PDA

View Full Version : Boers: Strike Coming in August


Viva Magglio
06-07-2002, 10:30 AM
Terry Boers believes that baseball will go on strike once August comes. I'm wondering who is more irrational: Bud Selig or Donald Fehr?

harwar
06-07-2002, 10:41 AM
selig & fehr.Talk about a rock(stoned?) and a hard (headed?)place.I'd like to run into fehr in a dark alley sometime.I REALLY owe that guy.Now,i'd probably run from selig.Man,that guy scares me,hes' looks like an alien to me.I'm still not over 94 yet.At least this time we aren't going to be on a run toward the World Series.Also,when i start taking boers & burnstein(beavis & butthead) seriously,its time to stop drinking again.The smoker you drink,the player you get.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-07-2002, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
Terry Boers believes that baseball will go on strike once August comes. I'm wondering who is more irrational: Bud Selig or Donald Fehr?

That's an easy one to answer: Fehr has no choice but strike. If he doesn't, Selig gets to implement his own economic model unilaterally. Selig knows this, and thus is willing to let the players' strike and let them take the PR hit for shutting down baseball.

Of course this is the exact same circumstances that led the owners to face down the union in 1994-95, and lose. Why would Selig risk a similar confrontation in 2002? Two reasons:

1. Fox Sports is underwriting the owners' hardline position. The owners get their TV money even without playing the games.

2. Selig thinks a Republican-controlled NLRB will side with management this time (unlike 1995 when a Democratic-controlled NLRB sided with the union).

If they walk out, and I think they will, this one will be the longest and ugliest of them all. Book it.

So who is the most irrational? It's gotta be Selig. The Fox TV money will eventually run out, especially after a district judge threatens treble damages on the owners for not negotiating in good faith--as happened in 1995.

Is labor law in this country simply controlled by a bunch of party hacks? Apparently Selig and his fellow owners believe so. They are all in for another rude awakening.

Are any of us surprised?

Randar68
06-07-2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


That's an easy one to answer: Fehr has no choice but strike. If he doesn't, Selig gets to implement his own economic model unilaterally. Selig knows this, and thus is willing to let the players' strike and let them take the PR hit for shutting down baseball.

Of course this is the exact same circumstances that led the owners to face down the union in 1994-95, and lose. Why would Selig risk a similar confrontation in 2002? Two reasons:

1. Fox Sports is underwriting the owners' hardline position. The owners get their TV money even without playing the games.

2. Selig thinks a Republican-controlled NLRB will side with management this time (unlike 1995 when a Democratic-controlled NLRB sided with the union).

If they walk out, and I think they will, this one will be the longest and ugliest of them all. Book it.

So who is the most irrational? It's gotta be Selig. The Fox TV money will eventually run out, especially after a district judge threatens treble damages on the owners for not negotiating in good faith--as happened in 1995.

Is labor law in this country simply controlled by a bunch of party hacks? Apparently Selig and his fellow owners believe so. They are all in for another rude awakening.

Are any of us surprised?


I can't really side with either of them but this much is clear...

If baseball is to survive against the other major sports in this country, the financial landscape HAS TO CHANGE. One way or the other. The follies of ownership in the past has lead to the union being too strong. It seems the ownership is unable to make a single change to balance the economics without having it in the CBA. In this scenario, the players freak out. Who would be escalating salaries if not for the 4-5 rich teams in baseball? If all teams were on a more equal level, there would be no escalation in their minds.

I find it hard to cry for the players when they make as much as they do. If they want to balance the economics of the young players versus the older, like they claimed in '94, however hallow that claim was, then fine. But they don't.

I am much more inclined to believe that many of today's franchises, many of which don't own their own stadium, and have dwindling attendance off an already small base, are having economic issues than the players are.

Again, I would come back to baseball in the case of a strike only if the economic disparities were addressed in a major way...

Otherwise, I will not continue to pour money into a sport where NY wins the WS 1/4 of the time because they can just outspend everyone else. If the team that has the most fans/money always wins, let's just pile all the fans and money into a big stadium, and whoever has the most, wins. Who needs to even play the games at that point?

Daver
06-07-2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


That's an easy one to answer: Fehr has no choice but strike. If he doesn't, Selig gets to implement his own economic model unilaterally. Selig knows this, and thus is willing to let the players' strike and let them take the PR hit for shutting down baseball.

Of course this is the exact same circumstances that led the owners to face down the union in 1994-95, and lose. Why would Selig risk a similar confrontation in 2002? Two reasons:

1. Fox Sports is underwriting the owners' hardline position. The owners get their TV money even without playing the games.

2. Selig thinks a Republican-controlled NLRB will side with management this time (unlike 1995 when a Democratic-controlled NLRB sided with the union).

If they walk out, and I think they will, this one will be the longest and ugliest of them all. Book it.

So who is the most irrational? It's gotta be Selig. The Fox TV money will eventually run out, especially after a district judge threatens treble damages on the owners for not negotiating in good faith--as happened in 1995.

Is labor law in this country simply controlled by a bunch of party hacks? Apparently Selig and his fellow owners believe so. They are all in for another rude awakening.

Are any of us surprised?

Bud Selig has already proven he cares little about anything but protecting the owner's,or else he would have let Loria declare the Expo's bankrupt instead of bailing him out with a loan to buy the Marlins.Had the Expo's gone bankrupt it would have forced the MLBPA and the owner's into arbitrated negotiations that would have forced a new CBA.Bud chose not to do this,because he thinks he can force changes on the MLBPA,and because it is in his best interest to protect his own power base.

Baseball needs an independent commisioner,not an owner appointed puppet.

THE_HOOTER
06-07-2002, 12:00 PM
Baseball needs a salary cap just like the other sports.

Parity is virtually impossible with the status quo. Strategy and drafting means almost nothing when the highest payroll consistently kick ass.

I'm siding with the owners--we need a cap.

PANFIRECRACKER
06-07-2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
Baseball needs a salary cap just like the other sports.

Parity is virtually impossible with the status quo. Strategy and drafting means almost nothing when the highest payroll consistently kick ass.

I'm siding with the owners--we need a cap.

Eliminate guaranteed contracts also ala NFL. I only wish baseball were as competitive as football.

KVinc
06-07-2002, 01:12 PM
i hate that non guaranteed stuff in the NFl, we need to keep it. Its not fair if someone broke his leg and cant play that he shouldn't get his money. I mean thats a little too cruel, the players have to get a little something too.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 01:22 PM
I am 100% behind the owners on this one. If something is not done to fix baseball's salary structure - and soon - it will go the way of International Harvestor.

On top of wanting the owners to win out in the upcoming strike, I want them to hire a litigation attorney, and sue every single player (for collected salary) who:

A. Can't stay in shape to play during the term of the his contract (see: David Wells among others)

B. Uses drugs while under contract (see: Ken Caminiti or Doc Ellis among others)

C. Does not put forth the necessary effort to fulfill the terms of his contract (see Dave Parker among others)

D. Commits or mindlessly utters any sort of action which causes a detriment to baseball in general and the owners in particular (see Roberto Alomar among others).

If the players want a "piece of the action" they should also be on the hook for a piece of the downside. Right now, the players can't even handle a layoff (called contraction in this case) without runnning to a federal judge and screaming that they're being screwed. The situation has gone from bad to ridiculous with these prima donnas.

PANFIRECRACKER
06-07-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by KVinc
i hate that non guaranteed stuff in the NFl, we need to keep it. Its not fair if someone broke his leg and cant play that he shouldn't get his money. I mean thats a little too cruel, the players have to get a little something too.

if that hypothetical player broke his leg during the season, he'd be paid. He'd get screwed the next season when he couldn't perform and was cut. possible buy out also.

DrWatson27
06-07-2002, 02:11 PM
Is this board turning into the freaking 4H club, I've seen two references to International Harvestor in the last couple of day.

Clarkdog
06-07-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
If the players want a "piece of the action" they should also be on the hook for a piece of the downside. Right now, the players can't even handle a layoff (called contraction in this case) without runnning to a federal judge and screaming that they're being screwed. The situation has gone from bad to ridiculous with these prima donnas.

King, that is one of the best posts I have seen on the subject, and I completely agree.

Playing professional baseball is not a right, it is a privilege. The positions that these players fill is due to our (the fans) desire to see the game played at its best level. And they get paid more than enough for that privilege. To not deliver on that expectation, because your lazy, a drug addict, or a complete malcontent is a breach on the contract that the players have with fans who support the game with their dollars.

A contraction, or a salary cap to improve competitive parity, is required because we the fans have said:
- Baseball in Montreal is a joke, we have no demand for it.
- We're sick of seeing the Yankees win the World Series 25% of the time, and win a pennant nearly 40% of the time because they can field a $120MM team with no trouble

And we can also say: we are sick and tired of you. The game will always exist, but the players certainly are not guaranteed that same right.

Just the privilege to play for us.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 02:34 PM
Ah but International Harvestor was so much more than a simple farm implements manufacturer/distributior/retailer, they also made heavy construction equipment, heavy trucking, home tractor and lawn equipment and Internationals which were way ahead of the curve now occupied by Jeep Cherokees and Chevy Blazers.

Founded by Cyrus McCormick in the 19th Century, IH reinvented farming by redesigning the tractor. It was IH who put the large tires in the back, and mass produced these little babies until every family farm could afford one.

They were ultimately put out of business due to - among other things - huge labor problems and major quality control issues which most probably were related to one another. Their market share slipped year after year, and management was too crippled to do anything about it until they finally shut their doors for good. Does this sound like anything familiar to anybody?

They were major league baseball's precursor.

DrWatson27
06-07-2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Ah but International Harvestor was so much more than a simple farm implements manufacturer/distributior/retailer, they also made heavy construction equipment, heavy trucking, home tractor and lawn equipment and Internationals which were way ahead of the curve now occupied by Jeep Cherokees and Chevy Blazers.

Founded by Cyrus McCormick in the 19th Century, IH reinvented farming by redesigning the tractor. It was IH who put the large tires in the back, and mass produced these little babies until every family farm could afford one.

They were ultimately put out of business due to - among other things - huge labor problems and major quality control issues which most probably were related to one another. Their market share slipped year after year, and management was too crippled to do anything about it until they finally shut their doors for good. Does this sound like anything familiar to anybody?

They were major league baseball's precursor.


I don't know why but I'm LOFL!

PaleHoseGeorge
06-07-2002, 03:17 PM
The only companies with major labor trouble are companies that did a lousy job managing their labor resources, thus permitting labor unions to become entrenched as the only counter-weight to management's excesses: like baseball's reserve clause, as an example.

Baseball = IH? Try Baseball= Pullman rail car.

GM and Ford are doing much better now that they work with the UAW, rather than try breaking them. USW and USX have figured a way to co-habitate, too. They had too, or the foreign competition would wipe them out.

The owners simply don't have all the power to control the game anymore. The sooner they realize this, the quicker they can figure out how to make even more money along with the players' union.

This isn't rocket science, is it?

Instead the owners will test the player's strength. They've done the same thing for over 30 years--and they've lost every time for being too arrogant and stubborn to recognize reality. As they hurt their own bottom line, the sport's popularity suffers, too.

Here comes another blood-letting.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 04:35 PM
I suspect that Pullman Rail Car went under not do to labor problems, but due to the fact that nobody needed passenger rail cars any more becuase of the airlines.

You are correct that General Motors and others are now doing okay because they've come to terms with their unions - but you leave out exactly how they were able to come to terms with their unions. Massive, and I mean massive layoffs preceded the UAW and USW giving back some of the concessions which they had bargained for over the years - These layoffs were necessitated by lost market share due to (among other things) piss poor quality. Baseball has not yet had this bloodletting, but the owners - I suspect - see it coming. Market share (as it is) is being lost to other forms of entertainment, and now the contraction (layoff) is about to start. Only until the players union feels the pain of all of this will they concede anything, and I don't think they've felt anything yet.

Daver
06-07-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I suspect that Pullman Rail Car went under not do to labor problems, but due to the fact that nobody needed passenger rail cars any more becuase of the airlines.

You are correct that General Motors and others are now doing okay because they've come to terms with their unions - but you leave out exactly how they were able to come to terms with their unions. Massive, and I mean massive layoffs preceded the UAW and USW giving back some of the concessions which they had bargained for over the years - These layoffs were necessitated by lost market share due to (among other things) piss poor quality. Baseball has not yet had this bloodletting, but the owners - I suspect - see it coming. Market share (as it is) is being lost to other forms of entertainment, and now the contraction (layoff) is about to start. Only until the players union feels the pain of all of this will they concede anything, and I don't think they've felt anything yet.

But if Bud would have let the Expos go bankrupt instead of bailing Loria out and taking over the team MLB would be in a much better position to argue their need for salary concessions from the players union before an arbitator,Bud chose not to let that happen,I blame no one but him.He could have gotten a lot of what he was looking to achieve just by letting Jeff Loria live with his own asinine business decisions instead of saving his ass.

Blame Bud when this turns into the biggest pissing contest you have ever seen.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 04:59 PM
I suspect that baseball would rather control its contraction rather than let teams file for bankruptcy, and I don't blame them. Unless you have a thought out plan for retraction you run the risk of baseball returning to its 19th Century roots, and having teams file in mid-season and wreaking havoc within the remaining elements of the game.

If Montreal alone goes under, you have not got enough teams to schedule a full slate of games for all teams on any night.

LongDistanceFan
06-07-2002, 05:02 PM
phg and king, you both gave great post..................

btw phg, which side do you agree with?

i hate to say this, but i wish we can really look at the books and i am with the owners on this............. prima donnas getting 20 mil a yr.........

they need a drug testing.........

Daver
06-07-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I suspect that baseball would rather control its contraction rather than let teams file for bankruptcy, and I don't blame them. Unless you have a thought out plan for retraction you run the risk of baseball returning to its 19th Century roots, and having teams file in mid-season and wreaking havoc within the remaining elements of the game.

If Montreal alone goes under, you have not got enough teams to schedule a full slate of games for all teams on any night.

It would stabilize itself without a lot of problem,and with the unbalanced schedule you don't need an even number of teams.

The point is MLB could have gone a long way towards helping it's own cause by NOT protecting Jeff Loria,instead they have given themselves a black eye to all outside observers for protecting their own no matter what the cost,it's hard to be convincing about the need for revenue balance when you are loaning a known fool money to ruin another franchise.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 05:19 PM
With twenty nine teams, baseball would always have a team with the night off. Getaway days would now have to be staggered because all series could not run concurrently unless you plan on giving the "off team" three or four days off in a row.

They kept Montreal floating, and let Loria buy into another team to solve two problems. The first one is the unmanaged collapse of a franchise (which would be a total disaster) and the second is to get the old owner out of Florida - because he didn't want to be there either.

I think the fact that the owners are going through these histronics points to the fact that major problems are popping up on the horizon.

Daver
06-07-2002, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes


I think the fact that the owners are going through these histronics points to the fact that major problems are popping up on the horizon.

I have no doubt that they are,but by letting one or maybe two,franchises file for bankruptcy they would have the ammunition needed to go before an arbitor and force the MLBPA into making some concessions for the good of the game,and achieve the contraction that they feel is nescasary all in one fell swoop,but it would have been at the cost of two of the members of the elite owners club taking a financial hosing in the process.

Bud showed by NOT letting that happen that his priority is not for the good of the game,but rather the good of the owners,and let the game be damned to turmoil and mistrust.All that Bud is making sure by NOT allowing the Expos to declare bankruptcy is that the owners books will remain a mystery,had the Expos declared bankruptcy the courts would be allowed to examine the books for the first time,something that Bud cannot afford to have happen.

That is the bottom line.

MarkEdward
06-07-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
Baseball needs a salary cap just like the other sports.

Parity is virtually impossible with the status quo. Strategy and drafting means almost nothing when the highest payroll consistently kick ass.

I'm siding with the owners--we need a cap.


Yeah, baseball needs a salary cap like football- where teams like the Bengals and Cardinals compete for a championship every year. And the salary cap is really helping basketball's parity- where 2 of America's largest markets are playing in the finals. Aren't the Lakers looking for a third championship in a row?

And high payroll teams don't consistently "kick ass-" the Twins, Athletics, Angels, Mariners, White Sox all have low payrolls and are fine talent-wise. Meanwhile some high payroll teams- like the Dodgers and Rangers- continue to struggle through years of high spending.

Football has parity because there's only 16 games in the season- a small sample size. How about if baseball ended their season after 16 games? Teams like the Expos, Reds, and Angels would be in the playoffs this year. Also, if baseball let 16 teams into the playoffs like the NBA, there'd be a lot less talk of "competitive imbalance." Finally, teams in football and basketball have to dismantle after one championship season, like the Ravens. Would you like the Sox releasing Mags, Konerko, and Durham after the 2000 season just because they couldn't stay under the cap?

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 10:45 PM
There seems to be a thought process out in internetland that Bud Selig is screwing baseball over by putting together a consortium of owners to keep the Montreal Expos (and very possibly one of the Florida teams) alive to play out the 2002 baseball season, and then contracting them in an orderly fashion in the off season. This is used as proof that all Selig cares about are the owners and keeping their books a secret. Let's take five seconds and actually look at what would happen if Selig and the rest of the owners had done nothing.

Montreal would declare bankruptcy. The schedule would be adjusted, and the players union would finally see that the game is in real financial trouble. Is that it? WRONG!

Montreal would declare bankruptcy - probably in a Canadian Provincial Court - and try to restructure or fold. The Expo ownership would then have to present a plan of bankruptcy in that court, containing either a plan to continue operating or to liquidate, and the court would decide (along with a flood of attorneys of creditors - which would probably include the Government of Quebec itself due to the lease on Olympic Stadium)on whether or not this plan was the best means by which to satisfy obligations to creditors. My guess is that the entire process would get started anywhere from three to six months after the filing and would take about a year and a half to conclude. The structure of Major League Baseball would have absolutely no say whatsoever in the matter - except to the extent that the Montreal Expos borrowed money from Major League Baseball and then the baseball hierarchy's only input would be that of every other creditor. So let's say at some point in this process the Expos are on a west coast road trip playing San Diego - with series coming up against Los Angeles and San Franciso when the Canadian court rules that the continued negative cash flow of the Expos seriously damages whatever chance they have of paying anyone back - and orders them to shut down. Then what? Then you have a nightmare.

I'll be the first one to admit that the owners in baseball have made huge mistakes - but this isn't one of them. They have to have the ability to control their product and this is exactly what they're doing. If anything, baseball fans should feel good about the fact that owners are finally coming around to the fact that they over-expanded in the past couple of decades and are now trying desperately to fix it.

As far as "opening their books" goes - if somebody wants to discuss this dynamic I'll be happy to. I assure you it will do absolutely nothing to straighten out the game's labor problems. Donald Fehr has gotten way too much mileage out this sleight of hand. It's a five second sound bite that resonates with a lot of people, but in actuality means nothing.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-07-2002, 11:00 PM
The Montreal franchise has significant value. How much did the owners chip in to buy out Loria?

Personally, I'm not convinced major league baseball isn't viable in Montreal. It certainly was in the 1970's when Bowie Kuhn cited it as one of his administration's biggest accomplishments.

Having said that, there is no doubt plenty of other cities would gladly take the Expos. Take your pick of any of a half-dozen AAA cities, and add D.C. to the equation, too.

Contraction is a negotiating chip. It already worked great for Carl Pohlad. He's closer to getting a new stadium than ever--all for threatening to contract the Twins.

This is a very ugly precedent. Expect more of it in the future.

Daver
06-07-2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
There seems to be a thought process out in internetland that Bud Selig is screwing baseball over by puting together a consortium of owners to keep the Montreal Expos (and very possibly one of the Florida teams) alive to play out the 2002 baseball season, and then contracting them in an orderly fashion in the off season. This is used as proof that all Selig cares about are the owners and keeping their books a secret. Let's take five seconds and actually look at what would happen if Selig and the rest of the owners had done nothing.

Montreal would declare bankruptcy. The schedule would be adjusted, and the players union would finally see that the game is in real financial trouble. Is that it? WRONG!

Montreal would declare bankruptcy - probably in a Canadian Provincial Court - and try to restructure or fold. The Expo ownership would then have to present a plan of bankruptcy in that court, containing either a plan to continue operating or to liquidate, and the court would decide (along with a flood of attorneys of creditors - which would probably include the Government of Quebec itself due to the lease on Olympic Stadium)on whether or not this plan was the best means by which to satisfy obligations to creditors. My guess is that the entire process would get started anywhere from three to six months after the filing and would take about a year and a half to conclude. The structure of Major League Baseball would have absolutely no say whatsoever in the matter - except to the extent that the Montreal Expos borrowed money from Major League Baseball and then the baseball hierarchy's only input would be that of every other creditor. So let's say at some point in this process the Expos are on a west coast road trip playing San Diego - with series coming up against Los Angeles and San Franciso when the Canadian court rules that the continued negative cash flow of the Expos seriously damages whatever chance they have of paying anyone back - and orders them to shut down. Then what? Then you have a nightmare.

I'll be the first one to admit that the owners in baseball have made huge mistakes - but this isn't one of them. They have to have the ability to control their product and this is exactly what they're doing. If anything, baseball fans should feel good about the fact that owners are finally coming around to the fact that they over-expanded in the past couple of decades and are now trying desperately to fix it.

As far as "opening their books" goes - if somebody wants to discuss this dynamic I'll be happy to. I assure you it will do absolutely nothing to straighten out the game's labor problems. Donald Fehr has gotten way too much mileage out this sleight of hand. It's a five second sound bite that resonates with a lot of people, but in actuality means nothing.

If you beleive the owners are not hiding behind cooked books,well,I don't know what to tell you.

It makes no difference what court they file their bankruptcy case in,NONE,because it comes back to what happens in the Arbitors office when all is said and done,the financial end of the demise can take place anywhere,the fate of the players and the lisensce of franchise all end up in front of the arbitor,as dictated by the anti trust exemption that baseball is in danger of losing,because of Bud Selig,and his perjury on Capitol Hill.There is a reason that the MLB is spending 1.6 million dollars on lobbying and contributions this year,and it is because Bud knows he is in trouble,and has already been called a liar on the stand.
Bud is protecting the owners plain and simple,if he truly wanted a change to the game he would have let Loria swing with his own stupid decisions.

There will be a strike,and the reason for it will be Bud Selig,who could have acheived what he wanted to do by letting a dying franchise die,instead of thinking he could step in and force the MLBPA to his will,a fight that the MLB has been losing for 30 years.

Guess what,he will lose again,by protecting one owner.....

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 11:21 PM
Major League Baseball has been operating - for the most part - under the "greater fool convention" for about twenty years now. It is possible that the entire contraction issue is a bargaining ploy on the part of owners - but I seriously doubt it. I think that's where you and I primarily disagree PHG.

The Greater Fool Convention is a business thought process where somebody buys an asset which produces little or no cash flow, but it's value continues to climb (see The Dot.Com stocks of the past few years). Someone who owns a team has convinced both themselves and their lenders that the increasing value of a team overshadows the fact that there exists a negative cash flow, and that an ultimate sale of the team will wipe out any and all debts incurred by it over the course of owning it.

Not all teams are going to fall prey to this concept. I strongly suspect that teams such as the Yankees and Cubs generate pretty strong cash flow and kick off distributions to the shareholders - but that is absolutely not the case for all teams. The owners struck a vein of gold in the past twenty years or so by getting municipalities to throw up new rent free facilities, but even that is coming to an end.

Minnesota is a perfect example. A new stadium will have only a short-term impact on their attendance. The same exact thing happened to them when they moved out of Metropolitan Stadium twenty years or so ago. Attendance went up (helped by the fact that they had some good teams) but ultimately tailed off. Baltimore no longer sells out, nor does Cleveland or Toronto and I don't think the Pittsburgh or Detroit stadiums have done a damn bit of good for either of those franchises. All these stadiums do is foment the greater fool theory even further, and sooner or later it's going to end. The fact that some keystone franchises have been sold in the past few years (St. Louis and Boston) only shows me that there is big financial trouble on the horizon, and the smart owners are taking the money and getting out while they can.

As far as there being many more viable cities to host major league baseball, I can't name three of them. Washington keeps getting thrown up, and I guess people think the third time will be a charm - but it would be a mistake to send yet another franchise over there. Their first two are sitting in Minneapolis and Arlington.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 11:29 PM
Where do you get the idea that a bankruptcy will be decided by an arbitrator? What are you talking about?

If I go to a White Sox game, and am sitting and minding my own business, and Carlos Lee is furious over getting picked off and charges into the crowd and clubs me to death with his bat, then my wife will sue him and the White Sox in a court - not in front of an arbitrator just because it's baseball.

The anti-trust exemption for all practical purposes is dead with the exception of giving owners the approval rights on franchise movements and approval on other owners. If you wanted to buy Montreal and keep it alive they could turn you down, and you'ld have no recourse in the court system. It has nothing to do with a Canadian business - which the Expos are - of declaring bankruptcy.

Daver
06-07-2002, 11:33 PM
Fine,but that has nothing to do with the fact that Bud could have had contraction,and forced the MLBPA to make concessions,and chose not to.

The problem is Bud and his ever building ego,why was it nesascary to do away with the AL and NL presidents? Because they were a threat to his power. Why did he strong arm the umpires union into making a foolish mistake? Because he knew he could and abolished it, to replace it with something that he is in control of. Why won't the MLBPA deal with him on revenue sharing? Because Bud wants control of how and where the money gets doled out.

Baseball needs an independant commisioner,that is not at the beck and call of the owners,one that will stand up and deal fairly with the players union.I nominate Carlton Fisk.

Daver
06-07-2002, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Where do you get the idea that a bankruptcy will be decided by an arbitrator? What are you talking about?

If I go to a White Sox game, and am sitting and minding my own business, and Carlos Lee is furious over getting picked off and charges into the crowd and clubs me to death with his bat, then my wife will sue him and the White Sox in a court - not in front of an arbitrator just because it's baseball.

The anti-trust exemption for all practical purposes is dead with the exception of giving owners the approval rights on franchise movements and approval on other owners. If you wanted to buy Montreal and keep it alive they could turn you down, and you'ld have no recourse in the court system. It has nothing to do with a Canadian business - which the Expos are - of declaring bankruptcy.

The fate of the players is NOT decided by the Canadian courts,it is decided by an arbitor,by the structure of the baseball anti trust exemption,what are You talking about?

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 11:44 PM
Things seem to be getting a little twisted here. I was defending Selig's decision to go forward with an orderly contraction, and to show why I gave you an illustration of why it would not be a good example to let any team unilaterally decide to file for bankruptcy. You said an arbitrator would decide all aspects of the bankruptcy proceedings, and that's not correct. Now you're saying that an arbitrator would control what happens to the players. I have no idea if that's right or not - but that's not what we were talking about.

Let me ask you something (and this is a serious question). If the syndication that buys the Boston Red Sox pays $500 million, but finances $450 million of it through a debt offering (at 7%) and then makes $25 million (before debt) in its initial year of ownership which is the correct statement:

1. The Red Sox made $25,000,000 this year.

2. The Red SOx lost $6,500,000 this year.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-07-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Major League Baseball has been operating - for the most part - under the "greater fool convention" for about twenty years now. It is possible that the entire contraction issue is a bargaining ploy on the part of owners - but I seriously doubt it. I think that's where you and I primarily disagree PHG.

The Greater Fool Convention is a business thought process where somebody buys an asset which produces little or no cash flow, but it's value continues to climb (see The Dot.Com stocks of the past few years). Someone who owns a team has convinced both themselves and their lenders that the increasing value of a team overshadows the fact that there exists a negative cash flow, and that an ultimate sale of the team will wipe out any and all debts incurred by it over the course of owning it.

Not all teams are going to fall prey to this concept. I strongly suspect that teams such as the Yankees and Cubs generate pretty strong cash flow and kick off distributions to the shareholders - but that is absolutely not the case for all teams. The owners struck a vein of gold in the past twenty years or so by getting municipalities to throw up new rent free facilities, but even that is coming to an end.

Minnesota is a perfect example. A new stadium will have only a short-term impact on their attendance. The same exact thing happened to them when they moved out of Metropolitan Stadium twenty years or so ago. Attendance went up (helped by the fact that they had some good teams) but ultimately tailed off. Baltimore no longer sells out, nor does Cleveland or Toronto and I don't think the Pittsburgh or Detroit stadiums have done a damn bit of good for either of those franchises. All these stadiums do is foment the greater fool theory even further, and sooner or later it's going to end. The fact that some keystone franchises have been sold in the past few years (St. Louis and Boston) only shows me that there is big financial trouble on the horizon, and the smart owners are taking the money and getting out while they can.

As far as there being many more viable cities to host major league baseball, I can't name three of them. Washington keeps getting thrown up, and I guess people think the third time will be a charm - but it would be a mistake to send yet another franchise over there. Their first two are sitting in Minneapolis and Arlington.

You honestly believe everyone who buys a baseball team is acting irrationally? Loria runs one franchise into the ground in Montreal, gets a bailout, and immediately buys another one in a troubled market. Why would he do that? Didn't he get the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card from his fellow owners? Is this guy an idiot--or smarter than you and me?

Reinsdorf bought the Sox for $20 million. The franchise is worth a conservative $200 million today. Is he foolish for holding on to an asset Selig and his fellow owners claim is depreciating in value? He could cash in $180 million in profit right now.

Hey, you believe the owners' cry of poverty. I don't. Neither does most of the U.S. Congress, the National Labor Relations Board, or the last district judge to listen to their whining.

The players' union is in good company.

Daver
06-07-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Things seem to be getting a little twisted here. I was defending Selig's decision to go forward with an orderly contraction, and to show why I gave you an illustration of why it would not be a good example to let any team unilaterally decide to file for bankruptcy. You said an arbitrator would decide all aspects of the bankruptcy proceedings, and that's not correct. Now you're saying that an arbitrator would control what happens to the players. I have no idea if that's right or not - but that's not what we were talking about.

Let me ask you something (and this is a serious question). If the syndication that buys the Boston Red Sox pays $500 million, but finances $450 million of it through a debt offering (at 7%) and then makes $25 million (before debt) in its initial year of ownership which is the correct statement:

1. The Red Sox made $25,000,000 this year.

2. The Red SOx lost $6,500,000 this year.

See PHG's post,it says it all.

KingXerxes
06-07-2002, 11:52 PM
No I don't believe all owners act irrationally. Reinsdorf, The Trib, Steinbrenner and a few others all bought before the great increase in franchise pricing - and are on very solid footing when they say that their franchises have appreciated. The return their investors are getting is probably pretty substantial when taken since their point of purchase.

Are the new owners of Boston acting rationally? Let's say that they are about $480 million less rational then Reinsdorf and his group were.

FarWestChicago
06-07-2002, 11:56 PM
Folks, I have worked with or for several people worth hundreds of millions of dollars (or more in a couple of cases). Some of these guys are NOT rocket scientists; some are. But, they all know how to make money. If you think billionaires, or near billionaires, are fighting each other over making investments in money losing businesses, you don't know these kind of people. That is all I have to say.

Daver
06-07-2002, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
No I don't believe all owners act irrationally. Reinsdorf, The Trib, Steinbrenner and a few others all bought before the great increase in franchise pricing - and are on very solid footing when they say that their franchises have appreciated. The return their investors are getting is probably pretty substantial when taken since their point of purchase.

Are the new owners of Boston acting rationally? Let's say that they are about $480 million less rational then Reinsdorf and his group were.

Does that change the fact that Bud blew it by NOT allowing Loria to go under? No it doesn't,it exemplifies it,Bud shot his credibilty with the whole world by doing that.

Face the facts,Bud is protecting the owners and until I see people on the street holding a tag day for MLB owners I'll beleive they are making money running their franchise.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-08-2002, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
No I don't believe all owners act irrationally. Reinsdorf, The Trib, Steinbrenner and a few others all bought before the great increase in franchise pricing - and are on very solid footing when they say that their franchises have appreciated. The return their investors are getting is probably pretty substantial when taken since their point of purchase.

Are the new owners of Boston acting rationally? Let's say that they are about $480 million less rational then Reinsdorf and his group were.

How do you figure? The Sox can't draw 2 million. We can't afford a starting pitcher. Our starting rotation works for peanuts because none of them is arbitration-eligible. The Sox are an inferior investment by every financial and economic yardstick compared to its chief competitor that dominates the market.

By your reckoning, shouldn't Reinsdorf sell the Sox? If he has a guaranteed profit--but stands to lose it by holding the asset--why wouldn't he sell right now?

BTW, I have NO IDEA what you're talking about with the Boston Red Sox. Harrington sold the Marlins to get the Red Sox. That's another example of an owner sticking his snout deeper into the poisoned trough you and I would "rationally" run away from.

Are you trying to say common sense isn't that common? I think these guys know plenty more about how to make money than you and I do.

KingXerxes
06-08-2002, 12:05 AM
PHG's post says what?

It says he disagrees with me - and I accept the fact that he doesn't agree with me, but it offers precious little in the way of substantiating any fact.

You think Selig is a crook and a perjurer - fine. Prove it. Your opinion doesn't make it right.

You say all the books are cooked - fine. Prove it or at least give me a hypothetical which holds water.

Everytime a point is made by me, it's countered with "Well what about this team, or what about that team". I have never said, nor do I believe that all teams are in financial trouble, but I have said the game is in financial trouble. It has been for quite a while and is just getting worse.

Daver
06-08-2002, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
PHG's post says what?

It says he disagrees with me - and I accept the fact that he doesn't agree with me, but it offers precious little in the way of substantiating any fact.

You think Selig is a crook and a perjurer - fine. Prove it. Your opinion doesn't make it right.

You say all the books are cooked - fine. Prove it or at least give me a hypothetical which holds water.

Everytime a point is made by me, it's countered with "Well what about this team, or what about that team". I have never said, nor do I believe that all teams are in financial trouble, but I have said the game is in financial trouble. It has been for quite a while and is just getting worse.

You have yet to to respond to my points about Bud Selig building his own power base,but that is fine,it is obvious you choose to ignore that .Do yourself a favor and read the transcripts of Bud's appearance on Capitol Hill,and then go and read the Questions asked of him by Jesse Ventura,if you are still not convinced,then you can gladly join in on Bud's Army,you might be member number three or four.

KingXerxes
06-08-2002, 12:18 AM
Harrington lined up several investors including The New York Times to step up and try to buy the Red Sox.

Why isn't Reinsdorf selling the White Sox? Let's say he could get $200 million for them right now. But let's say he thinks he could get $250 million if they have a good run of it over the next few years. Why would he sell if he thought he could get more by holding a while longer. Anheuser Busch made a decision to get out, they saw values only falling in the future.

Some owners will buy a team for a more complimentary reason. The Tribune bought the Cubs from the Wrigley estate in order to lock them up with WGN television which they also own. In buying the Cubs they increased the value of their station and turned WGN into a national cable force by broadcasting their games. They are trying to establish CLTV in much the same manner.

And yes, some owners are complete ego maniacs who buy teams just to say they own them. This usually comes in the form of "area businessmen" who are cobbled together.

To use all the logic I've heard here:

#1.All the owners are rich
#2.All rich people are smart
#3.Baseball must be lucrative because rich people who are smart are the owners.

#1 is correct.
#2 is not always the case - and sometimes rarely is.
#3 is a self fulfilling prophesy (e.g. Poor people can't afford to buy the teams therefor onnly rich people can own teams).

PaleHoseGeorge
06-08-2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
PHG's post says what?

It says he disagrees with me - and I accept the fact that he doesn't agree with me, but it offers precious little in the way of substantiating any fact.

You think Selig is a crook and a perjurer - fine. Prove it. Your opinion doesn't make it right.

You say all the books are cooked - fine. Prove it or at least give me a hypothetical which holds water.

Everytime a point is made by me, it's countered with "Well what about this team, or what about that team". I have never said, nor do I believe that all teams are in financial trouble, but I have said the game is in financial trouble. It has been for quite a while and is just getting worse.

Actually, there was talk about bringing charges giving false testimony to Congress after Bud's Perjury-Fest on Capitol Hill last December. Apparently cooler heads prevailed. A follow-up hearing later that month on the same subject was most-noteworthy because Bud was NOT there. Nobody but C-Span covered it. Congressmen don't like being taken for fools with cameras running. This was a tidy compromise for everyone involved--baseball and the sub-committee.

The specific charges of perjury revolved around Bud's insistence that the financial numbers shared with Congress were complete and credible. Once the committee members began asking questions, it was clear Bud was not sharing everything he had--though still trying to convince the congressmen he was. That's lying--and a criminal offense.

The fact the man hasn't been convicted of perjury doesn't mean he's out of the woods. If a strike comes, expect Bud to be back in front of that sub-committee--and this time they won't be forgiving.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-08-2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Harrington lined up several investors including The New York Times to step up and try to buy the Red Sox.

Why isn't Reinsdorf selling the White Sox? Let's say he could get $200 million for them right now. But let's say he thinks he could get $250 million if they have a good run of it over the next few years. Why would he sell if he thought he could get more by holding a while longer. Anheuser Busch made a decision to get out, they saw values only falling in the future.

Some owners will buy a team for a more complimentary reason. The Tribune bought the Cubs from the Wrigley estate in order to lock them up with WGN television which they also own. In buying the Cubs they increased the value of their station and turned WGN into a national cable force by broadcasting their games. They are trying to establish CLTV in much the same manner.

And yes, some owners are complete ego maniacs who buy teams just to say they own them. This usually comes in the form of "area businessmen" who are cobbled together.

To use all the logic I've heard here:

#1.All the owners are rich
#2.All rich people are smart
#3.Baseball must be lucrative because rich people who are smart are the owners.

#1 is correct.
#2 is not always the case - and sometimes rarely is.
#3 is a self fulfilling prophesy (e.g. Poor people can't afford to buy the teams therefor onnly rich people can own teams).

What I'm reading here are reason why somebody WOULD BUY a baseball team. That's my position, not yours. Please tell me why they WOULDN'T buy a team. That's where the difference of opinion is.

KingXerxes
06-08-2002, 12:26 AM
Okay - Bud Selig is trying to build his power base. Exactly how?

The umpires made a tragic decision by trusting a buffoon like Richie Phillips, bluffed, resigned and were taken up on their offer.

Let's say he totally lied in front of Congress - how exactly does that build a power base.

He bails out a weak franchise at the expense of all the other owners - Yes I can see how that builds a power base.

I'm not a huge fan of Selig's, but I can't say that he's not trying to fix some things. Whether he's doing them correctly remains to be seen, but baseball can't afford to do nothing.

Daver
06-08-2002, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Okay - Bud Selig is trying to build his power base. Exactly how?

The umpires made a tragic decision by trusting a buffoon like Richie Phillips, bluffed, resigned and were taken up on their offer.

Let's say he totally lied in front of Congress - how exactly does that build a power base.

He bails out a weak franchise at the expense of all the other owners - Yes I can see how that builds a power base.

I'm not a huge fan of Selig's, but I can't say that he's not trying to fix some things. Whether he's doing them correctly remains to be seen, but baseball can't afford to do nothing.

You forgot to mention the elimination of the league offices,there is no longer an AL or NL president,and the fact that all revenue sharing as it exists now is distributed through his office,not through an independent source as all the other pro sports,really how how much proof do you need?

KingXerxes
06-08-2002, 12:34 AM
Why wouldn't somebody buy a baseball team?

1. They don't want to draft a high schooler and then have to pay him $2 million just to show up to a Pioneer League game in Montana.

2. They don't want to have to deal with the media, the players union, the concession contracts, the networks etc.

3. They think they can place their money elsewhere and get a much bigger return for much less risk.

4. They don't like baseball.

5. They don't have the time while pursuing other interests.

6. I could go on but you get the point.

Let's keep in mind that there are probably tens of thousands of millionaires who could raise the money for a team but have chosen not to do so.

30 well monied syndications that own teams.

50,000 or so potentially who have no intention of ever getting into the game.

KingXerxes
06-08-2002, 12:42 AM
I don't know why Selig removed the league offices, but I suspect it's due to the fact that he's trying to bring some uniformity to the two leagues (He still wants to resolve the DH rule). That's the reason that the entire umpire issue blew up - Strike zones were different, Selig wanted to mix up the combinations of umpire crews and the like. None of these point to some sort of evil intent.

I've got to think that revenue sharing through his office is the only practical way of doing it. Who else would? I remembered early in his tenor he had to engineer a quick line of credit for the Tigers to be able to pay their guys - that's certainly not a bad intentioned individual. Could he be abscounding money and fixing the deck for his cronies? Sure - but I have seen absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe he is.

KingXerxes
06-08-2002, 12:52 AM
Well I see that daver and PaleHoseGeorge have gone offline - and I can't say I blame them - it's getting late.

Goodnight Hawk.

:hawk

"G'nigh Rooney"

:rooney

"Good night DJ"

:DJ

"Good night Ed"

:farmer

"Wait a minute guys, what all this talk about a strike? That's not good, a strike zone - that's good, unless the umpire is calling it as the size of a teacup then you've got to throw at him....."

Daver
06-08-2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I don't know why Selig removed the league offices, but I suspect it's due to the fact that he's trying to bring some uniformity to the two leagues (He still wants to resolve the DH rule). That's the reason that the entire umpire issue blew up - Strike zones were different, Selig wanted to mix up the combinations of umpire crews and the like. None of these point to some sort of evil intent.

I've got to think that revenue sharing through his office is the only practical way of doing it. Who else would? I remembered early in his tenor he had to engineer a quick line of credit for the Tigers to be able to pay their guys - that's certainly not a bad intentioned individual. Could he be abscounding money and fixing the deck for his cronies? Sure - but I have seen absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe he is.


Then I am left to believe that you are just niave,and afraid to face the facts.

Don Fehr doesn't buy his line ,and there is a reason why,though I am sure you will be quick to defend him.Do your homework.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-08-2002, 01:05 AM
Okay, I'm back. But I'm exhausted and I'm going to bed.

First I'll need to chill more beer in the fridge. My ready-to-drink supply has been depleted by our losing streak!

:cool:

ma-gaga
06-08-2002, 02:31 AM
hey if I can butt in on a great debate. Going back to one of the possible solutions to the great financial dispair of MLB. One of the main reasons I've heard that the players union won't settle with the owners is because there is no trust at all (and rightly so).

One of the more creative solutions I've heard is for the players and owners to form a co-op and tie directly players salaries into total revenues generated (~55% players, ~45% owners). This in affect limits players salaries, but without the inevitable screams of collusion that we're going to be seeing when the owners insist on the salary cap or "competitive balance tax". It's slightly similar to the way the NBA salary cap/luxery tax is generated, but basically lets the players get their appropriate percentage of $$.

Unfortunately one of the only ways for this to work is if the owners come clean to the players union about their income (ie. time for bud to open the books to fehr...). Now this doesn't work very well with corporations that hide their income in their private networks/stadium deals/"independent contracting" services, so there is obviously a lot of flaws with the system, but this in theory should reduce the amount of posturing we're currently seeing.

Yes, I believe that Selig is hiding something, and I think that some teams ARE in trouble. I also think that despite the despicable methods that Selig used to blackmail the state of Minnesota into passing a bill, or by scamming the state of Wisconsin into the Miller Park deal, his basic current proposals, are small steps into helping the KC's compete with the NY's. God it pains me to say that.

CubKilla
06-08-2002, 02:55 AM
The way the Sox are playing, it cannot come soon enough. Montreal????? ***?????

PaleHoseGeorge
06-08-2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
The way the Sox are playing, it cannot come soon enough. Montreal????? ***?????

I know you were being sarcastic, and your point is funny. It also undermines the entire theory that the only way to win is to spend money.

All the revenue sharing, hard salary caps, and plantation-like paternalism in the world couldn't have prevented the WHITE SOX from losing to contraction candidate MONTREAL last night.

HOW you spend your money is infinitely more important than how much of it you spend--or even how much your competitor spends.

Were the Yankees any less a dynasty before free agency and salary arbitration? People who use them as the reason for limiting player's salaries need to brush up on their history. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, and Mickey Mantle never once got to be free agents. They weren't even eligible for salary arbitration, LOL!

The owners' definition of disadvantaged "small market" teams changes every 3-5 years--depending on who needs a new ballpark or stadium lease. Bud's "Holy Grail", the need for brand-new ballparks with lots of luxury suites, hasn't prevented either Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, or Texas from continuing to be flops on the field--if not the box office, too. I don't see how Atlanta, Baltimore, or our Sox have gotten any more competitive, either.

The owners refuse to share their actual books, but we do know one thing for certain: every time one of these franchises goes up for sale, the seller gets more for the team than what he paid for it. Even Loria mopped up selling the Expos!

Does this sound like "bankrupt" to you? I would trust the owners more if they didn't lie so f*cking much.

As for what all the other sports do, they aren't baseball are they? Amongst all the sports, only MLB (through their own incompetence) is faced with a union that knows how to defend its membership's interests. After 30 years of trying and failing to break the union, can we finally agree they aren't going away and that MLB must deal with them rather than attempt to run over them?

The sport is dying because management is too stubborn to realize their players' union has REAL economic power. There is a growing pot of money out there, plenty enough for both sides to be satisfied with--if only the owners will recognize they can't make a move without their defacto partner, the players.

Instead, the owners are going to test them again. It's beyond stupid, and it might even be against the law--it was in 1994-95. They also broke the law in 1986, '87, and '88--convicted of colluding. Had it not been for their anti-trust exemption, they were subject to treble damages BY LAW. Instead, the owners paid simple damages--essentially making the players whole, without further penalty for breaking the law. If anything, the owners have been lucky bastards. They're too stupid to even realize it, probably because their legal advisers were hired more for their willingness to be toadies than offer sound legal advice that will win the day in the courts. I guess you could say this is yet another example of owners tossing away their money, but I digress...

I have serious doubts revenue sharing will work because the incentives of individual owners to hide income will be infinitely increased by such a system. Furthermore, revenue sharing does nothing to address the real issue of competitive balance: equalizing the talent level amongst all the teams. Remember--the Sox freely handed over $20 million to Jaime Navarro, even as Roger Clemens was available for the same price.

If you REALLY want the po' faced owners in Kansas City, Florida, and other "can't compete small markets" to field a champion team, let them draft REAL TALENT off other teams' rosters. THAT will fix competitive imbalance.

It's the most un-American system I can think of: rewarding a loser's incompetence by plucking the jewels of those doing their jobs properly--but it WILL fix imbalance, even as it creates a myraid of other problems.

It's either that, or you keep something similar to the current system--but only after another blood-letting like we'll likely see in the weeks ahead.

It's the labor impasses that are killing baseball--not salaries. But I digress, again...

Daver
06-08-2002, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
hey if I can butt in on a great debate. Going back to one of the possible solutions to the great financial dispair of MLB. One of the main reasons I've heard that the players union won't settle with the owners is because there is no trust at all (and rightly so).

One of the more creative solutions I've heard is for the players and owners to form a co-op and tie directly players salaries into total revenues generated (~55% players, ~45% owners). This in affect limits players salaries, but without the inevitable screams of collusion that we're going to be seeing when the owners insist on the salary cap or "competitive balance tax". It's slightly similar to the way the NBA salary cap/luxery tax is generated, but basically lets the players get their appropriate percentage of $$.

Unfortunately one of the only ways for this to work is if the owners come clean to the players union about their income (ie. time for bud to open the books to fehr...). Now this doesn't work very well with corporations that hide their income in their private networks/stadium deals/"independent contracting" services, so there is obviously a lot of flaws with the system, but this in theory should reduce the amount of posturing we're currently seeing.

Yes, I believe that Selig is hiding something, and I think that some teams ARE in trouble. I also think that despite the despicable methods that Selig used to blackmail the state of Minnesota into passing a bill, or by scamming the state of Wisconsin into the Miller Park deal, his basic current proposals, are small steps into helping the KC's compete with the NY's. God it pains me to say that.

And now your right back to the real reason that Bud chose to bail Loria out as opposed to letting him sink with the franchise he mismanaged,God forbid the courts get ahold of the books of an MLB team,because that would blow Bud right out of the water on his testimony on Capitol Hill.

Your right,until both sides can sit down and create an atmosphere of trust rather than mistrust there is going to be labor problems,and as PHG pointed out,it is likley that the players will win again.

And in the long run the only losers will be the fans,and the GAME itself.

LongDistanceFan
06-08-2002, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I know you were being sarcastic, and your point is funny. It also undermines the entire theory that the only way to win is to spend money.

All the revenue sharing, hard salary caps, and plantation-like paternalism in the world couldn't have prevented the WHITE SOX from losing to contraction candidate MONTREAL last night.

HOW you spend your money is infinitely more important than how much of it you spend--or even how much your competitor spends.

Were the Yankees any less a dynasty before free agency and salary arbitration? People who use them as the reason for limiting player's salaries need to brush up on their history. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, and Mickey Mantle never once got to be free agents. They weren't even eligible for salary arbitration, LOL!

The owners' definition of disadvantaged "small market" teams changes every 3-5 years--depending on who needs a new ballpark or stadium lease. Bud's "Holy Grail", the need for brand-new ballparks with lots of luxury suites, hasn't prevented either Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, or Texas from continuing to be flops on the field--if not the box office, too. I don't see how Atlanta, Baltimore, or our Sox have gotten any more competitive, either.

The owners refuse to share their actual books, but we do know one thing for certain: every time one of these franchises goes up for sale, the seller gets more for the team than what he paid for it. Even Loria mopped up selling the Expos!

Does this sound like "bankrupt" to you? I would trust the owners more if they didn't lie so f*cking much.

As for what all the other sports do, they aren't baseball are they? Amongst all the sports, only MLB (through their own incompetence) is faced with a union that knows how to defend its membership's interests. After 30 years of trying and failing to break the union, can we finally agree they aren't going away and that MLB must deal with them rather than attempt to run over them?

The sport is dying because management is too stubborn to realize their players' union has REAL economic power. There is a growing pot of money out there, plenty enough for both sides to be satisfied with--if only the owners will recognize they can't make a move without their defacto partner, the players.

Instead, the owners are going to test them again. It's beyond stupid, and it might even be against the law--it was in 1994-95. They also broke the law in 1986, '87, and '88--convicted of colluding. Had it not been for their anti-trust exemption, they were subject to treble damages BY LAW. Instead, the owners paid simple damages--essentially making the players whole, without further penalty for breaking the law. If anything, the owners have been lucky bastards. They're too stupid to even realize it, probably because their legal advisers were hired more for their willingness to be toadies than offer sound legal advice that will win the day in the courts. I guess you could say this is yet another example of owners tossing away their money, but I digress...

I have serious doubts revenue sharing will work because the incentives of individual owners to hide income will be infinitely increased by such a system. Furthermore, revenue sharing does nothing to address the real issue of competitive balance: equalizing the talent level amongst all the teams. Remember--the Sox freely handed over $20 million to Jaime Navarro, even as Roger Clemens was available for the same price.

If you REALLY want the po' faced owners in Kansas City, Florida, and other "can't compete small markets" to field a champion team, let them draft REAL TALENT off other teams' rosters. THAT will fix competitive imbalance.

It's the most un-American system I can think of: rewarding a loser's incompetence by plucking the jewels of those doing their jobs properly--but it WILL fix imbalance, even as it creates a myraid of other problems.

It's either that, or you keep something similar to the current system--but only after another blood-letting like we'll likely see in the weeks ahead.

It's the labor impasses that are killing baseball--not salaries. But I digress, again... great post and a great thread

Dan H
06-09-2002, 07:14 AM
It is easy to side against the players because of the salary strucutre. But what credibility do the owners have? They say they can't compete in Minnesota but now that's changed because of a new stadium deal. Was contraction really contraction or just leverage to get a publicly subsidized stadium?

Jerry Reinsdorf told us to get over the 1994 strike. But here we are eight years later with another strike on the horizon and the Sox no closer to the World Series than before his great 1997 trades. If he thinks he has attendance problems now, just wait. Will it make any difference if fans are boycotting the game because they hate the players or the owners or both? Sometimes I think he really wants to ruin his franchise.

Nick@Nite
06-09-2002, 08:51 AM
Being overseas, I've been looking forward to being back in the midwest (and Comiskey) for the last two and a half years.

I'm returning the first week in August.

Just in time for the strike.

DAMN! :angry: