by supply and demand. If there's a large supply of individuals willing to take $8 per hour, then that's what the pay will be, regardless of how difficult the job requirements are. I'm not denegrating tellers. They work hard for their money and almost all do a good job. But the economic value tellers deliver processing transactions pales in comparison to the revenue generated by platform sales reps, branch managers or relationship managers (whose training, education and specialized skills allow them to earn higher salaries because the profit contribution they deliver is proportionately higher).

Uh, just because YOU think it's worth more than $8 per hour doesn't make it so. I work in a bank. I know tellers personally and professionally. $8 per hour is an appropriate figure. If a teller thinks they can/should make more than that, they're free to post for another position within the bank (assuming they qualify) or go elsewhere. Ten other applicants will be waiting to take their position when they leave.

And your point is???? That's what the job's worth.

Way to go Freddie. I especially like the backhanded way he implies McNabb chokes up when the pressure's on...That should help him get a lot of balls thrown his way next year!

Whoop-di-do. Does anybody even remember last week anymore....it's like the scene at the end of the Jim Carey movie, "The Truman Show."

I agree. That's why you've just been added to my ignore list.

This is the second post like this I've see this week, and I just don't get it. SuperBowl week is like the NFL's national convention and it has become someting of a forum for star players to announce their retirement at. The national media is all in one place, the country is talking NFL football 24/7 and a lot of players from around the league are in town. It's a great time/place/opportunity for Emmitt (the all-time leading rusher) to call it quits. How many more Pat-Eagles stories can we handle anyway. Good for ES, he was a great player and I wish him well.

Uh, if I'm not mistaken, there's a team playing this weekend that doesn't follow this line of thinking. Seems like it's worked out OK for them.

LOL!!! You beat me too it. I'm an NU grad and, -- speaking for my fellow alums -- I want to say how proud we are of Calvin's achievements. I really think we should name a biology lab (or maybe a women's dorm) after him.

I had forgotten why I had this guy on ignore. Now I remember.

Thank God he'll be on the field, at least for one play. Now we can all rest easy, knowing that he won't have do anything crazy (like set himself on fire or do a strip tease on the sideline) to get the attention he craves. I'm not the biggest Pats fan but I'd love to see Harrison turn TO's lights out during the game.

Well, it got her out of giving a speech before an audience that probably would've had a large contingent of hostile hecklers. It may have even been a secret service decision to pull the plug...who know's. In any event, it's a black eye for everyone involved (the city, the college, HC).

You guys must be from out of town and haven't been following the controvesy surrounding Hillary's speech at Canisius College today. Looks like the pressure got to her. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050129/1020091.asp

I guess my response to your problem with AVP is, so what. Use your own judgement to decide if a player makes a mistake. Why rely on the "color" guy's comments? Does that somehow validate/invalidate your own opinions? I thought Alex did a great job of explaining plays, as you mention. He also had a nice, relaxed style and good sense of humor for a radio "rookie." He was a "homer" and it was kind of fun to hear him cheering when the team did well. If he didn't blast Drew from time to time, well, whoop-di-do (that's what TSW is for!).

That's the scariest number of all. Not that the other 99 need a college education; but that the "one" is making all the decisions/policy that will affect their lives. Pretty low odds they'll get it right.

Of the two articles, Ralphs' comments in the D&C are most telling. I think he's looking for more "excitement" from the QB position and is willing to suffer through some growing pains, if that's what it takes.

Hey, I'm on your side. I think those rating show an average (at best), if eratic, QB performance. Only four times above 90, yet the team won nine times. If you were to guess at the Bills record based on only those ratings, I doubt many people would put their money on 9-3. I know...I know, stats are for losers. Do you have any ideas about what the league-wide average QB rating is for wins versus losses?

Great research. You'd be hard pressed to guess that 9 of those games were wins, based off those ratings.

I don't think I'm being kind to TD. Like any GM, he's ultimately accountable to the bottom line...as you say, wins and losses. My point is, a GM has to lay out the player personnel strategy and then hand the execution over to the coaches...GW was an unmitigated disaster, for which TD does not escape blame. If the current coaching staff was here for that whole run, there's no way we go 0-for-5. I'm not cheerleading for TD. But I am excited. JP is now being handed the reigns when the team's "set up" to have him take over. It's a great way to do it, and increases the chances we get the next Tom Brady, rather than the next Jake Plummer.

Geesh...TD said from day one that he was going to try and keep the team competitive and rebuild on the fly. Year 1 he purged the roster to fix the cap mess. Year 2 he brought in DB who had a great start, kept the team competitive, but ultimately hit a wall. TD also started to build the D into the unit it is today. Year 3 we got our franchise RB and kept building the D. Year 4, the franchise WR and QB. And a competent coaching staff (I'll slam TD with the best of you over GW). TD's plan, I believe, was to have the pieces in place for a QB switch when the team had a good foundation in place, rather than throwing a young QB to the wolves before the supporting cast was ready (along the lines of what Pittsburgh did with Big Ben, and Cincy is doing with Palmer, and yes sports fans, the Pats did with TB). Again, the execution of the plan was undermined by GW's ineptitude and Drew's collapse. But look where the team is positioned now, and tell me you're not excited about the future: 1.) Triplets QB-RB-WR 2.) #2 defense (statistically, I know...there' still room for improvement) 3.) One of the youngest teams in the league, who could potentially play together for a number of years.