Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by JediTre11, Jun 3, 2002.
That is being a bit ridiculous, this isnt communism pal
This kills me to say it but, baseball needs a work stoppage. It has to die (at least MLB does) It must be shattered and then rise again from the ashes. And here a few changes I want to see:
1)A commishioner that is chosen and paid equally by the owners and the players' union. Give the office some teeth. Right now, it is just a clubhouse for the owners' cronies. If you set it up like a Supreme Court system, then the comish answers to no one and can work in the best interest of the game.
2)Penalties for owners that drive their teams into the ground. This would work well in all sports. You can't mange your team, and you want taxpayers to fund your new stadium for your crappy team or you will leave? No, you can't handle it, sell it a local interes that can(start seeing more Packer type deals perhaps).No more franchise free agency.
3) NO MORE EXPANSION!!!!! Can someone explain why a second tier city like Tampa Bay got a team when the team that plays in Miami is failing?
4) No teams in Canada. This country can't possibly hope to attract American talent because of the outrageously high income taxes. Put the Blue Jays and Expos in Puerto Rico and other places that already show their love of the game.
That is all.....for now.
A supreme court commission wouldn't work, there would be so much bickering it would make us ALL sick.
They can't penalize owners for having bad teams. Baseball's all about money, unfortunatley.
They expanded because Florida had just won the World Series and interleage play was just starting that = rivalry, or so they thought. And plus the Tropicana Dome was already built.
And having 2 teams in Puerto Rico is nonsense. While they may be passionate, it's all about the market. And I doubt San Juan could support 1 team much less 2.
"A supreme court commission wouldn't work, there would be so much bickering it would make us ALL sick. "
As opposed to what is happening now?
And I don't want to punish owners of bad teams, I want to punish bad owners. The Art Modell type.
Of course you can't put both teams in Puerto Rico, but there has to be better places than Canada. Plus, San Juan could support a team and would also be very attarctive to free agents (no federal income tax)
To promote competitiveness among all teams, large-market and small, why couldn't a system be implemented where the league pays the salaries, not the individual teams? Salaries would be based on performance and tenure. This would eliminate the need for players to change teams so frequently, and would allow small market teams to obtain and keep high-price talent.
Which league has a competitive imbalance? With the Lakers' championship last week, the NBA has had just four different champions since 1991, just seven since 1984 and only eight since 1980. Baseball has had six, 12 and 15 different champs in the same time spans (only two NBA finals have gone seven games since 1985. Six World Series games have gone the distance since then).
Football has parity, and the games have not been worse in my lifetime.
Also, you think a salry cap will work? You don't think Ted Turner and George Steinbrenner won't find ways around it? "Oh, gee, I can't give you anymore money, Mr. Gurerro, but one of my corporate sponsors just bought you a house." How do you think the 49ers and Cowboys kept their teams together for so long?
Get rid of Bud Freakin Selig. He was a horrible owner. How did he become commishioner?
Parity hurts sports. You need elite teams for exciting games.
My opinions(May have been repeated(Big yellow box):
Simply put, the cap is neccessary. The NFL hasn't gone down in popularity. Why? Is it becaue every team has a chance? I think so. Who would have thought the Bears would have the season they had last year? Selig needs to be thrown from office. I would rather have Bush in. One idea is to tax teams that pay players over a certain amount, and distribute that money to the other teams that are under that amount.
This needs to be addressed some way. Sosa or Bonds needs to come forward and take a test. Something to prove that records are valid. In reality, though, the only people I see that have problems with steroid abuse are the people on ESPN.
This needs to happen for the right reason. Not for more money. A strike now needs to preserve the future of baseball. Not ruin it.
"One idea is to tax teams that pay players over a certain amount, and distribute that money to the other teams that are under that amount."
You mean the luxury tax they currently have? Oh, ya. that is working brilliantly. And besides, why punish teams that do well and are able to get the free agents?
And a salary has little to do with success. Look at the Mariners. A few years ago, the Braves and Yankees were the two worste teams in the league. It is all cyclical. You spend the bad years rebuilding, develope the in house talent and sign big free agents when the rookies start to bloom, then you are good. Eventually, people get old or leave town and you suck again and the cycle can begin anew.
I like what the salary cap has done with pro football. I like goinging into a season with the feeling that most teams have a chance to a least make the playoffs. Even some of the worst teams one season have the opportunity to make some changes the next season to become competitive. The Saints are a good example of this going 3-13 one season to 10-6 the next. If you make some bad roster moves, the system really hurts you (which is a good thing IMO). The Saints made a few questionable roster decisions after their good season and thus fell to 7-9. My feeling is that Detroit will have a much better team this season due to the opportunities of the system. This economic system is good, but not perfect for I still do not like how some teams have the opportunity to choose to sacrifice their future for a present Superbowl.
IMO, baseball has a couple of major problems; competitive imbalance and and overexpansion. It seems like it is the same teams at the top every year and it has become ... boring. At least the rest of baseball has finally figured out how to beat the Yankees by taking the 2 best pitchers they don't have and putting them on the same team. Even then, the Yankees still almost won. Anyway, it just seems like going into a season, there are only 12 or so teams out of 30 that have a chance of making the playoffs and that makes the regular season seem pointless.
Overexpansion speaks for itself. It is no fun spending over $30 a game watching 5+ ERA pitchers battle it out in a 12 to 5 ball game, while spending another $25 each game on parking and concessions. (Spending that kind of money and watching 3 strait blowouts in Houston has kept me from going back, even though the new ballpark was nice.)
At least the rest of baseball has finally figured out how to beat the Yankees by taking the 2 best pitchers they don't have and putting them on the same team.
. Not true. Johnson has been with Arizona since the beginning of the 1999 season and Schilling since July of 2000. The depth of Arizona's bench and veteran leadership also were decisive factors beyond just the two superstar pitchers.
While it's true that only 2 NBA finals have gone 7 while 6 World Series have since 1985, you fail to mention that those 6 include 85, 86 and 87. So really, it's only 3-2 since 88 (I believe the NBA 7 game finals were the 1994 finals with the Rockets and Knicks and the 1988 finals with the Lakers and Pistons) or 2-1 in the last 10 years.
And why compare baseball to the NBA anyway? Who says the NBA is doing all that well? Ratings have been down for the past few years.
Baseball doesn't need super teams to make games exciting. I umpire amateur baseball, and as long as two evenly matched teams are playing, it's exciting and interesting to watch.
Baseball is gonna kill itself unless it allows teams to move to be more prosperous, fold some of the dead weight, and stop spending like there's no tomorrow.
While it's true that only 2 NBA finals have gone 7 while 6 World Series have since 1985, you fail to mention that those 6 include 85, 86 and 87.
Good point. I was thinking about that, but forgot to mention it.
I don't think basketball is doing well at all these days. I haven't taken much of an interest in a long time.
To be successful, baseball needs to do what you said. No disagreement here.
I guess we will have to disagree here. Schilling and Johnson started 5 of the 7 games and Johnson also pitched in relief one game. They went 4-1 against the Yankees. Johnson was always one of the best pitchers when healthy. Schilling was considered one of the best pitchers while at Philadelphia, but I will concede that he has gotten even better since he has settled in at Arizona. The two were clearly the best pitchers in all of baseball last season. If they were split on different teams, the Yankees likely walk away with another World Series.
Sure, I can agree with that last part, but Schilling had been there since 2000 and Johnson since the beginning of 1999. They didn't just get put there for 2001. They had time to mesh before last season. Also, without the depth of the bench, they would not have won.
As a sidenote, they went 4-0, not 4-1.
They were 4-1 in games started by the dynamic duo. I really wonder why nobody seems to realize that there really never has been a competative balance in baseball. Teams like the Washington Senators, the Phillies and the St Louis Browns were consistently bad while others such as the Yankees Dodgers Cardinals were consistently good. This is how baseball has always been. From 1972-1978 there were three world champions. The only time that there was some parity was in the eighties and the sport declined. The problem with baseball is that it is way too expensive to go to a game with your family. With tickets parking food and drinks a day at the ball park can be quite an expensive affair.
They were 4-1 in games started by the dynamic duo.
Yes, that is what I meant. My arguement is that it took having the 2 best starting pitchers in all of baseball last season being on the same team to defeat the Yankees. Many other teams went up against them with better overall pitching and better hitting than Arizona (Seattle comes to mind), and still failed to beat them in a playoff series.
As long as the Yankees and other teams can get whoever they want in free agency and trades every year (this includes the draft, where the best recruits are not drafted first due to signability), there will likely never be balance in baseball. It is good to see smaller teams like the Twins have some success, but they did so by building from within. Once those good player's contracts are up, will they stay? IMO, the best solution is a salary cap and some kind of maximum payout standard with the draft (similar to the NBA).
Or, you can get a bunch of owners who actually know how to run their friggin teams. If they got together and decided not to pay a utility man $8 million a year, maybe this problem doesn't get so out of hand.
There aren't many teams that have good management, unfortunately. That's something that should be looked at as well.
"If they got together and decided not to pay a utility man $8 million a year, maybe this problem doesn't get so out of hand. "
They did do that in the 1980's. It was called collusion, and they paid dearly for it.
Quite. And it helped lead to the current problems.
Useless competitive-balance info ...
With all this talk about competitive balance sweeping the land, loyal reader David Hallstrom decided to come up with a formula to determine which periods had the most competitive balance and which had the least.
So he averaged how many games each first-place team since 1901 had finished out of first place the season before. In other words, if the same teams won and/or contended every year, the number was lower. And if different teams won and/or contended every year, the number was higher.
After all that, he found that the average first-place team had finished 7.3 games out the previous year. So we divided the decades into three groups.
Least competitive balance
1971-1980: 4.23 GB
1901-1910: 4.53 GB
1921-1930: 5.78 GB
1951-1960: 5.93 GB
Average competitive balance
2001: 6.76 GB
1991-2000: 7.57 GB
1931-1940: 7.85 GB
1941-1950: 8.15 GB
Most competitive balance
1911-1920: 11.38 GB
1981-1990: 9.03 GB
1961-1970: 8.96 GB
Fascinatingly, that would make the last dozen years essentially typical of the competitive balance we've seen in this sport over the last century. (Don't tell Bud.)
And one other finding: the three-division set-up in some ways has made the problem seem worse than it is.
Had baseball kept the old two-division system and no wild card these last eight seasons, the Yankees would have missed the playoffs in four of them -- 2000, 1997, 1996 and 1995.
In 1995 and 1997, there would have been no wild card for them to win. In 2000 and 1996, the Indians would have won the AL East.
We don't need to run any spreadsheets to know that teams that don't make the postseason have a worse chance of winning the World Series. So we remind you again that the Yankees of 1996-2001 didn't dominate the regular season. They just dominated in October.
Let them strike, baseball can die and go away for all I care.
I used to love baseball. I played little league every year when I was a kid.
I laugh when I hear the ESPN people say "Work Stoppage" Work? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I wish I could sit on my arse in a dugout, then go and stand in a field for 2-3 hours, and make millions.
ITS TIME FOR THE NFL!
(yes, I know they strike too)
The NFL is more popular because it markets itself better. The games do suck, but the league is way more fan friendly than MLB.
MLB has just begun confiscation websites like BronxBombers.com, BoSox.com etc. These were websites owned and run by fans, but MLB decided to mangle some copyright laws to take them down. These people weren't profiting from these sites at all.
Neither the players nor owners have any connection with the fan. Thats why the average fan is becoming more and more apethetic towards baseball.