PDA

View Full Version : First Rate Article


Lip Man 1
11-19-2009, 03:50 PM
On many of the issues being debated here at WSI. Ranger may be interested in this one for his next show.

The proposal...tax teams that DON'T spend money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings091119

Goes into the financial structure of baseball vis a vis, revenue sharing, team income etc.

Lip

Oblong
11-20-2009, 08:34 AM
Wow. Very informative. Every baseball fan should read and understand this before making comments on ticket prices, salaries, etc.

Jpgr91
11-20-2009, 10:39 AM
Taxing teams that do not spend money is the same thing as putting a floor in place on team spending. Rather than pay the tax, most teams will just put this money in payroll. If the bottom 10% of players get a pay raise, it stands to reason that salaries will go up across the board. It is not like one of the lower spending teams is suddenly going to start winning bidding wars with the large market teams for top flight talent. Putting a tax or floor in place on the teams that spend the least will not increase the quality of talent on MLB rosters, the player pool is the same regardless of how much the teams spend. The problem with bad teams is bad management, not the amount of money they spend on payroll.

Lundind1
11-20-2009, 12:12 PM
This very thing goes against free market economics and the simple notion of supply and demand. Why would you force teams that are underperforming to spend more money. That would me that they would have to raise revenues somewhere, most likely ticketing. Higher prices would push more people away from these teams. I can go into more detail if you would like, but this is just one scenario that I would like to present.


That and the fact that talent is paid on a performance based system. If all were to get paid more than the top talent will demand even more. Haven't we had enough of the high cost of professional sports yet?

mrfourni
11-20-2009, 01:14 PM
This very thing goes against free market economics and the simple notion of supply and demand. Why would you force teams that are underperforming to spend more money. That would me that they would have to raise revenues somewhere, most likely ticketing. Higher prices would push more people away from these teams. I can go into more detail if you would like, but this is just one scenario that I would like to present.


That and the fact that talent is paid on a performance based system. If all were to get paid more than the top talent will demand even more. Haven't we had enough of the high cost of professional sports yet?

But the point of the article is that due to the economics in place (revenue sharing, luxury tax, etc.), the extra revenue is already being provided to the small market teams, they just aren't spending it. There really is no need to for these teams that are crying poor to raise additional revenue through ticket prices.

Jpgr91
11-20-2009, 01:31 PM
But the point of the article is that due to the economics in place (revenue sharing, luxury tax, etc.), the extra revenue is already being provided to the small market teams, they just aren't spending it. There really is no need to for these teams that are crying poor to raise additional revenue through ticket prices.

Forcing teams to spend a minimum amount on player salaries raises the salaries of all MLB players. In order to meet the higher payroll teams would be forced to raise their ticket prices. It does not improve performance because the player pool is the same regardless of the salaries the players are paid, raising player salaries will not improve team performance.

cws05champ
11-20-2009, 01:43 PM
This very thing goes against free market economics and the simple notion of supply and demand. Why would you force teams that are underperforming to spend more money. That would me that they would have to raise revenues somewhere, most likely ticketing. Higher prices would push more people away from these teams. I can go into more detail if you would like, but this is just one scenario that I would like to present.


That and the fact that talent is paid on a performance based system. If all were to get paid more than the top talent will demand even more. Haven't we had enough of the high cost of professional sports yet?
The Marlins are the perfect example...lets say they can field a really good team with a bunch of 0-3 guys and their studs, and their payroll is $38M. So they are penalized for running an efficient and effective farm system and scouting organization?

I can understand why people are saying that these teams that are getting money aren't spending it on payroll, but are the Marlins supposed to bring on an over priced FA just to avoid the salary floor. I think a % of the $ they receive need to go to payroll depending on how the operating costs of the whole organization are generally split up.

dickallen15
11-20-2009, 02:05 PM
The Marlins are the perfect example...lets say they can field a really good team with a bunch of 0-3 guys and their studs, and their payroll is $38M. So they are penalized for running an efficient and effective farm system and scouting organization?

I can understand why people are saying that these teams that are getting money aren't spending it on payroll, but are the Marlins supposed to bring on an over priced FA just to avoid the salary floor. I think a % of the $ they receive need to go to payroll depending on how the operating costs of the whole organization are generally split up.

No they aren't punished. They would just have to give back some of the revenue sharing money they acquired. Why should they receive money from other teams that they apparently only need for stuffing into their pockets? Why should other teams have to take risks so teams like Pittsburgh, Florida, KC, even Cleveland now just sit back and count their money even if they make little attempt to improve their team. The Marlins wouldn't be expected to sign an over priced FA but how about keeping one of their own instead of trading them for prospects because it will cut into their owner's Yacht buying fund.

pythons007
11-20-2009, 02:50 PM
They need to do something. I feel sorry for Pirate and Royal fans. They haven't been good since the 80s. They scream poor, then sell your ****ing team and allow someone else to improve it. GMAB!

Frater Perdurabo
11-20-2009, 02:53 PM
I think MLB needs an NFL-style revenue sharing plan, complete with a hard cap and floor, a world-wide draft, and a draft slotting system.

Jpgr91
11-20-2009, 03:34 PM
They need to do something. I feel sorry for Pirate and Royal fans. They haven't been good since the 80s. They scream poor, then sell your ****ing team and allow someone else to improve it. GMAB!

No one is putting a gun to the fans head and forcing them to like the Pirate and Royals. It's partially the fans fault by continuing to go to the park and support sub par teams. The way fans can let ownership know they are unhappy is to simply stop supporting the team. The fans need to force ownership to change the way they do business.

PaleHoser
11-20-2009, 03:40 PM
I think MLB needs an NFL-style revenue sharing plan, complete with a hard cap and floor, a world-wide draft, and a draft slotting system.

The Yankees would never allow it.

The big difference between the NFL and other sports is that the NFL doesn't have local TV. So how do you get the Yankees and Red Sox to share revenue from their local cable deal, particularly when they own their network?

I don't see the MLBPA buying into a hard cap and they turned down the offer for a floor based on Stark's article.

The world-wide draft and slotting systems are a possibility, and Bud Selig cited this as one of his initiatives for the next CBA when interviewed by Bob Costas on MLB Network.

Oblong
11-20-2009, 06:15 PM
This very thing goes against free market economics and the simple notion of supply and demand. Why would you force teams that are underperforming to spend more money. That would me that they would have to raise revenues somewhere, most likely ticketing. Higher prices would push more people away from these teams. I can go into more detail if you would like, but this is just one scenario that I would like to present.


That and the fact that talent is paid on a performance based system. If all were to get paid more than the top talent will demand even more. Haven't we had enough of the high cost of professional sports yet?

Baseball's not a free market and the normal forces of supply/demand do not apply. They have an anti trust exemption from the government too.

soxinem1
11-20-2009, 06:20 PM
The Marlins are the perfect example...lets say they can field a really good team with a bunch of 0-3 guys and their studs, and their payroll is $38M. So they are penalized for running an efficient and effective farm system and scouting organization?

I can understand why people are saying that these teams that are getting money aren't spending it on payroll, but are the Marlins supposed to bring on an over priced FA just to avoid the salary floor. I think a % of the $ they receive need to go to payroll depending on how the operating costs of the whole organization are generally split up.

If that is the way FLA chooses to run their team, then they should not get revenue sharing. They have NEVER put the money into the team product. One year they went nuts and bought themselves a World Series, then the year after that they cut them all loose.

I think if a team takes revenue sharing $$$$, then they should be required to spend X amount on making the team better. That was the purpose of revenue sharing, not to make the team profitable. It is supposed to make them more competitive.

If a team is successful they should not be penalized. They take the risks. Don't hate the NYY for being successfully, hate them as a team, sure, but why should they have to give money (they earned because they have ownership committed to winning) to someone like Loria who pockets the $$$$ and never puts it in the product?

Frater Perdurabo
11-20-2009, 08:02 PM
The Yankees would never allow it.

Do the Dallas Cowboys get to have veto power over the NFL?

So then why should the Yankees have veto power over the MLB?

PKalltheway
11-20-2009, 08:15 PM
I think MLB needs an NFL-style revenue sharing plan, complete with a hard cap and floor, a world-wide draft, and a draft slotting system.
A hard salary cap just cannot work in baseball right now. If you were to have one hypothetically, where would you even put it? You would have to put it at a "reasonable" amount, at the very least.

This article gives a pretty good insight as to why it just wouldn't work for baseball at the moment: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-11-10/sports/dont-like-the-yankees-success-blame-capitalism.

Lip Man 1
11-20-2009, 09:54 PM
This and that:

The Yankees have and have had on retainer since 2002 one of the top legal lawyers in the country SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of suing MLB if they do anything to try to change the rules specifically targeting the Yankees or to devalue the worth of their franchise.

They'd take MLB into court in a heartbeat. Now if I was MLB I'd say, 'go right ahead...' but Proud To Be Your Bud would never stomach that.

----------------------

From my interview with Phil Rogers right before the 2002 labor negotiations concluded:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isn’t a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissioner’s office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesn’t like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "I’ve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when I’ve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I can’t vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I don’t think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."


The sense I get from reading this today is that the gutless wonder, Buddy Boy can put a stop to teams taking revenue sharing money and not improving the team if he wanted to...but of course he won't.

Lip

Daver
11-20-2009, 10:09 PM
This and that:

The Yankees have and have had on retainer since 2002 one of the top legal lawyers in the country SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of suing MLB if they do anything to try to change the rules specifically targeting the Yankees or to devalue the worth of their franchise.

They'd take MLB into court in a heartbeat. Now if I was MLB I'd say, 'go right ahead...' but Proud To Be Your Bud would never stomach that.

----------------------

From my interview with Phil Rogers right before the 2002 labor negotiations concluded:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isn’t a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissioner’s office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesn’t like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "I’ve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when I’ve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I can’t vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I don’t think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."


The sense I get from reading this today is that the gutless wonder, Buddy Boy can put a stop to teams taking revenue sharing money and not improving the team if he wanted to...but of course he won't.

Lip



All shared revenue in MLB is payed to MLB, and is distributed at the whim of the commissioner, this includes all Luxury Tax revenue. There is no set formula on who gets what based on anything, the commissioner, should he deem a team not using the funds properly, he can make it known in the funds that team receives. Whether or not this actually happens I have no idea, and no way of finding out, but the power is there to do it without anyone knowing.

I don't really understand how you can call what is, beyond any doubt, the most powerful commissioner the game has ever had gutless. You may disagree with his decisions, trust me I do, but he is far from gutless.

Bucky F. Dent
11-20-2009, 10:41 PM
This very thing goes against free market economics and the simple notion of supply and demand. Why would you force teams that are underperforming to spend more money. That would me that they would have to raise revenues somewhere, most likely ticketing. Higher prices would push more people away from these teams. I can go into more detail if you would like, but this is just one scenario that I would like to present.


That and the fact that talent is paid on a performance based system. If all were to get paid more than the top talent will demand even more. Haven't we had enough of the high cost of professional sports yet?

According to the same logic then, shouldn't baseball get rid of revenue sharing, and allow the teams to survive or fail based upon the revenue that they are able to generate individually.

Daver
11-20-2009, 10:45 PM
According to the same logic then, shouldn't baseball get rid of revenue sharing, and allow the teams to survive or fail based upon the revenue that they are able to generate individually.

Then who funds the league itself? MLB is funded from the money made from collective merchandising agreements and national TV and radio contracts, but that is also revenue shared by all the teams at the whim of the commissioner.

PaleHoser
11-20-2009, 11:24 PM
Do the Dallas Cowboys get to have veto power over the NFL?

So then why should the Yankees have veto power over the MLB?

It's not about veto, but how things have been handled historically.

Back in the 60's when network broadcasting rights were negotiated, NFL owners opted to split broadcasting rights equally amongst all teams. If memory serves, George Halas was a big proponent of that because it would grow the league, even at the expense of this own team.

Baseball owners have traditionally thought of themselves first. Back in the 50's, Bill Veeck argued that broadcast revenues should be split with the visiting team (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck#St._Louis_Browns)). After all, there wouldn't be anything to broadcast of there weren't two teams. I believe he threatened not to even bring the Browns to New York to play and just forfeit the games. Of course, Veeck's idea was shot down.

The Yankees made an estimated $60M in broadcast rights in 2007 (source (http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32903/)). That was two years ago, and they could still cover virtually the entire payroll for the four lowest paid teams in MLB from their local broadcast revenue alone. They are basically rolling that entire contract into their "luxury tax" payment for having the payroll they do.

Other than radio and preseason games, NFL teams are sharing broadcast revenues. If you required all MLB teams to pool local broadcast revenue and then split it equally, the Yankees sure would have a little more trouble paying the luxury tax.

Noneck
11-21-2009, 12:11 AM
Articles like this makes the poor mouth routine we see here very nauseating.

parlaycard
11-21-2009, 08:42 AM
Why would you force teams that are underperforming to spend more money.

Because spending more money might make their team more competetive?

voodoochile
11-21-2009, 09:46 AM
Because spending more money might make their team more competetive?

At least they might hold on to more of the players they develop a bit longer or make an effort to sign better draft picks that require a bigger bonus or add a couple of stronger relievers to give them a chance at a pennant fight or...

Almost any team can be improved by spending 10 million more. I find it ludicrous to think that a team like the Pirates couldn't be improved by adding $30M more. The teams that are doing alright developing their own players will simply get longer windows of opportunity and better chances when they get there..

That is of course all in theory. There are obviously no guarantees.

Railsplitter
11-21-2009, 10:29 AM
My late Uncle Bob lived near Kansas City and died earlier this stopped his renewal of his Royals season tickets not because of declining health but becuase the owners were pocketing money and doing nothing to improve the team.

Lip Man 1
11-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Daver:

You're right. Gutless was the wrong choice. Let's say shrewd, as in "I'll do anything to keep this job" (that I never wanted in the first place). LOL.

Lip

Oblong
11-21-2009, 12:45 PM
In order to judge Selig you have to consider what his job really is. Is it to make the Pirates competitive or to make the Pirates profitable? Or any other team for that matter.

Some owners want to be competitive and others want to be profitable. Some want a mixture of both.

Noneck
11-21-2009, 03:50 PM
Some owners want to be competitive and others want to be profitable. Some want a mixture of both.

That is a given, the question is only how profitable.

Hitmen77
11-21-2009, 10:02 PM
Baseball's not a free market and the normal forces of supply/demand do not apply. They have an anti trust exemption from the government too.

Thank you. It's frustrating that so many people fail to grasp this. The way you hear people talk, you'd think baseball should be the same as the auto industry, the toaster industry, the computer industry...wherever all but the few best run companies get weeded out. Well, professional sports where people root for one of 30 teams is not even close to being the same.

GoSox2K3
11-21-2009, 10:12 PM
A hard salary cap just cannot work in baseball right now. If you were to have one hypothetically, where would you even put it? You would have to put it at a "reasonable" amount, at the very least.

This article gives a pretty good insight as to why it just wouldn't work for baseball at the moment: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-11-10/sports/dont-like-the-yankees-success-blame-capitalism.

I don't think a hard salary cap would work, but why other options to fix MLB's broken system. Surely there are more ways than either the current system or a hard cap.

How about start with a system where, say, the highest payroll team in a league can't outspend the 2nd highest payroll team (a very high spending team in it's own right) by EIGHTY ****ING MILLION DOLLARS.

As far as low end teams go (Marlins, Pirates, Royals, etc.), they should only qualify for being recipients of any "luxury tax" (or revenue sharing or whatever it's called) if the money goes into payroll. If they don't put it into payroll, then they have to pass up the money and it can go to the next eligible team that is willing/able to put the money into payroll instead of the owners pockets.

russ99
11-22-2009, 10:30 AM
A hard cap would never be approved by the MLBPA, so ownership would either need to break the union (very unlikely unless baseball was shut down for years) or get creative to install some kind of cost control.

My favorite idea is a grandfathered system (current contracts are exempt) where each team is alloted 5 players that they can pay any amount to, and the rest of the roster has a soft cap where various cap amounts per player are set and linked to service time.

And there would need to both be a floor and a significant raise of the minimum salary.

This way the few players that benefit from the current system would still be paid top dollar, and the rank and file would also benefit, which is the only way the members of the MLBPA would approve it.

Daver
11-22-2009, 11:05 AM
In order to judge Selig you have to consider what his job really is. Is it to make the Pirates competitive or to make the Pirates profitable? Or any other team for that matter.

Some owners want to be competitive and others want to be profitable. Some want a mixture of both.

His job is to grow the sport, and based solely on the income numbers, he's done a good job, even with the mistakes he's made along the way.

Trav
11-22-2009, 11:17 AM
His job is to grow the sport, and based solely on the income numbers, he's done a good job, even with the mistakes he's made along the way.
Unfortunately, growing the sport the way Selig did watered down the competition and priced families out of buying tickets. I wonder what sport those kids will grow up liking... football?

doublem23
11-22-2009, 11:23 AM
Unfortunately, growing the sport the way Selig did watered down the competition and priced families out of buying tickets. I wonder what sport those kids will grow up liking... football?

Football is 10x more water downed than baseball, and far more expensive.

Daver
11-22-2009, 02:38 PM
Unfortunately, growing the sport the way Selig did watered down the competition and priced families out of buying tickets. I wonder what sport those kids will grow up liking... football?

When did the commissioner start dictating ticket prices to each team in the league?

Trav
11-22-2009, 02:53 PM
Football is 10x more water downed than baseball, and far more expensive.
and 10x more popular.


Daver, the MLB shouldn't be scalping tickets through a front organization. That automatically drives up the price for anyone wanting to buy tickets.

Daver
11-22-2009, 02:55 PM
and 10x more popular.


Daver, the MLB shouldn't be scalping tickets through a front organization. That automatically drives up the price for anyone wanting to buy tickets.

The Cubs do the exact same thing, as do other teams in the league, I still fail to see how that is Bud Selig's fault.

Trav
11-22-2009, 04:48 PM
The Cubs do the exact same thing, as do other teams in the league, I still fail to see how that is Bud Selig's fault.

That is exactly my point.

Using the term "growing" indicates a positive result. What is best for the owners is not necessarily best for the game of baseball and the fans. Selig has used the office to further the profit margins of the owners at the expense of the integrity of the league and without the best interests of the sport.

dickallen15
11-22-2009, 05:00 PM
That is exactly my point.

Using the term "growing" indicates a positive result. What is best for the owners is not necessarily best for the game of baseball and the fans. Selig has used the office to further the profit margins of the owners at the expense of the integrity of the league and without the best interests of the sport.
The owners don't make any money. Just ask them.

Daver
11-22-2009, 05:30 PM
That is exactly my point.

Using the term "growing" indicates a positive result. What is best for the owners is not necessarily best for the game of baseball and the fans. Selig has used the office to further the profit margins of the owners at the expense of the integrity of the league and without the best interests of the sport.

Without the owners there are no teams, without teams there is no league.

As far as integrity, Selig launched the Mitchell investigation against the wishes of the owners and the MLBPA, because he felt it was important to the integrity of the league, perhaps your definition of integrity differs from mine?

Trav
11-22-2009, 05:36 PM
Without the owners there are no teams, without teams there is no league.

As far as integrity, Selig launched the Mitchell investigation against the wishes of the owners and the MLBPA, because he felt it was important to the integrity of the league, perhaps your definition of integrity differs from mine?

That is laughable. Too little to late? Mitchel's involvement with Disney and ESPN along with his ties to the BoSox never raised any eyebrows... The MLB was warned by the FBI that steroids were on the rise in baseball back in the 1980s. Instead of doing something about it, he turned a blind eye. Fans paid to see people hit homers and the players were encouraged to use any means necessary to hit more and more.

I guess we do have a pretty different definition of integrity.

doublem23
11-22-2009, 05:43 PM
and 10x more popular.


Daver, the MLB shouldn't be scalping tickets through a front organization. That automatically drives up the price for anyone wanting to buy tickets.

You're arguing in circles, the price of tickets is not "automatically" driven up by StubHub, etc., it's driven up because the demand for tickets is so great, due to the sports' exploding popularity. Baseball is much, much better than it ever was during the "Golden Era" that old timers always complain about; attendance is way up and the sport is going through an unprecedented era of parity. 8 different teams won a World Series title this decade, that is downright unheard of in baseball history.

MLB ticket prices are low compared to what their value on the open market would be. Just look at the way some of these series explode on StubHub or eBay. I'm sorry that Joe Factory Worker can't afford luxury box season tickets, or that 8-year-old kids can't get bleacher seats for a nickel any more, but if the MLB forced teams to keep their prices any lower all that revenue would be lost to scalpers, who would just gobble up more tickets and sell them for the exact same price they do anyway.

Trav
11-22-2009, 05:47 PM
You're arguing in circles, the price of tickets is not "automatically" driven up by StubHub, etc., it's driven up because the demand for tickets is so great, due to the sports' exploding popularity. Baseball is much, much better than it ever was during the "Golden Era" that old timers always complain about; attendance is way up and the sport is going through an unprecedented era of parity. 8 different teams won a World Series title this decade, that is downright unheard of in baseball history.

MLB ticket prices are low compared to what their value on the open market would be. Just look at the way some of these series explode on StubHub or eBay. I'm sorry that Joe Factory Worker can't afford luxury box season tickets, or that 8-year-old kids can't get bleacher seats for a nickel any more, but if the MLB forced teams to keep their prices any lower all that revenue would be lost to scalpers, who would just gobble up more tickets and sell them for the exact same price they do anyway.
Arguing in circles? Tell me how forcing fans to buy tickets through a third party owned by the MLB doesn't jack up the price? The extra fees alone drives up the price even if the tickets did not go for above face value.

Daver
11-22-2009, 05:49 PM
That is laughable. Too little to late? Mitchel's involvement with Disney and ESPN along with his ties to the BoSox never raised any eyebrows... The MLB was warned by the FBI that steroids were on the rise in baseball back in the 1980s. Instead of doing something about it, he turned a blind eye. Fans paid to see people hit homers and the players were encouraged to use any means necessary to hit more and more.

I guess we do have a pretty different definition of integrity.

It makes sense now, you're one of those people that believes every half baked negative thing written about the game because you want to believe it, not because it has a basis in fact or reality.

I will not debate this with you further, I would be better off debating my dog.

doublem23
11-22-2009, 05:54 PM
Arguing in circles? Tell me how forcing fans to buy tickets through a third party owned by the MLB doesn't jack up the price? The extra fees alone drives up the price even if the tickets did not go for above face value.

What third party are you even referring to?

Trav
11-22-2009, 06:03 PM
It makes sense now, you're one of those people that believes every half baked negative thing written about the game because you want to believe it, not because it has a basis in fact or reality.

I will not debate this with you further, I would be better off debating my dog.
Nice come back, but even Fay Vincent admits he should have done something about it. There is no excuse for Selig. As for the Mitchel investigation, if the purpose was to come clean then shouldn't the perception of bias be taken into account? Enjoy your dog.

Trav
11-22-2009, 06:05 PM
What third party are you even referring to?

Do you remember the lawsuit against the cubs in 2003 for their ownership of the ticket broker that the cubs made fans go through for tickets? When the courts ruled in favor of the cubs, MLB created the same system league wide.