The McMaster alumnus story of Alex Anthopoulos, a Canadian kid turned major league GM
Alex Anthopoulos is a Major League Baseball front office executive most well known for his time with the Toronto Blue Jays and presently, the Atlanta Braves. Anthopoulos is a native of Montreal, Quebec and grew up a big fan of the Montreal Expos baseball team.
His love of baseball brought him into the Expos organization, where he found himself in a voluntary role as the team’s “mail boy.” It was a small role for someone with big aspirations, but it proved a significant stop on the route to a larger role.
Sorting fan mail has nothing to do with baseball operations, however, it was the foot in the door that Anthopoulos needed. It gave him the opportunity to get into the stadium, meet others within the organization and talk baseball. Through this, he managed to impress some of the scouts that he had an opportunity to talk to, which is how he got his big break.
Anthopoulos managed a busy schedule year-round, working with the team over the summer while completing a degree in economics at McMaster University in the early 2000s. In 2002, he joined the Expos’ scouting department as the team’s assistant scouting director. However, he would leave the team to take up a new opportunity that would have a substantial impact on his career.
In 2003, Anthopoulos would be hired into the scouting department of the Toronto Blue Jays. In 2005, he was promoted to assistant general manager under the guidance of J.P Riccardi. Three years later, Riccardi was fired, with the McMaster graduate taking the reins at the age of 32.
During Anthopoulos’ six-year career with Toronto, he made what many believed to be aggressive moves for the team. He started his career by moving Roy Halladay — who many have considered one of the greatest Blue Jays of all time — to the Philadelphia Phillies.
He shed the once thought of “unmovable contracts” of Vernon Wells and Alex Rios. He would sign unproven stars Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion to long term contracts. R.A Dickey — the recipient of the 2012 Cy Young, given to the league’s top pitcher — would later be brought to Toronto coming off his award-winning year.
Anthopoulos would acquire Josh Donaldson prior to the start of the 2015 season, and he had become the Blue Jays’ first MVP winner since George Bell in 1987. At the midway point in the season, he would have one of the craziest trade deadlines in MLB history, acquiring Cy Young winner David Price, and perennial all-star shortstop Troy Tulowitzki. He would bring back a buzz to Toronto, and the team would make their first playoff appearance since 1993.
Following the 2015 season, Anthopoulos would leave the team for a new opportunity with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
"I don't know that I've had to make a harder decision in my life . . . I just didn't feel like this was a right fit for me going forward,” said Anthopoulos to Business Insider.
"I don't know that I've had to make a harder decision in my life . . . I just didn't feel like this was a right fit for me going forward,” said Anthopoulos to Business Insider.
Source: In their 1st & only meeting, new Jays prez Mark Shapiro scolded Alex Anthopolous & staff for trading so many top prospects this yr
— Rick Westhead (@rwesthead) October 29, 2015
He would spend the next two seasons with the Dodgers before joining the Atlanta Braves as the team’s general manager. In his three seasons with the Braves, they have won their division three times, but have fallen short of the championship trophy each year.
Their furthest push came during the 2020 season, led by the national league MVP Freddie Freeman; however, they fell one game short of the World Series. Going forward the team remains in championship contention, as Anthopoulos looks for the final piece to get them over the hump.
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Ajit Singh & Mike Van Arragon
We are certainly the odd ones out at clubs fest. Sitting in front of a big red banner, the words “Communist” and “Socialism” loom over our little table. A force field of political distrust seems to glow in this corner of the Student Center; and we’re wondering what does it mean to be a Communist at McMaster? Somebody approaches us with the question: “What are you guys? Like, Hitler?”
For the record, we aren’t anything “like Hitler”, however, we continue to hear the word “Communist” used as a pejorative on campus. One example was during the MSU Presidential election, making it clear that many still see Communists as mysterious boogeymen. Unfortunately, this is not surprising given the long history of anti-Communist hysteria, including the recent proposal for a monument to the “Victims of Communism,” envisioned in a particularly frightful moment of opportunism by former PM Stephen Harper. Due to the confused and, at times, hostile, buzz about our presence on campus, we think we owe our peers a proper introduction.
Communism is an ideology and movement that seeks to establish an egalitarian society without classes, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” Generally, Communists see capitalist society as a global system with a key feature: separate classes with conflicting interests. This results in a class struggle between the few, the propertied or “bourgeoisie” (think: CEOs and bankers), and the many, the property-less workers or “proletariat” (think: teachers, nurses and retail workers). Since the proletariat control no property (technology, machinery, and materials) of their own with which to meet their basic needs, they are forced to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie in order to survive. Communism seeks to establish a society where there is a collective ownership of property in order to direct the economy towards common interests. Ensuring clean air, housing, healthcare, food, and education for all, before thinking about more frivolous things. We believe that such a society can only come about through a complete transformation.
While it is true that Communist societies have not been without their problems, they have continuously faced persistent aggression from Capitalist regimes (including the invasions of the Soviet Union, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba). This must be accounted for when evaluating the development of Communist states. In spite of this aggression, Communism has raised the living conditions of millions of people worldwide. While facing an illegal blockade since 1960 and a militarily occupation since 1898, Cuba has achieved an average life expectancy which exceeds that of the United States.
Corporate profit margins in Canada were at a 27-year high, yet we are inundated by talk of recession, balanced budgets and the need for “belt-tightening.”
Influenced by Karl Marx, modern Communists believe that various oppressions, including gender-based violence, sexism, transphobia, racism, colonization, criminalization of the poor, ableism, religious bigotry and stigma surrounding mental health are actually relationships of exploitation, which emanate from and cannot be done away with in class-based, capitalist economies. Built upon colonialism, slavery, and other forms of labour and resource exploitation, capitalism creates inequality, accumulating wealth in the hands of a few. According to Oxfam, 62 individuals are as wealthy as half the world’s population). To ensure this constant accumulation, military and economic wars are waged to open up and control the “free market” and bring into submission any societies which resist. Factories and mines rise up on lands stolen from indigenous peoples. Their sovereignty and dignity seen as an intolerable extravagance. The surviving working class lives precariously, as Capitalist governments privatize and cut social services and environmental protections to accommodate big business. Last year the CBC reported that corporate profit margins in Canada were at a 27-year high, yet we are inundated by talk of recession, balanced budgets and the need for “belt-tightening.” Why is it always the working class that has to pay the price?
When Communists are told to be patient, to wait for the “right actors” to come into parliament and change things for the better, we point them towards the recurring crises of Capitalist democracies. For some reason, whether Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, or Republican, no Capitalist government is able to ensure that the environment is protected and that the entire population has adequate housing, food, education, and health care.
Confusing conversations aside, our experience at clubs fest demonstrated that people do care about the big issues. As the past month’s election campaign has shown, students care about politics and are seeking to create change. Fortunately, if history tells us anything it is that things are always changing, but it’s up to us to choose the right way forward.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sunanna Bhasin
I remember scrolling through endless lists of summer jobs last year trying to find something worth my time. I had specific criteria to fill when looking at potential job, the biggest one being a job that actually offered to pay me. Students want experience, yes, but most of us would like to pay off our student loans or help our parents out. Some of us would even like to save for post-graduation. So when I see unpaid internships plaguing job listings when I have bills to pay, just like any other working adult, I can’t help but clench my fists at the blatant disregard for the hardworking, often loan-bearing post-secondary students.
Unpaid internships are a means of manipulating post-secondary students into doing free labour. Students are told that they need real-life work experience to get anywhere after graduation, and so they feel compelled to take whatever they can get. However, there are students who are struggling to pay their tuition and still require that important experience. Should they be expected to compromise and work for free? Companies who leech off unpaid internships are well aware that students will likely work without complaint because they are looking for reference letters and likely hope to receive a full-time job offer at the end. Companies may also exploit their interns by giving them gruelling tasks that may not provide them with the skillset they’re looking for, or set ridiculous hours for students who are often not in a position to reject them.
Economically speaking, it makes little sense that companies would want to have students work for free. Efficiency wage theory states that firms that pay efficiency wages, or wages that are higher than the market equilibrium or average, do so in order to avoid shirking on the job, reduce turnover, and attract productive employees. There is the possibility that students won’t neglect their job because they are looking for other rewards, such as the aforementioned reference letter (so that they can get a paid job in the future). However, the third point about attracting productive employees is out the window. Just as I scroll past unpaid internships, I’m sure there are many others who refuse to work for free. These are students who would potentially make very valuable employees.
The unpaid internship is a loophole in Canada’s labour laws. The minimum wage laws do not cover every single type of employment, and internships happen to be one of them. This needs to change. If a company is making profit, it has no right to ‘hire’ individuals to work for them without pay. Using the label “volunteer position” in place of “unpaid internship” does not suddenly make the practice okay. Volunteer positions should exist only at non-profit organizations because they don’t have a means to pay all employees. It is ridiculous to be able to take advantage of students who need experience in a certain field but also bear the burden of debt on their shoulders. Students should be able to obtain valuable work experience while at the same time making money to put towards continuing education or to pay off existing bills.
Ultimately, the unpaid internship is a means of exploiting students by perpetuating the notion that experience should be their primary concern and that everything else should be secondary, when in fact, students have real financial worries that need to be addressed while they are still in school, rather than later in life, when they are knee-deep in debt.
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
While grocery shopping at Nations, a lactose intolerant friend of mine bought some cheese buns in the bakery section. Their odd behavior was explained when they gave the buns to a homeless person we’d seen outside of Jackson Square. This is an article about why it was wrong to buy that food.
Firstly, a disclaimer: I am not against giving to the homeless, nor am I against charity. I think we need more compassion in this world, not less, and generosity for strangers is a quality that should be fostered at every opportunity. However, some charity is better than others.
The philosopher Maimonides developed a hierarchy of giving, taking into account factors such as the willingness of the donor and the extent of their generosity. In his opinion, one of the most important factors is anonymity, with the more anonymous a transaction the better. This is not because Maimonides was an introvert, or because he thought that donors and recipients should not interact with one another (his highest form of charity is partnership), but instead the goal of charity ought to be the preservation of self-worth.
So where does buying bread for a homeless stranger belong on this list? Frankly, pretty low down. While Maimonides would award points for giving without being asked, the donor has not taken steps to preserve the recipient’s dignity. When you hand someone food that you bought specifically for the purpose of charity, you stumble across a problem: you infantilize them by implicitly saying that you do not trust them to spend money on things you approve of. Furthermore, often the things we choose to give are not the things that are actually needed. Cheap food, deodorant or a bar of soap can all be easily purchased at the dollar store, but money for prescription medication or a night at the YMCA are not things easily donated.
You may be worried that your money will be spent on alcohol, drugs or cigarettes, but if you want to help, you ought to give regardless. To do any less is to not acknowledge that homeless person as a human being with the autonomy to make their own financial decisions. If you are trying to judge whether someone is worthy of your charity, you should reconsider your definition of piety.
In addition, be wary of painting the homeless with one brush; living on the street is not necessarily due to addiction or alcoholism. The homeless community is more diverse than you can know. It includes women and children fleeing abuse, LGBT+ youth abandoned by their family and those who recently experienced cataclysmic life events. However, someone’s worth is not determined by their past choices, and you are not entitled to someone’s story simply because you gave them something. That’s not charity, that’s extortion.
In giving what you think is needed, as opposed to what an individual actually wants, you completely ignore the fact that the recipient of your donation is a human being with preferences, who may even be lactose intolerant themselves. We tend to lose sight of the fact that preferences and dislikes are a part of being human, and if you are going to give, it should be in a way that preserves humanity and dignity as best as you possibly can. Giving someone the autonomy to choose what they prefer is an important part of that. You want to make someone’s life better? Give them the financial power to decide what is most helpful for their unique situation instead of assuming you know best.
At this point you may be worried that if you open your pockets, someone will scam you. Maybe you’ve heard of a case of a beggar millionaire, someone so good at panhandling that they drive off in a Lexus at the end of the evening. I’m here to tell you that that is incredibly unlikely. If panhandling were that lucrative, everyone would be doing it. Instead of assuming the worst, show compassion to those around you that you can recognize may need help, treat them like human beings, not wayward children, and give money, not cheese buns.
Photo Credit: Chiot's Run Flickr Commons
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
[adrotate banner="12"]
Early this summer, McMaster announced that based on what students voted on, the Student Life Enhancement Fund would be footing the bill for a series of MUSC renovations. This includes changes to Compass, a permanent sound system, and the expansion of Starbucks to include additional seating and a more café-like atmosphere.
Overall, it’s been great having Starbucks on campus. There’s another coffee option for early mornings and late nights, I can keep up with ever-changing pastry trends, and every upper-middle class person on campus can now feel comfortable in a city that greets them with a familiar logo every morning.
With the recent additions of international franchises to the university campus, it’s clear that the current wave of gentrification coming over Hamilton is not ebbing away from campus and its surrounding area. Starbucks is just one of the big name franchises to come to campus over the past few years. Booster Juice and Williams have both also solidified their names at the university, and it’s safe to assume that with the open arms given to a Starbucks expansion, other franchises will be opening up shop on and around campus soon.
While it is exciting to welcome these often already-loved businesses to campus, this does have consequences for students. They may not be present now, but they are on their way.
Hamilton is the “up-and-coming” city of Ontario. As more large-scale companies start to invest in it, the city’s value has gone up, and consequently, so has its prices. It’s easy to think that as a student who isn’t invested in the city or a true “Hamiltonian,” these changes won’t affect us, but all of these new developments in the city are often close to and on campus.
As larger, wealthier businesses and people begin to enter the city, poorer sectors of the community will be pushed aside to make room for the city’s new money. The “poor” can refer to those paying low rents, making minimum wage, attempting to pay off large debts, so in short, students.
As the Student Centre and other spaces on campus become camp grounds for new wealthy investors, it is only a matter of time before rent costs start going up and MUSC is an affordable space for fewer vendors. More inexpensive venues like Taro and Union Market will eventually need to up their costs in order to keep up with growing rents.
And this change to costs is not something exclusive to campus. Investors have already started to revel in the idea of off-campus facilities located in student neighbourhoods. As more thriving businesses come into the Westdale and Ainsliewood areas, so will more thriving citizens, and that could potentially lead to a raise in stable student rents, and a need to mail even more tears to OSAP begging for increased funds.
While I am potentially guaranteed to be one of the first people pulling up a chair at Starbucks’ new café space, inhaling the company’s latest caffeine-cocaine hybrid, it is important to remember that as we advocate for these big names on campus, we are also promoting an all too fast turnaround from a humble, struggling city to a fully franchised capital. This transition can be fine and help the city’s economy get the boost it needs (this past year Hamilton was one of the only cities in the GTHA to see a drop in industrial vacancy rates), but if it happens too fast, we as student consumers will be pushed aside for new ventures before we even have the chance to pull up a chair.
Photo Credit: Square
Monopolies are not in the interest of consumers. That’s why almost every country in the world, including Canada, has a competition bureau of some kind to prevent and to break up monopolies.
Without getting into the nitty-gritty, a monopoly is formed when there a single party that holds a significant share of a particular market. Through the power of exclusivity, a monopolist is able to raise prices above what would be bargained through a free market, which robs consumers in the interest of making ungodly amounts of profit.
A perfect example of a monopoly would be the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, or the LCBO for short. Established in 1927 by the Lieutenant Governor, the LCBO (along with the Beer Store) holds a monopoly over liquor sales in Ontario.
This should come as a shock no one, but the LCBO rakes in billions in revenue. In 2013-14, revenues reached $5 billion. That tidy sum only figures to rise going forward, according to a 2013 report from the Ministry of Finance.
Given the LCBO’s utter dominance over the liquor market, multi-billion dollar revenues simply comes with the territory. With no competitors to manage price, the LCBO has free reign to hike up prices as they see fit.
Steep markups typify the LCBO’s greed. Supplier price and freight cost of spirits only accounts for 17 percent of retail price, according to a study by York University. That translates to a markup varying between 145 and 131 percent of total landed costs. And that’s before taxes, meaning the extra price does not necessarily translate to heftier governmental coffers. The LCBO robs its unwilling customers through superfluous and non-competitive premiums.
Astronomical prices aside, the LCBO also restricts the growth of small-scale wineries and microbreweries. Take the beer market, for example. The Beer Store (jointly owned by three mega-breweries Molson Coors, Anheuser-Busch, and Sapporo) accounts for 80 percent of market share with the other 20 percent belonging to the LCBO. Between the two giants, there’s no room for growth.
The solution would be to privatize liquor sales like Alberta did in 1993. The transition to privatization translated to positive outcomes for both businesses and its consumers.
After privatization, employment in this sector rose from 1,300 to 4,000, while the number of retail liquor outlets ballooned from 200 to 1,300.
Markups also dropped, which led to lower prices. A standard 26 oz. of Smirnoff that costs between $24 and $26 in Ontario can be purchased in certain stores Edmonton for $18, according to the Edmonton Journal.
By handing the right to individual businesses to sell liquor and allowing for the invisible hand of the marketplace to mould the market, a more equitable and fair market was established.
The gambit to all of this is tax revenue, which serves as the excuse for the LCBO’s existence. It’s repeatedly argued that the LCBO is essential to governmental funding. Ontario simply cannot afford to lose the $1.74 billion in income that the LCBO provided in 2013-14.
But that’s a short-sighted view. Tax revenue on a per-capita basis is actually higher in Alberta than it is Ontario, as found by a study in Maclean’s.
As was started from the outset, there’s a reason why countries have competition bureaus in place – to protect consumers from exploitive and wasteful monopolies. With that in mind, it’s high time to end the LCBO’s reign.
Every year, Canadian postsecondary students are eligible for tuition, education and textbook credits that cost billions of dollars in funding. But, as it turns out, students from low-income households are least likely to benefit from the credits during school despite needing the money the most.
A recent study, conducted through the C.D. Howe Institute, found that tax credits “disproportionately” benefit students from well-off families in a given tax year. Most students from lower-income households benefit from the non-refundable credits only after they finish school and start earning enough taxable income.
Christine Neill, an associate professor of economics at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., authored the study. She found that the tax credit savings amount to about $2,000 per year for the average Canadian undergraduate student.
“For youth from relatively high income families, a couple thousand dollars per year may not change their decision to go to university or college, but it might change those from low-income families. The problem is, they tend to get the money later,” Neill said.
In 2012, households with family incomes below $30,000 used only 7 per cent of education credits transferred to parents in 2012, but made up about half of tax filers.
Households with an income above $80,000 used about 42 per cent of education credits transferred to parents but made up just 10 per cent of tax filers.
Neill recommended that simply making the credits refundable would vastly improve the program. Students not earning enough taxable income would then get a cheque in the mail for what they couldn’t claim on their taxes, instead of having to carry the credits forward.
The same recommendation has been made in the past by the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA).
According to Neill’s study, undergraduate students in British Columbia save the least from the tax credits, followed by students in Ontario and Newfoundland. Students in Alberta save the most out of all the provinces, but by a small margin.
A 2010 study found that college students save a larger proportion of their tuition from the credits than university students. However, college students end up with a smaller dollar value from the credits because their tuition is, on average, lower.
Last year, the federal government spent $1.6 billion on tuition, education and textbook tax credits — more than the $0.7 billion it spent on the Canada Student Loan Program.
Tuition and education credits were first introduced in 1961, and the option to “carry forward” unclaimed amounts was introduced in 1997.
“Before the carry-forward was introduced, kids from low income families may never have been able to claim the credits — after 1997, the program became more expensive but it became better,” Neill said.
In 2006, a textbook credit was added, raising questions from the academic community on the efficacy of the program.
Whether to stimulate enrolment in postsecondary education or to distribute wealth to students from lower-income families, the purpose of the tax credits hasn’t been clearly articulated.
Neill argues that the credits currently fail on both efficiency and equity principles. She also made a point that the credits aren’t well-advertised on university and college web pages that display tuition fee information.
“One major issue is that many people don’t know about [the credits], and they don’t know before going through postsecondary education,” Neill said. “If you don’t know something exists, how would it affect your behaviour?”
Infographic by Ben Barrett-Forrest / Multimedia Editor
While snow was flurrying outside, hundreds of Hamiltonians were packed into Council Chambers inside City Hall on Jan. 16 for public consultation on the proposal for a casino in downtown Hamilton.
The event became standing room only as a crowd gathered outside the chambers to peer into the proceedings.
Inside the Council Chambers there was a sea of black and red signs representing the “Say NO to Downtown Casino” campaign, with sparse pockets of the yellow and black signs of the casino supporters.
Several speakers opposed plans for a downtown casino, and they were met with loud applause.
Robert Murray from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health discussed how close proximity to a casino aggravates problem gambling habits.
Hannah Holmes, a professor in economics at Mac, conducted an economic analysis of a downtown casino and discussed the pros and cons at the event. Her ultimate conclusion, that the negative implications outweighed the positive economic benefits, was met with applause.
“A Hamilton casino could only be a success if it could become a destination casino, attracting tourists,” said Holmes.
“This is not likely to happen. I think local businesses stand a possibility of losing out if locals spend money at the casino instead of in their communities.”
Bruce Barbour, representing Flamborough Downs, Hamilton’s only current large-scale gaming operation, spoke about the 400 direct jobs provided by Flamborough Downs, and how slots and horse racing will cease to exist there as of March 31.
While Barbour sought to inform the audience about the issues facing Flamborough Downs and its staff, Paul Burns, from the Canadian Gaming Association, took a much clearer lobbying approach to address concerns over a downtown casino in Hamilton.
Despite heckling from the audience and clamour that erupted multiple times throughout Burns’ speech, he remained adamant that a casino would be profitable and not detrimental to the community.
“The question tonight isn’t ‘should casino gaming be allowed in the greater Hamilton area.’ That’s already been answered in the affirmative, with facilities in the Hamilton-area for the past decade … Gaming is an entertainment choice, a choice that is enjoyed responsibly by the overwhelming majority of people who choose to play.”
These remarks were met with open opposition from the audience, with one attendee exclaiming, “It’s more than a choice; you’re marketing to the poor.”
The Carmens Group, managed by the Mercanti family, has announced its interest in bidding for the casino development, and have said they are partnering with the Hard Rock Café.
The group plans to publicly announce their partners and plans on Feb. 6.
