PDA

View Full Version : Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, GOODBYE MLB


kevingrt
07-29-2002, 05:49 PM
"Bye Bye Baseball" but not an actual baseball, baseball the sport. Read it all MLB Strike Set for August 16th (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0729/1411432.html)

Yes we get to see all of Crede, Rowand, and all the other prospects, no Brochard either. I love the MLB!

LongDistanceFan
07-29-2002, 05:59 PM
i am really surprise. during the weekend, b/c the talks were going on, i thought the strike would not happen. oh well, on with football and basketball.

ISUSoxfan
07-29-2002, 06:05 PM
Donald Fehr will be working around the clock, doing everything in his power to insure that there is a strike. Selig is clueless and will not be able to prevent the strike. It's up to the Hall of Famers to save us all.

ode to veeck
07-29-2002, 06:10 PM
West and I have MVP seats for Sox in Oakland 8/16, 17, 18. Maybe we can get our money back too (& have our own little fire sale!)

Pukester
07-29-2002, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan
Donald Fehr will be working around the clock, doing everything in his power to insure that there is a strike. Selig is clueless and will not be able to prevent the strike. It's up to the Hall of Famers to save us all.

Blaming Fehr makes no sense,Selig is the one responsible for creating the distrust that exists right,Fehr merely protects his clients from the owners,the problem is their is no one to protect the owners from themselves.

viagracat
07-29-2002, 10:46 PM
Don't you love it when everyone says "oh, no, we don't want a strike". These guys spin-doctor everything as well as any politician. No, they don't WANT a strike because it would affect the fans. And if I had blonde hair I could pass for Robert Redford. Can you believe Joe Girardi actually said there shouldn't be a strike "for the health of the nation" (and I thought he was the one Cub with a sliver of a brain). Believe me, I'll survive without MLB and so will the nation. It's just too bad the game has gotten to where it is. You want to see good, enthusiastic baseball? Check out the Cougars, Flyers, etc. Or Little League. MLB thinks we care. Speaking for myself, they got another think coming. :angry:

TornLabrum
07-29-2002, 11:25 PM
Read this and tell me exactly what it says:

Barring a surge of progress in labor talks this week, the executive board of the Major League Baseball Players' Association could confer by telephone by Friday to set a strike date, the earliest of which could be Aug. 16, the Los Angeles Times has reported.

It says:

1) The MLBPA could (that means MIGHT) confer by phone on Friday. Then again, they might not.

2) The earliest date for a strike could (that means MIGHT) be August 16. Then again it might not.

3) It was REPORTED by the LA times, which reported the same thing a week or so ago, saying that the vote HAD been taken. They were wrong.

Next it says:

There are several possible dates on which the players would strike, but Aug. 16 appears to be the front-runner, with Sept. 1 as the other likely choice, sources told ESPN.

1) There are SEVERAL possible dates. Could be tomorrow. Could be Spetember 29.

2) August 16 APPEARS to be the front runner to the same paper that said last week that was the definite date. September 1 is the other likely choice. Now, exactly who did they interview to get these dates. Or did they do what I think they did, pull dates out of their anal pores?

Sportswriters really are amazing. :angry:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

Sportswriters really are amazing. :angry:

My personal favorite was yesterday's Cubune. Our man Phil Rogers finally entered the confessional and came clean about what a management hack he truly is. At least this time the Cubune printed his opinions as an op/ed piece in their editorials section. Usually they just let him run his mouth on the sports page. Yeah right, journalistic integrity. LMAO!

What a shill. When he isn't sucking up to his company's baseball division, he keeps busy carrying the ball on behalf of his corporate parent fighting back against that big, bad union that robs Cubs fans of competitive balance.

That man has NO SHAME.

SI1020
07-30-2002, 09:00 AM
The last line of the story reads "Players don't want to drain too much money from high revenue teams, who would otherwise spend it on players." Don't they realize that these "high revenue" teams are draining the lifeblood out of the game? Don't they realize that this insures that only a select few teams can compete year in and year out? Don't they know that this set up benefits a select few players to the detriment of all the others? I mean let's go on strike so we can maim the game and protect the contracts of the IRODS. The players are sheep, but the owners created this dilemna.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by SI1020
The last line of the story reads "Players don't want to drain too much money from high revenue teams, who would otherwise spend it on players." Don't they realize that these "high revenue" teams are draining the lifeblood out of the game? Don't they realize that this insures that only a select few teams can compete year in and year out? Don't they know that this set up benefits a select few players to the detriment of all the others? I mean let's go on strike so we can maim the game and protect the contracts of the IRODS. The players are sheep, but the owners created this dilemna.


Thanks for quoting Phil Rogers. This only shows why he needs to keep his inane opinions about the business of baseball to himself.

The revenue he advocates be taken from "high revenue" teams does not make the Minnesota Twins or any other low revenue team competitive. Rogers apparently hasn't noticed that Pohlad has been pocketing his welfare checks from Steinbrenner. The Twins haven't spent **** on free agents. More important, teams like the Cubs have been signing high-priced draft picks the Twins are too cheap to pick and sign themselves (like Mark Prior).

Does Rogers think the rest of us are as stupid as he is? PLEASE tell me you have a functioning brain stem to see pass the nonsense you quoted above.

Rogers must learn to deal with this one, simple fact: small-time operators ARE NOT entitled to owning major league baseball teams. Small-time operators like Veeck, Griffith, and Finley are long gone. Cheapskate little fish like Pohlad and Reinsdorf will be next if they can't get welfare checks from Steinbrenner.

The price of being a baseball owner is now being set by corporate media conglomerates like Fox, Disney, Nintendo--and, yes--Rogers' employer, the Cubune. They have more money than Jerry Reinsdorf will ever have in his wettest dreams. Today they are pushing out the small-time operators like Reinsdorf and Pohlad the same way those two pushed out Veeck and Griffith back in the 80's.

What the hell is so hard for Rogers to understand about that?

The SPORT of baseball is fine. If MLB can finally come to grips with how valuable their assets are--and capitalize accordingly--the big league version of baseball will be fine, too.

However, giving horse **** owners like Pohlad and Reinsdorf financial breathing room to stay in a game they are neither capitalized enough, nor competent enough, to compete in anymore IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

The sooner Rogers realizes this, the better off we'll all be.

Did I forget to mention Phil Rogers is a corporate toadie and a complete imbecile when discussing the business of baseball? I just LOVE how he goes out of his way to suck up to his Cubune parent.

Again, the man has NO SHAME.

SI1020
07-30-2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Thanks for quoting Phil Rogers. This only shows why he needs to keep his inane opinions about the business of baseball to himself.

The revenue he advocates be taken from "high revenue" teams does not make the Minnesota Twins or any other low revenue team competitive. Rogers apparently hasn't noticed that Pohlad has been pocketing his welfare checks from Steinbrenner. The Twins haven't spent **** on free agents. More important, teams like the Cubs have been signing high-priced draft picks the Twins are too cheap to pick and sign themselves (like Mark Prior).

Does Rogers think the rest of us are as stupid as he is? PLEASE tell me you have a functioning brain stem to see pass the nonsense you quoted above.

Rogers must learn to deal with this one, simple fact: small-time operators ARE NOT entitled to owning major league baseball teams. Small-time operators like Veeck, Griffith, and Finley are long gone. Cheapskate little fish like Pohlad and Reinsdorf will be next if they can't get welfare checks from Steinbrenner.

The price of being a baseball owner is now being set by corporate media conglomerates like Fox, Disney, Nintendo--and, yes--Rogers' employer, the Cubune. They have more money than Jerry Reinsdorf will ever have in his wettest dreams. Today they are pushing out the small-time operators like Reinsdorf and Pohlad the same way those two pushed out Veeck and Griffith back in the 80's.

What the hell is so hard for Rogers to understand about that?

The SPORT of baseball is fine. If MLB can finally come to grips with how valuable their assets are--and capitalize accordingly--the big league version of baseball will be fine, too.

However, giving horse **** owners like Pohlad and Reinsdorf financial breathing room to stay in a game they are neither capitalized enough, nor competent enough, to compete in anymore IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

The sooner Rogers realizes this, the better off we'll all be.

Did I forget to mention Phil Rogers is a corporate toadie and a complete imbecile when discussing the business of baseball? I just LOVE how he goes out of his way to suck up to his Cubune parent.

Again, the man has NO SHAME. Really walked into that one didn't I? Not having lived in Chicago for 17 years I'm still feeling my way around and coming to grips with the fact that many are considered persona non grata like the infamous Mariotti and apparently this guy Rogers too. Your scathing rebuttal has some hurtful truth. Owners like Pohlad and whoever runs the show in Cincinatti now have pocketed their "welfare" money and not put it into the operations of their respective clubs. Apparently Pohlad has so much wealth to gain from contracting his team that he is adamant about doing so despite the Twins success on the field. I don't think it is necessarily good what is happening in baseball today. It does not hearten me in the least to see this "walmartization" of American business. In baseball, in the corporate world, everywhere you turn. My politics are hardly liberal and I like capitalism but this is not my vision of it. With everybody squeezed out but the very top tier then you are reverting back to feudalism. I see that trend everywhere. Whether or not Rogers meets your approval and whether I'm stupid or not the current system in baseball will not support the game in the long run, hell not even in the short run. Peons like me have already cut back on the number of games attended and if the "market" continues unabated there will be a collapse. In baseball and everywhere in business. If you don't like liberals or socialism then you have no idea what a big dose of it we will all be in for then. I do want to thank you for your response. There is so much mindless rage today and in this anonymous venue people really feel free to haul off and wack at those they disagree with even if its only words in cyberspace. Your criticism will definitely be a help in my work as I have to do "research" and somtimes have to do lengthy reports. I will be more careful now. I don't care a whit for JR, but push out his "kind" financially like the Veecks and Finleys of yesteryear then you will have a baseball that dumb people like me will have no interest in.

ma-gaga
07-30-2002, 10:47 AM
PHG, tell us how you really feel.

I love articles like this:
"players could strike"
"Association could confer by telephone"
"several possible dates on which the players would strike"
"said the meeting could take place next week"

This article is fluff and should be treated as such.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by SI1020
Really walked into that one didn't I? Not having lived in Chicago for 17 years I'm still feeling my way around and coming to grips with the fact that many are considered persona non grata like the infamous Mariotti and apparently this guy Rogers too. Your scathing rebuttal has some hurtful truth. Owners like Pohlad and whoever runs the show in Cincinatti now have pocketed their "welfare" money and not put it into the operations of their respective clubs. Apparently Pohlad has so much wealth to gain from contracting his team that he is adamant about doing so despite the Twins success on the field....

I'm sorry that my rebuttal seemed aimed at you, SI. Believe me, it wasn't. To the contrary, it was aimed at one of my favorite whipping boys, the Cubune's Phil Rogers. Besides Reinsdorf, my other favorite whipping boy is Sox marketing vee-pee Rob Gallas. You ought to stick around to see me go off on him. :smile:

I hate Rogers because he holds himself up as an expert on baseball. However, like most sportswriters, he is completely unqualified to write about the business of baseball. I'm sure you are aware that nearly every conservative, pro-management business publication has poo-poo'd the MLB owners' cries of poverty. Besides Forbes, I've personally read pieces in the WSJ and BusinessWeek that barely manage to reign in their contempt for the owners' position.

As for liberals and more social-leaning opinion makers, I hardly think you will find any of them willing to offer welfare to a group of people who rank in the top one-percent of the nation's wealthiest. This IS NOT a liberal vs. conservative discussion.

The facts are the ONLY place you'll find significant sentiment in favor of the owners' position is within the sports media itself--and of course those who listen to what these same people say. I don't need to remind you most of these sportswriters have no formal business education, and regularly graze at the complimentary buffets offered behind the pressbox. These ARE NOT well-informed people, and certainly are not disinterested parties.

That's why I responded TornLabrum's post about that worthless piece of tripe written by another sportswriter. The fact his report had more holes in it than swiss cheese didn't deter him one bit from writing it. That is way Phil Rogers writes, too.

I'm truly sorry you got caught in the crossfire. That was not my intention.

My apologies.

KingXerxes
07-30-2002, 12:44 PM
PHG - Do you have a link to the Wall Street Journal articles?

Thanks.

LongDistanceFan
07-30-2002, 12:48 PM
i been thinking of JR and the situation that he is in, as part owner of the sox. he is the spoke person for for the other investors. doesn't he own something like 1 - 10% of ownership? my point is he is alway getting the blame for what the ownership of the sox are doing. it is a conglomerate of people who owns the team and just maybe it what the board wants. owners are into seeing the max profit of an investment.

he is a hardliner when it comes to payroll etc... but didn't he start this with albert belle, didn't the sox make an offer to the whoreRod derby? so where is the sox org on the payroll subject? these action are a little confusing to me.

so this leads me to another point, if this is true, the profit theory. then why hire incompetent people to run the business?

rogers article is nothing but a pro for owners, much like you will find as a puppet in a children's show. the owners are pulling his strings. the only problem with this is it has the backing to influence a whole lot of people who forms their opinion on what they read. then as employee, what are your thoughts if his boss told him to write this articles. does he deserved the wrath of the fans?


btw, si1 you provide a lot to this board and are very intelligent. keep on ranting, :D: i enjoy reading your stuff

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
PHG - Do you have a link to the Wall Street Journal articles?

Thanks.

Sorry, their site is by subscription, so you can't link. Besides that, I read it from my print edition. The specific article appeared earlier this month in the Friday "weekend" section, citing two economists from Barrons. Most noteworthy was their analysis that MLB owners are too leveraged to withstand a long strike. They're desperate for cash flow to pay back their lenders. They predict a short strike. Interesting reading...

I've been trying to find new information about Fox guaranteeing the owners the TV revenue regardless of a labor impasse. I haven't read anything about this since last summer and I'm wondering if something has changed.

It ought to be a long strike if the owners can get Fox to finance it for them. That's what happened in 1981 when the owners got the chumps from Lloyds of London to sell them strike insurance. The owners folded after their strike insurance money ran out. Silly Lloyds of London...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

SI1020
07-30-2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I'm sorry that my rebuttal seemed aimed at you, SI. Believe me, it wasn't. To the contrary, it was aimed at one of my favorite whipping boys, the Cubune's Phil Rogers. Besides Reinsdorf, my other favorite whipping boy is Sox marketing vee-pee Rob Gallas. You ought to stick around to see me go off on him. :smile:

I hate Rogers because he holds himself up as an expert on baseball. However, like most sportswriters, he is completely unqualified to write about the business of baseball. I'm sure you are aware that nearly every conservative, pro-management business publication has poo-poo'd the MLB owners' cries of poverty. Besides Forbes, I've personally read pieces in the WSJ and BusinessWeek that barely manage to reign in their contempt for the owners' position.

As for liberals and more social-leaning opinion makers, I hardly think you will find any of them willing to offer welfare to a group of people who rank in the top one-percent of the nation's wealthiest. This IS NOT a liberal vs. conservative discussion.

The facts are the ONLY place you'll find significant sentiment in favor of the owners' position is within the sports media itself--and of course those who listen to what these same people say. I don't need to remind you most of these sportswriters have no formal business education, and regularly graze at the complimentary buffets offered behind the pressbox. These ARE NOT well-informed people, and certainly are not disinterested parties.

That's why I responded TornLabrum's post about that worthless piece of tripe written by another sportswriter. The fact his report had more holes in it than swiss cheese didn't deter him one bit from writing it. That is way Phil Rogers writes, too.

I'm truly sorry you got caught in the crossfire. That was not my intention.

My apologies. Hey, no problem. Actually I probably did leave myself open for some well deserved education or criticism if you will in my original post. I do wish that baseball would stabilize itself for the long term. I wish the White Sox would become the scourge of the AL. I agree with you the owners have brought this on themselves. On to the next topic. Take me to task again if you want, I'm not hard to get along with and like the give and take of a spirited debate.

NorthSideConvert
07-30-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Rogers must learn to deal with this one, simple fact: small-time operators ARE NOT entitled to owning major league baseball teams. Small-time operators like Veeck, Griffith, and Finley are long gone. Cheapskate little fish like Pohlad and Reinsdorf will be next if they can't get welfare checks from Steinbrenner.

The price of being a baseball owner is now being set by corporate media conglomerates like Fox, Disney, Nintendo--and, yes--Rogers' employer, the Cubune. They have more money than Jerry Reinsdorf will ever have in his wettest dreams. Today they are pushing out the small-time operators like Reinsdorf and Pohlad the same way those two pushed out Veeck and Griffith back in the 80's.

What the hell is so hard for Rogers to understand about that?

The SPORT of baseball is fine. If MLB can finally come to grips with how valuable their assets are--and capitalize accordingly--the big league version of baseball will be fine, too.

However, giving horse **** owners like Pohlad and Reinsdorf financial breathing room to stay in a game they are neither capitalized enough, nor competent enough, to compete in anymore IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

The sooner Rogers realizes this, the better off we'll all be.

Did I forget to mention Phil Rogers is a corporate toadie and a complete imbecile when discussing the business of baseball? I just LOVE how he goes out of his way to suck up to his Cubune parent.

Again, the man has NO SHAME.

What tiresome toadying. Does the MLBPA subsidize this site? Tell me, by "capitalize accordingly", do you mean move all broadcasts to a pay per view basis, even higher ticket prices,more taxpayer subsidies of new ball parks? If not what other revenuse streams do you envision to make up for the near certain collapse in broadcast revenue which will occur after the currnet national contract expires? Do you seiously think that the ownership of franchises by the like of Tribune Co, AOL Time Warner, News Corp., Disney et al is good for the game or the average fan? To which cities should the lower payroll franchises be moved in order to allow them to have 100 million dollar payrolls?
Anyone who thinks the fans are in the player’s corner on this one is almost as deluded as the players themselves. Most of the opinion I hear is of the “ a plague on both houses” variety.
Here are but a few quotes form a few more enlightened voices:

From the liberal Salon.com:

“Presuming the strike deadline is imminent, anybody want to guess what the fans in St. Petersburg will be throwing at Nomar Garciaparra when his Boston Red Sox play the Tampa Bay Devil Rays on Sept. 11? Garciaparra recently announced that he'd hate to see the season interrupted or abandoned (Hello, Central? Send over a few dozen metaphors about that tied All-Star Game!). But he has a kid brother just starting out in the minor leagues, in the bowels of the Seattle Mariners' organization, and he has to do this for little Michael and all the others to follow.

Michael Garciaparra got a $2 million signing bonus from the Mariners. He's 19.

Nomar Garciaparra's salary this year is $9 million.”

Source: Salon.com 7/25/2002

From the liberal author David Halberstam:

“In the past when there was a strike, my sympathies were fairly clear. I tended to side with the players. So in a way this is more of a warning to Donald Fehr and the players, because I'm never on the side of the owners. But Fehr should know that in this economy and in this country right now, almost no one is on his side. They might not be against him, but they sure as hell are not for him.” Source: ESPN.com 7/30/2002

Cheryl
07-30-2002, 04:55 PM
Question--do you honestly believe if the owners get everything they want, that means they'll roll back ticket prices, put games back on free tv, stop charging $4-10 a beer?

'Cause that's not going to happen.

doublem23
07-30-2002, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Question--do you honestly believe if the owners get everything they want, that means they'll roll back ticket prices, put games back on free tv, stop charging $4-10 a beer?

'Cause that's not going to happen.

I think the bigger question is... which colors are you donning?

http://www.flyersbaseball.com/images/headerleft.jpg or http://www.jackhammerbaseball.com/images/logo_top.gif

And there are more... Probably.

NorthSideConvert
07-30-2002, 05:02 PM
Well if by reducing the rate of increase, which when it is government spending it is called a cut... maybe. If there is a work stoppage, there will be drastic reductions in seat prices when play resumes, beer, alas, will keep going up. (who gets 10 dollars a beer???)

ma-gaga
07-30-2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert

What tiresome toadying. ...
Anyone who thinks the fans are in the player’s corner on this one is almost as deluded as the players themselves. Most of the opinion I hear is of the “ a plague on both houses” variety.
Here are but a few quotes form a few more enlightened voices:


Phil? Is that you? Enlightened voices? Did you read this one? Also from the Salon... or should I say, the "Liberal Salon"? (http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/barra/2002/07/18/baseball_strike/index.html)

I am sick and tired of the owners lying and getting away with it. There is no accountability, and no motivational factor except the bottom line. I agree that the last thing I want is a strike and I'll be pissed at both sides when one happens.

I've heard from some people debating Rogers that they think he is a fairly intelligent man, whom just can't let go that the owners are losing money. He believes the numbers that Bud produced in front of Congress to a fault. Maybe Bud's telling the truth. I don't believe him, and neither does my senator.

I think Bud was lucky to walk away without being charged for purjury, and with the anti-trust excemption intact...

Randar68
07-30-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
I think Bud was lucky to walk away without being charged for purjury, and with the anti-trust excemption intact...

I am starting to believe that outside of opening the books, that the coveted Anti-Trust Exemption is exactly the thing that is hindering the progress of baseball as a sport. Without it, there would be no financial question on either side, and every single item discussed by the owners related to shared revenue streams would have to be agreed to by the non-owner EMPLOYEES via arbitration.

At least that is my impression/understanding(limited)

Daver
07-30-2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert


What tiresome toadying. Does the MLBPA subsidize this site? Tell me, by "capitalize accordingly", do you mean move all broadcasts to a pay per view basis, even higher ticket prices,more taxpayer subsidies of new ball parks? If not what other revenuse streams do you envision to make up for the near certain collapse in broadcast revenue which will occur after the currnet national contract expires? Do you seiously think that the ownership of franchises by the like of Tribune Co, AOL Time Warner, News Corp., Disney et al is good for the game or the average fan? To which cities should the lower payroll franchises be moved in order to allow them to have 100 million dollar payrolls?
Anyone who thinks the fans are in the player’s corner on this one is almost as deluded as the players themselves. Most of the opinion I hear is of the “ a plague on both houses” variety.
Here are but a few quotes form a few more enlightened voices:



I've asked others and now I will ask you,since you are the latest to harp about the plight of the owners,why should the MLBPA fix a situation that the owners created for themselves?

Do you really beleive that the small market teams in Minn.and Kansas City will take the increased money from the MLB and use it to build a better team? So far all they have done is continue to cut payroll and use that money to line their pockets,and the players union knows it.

Bud is not willing to add a salary floor to his revenue sharing plan for this very reason,he is also not willing to give up sole choice on how this money is to get distributed,all decisions on it shall be at the sole discretion of the commissioner's office.The MLBPA does not,and never will trust Bud Selig,a man that has proven to be a liar,as well as being more interested in power than in product.

There will never be labor peace while Bud is the captain of this ship of fools.

NorthSideConvert
07-30-2002, 05:22 PM
I certainly have no love for Bud Selig, he should never have ben made commish. But hopw can youo deny Fehr doesnt have the same love of power over product?? Both Selig and Fehr should share a cell in a Turkish prison. :gulp:

Chisox353014
07-30-2002, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by SI1020
I don't think it is necessarily good what is happening in baseball today. It does not hearten me in the least to see this "walmartization" of American business. In baseball, in the corporate world, everywhere you turn. My politics are hardly liberal and I like capitalism but this is not my vision of it.

My politics are extremely liberal and I hate this too. My girlfriend works for a design firm that sells a lot of products to Wal-Mart and if you guys knew how they operated you'd never want to shop there again. There's a reason (lots of them actually) why you see those "boycott Wal-Mart" signs on the side of the highway. That is one truly evil f'ing corporation, despite what their All-American, "in it for the little guy" image would have us believe. But I digress...

Whether or not Rogers meets your approval and whether I'm stupid or not the current system in baseball will not support the game in the long run, hell not even in the short run. Peons like me have already cut back on the number of games attended and if the "market" continues unabated there will be a collapse. In baseball and everywhere in business. If you don't like liberals or socialism then you have no idea what a big dose of it we will all be in for then.

Well, if the future of this country looks like the Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen et. al. version of capitalism, then I'd rather say 'hello, comrade'. :D: But I digress again...

I really think the average baseball fan doesn't care who is at fault here. They see ownership complaining about having no money and wonder why taking a family of four to a single baseball game can cost a small fortune. They see players complaining and think "what are you whining about, you just made my yearly salary in one game and went 0-4 with 3 strikeouts". Personally, being an average but knowledgeable baseball fan, I don't even bother reading articles about the impending strike because I don't give a frog's fat arse what's causing it anymore. It's the same tired old story. I just can't believe the owners and players would be stupid enough to flush a great game down the crapper again. I always thought the only way I'd completely lose interest in baseball would be if the Sox folded or moved. But my interest in baseball is next to nothing right now. Sure, the Sox being terrible has something to with that, but if the season ends tomorrow I won't really care.

Daver
07-30-2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert
I certainly have no love for Bud Selig, he should never have ben made commish. But hopw can youo deny Fehr doesnt have the same love of power over product?? Both Selig and Fehr should share a cell in a Turkish prison. :gulp:

Don Fehr is just doing his job,he is not building a power base ala Bud, And you didn't answer my question.

NorthSideConvert
07-30-2002, 05:33 PM
I'm waiting for you to answer my questions.. Please decribe your thoughts on what "capitalize accordingly" means, and to which cities the low payroll teams should be moved in order to generate the necessary revenue for a 100 million dollar payroll.

Daver
07-30-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert
I'm waiting for you to answer my questions.. Please decribe your thoughts on what "capitalize accordingly" means, and to which cities the low payroll teams should be moved in order to generate the necessary revenue for a 100 million dollar payroll.

That's up to PHG to answer,you asked him not me,I will not presume to speak for him.

My question was asked of you.

NorthSideConvert
07-30-2002, 05:52 PM
My understanding is that the union opposes a miminmum payroll. The owners have every right under the existing labor contract to make what ever use of the monies they receive. The players are paid to play the game, why should the presume to tell the owners how to run it. They remind me of the employee-owners of United Airlines, with their screw the company attitude, even though they are the majority shareholders. Ownership is not a bottomless pit of money, if it were, why is Disney looking to sell, AOL Time Warner cutting costs at Atlanta, Cleveland dropping players furioulsy etc?

Daver
07-30-2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert
My understanding is that the union opposes a miminmum payroll. The owners have every right under the existing labor contract to make what ever use of the monies they receive. The players are paid to play the game, why should the presume to tell the owners how to run it. They remind me of the employee-owners of United Airlines, with their screw the company attitude, even though they are the majority shareholders. Ownership is not a bottomless pit of money, if it were, why is Disney looking to sell, AOL Time Warner cutting costs at Atlanta, Cleveland dropping players furioulsy etc?

The union does not oppose a minimum payroll,nor are they telling the owners how disperse any money,they are in fact happy with the status quo.

It is the owners that are asking the MLBPA to fix the mess they have made for themselves,not the other way around.

The owners are complaing that arbitration is killing their payroll,yet they are the ones that insisted on it when FA was established in the Seventies,because they feared every player being a free agent every year.

They say that FA prices are killing them,yet they are the ones that get in bidding wars over players,they are the ones that establish the market in the first place.

And they have a problem with Bud having sole control over how revenue sharing is distributed,and with Bud's track record I have to say that I agree with them,to them it is a prime example of giving more power to a man that thinks he is more than the game itself.

So where is the MLBPA wrong in any of this?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2002, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert
What tiresome toadying. Does the MLBPA subsidize this site? Tell me, by "capitalize accordingly", do you mean move all broadcasts to a pay per view basis, even higher ticket prices,more taxpayer subsidies of new ball parks? ....

Some cheese with that whine?

This site has NEVER held itself up as anything but biased, which is more truth than you will EVER GET from the mainstream media, even in insular New England.

My opinions are right here for you to rebut directly. That is a deal one-million times better than the mainstream media would ever give you by editing the living daylights out of some pathetic letter written to the editor--assuming they published it all.

So whine to your heart's content. When you're ready to make a point, do so.

Today's baseball owners have two options if they expect to maximize their profits:

1.) They bring in partners with enough capital to compete directly with companies like Nintendo that amazingly turn "small market" teams like the poor little Mariners into "big market" teams with a few slights of hand by Commissioner Bud,

or, 2.) Sell their team to somebody else who can compete with Nintendo, Fox, Disney, the Cubune, etc.

Please don't cry for these poor souls. There isn't one of them that has sold their baseball team for less than they paid for it in at least 25 years. Our own esteemed chairman is sitting on appreciated franchise value that is conservatively estimated at $200 million.

Not bad for a $20 million investment, eh? We should all be so lucky.

Oh by the way, "Mega dittoes!"