Page 2 of 2
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 3 14, 6:30 pm
by IMADreamer
Nothing but respect for Murphy. He can take a few more days off for all I care. His job or his salary are completely irrelevant.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 3 14, 7:33 pm
by cardsfansince82
He did the right thing, but I also kinda feel like the team should be able to not pay him for those games.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 3 14, 8:01 pm
by AWvsCBsteeeerike3
cardsfansince82 wrote:He did the right thing, but I also kinda feel like the team should be able to not pay him for those games.
The cba covers this. And allows it.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 3 14, 8:21 pm
by lukethedrifter
My Dad was in training camp with the football Cardinals so my Mom traveled home to Tennessee to give birth to me. hashtag Oldskool
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 3 14, 8:34 pm
by jim
Training camp was in Tennessee? That's old school - let's find a place hotter and more miserable than Missouri in July to have training camp.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 3 14, 8:55 pm
by lukethedrifter
jim wrote:Training camp was in Tennessee? That's old school - let's find a place hotter and more miserable than Missouri in July to have training camp.
Training camp was in Lake Forest, Illinois. Mom grew up in Tennessee.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 4 14, 8:31 am
by wart57
I take 2 weeks off every time we have a baby, it is allowed by law for me to do so. I would never miss the birth of my children, the most amazing moments of my life. No, the Mets should not be able to not pay him, this isn't 1950. My Dad was in the Marine Corps when my sister was born in 1969, the Naval hospital in Virginia sent my dad home while my mother gave birth, times sure have changed, for the better.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 4 14, 2:26 pm
by cardsfansince82
wart57 wrote:No, the Mets should not be able to not pay him, this isn't 1950.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying for me.
Re: Mets' Daniel Murphy
Posted: April 4 14, 3:18 pm
by wart57
cardsfansince82 wrote:wart57 wrote:No, the Mets should not be able to not pay him, this isn't 1950.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying for me.
I did not mean to not be clear, clearly I was not being not clear.