The fate of Baseball in the US

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by JediTre11, Jun 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Absolutely. The MLB has done more in the past few years to destroy its game and appeal than any other single entity.

    Sickening.
  2. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Let me ask this question: Why don't the players break away and form their own league? Then they wouldn't have to share the billions of dollars of revenue with anyone.

    Do they have enough capital to do this, if most of the big-money players (current and retired) invest in it? (And that's the key, of course - those guys have it made and would rather count their own money than be bothered with this).

    Obtaining the rights to use the stadiums would be a hurdle.
  3. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    They are making way too much money in the current system to do that. Why burn the applecart, just because it is currently on a bumpy road? Please.
  4. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Then, it would seem their position is a tad bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
  5. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    So now they are striking...great, just great.

    I'm going to Safeco Field on the day printed on my tickets, game or not, with a sign that reads "Unions are for feeding families, not for buying BMWs".

    When we see the one year mark of 9/11, and America's pastime is absent, I don't think fans will come back. I'm going to my game, and thats it. Even if Seattle's beloved, (but slumping) Mariners make the series, WS or AL, I'm never coming back. There is no solution for greed, not in our economic system anyway.
  6. Wraith_2 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 29, 2002
  7. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    what about the owners? people always expect the players to bend over and make concessions, and expect the owners to be montgomery burns. double standards aren't fair.
  8. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    But the owners are the ones who made the financial investment, and therefore they are the ones taking all the risk, and have the real vested interest. So they are entitled to be rewarded as such.

    It doesn't help the players' cause at all when they get on TV and pretend to be savvy legal experts and financial wizards, when in fact they are just incredibly lucky that such money exists for people who can hit a ball. Saying things like "we just want reasonable working conditions" shows how out of touch they are with reality. Same with saying how a third of the players make only $300,000 or less. Or saying fans who don't side with them have no class. These are things I've seen on TV the past week, and they just go to show how grossly wrapped up most of those guys are in their own fantasy world.

    I'm a free-market guy, so I say if millions of people are willing to pay $20 a ticket to see these guys, I don't begrudge them the money. But what's despicable is for them to attribute this to their "special skill" with the air of superiority they have, rather than humbly recognizing how lucky they are. I doubt any baseball player has the "special skills" I have to do my job. So fine, my skills aren't as marketable in our entertainment-driven society, but that doesn't make me, or teachers, or nurses, inferior to baseball players in any way.

    If they want all the dough, they should venture out on their own and start their own league. But, oh, they don't want to pool together and risk their hard-earned capital that way... interesting.
  9. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    But what's despicable is for them to attribute this to their "special skill" with the air of superiority they have, rather than humbly recognizing how lucky they are

    Let's not stereotype all of them. Several Diamondbacks players, particularly Luis Gonazlez and Curt Schilling, have been active in the community. They express their appreciation for the game and what it has given them. I'm sure there are similar players on all teams.
  10. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Baseball nowadays reminds me of an elderly woman dying of cancer. Slow and painful.
  11. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    I am from Australia, and love my sport, as all my fellow countrymen do... I love American sports, but don't know all the intracacies.

    Question: Does baseball have a luxury tax like the NBA has? Perhaps this could be a way to balance teams, ie: rich teams like the New York Yankees.
  12. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    baseball NOW has a luxury tax.

    The owners professed to want it for competitive balence, but that was a front. The real function of a luxury tax is to act as a drag upon salaries. It *can* lead to more competitive balence, but can be viewed as an overreaction in this case.


    Much more effective for promoting competitive balence in increased revenue sharing. However, the current system, that has just been increased, shares revenue without taking into account market size. Therefore teams that have invested and made intelligent decisions in Cleveland and Seattle subsidize teams in larger markets that have failed, like Philadelphia. The method of calculating revenue sharing has to be adjusted to take into account market potential, and to provide more incentive for teams to invest in players and improve.
  13. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Yeah, the luxury tax is a scam too. Call me evil, but I was hoping for a strike. It would serve both sides right. Ah well, can't win em all. :eek: ;)

    KW - Right, I wouldn't indict them all. Of course a lot of them are good guys. I feel sorry for the ones who get caught up in all this when all they want to do is go out and play.
  14. ferelwookie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 4
    I really wished they would've striked on Aug. 30th. That way, they would've lost more fans/revenue and maybe the league would even eventually folded. Baseball is a sport which is not followed nearly as much as it used to be and is not the "American pastime" to younger viewers 30-down. When compared to the NBA or NFL it is slow and doesn't appeal to gen-x "extreme sports" types much.

    It is probably the least physical of the team sports and personally, I have a hard time calling many of these men "athletes". The physical strength that it requires is on-par with golf in my opinion. I'd like to see all of these overpaid "athletes" out of work, with not education to fall back on. A grow man hitting .233 and getting paid 2.2 million a year is ridiculous considering teachers generally make under 40 thousand a year. It is disgraceful (as with other major U.S. sports) that we value physical "talent" over intelligence and education.

    Having said all of this, I like to PLAY baseball myself with friends every summer. But, my friends and I play to enjoy ourselves and the weather and use it as a chance to bond and a excuse to go have a few drinks later! ;) We care if we win or lose, but it's not the end of the world either way. I just think the money has destroyed any enjoyment of the game, for the players and fans.

    While I see some of the same in other sports, there does seem to be some parody in them though, unlike baseball. (Last 4 NFL champions: Denver, St. Louis, Baltimore, New England, for example) At least a "small market" team stands a chance in the other sports. Having the Yankees (The Steinbrenner MoneyBags) in the world series is great every year because they can purchase quality players from other teams is great, if you live in New York. Unfortunatly, there are over 250 million of us who don't, and don't care if they win. MLB needs to make some serious moves with a salary cap fix, and revenue sharing...and even with that, I don't think it will survive as a healthy organization for too long, IMO.
  15. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    really wished they would've striked on Aug. 30th. That way, they would've lost more fans/revenue and maybe the league would even eventually folded. Baseball is a sport which is not followed nearly as much as it used to be and is not the "American pastime" to younger viewers 30-down. When compared to the NBA or NFL it is slow and doesn't appeal to gen-x "extreme sports" types much.

    It is probably the least physical of the team sports and personally, I have a hard time calling many of these men "athletes". The physical strength that it requires is on-par with golf in my opinion. I'd like to see all of these overpaid "athletes" out of work, with not education to fall back on. A grow man hitting .233 and getting paid 2.2 million a year is ridiculous considering teachers generally make under 40 thousand a year. It is disgraceful (as with other major U.S. sports) that we value physical "talent" over intelligence and education.


    You won't find any players hitting .233 that are making that much money, unless they were doing much better in the not too distant past.

    Baseball is the greatest sport in this land, and has a history unmatched in any sport. It doesn't matter to me if fewer people watch it or appreciate it. It doesn't make it any less good. Last year's World Series was the highest rated Series since 1991. It requires a great deal of coordination and ability to be a baseball player, as well as some degree of intelligence.

    If you don't like those things, I'm sorry. You're the one missing out.

    While I see some of the same in other sports, there does seem to be some parody in them though, unlike baseball. (Last 4 NFL champions: Denver, St. Louis, Baltimore, New England, for example) At least a "small market" team stands a chance in the other sports. Having the Yankees (The Steinbrenner MoneyBags) in the world series is great every year because they can purchase quality players from other teams is great, if you live in New York. Unfortunatly, there are over 250 million of us who don't, and don't care if they win. MLB needs to make some serious moves with a salary cap fix, and revenue sharing...and even with that, I don't think it will survive as a healthy organization for too long, IMO.

    You seem to be ignorant when it comes to baseball details. Perhaps you haven't noticed that Oakland, a small market team, has won 16 games in a row and is cruising to well over 100 wins, a year after losing three of their best players. Baseball doesn't need a salary cap. Baseball just needs more people in management with common sense and knowledge of the game. Whether it's Billy Beane of Oakland, Joe Garagiola Jr. of Arizona or Brian Cashman of New York, it's smart decisions that make the difference in the end. Minnesota is a small market team, but they're cruising toward the playoffs as well. Baseball is not like the NFL, playing one game a week. The nature of the game is different, and you may want to keep that in mind.
  16. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    ^
    |
    |

    what he said in the last paragraph.
  17. ferelwookie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 4
    I appreciate being called "ignorant", but I guess your allow to make personal attacks because your a mod. Whatever.

    Maybe you're not aware that the Yankees have won 4 championships since 1994 and have been in 5 world series in that time. Real parody. The A's "small market" is comprised of Oakland/ San Fransico area, one of the heaviest populated regions with the most stations in the country. Champs like the Dimondbacks and Marlins are flukes and they certainly can't compete regularly over years/ decades. Just look at the Marlins only 3-4 years after a title.

    I follow the standings of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB on a pretty regular basis, and don't appreciate being called ignorant. Just look at the payroll and domination of the Yankees in the past decade to back up my lack of parody claim. I know I will possibly be banned for standing up for myself, but whatever. I don't insult people's intelligence or knowledge of topics on these boards and expect the same common decency in return.
  18. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I appreciate being called "ignorant", but I guess your allow to make personal attacks because your a mod. Whatever

    To call someone "ignorant" is not necessarily an attack or a flame at all. The term ignorance simply means not knowing about something. It's just that it's often used in a negative context. I didn't mean it in such a way.

    Maybe you're not aware that the Yankees have won 4 championships since 1994 and have been in 5 world series in that time.

    I am aware. However, you'd probably have a stronger argument if you said "1996" instead of 1994, as I'm not sure why you used a strike year as your starting point. They were defeated in the division series in 1995, and it was not until Joe Torre's arrival in 1996 that they won a title.

    The A's "small market" is comprised of Oakland/ San Fransico area, one of the heaviest populated regions with the most stations in the country. Champs like the Dimondbacks and Marlins are flukes and they certainly can't compete regularly over years/ decades

    Your further show your lack of understanding here. The A's have a small payroll, and are one of the least-attended teams in MLB. San Francisco on the other hand is one of the league leaders in attendance, and has a middle of the road payroll. The Diamondbacks were built differently than the Marlins, and have much more intelligent management and ownership. Much of the team is comprised of inexpensive free agents and castoffs from other teams. Only a few team members are big name/high salary players. Mostly, the Diamondbacks have a lot of players that any other team could have had, or developed from their own farm system. Florida simply signed several high priced free agents in the 1996 offseason, won a championship with them, and sent them packing afterward. The Diamondbacks lost Reggie Sanders, signed Rick Helling and traded for Mike Meyers. That was about it.

    If the Diamondbacks (or A's) are flukes, I think a lot of other teams would like to be flukes too.

    I follow the standings of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB on a pretty regular basis, and don't appreciate being called ignorant. Just look at the payroll and domination of the Yankees in the past decade to back up my lack of parody claim. I know I will possibly be banned for standing up for myself, but whatever. I don't insult people's intelligence or knowledge of topics on these boards and expect the same common decency in return.

    Simply following the standings does not give you knowledge or understanding of any sport. I am not here to debate your knowledge of any of the other sports, but I do call into question your understanding of baseball. I note the continual sucesss of the Cleveland Indians over a period of about 8 years, and they challenged the Yankees repeatedly, defeating them in 1997 on their way to an AL pennant. The Mariners played the Yankees tough as well in both 2000 and 2001. It wasn't high payroll or anything of the sort that got the job done for the Yankees. It was simply better execution on the field and better management. Certainly, the Yankees are in a class of their own when it comes to amount of money to spend, but many other teams with a high payroll have failed miserably over the past several years due to poor management. That's what it all comes down to. If you push the right buttons, you'll get a winner.

  19. ferelwookie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 4
    But neither the Mariners nor the Indians have won a title in the past. (It was 1954, I believe, that they were even close, and then their loss in the Series in the 90's). Teams like the Oriles, Pirates and Red Sox haven't seen a title in decades. (In the Sox's case, nearly a century!) Simply put, the small market teams in baseball have little chance to compete, and almost NO chance to compete over an extended period of time. (As they lose their "emerging talent" to wealthy teams like the Braves and Yankees.) Payroll does mean everything IMO. I may "lack knowledge" about baseball in your view, but I know how many times these TWO teams have one their respective penants in the past ten years.

    I don't believe in "afirmitive action" for baseball, it would just be great if more than 3 or 4 teams had a real shot at winning it every year. There is dominance in the NHL, for example, but still, their is heavy turnover in champs and underdogs do often reach the finals and knockoff the big-money teams. (San Jose defeated Detroit in the 90's, Carolina?! making the finals this past season, 8th seeded Montreal beating #1 seeded Boston this past year...and on and on.) I have other analogies that I could provide, but I'd probably just be called ignorant no matter what statistical FACTS I provide.
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    But neither the Mariners nor the Indians have won a title in the past. (It was 1954, I believe, that they were even close, and then their loss in the Series in the 90's). Teams like the Oriles, Pirates and Red Sox haven't seen a title in decades. (In the Sox's case, nearly a century!) Simply put, the small market teams in baseball have little chance to compete, and almost NO chance to compete over an extended period of time. (As they lose their "emerging talent" to wealthy teams like the Braves and Yankees.) Payroll does mean everything IMO. I may "lack knowledge" about baseball in your view, but I know how many times these TWO teams have one their respective penants in the past ten years.

    The Indians (who last won a title in 1948, when they beat the Boston Braves) were far closer in 1995 and 1997 to a title than they were in 1954, when the Giants swept them. They were two outs away in 1997, but Jose Mesa could not hold the lead in Game 7 and Florida came back to win. They lost in six games in 1995 to Atlanta. Baltimore last won a title in 1983, and was in the division series in 1996 and the ALCS in 1997, losing in six games to Cleveland. They took the division title that year, and that left the Yankees with the wild card (which came back to bite the Yankees when they lost to the Indians). Pittsburgh won three consecutive division titles from 1990-92, and lost in the NLCS to the Reds in 1990 and the Braves in 1991 and 1992. They blew a 3-2 lead in the 1991 NLCS and were up 2-0 going into the bottom of the 9th of Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS, but lost to Atlanta 3-2. Since then, a lack of financial stability and poor player decisions have cost them heavily. They gave an aging and declining Derek Bell millions of dollars two seasons ago, and he was eventually cut loose, and I use that example of some of the decisions they've made. Baltimore has made equally (or more so) bad decisions since 1997, primarily because of Peter Angelos and Sid Thrift, the GM. Baltimore is high in resources and low in intelligence, so far as management goes. The Red Sox were last in the Series in 1986, and were in the playoffs in 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000. They've been plagued by bad luck more than anything else. They also have a high resource level.

    I'm afraid payroll really doesn't mean everything. It certainly plays a significant factor, but it is not everything. When you have teams like Oakland (wild card in 2000 and division title in 2001, and possibly another title in 2002) and Minnesota (world champions in 1987 and 1991) doing well, it takes some of the bite out of the playroll argument.
  21. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    "They've been plagued by bad luck more than anything else."

    The Yanks have had an amazing run, of late, and many of the Baseball intelligentsia have postulated that their postseason success has been extraordinarily lucky.

    I think if you look at regular season records, Cleveland's record is equal to (if not better than) the Yankees...and they are in a MUCH smaller market. However, intelligent decisions and investment in the team has provided a strong income stream (that will hopefully sustain them as they rebuild over the next few years).
  22. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    link
    "Updated information provided by Major League Baseball shows that no team other than those in the top one-quarter of payrolls has won a single World Series game in the last seven years. Out of a total 224 playoff games during that period, teams in the lower half of payroll have won only five games, representing a mere two percent of games played, and none have advanced past the first round of playoffs. "

    Yes, there are an awful lot of examples of poor management. I live in Chicago, so I know two of the absolute worst first-hand. But the fact remains, if you can't afford to get your payroll up there with the richer teams, your chances of real success are slim and none. Oakland and Minnesota are having nice runs, but let's see what it amounts to in the end.

    And speaking of Chicago, here's a note about the earlier debate over high-salaried, poor-performing players:

    Fred McGriff $7,250,000 .271
    Todd Hundley $6,500,000 .201
    Moises Alou $6,000,000 .268
    Alex Gonzalez $4,250,000 .242
    Bill Mueller $3,450,000 .259

    KW is correct that a high salary generally means you've had success in the past, but regardless, those numbers up there are wretched and unjustifiable.
  23. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    Lets also not forget that teams like the Red Sox, The Orioles(mid to late 90's), the Dodgers, the Mets, and the Rangers have had payrolls very similar to the Yankees throughout the years with little to no success. KW is right it is about management spending that money wisely, whether you ar ein a large or small market.


    The Cubbies for example will never win while owned by the Tribune, despite being in the second largest market in the country.. The Cubs have such a loyal fanbase that will always go to games regardless of whether they are winning or losing. So the Tribune makes money either way, what do they care. It was the same thing for the Yankees during the time they were owned by CBS in the sixties and seventies.
  24. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Correct, spending money does not guarantee you will win. But NOT spending money almost guarantees you WON'T win, as pointed out by the playoff stats I quoted.

    Here's the thing: Is MLB one entity, or 30?

    If it really is 30 separate entities, bidding for the services of the players, then why can't a group of small-market teams get together and make their own schedules, and just play each other instead of having to compete against the Yankees and Braves?

    Or, if it's really just one entity, why isn't the league paying the salaries, instead of individual teams? That would eliminate the bidding wars. And also allow another league to come along, giving players true free agency.

    Trying to pull off a mixture of those two concepts is what's causing all the problems.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.