PDA

View Full Version : Millions and millions to watch scrubs is sickening....


soxinem1
12-23-2005, 09:03 PM
To save myself from yacking on my keyboard, I will refer everyone to baseballreference.com Any player you want to look up since the beginning of time is there.

Plus, they track salaries since 1985.

Baseball junkies can get buried here, not heard from for days!!!

Guys like Dave Mlicki, Willie Blair, Scott Kamieniecki, Hideki Irabu, and a ton of others have made over $13 million in their careers for being scrubs. And the number of mediocre to down right none-talented players making over $30 million in their careers is just mind-boggling.

Yet I keep hearing many people saying that a guy who makes 33 starts , has an ERA at 4.00, and throws close to 200 innings should expect to get $10 mill a year as a free agent!

The owners tried to collude in the 80's and they got fined. Guys like Reinsdorf complained about salaries, then gave Belle a ****load of cash, only to complain that 'that's the way it was'.

Maybe it's time for the fans to take back their game. I make a good living and can afford to get a season ticket package (I had one for a while in late 80's/early 90's) but cannot rationalize the expense, especially when 50% of the guys on the field today would have been drummed out as recently as the late 80's.

If we stop going, maybe they will wake up and realize:

HOW MUCH MONEY DO THESE GUYS NEED TO MAKE, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

TheDarkGundam
12-23-2005, 09:07 PM
You mean everyone should stop going to baseball games?
Hmmm...You can go for it. Good luck.
I, however, recently purchased an Ozzie plan, so I will be at the Cell a few times this year.

soxinem1
12-23-2005, 09:10 PM
You mean everyone should stop going to baseball games?
Hmmm...You can go for it. Good luck.
I, however, recently purchased an Ozzie plan, so I will be at the Cell a few times this year.

Yes, but it wasn't long ago that the price of the Ozzie plan could get you a whole season, with better talent on the field. Get my point?

TheDarkGundam
12-23-2005, 09:29 PM
Yes, but it wasn't long ago that the price of the Ozzie plan could get you a whole season, with better talent on the field. Get my point?
Yeah, I guess I get your point. I just don't think it's a very good idea.
We stop going to games, the team doesn't have enough money to pay the CRAZY salaries of some players, so they have no choice but to put scrubs on the field. How does that help? You'd have to organize a nationwide boycott of baseball or else one team would fall apart while the others kept going fine.

bigfoot
12-24-2005, 12:06 AM
Yes, but it wasn't long ago that the price of the Ozzie plan could get you a whole season, with better talent on the field. Get my point?

It wasn't so long ago that I could take a week's vacation for the $ it took for 4 to go to the Rolling Stones this year.

:gulp:

Iwritecode
12-24-2005, 12:19 AM
To save myself from yacking on my keyboard, I will refer everyone to baseballreference.com Any player you want to look up since the beginning of time is there.

Plus, they track salaries since 1985.

Baseball junkies can get buried here, not heard from for days!!!

Guys like Dave Mlicki, Willie Blair, Scott Kamieniecki, Hideki Irabu, and a ton of others have made over $13 million in their careers for being scrubs. And the number of mediocre to down right none-talented players making over $30 million in their careers is just mind-boggling.

Yet I keep hearing many people saying that a guy who makes 33 starts , has an ERA at 4.00, and throws close to 200 innings should expect to get $10 mill a year as a free agent!

The owners tried to collude in the 80's and they got fined. Guys like Reinsdorf complained about salaries, then gave Belle a ****load of cash, only to complain that 'that's the way it was'.

Maybe it's time for the fans to take back their game. I make a good living and can afford to get a season ticket package (I had one for a while in late 80's/early 90's) but cannot rationalize the expense, especially when 50% of the guys on the field today would have been drummed out as recently as the late 80's.

If we stop going, maybe they will wake up and realize:

HOW MUCH MONEY DO THESE GUYS NEED TO MAKE, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?


Compare the number of guys that actually have the talent to play major league baseball with the number of people in the country. Then compare the number of people that can do your job with the number of people in the country. Which ratio is smaller?

Sure compared to some other professions, baseball players are grossly overpaid but considering there's only a small percentage of them that can actually play at the level they are at and that there are literally billions of people willing to spend money to be entertained by them, what can you do?

I'd love to have 40,000 people come and watch me do my job all day long but it just wouldn't be that exciting...

Brian26
12-24-2005, 12:30 AM
Guys like Dave Mlicki, Willie Blair, Scott Kamieniecki, Hideki Irabu, and a ton of others have made over $13 million in their careers for being scrubs. And the number of mediocre to down right none-talented players making over $30 million in their careers is just mind-boggling.

Go to the batting cages after the holiday. Try the 70+ machine and tell me if you can get around on that. I know I can't. This always puts things in perspective for me. It looks a lot easier on tv than it really is. If Willie Harris can hit a 90+ Brad Lidge fastball, he deserves whatever he can make.

hose
12-24-2005, 07:47 AM
Unless the cost of Sox tickets are completely out of line with the rest of MLB then I would suggest you start your boycott elsewhere.

I agree that the cost of baseball tickets are high but there are plenty of options for the Sox fan on a budget to take in a game.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-24-2005, 09:18 AM
If someone is willing to dish out the dough, someone is waiting to take it home and make some bread.

Don't blame the players for being "worth" what they are.

Don't blame the owners for trying their best to compete in a wild market.

Don't blame the market because we, the fans, make up the market.

TornLabrum
12-24-2005, 09:20 AM
It's really kind of funny how fans seem to think that the law of supply and demand somehow doesn't apply to professional athletes. From April through August on any given day there are exactly 750 men on major league rosters. Now I have no idea what the combined adult male population is of the countries providing players to MLB is, but I would think that 200 million is a reasonable estimate.

That is 0.0000000375%. Couple that with the fact that the clubs make billions of dollars each year from television revenue and ticket sales, and you tell me how ball players are overpaid. Even if my estimate of the adult male populations is too high, it's still a miniscule percentage of the population that is capable of performing at the major league level.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm willing to bet that the 25th man on any roster was probably an all-state or all-city caliber player in high school.

Hitmen77
12-24-2005, 11:12 AM
Alot of Sox fans already tried this boycott concept - after the 1994 strike. The result was Sox attendance dropping and Cubs attendance going roof because the mindless lemmings they draw at the Urinal have no principals and don't care how much the players and owners jack us around.

The result was the Cubs taking over this city (Until 2005 that is!:cool: ), the Sox being marginalized in Chicago, and Sox fans treated like they were terrible fans for not supporting their team.

No thanks. Take your rant to some Cubs website and try to sell them on the concept of accountability for the money they spend on their team. They're the morons who keep buying scalped tickets directly from the Cubs to see a losing team in a cramp, smelly stadium.

soxinem1
12-24-2005, 11:34 AM
It's really kind of funny how fans seem to think that the law of supply and demand somehow doesn't apply to professional athletes. From April through August on any given day there are exactly 750 men on major league rosters. Now I have no idea what the combined adult male population is of the countries providing players to MLB is, but I would think that 200 million is a reasonable estimate.

That is 0.0000000375%. Couple that with the fact that the clubs make billions of dollars each year from television revenue and ticket sales, and you tell me how ball players are overpaid. Even if my estimate of the adult male populations is too high, it's still a miniscule percentage of the population that is capable of performing at the major league level.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm willing to bet that the 25th man on any roster was probably an all-state or all-city caliber player in high school.

While I agree that for years the teams made the money, not the players, free agency has really ruined the quality of play. Today, amateurs guys like Borchard, Seay, Brien Taylor, and others command huge signing bonuses and amount to nothing before they even proved anything. Even John Elway collected a huge bonus to play a year and a half of A ball, only to leave for Denver.

The Sox offered Seay more than what they would have lost by not putting Frank Thomas' diminished skills clause in his contract. What kind of **** is that? I almost did cartwheels when Frank teed off on Seay in Colorado this year!

Plus, isn't anyone tired of these guys who make a fortune, but dog it around? Complain about 'communication' and all the other excuses in one of the few professions where the employee (player) makes a ****load more than the bosses (GM and manager). For a guy like Ryan Freel to get a few mill like he did the other day is great, but to a much larger degree too much dead weight like Royce Clayton and guys of his demeanor and disposition are still around making millions.

A boycott would be silly and would never work, unless one is trying to do it for personal reasons.

Doing so after winning the Series is even sillier, but I wish there was a way to end this madness.

And while I agree larger than life players should be well paid, it is the practice of giving mid level and scrub players huge amounts of money for either:

1. Being one of few options in a weak market
2. being overpaid because of a decent stretch

that causes me to make this statement.

And as far as 25th men being all city/state caliber guys, so what? The White Sox have prided themselves on being a 'working class' team, but it is tough for any working class family to regularly attend Sox games. When I was in college I once had a consecutive game streak over three seasons (1989-91). If I was in college today, I'd be lucky to be able to go to one or two games a homestand. And I'm not fond of spending $200-300 a game so my family and I can watch a bunch of 25th men.

Isn't this the fans game afterall? I remember asking my mom for a few bucks to go to a game as a kid. It hurts me to see a lot of kids who'd like to go, but their families cannot afford it. Plus to make matters worse, a lot of them are the families that surround the park, and that was the core of the fan base at one time. And why, because rosters a loaded with overpaid scrubs.

If they devised a cap on what players made versus service time, it would make the game much more competitive.

While I plan on seeing my usual amount of games in 2006, I sure hope that one day the owners and players wake up and realize how fortunate they are to be playing a game a billion of us would play for free or for a fraction of what theses guys get.

SoxFan76
12-24-2005, 11:41 AM
It's really kind of funny how fans seem to think that the law of supply and demand somehow doesn't apply to professional athletes.


THANK YOU. I was just going to say this. It's all about supply and demand. The MLB makes a lot more money than Mom and Pop's Diner down the street. Everyone involved is going to make more money. It's a fact of life.

Tekijawa
12-24-2005, 12:11 PM
Yes, but it wasn't long ago that the price of the Ozzie plan could get you a whole season, with better talent on the field. Get my point?

It wasn't long ago that you could get a house for what you pay for a Car now. My Parents went to college for about the same ammount as it cost for 2 trimesters at Augustana... Should we stop buying houses and cars and quit going to college too? Somehow I just don't see this working!

soxinem1
12-24-2005, 12:58 PM
Alot of Sox fans already tried this boycott concept - after the 1994 strike. The result was Sox attendance dropping and Cubs attendance going roof because the mindless lemmings they draw at the Urinal have no principals and don't care how much the players and owners jack us around.

The result was the Cubs taking over this city (Until 2005 that is!:cool: ), the Sox being marginalized in Chicago, and Sox fans treated like they were terrible fans for not supporting their team.

No thanks. Take your rant to some Cubs website and try to sell them on the concept of accountability for the money they spend on their team. They're the morons who keep buying scalped tickets directly from the Cubs to see a losing team in a cramp, smelly stadium.


My 'rant' is to baseball fans, not morons, okay? Bringing the cubs into this is not necessary. Plus, they were already outdrawing us after 1991, so that is not a valid statement, Sox made their own mistakes from 1995 on.....

I see your point with the superiority thing, but it does not mean that it is not a major problem.

I actually think the Sox have done among the best in MLB as far as getting value in recent years, so don't look at it as a Sox thing. But eventually it will make it tough on them too.

Let's see how you feel in a few years when D'Angelo Jimenez is making $8 million a year to pinch hit three days a week and bleacher tickets average $55.

soxinem1
12-24-2005, 01:09 PM
THANK YOU. I was just going to say this. It's all about supply and demand. The MLB makes a lot more money than Mom and Pop's Diner down the street. Everyone involved is going to make more money. It's a fact of life.

Really? And how many ML teams are losing boatloads of money? Sorry, contraction may be more of a reality sooner than many expect.

Hendu
12-24-2005, 01:35 PM
Really? And how many ML teams are losing boatloads of money? Sorry, contraction may be more of a reality sooner than many expect.

Depends on who you believe. Revenues across baseball are at historic highs. I also think that contraction is more of a bargaining ploy with the union than a reality.

Don't get me wrong; I think that salaries in MLB are out of whack as well, but I don't buy the losing money angle either. Not when the owners who cry poor are pocketing the revenue sharing money as profit instead of spending it on their team.

soxinem1
12-24-2005, 02:42 PM
Depends on who you believe. Revenues across baseball are at historic highs. I also think that contraction is more of a bargaining ploy with the union than a reality.

Don't get me wrong; I think that salaries in MLB are out of whack as well, but I don't buy the losing money angle either. Not when the owners who cry poor are pocketing the revenue sharing money as profit instead of spending it on their team.

Good points. I don't think anyone is outright poor, the competitive edge is missing.

But as a fan of baseball as a whole I think it's a crying shame that once the year begins, there are already ten teams that are out of it before the first pitch is thrown. Teams like Pittsburgh, Cinncinnatti, Milwaukee, KC, Detroit, and others, while mismanaged in some cases, were perrenial contenders at one time but even with new parks cannot generate the revenue to be competitive. The Royals are actually sounding like they accomplished something with signing Elarton, Sanders, Mays, etc.

Too bad once reality kicks in.

Remember folks, Jerry Reinsdorf himself made money in 1997, 1998, 1999, and all those other years because, as he put it himself, this is a business. The days of Connie Mack, Bill Veeck, and Charley Finley are long gone.

I have hope because baseball has survived a lot and is still a great to go see.

My son, like many kids, wants to be a ML player. He's actually bugging me to play catch right now in the rain. That's love of the game.

Maybe these guys should flash back to when they were in the same shoes.

Daver
12-24-2005, 03:08 PM
The days of Connie Mack, Bill Veeck, and Charley Finley are long gone.



Charles Finley was one of the biggest cheapskates in MLB history, who would routinely outright sell players to teams like the Yankees just to improve his profit margin on the year. He sold the A's shortly after free agency was established because he would no longer be able to use the reserve clause to his own advantage.

D. TODD
12-24-2005, 09:27 PM
Good points. I don't think anyone is outright poor, the competitive edge is missing.

But as a fan of baseball as a whole I think it's a crying shame that once the year begins, there are already ten teams that are out of it before the first pitch is thrown. Teams like Pittsburgh, Cinncinnatti, Milwaukee, KC, Detroit, and others, while mismanaged in some cases, were perrenial contenders at one time but even with new parks cannot generate the revenue to be competitive. The Royals are actually sounding like they accomplished something with signing Elarton, Sanders, Mays, etc.

Too bad once reality kicks in.

Remember folks, Jerry Reinsdorf himself made money in 1997, 1998, 1999, and all those other years because, as he put it himself, this is a business. The days of Connie Mack, Bill Veeck, and Charley Finley are long gone.

I have hope because baseball has survived a lot and is still a great to go see.

My son, like many kids, wants to be a ML player. He's actually bugging me to play catch right now in the rain. That's love of the game.

Maybe these guys should flash back to when they were in the same shoes.
Baseball always had teams that could not compete! The St. Louis Browns were basically a farm team for the Yankees. Big money teams had bigger advantages in the "good ole days" of baseball then they do today. I don't understand why someone who beats all the odds and holds a spot on a 25 man roster for many a year is being ripped for making his due. I would much rather see the athlete (not just the superstars) get paid well rather then the owners reap larger portions of the money people pay to see the game.

voodoochile
12-24-2005, 11:48 PM
Really? And how many ML teams are losing boatloads of money? Sorry, contraction may be more of a reality sooner than many expect.

Won't that solve the problem?

The unviable economic franchises disappear, spreading their wealth of talent on the open market and thus causing teams to cut their bottom two or three players and improving over all league quality. You should be rooting for this event to happen given the rest of your posts in this thread.

StepsInSC
12-24-2005, 11:48 PM
My son, like many kids, wants to be a ML player. He's actually bugging me to play catch right now in the rain. That's love of the game.

Maybe these guys should flash back to when they were in the same shoes.

Are you implying that because there are those outside of the game who say they would be willing to play for less, that players in the game now should play for less?

voodoochile
12-24-2005, 11:49 PM
Depends on who you believe. Revenues across baseball are at historic highs. I also think that contraction is more of a bargaining ploy with the union than a reality.

Don't get me wrong; I think that salaries in MLB are out of whack as well, but I don't buy the losing money angle either. Not when the owners who cry poor are pocketing the revenue sharing money as profit instead of spending it on their team.

Not to mention increases in net franchise value which are NOT calculated into profit margins until the team is sold. Players don't see a dime of the $250M+ the Sox ownership group will be reaping when they sell the team.

voodoochile
12-24-2005, 11:52 PM
Baseball always had teams that could not compete! The St. Louis Browns were basically a farm team for the Yankees. Big money teams had bigger advantages in the "good ole days" of baseball then they do today. I don't understand why someone who beats all the odds and holds a spot on a 25 man roster for many a year is being ripped for making his due. I would much rather see the athlete (not just the superstars) get paid well rather then the owners reap larger portions of the money people pay to see the game.

Exactly, what makes any of us think the price of tickets would significantly drop without a concerted national boycott by millions of people for several years. The owners would simply sell to different people, pocket the extra money if salaries dropped and continue laughing all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile on a couch in the suburbs of Chicago, frustrated fans try desperately to figure out what to do with their money every summer when the temp hits 85 degrees and the breeze is blowing off the lake.

DSpivack
12-25-2005, 04:14 AM
There was never a "glory" era in baseball. The days of the reserve clause just meant that owners reaped off the majority of the profits, not the players. Today's players receive a much larger share of the profits than ever before. I don't have the numbers, but I would think baseball is a lot more fiscally healthy today than ever before--the late 60s and early 70s seemed times of growing salaries and dwindling revenues.

A lot of money is made on this sport, and players receive a lot of money off of that. The crowds who went in suits in the early days? Were they working class? Just sounds like another person harkening back to some better days of yesteryore.

Sorry to break any dreams of those waxing nostalgic, but they never have existed.

TornLabrum
12-25-2005, 06:24 AM
There was never a "glory" era in baseball. The days of the reserve clause just meant that owners reaped off the majority of the profits, not the players. Today's players receive a much larger share of the profits than ever before. I don't have the numbers, but I would think baseball is a lot more fiscally healthy today than ever before--the late 60s and early 70s seemed times of growing salaries and dwindling revenues.

A lot of money is made on this sport, and players receive a lot of money off of that. The crowds who went in suits in the early days? Were they working class? Just sounds like another person harkening back to some better days of yesteryore.

Sorry to break any dreams of those waxing nostalgic, but they never have existed.

I remember when I first started working, I'd drive up to Chicago from Gary to get my $1.75 reserved seat in the outfield. Back then, the highest paid player on the Sox was Dick Allen who, iirc, was making $200,000 per year. The better players then were making about $20,000-$30,000.

Sounds great. You could really afford to go to ballgames then, right? Not really. That buck seventy-five plus a couple of beers plus something to eat took a bit of a bite out of my semi-monthly paycheck which was based on a gross annual income of all of $8100.

Of course the players just played for the love of the game, right? Well, that's not exactly why there were salary holdouts that became big stories virtually every spring training. The biggest one I remember was Don Drysdale and Sandy Koufax staging a joint holdout, demanding $100,000 a year back in the early or mid-'60s. That's not love of the game. That's playing for pay.

Of course, the players were far more loyal then, and so were the owners to their players. Players stayed for years on the same team, many staying for their entire careers with one team. Well, not exactly. Players' loyalty was a function of the reserve clause which was interpreted by the owners as being a way of keeping a player under contract in perpetuity. The players, until the Messersmith decision had no choice but to stay with the same team.

Of course this didn't stop the owners from dumping players whenever they felt like it. There was a "ten-day clause" in every contract. This gave the owner the right to terminate the contract with ten days' notice.

As far as players spending entire careers with teams, it's a lot rarer than you might expect. Branch Rickey was notorious for getting rid of players just as their careers had peaked. About the only players who stayed with their teams throughout their careers were true superstars like Musial, Williams, and Mantle. And even they weren't immune. The Yankees dumped Babe Ruth when his skills diminished. For every Luke Appling that the Sox kept throughout their entire career, there was a Minoso, Fox, Pierce, Aparicio, etc. who got traded.

Every generation thinks there was a golden era of baseball when things were just about perfect. For me, at least when waxing nostalgic, it would be the '50s and the Go-Go-Sox, put together by Chuck Comiskey and "Trader" Frank Lane. Guess how the latter got his nickname. For you it would probably be whatever decade or so you first discovered the game and grew to love it.

And for every generation, at some time there comes a realization that the golden age is a product of nostalgia that has nothing to do with the actual conditions at the time. For example, I had to ask myself, "If the '50s were so great, why did the MLBPA have to be formed in that decade?"

soxinem1
12-25-2005, 08:55 AM
I agree with all the statements provided here. Again, I have no intention of a boycott. A few things need to be addressed, however.

The reserve clause was a bad thing, don't get me wrong. I remember Clay Carroll, who pitched for the Sox in the 1970's was also a deputy sheriff in his home town. Other players were teachers, security guards, salesman, etc.

And I root for the gutsy, gritty players as much as anyone, they are still my favorites to watch. I was glad to see a guy like Ryan Freel get a two year deal from the Reds the other day. But when guys like Dave Mlicki, Jose Lima, Bob Higginson, and scores of others make tons more (on an adjusted income basis as well!) than Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Carlton Fisk did is an outright shame.

Again, my point is paying scrub level guys tons of money. A-Rod deserves his contract, as excessive as it is. He is a good personality, he brings people in the stadiums, and helps generate revenue for all MLB teams. But when a guy like Lima has over $30 million in the bank that is bad, bad, bad.

TornLabrum
12-25-2005, 10:51 AM
And once again, it's supply and demand. If there were better players languishing in the minors who were ready to play at the same (albeit low) level, they'd be brought up and these guys wouldn't be commanding that kind of money.

As for how much money these guys make over people from another generation of players, that's just the breaks. None of those guys were starving when they were playing. This generation of players is just lucky by accident of birth to be commanding the salaries that they will.

If the market can bear those kinds of salaries, it will. If not, you'll see salaries coming down.

samram
12-25-2005, 01:22 PM
And once again, it's supply and demand. If there were better players languishing in the minors who were ready to play at the same (albeit low) level, they'd be brought up and these guys wouldn't be commanding that kind of money.

As for how much money these guys make over people from another generation of players, that's just the breaks. None of those guys were starving when they were playing. This generation of players is just lucky by accident of birth to be commanding the salaries that they will.

If the market can bear those kinds of salaries, it will. If not, you'll see salaries coming down.

Exactly. I can never understand some people's selective application of supply and demand to certain businesses. I will say that professional sports is slightly different than a true market system because the ultimate consumer is far more loyal to one specific market offering and has less opportunity to try other "brands." Therefore, the seller has relatively more price control than sellers in other industries. However, players are priced by a more open market and supply and demand certainly exists in that realm. Money must be spent to be competitive. Sure, a team could offer 1970s-priced tickets, but then you would be watching a team worse than the Royals.

As for those who claim they would play for free, of course they would- no one wants to pay to watch them play. I'll pay money to watch Mark Buehrle pitch or Jim Thome hit.

TornLabrum
12-25-2005, 08:32 PM
As for those who claim they would play for free, of course they would- no one wants to pay to watch them play. I'll pay money to watch Mark Buehrle pitch or Jim Thome hit.

Or to put it another way, only those lacking the talent ever say they'd play the game for free. I believe it's called professional baseball, and there's a reason for that. These guys have developed their skills to a point anyone here, including our former minor leaguers, could ever hope to achieve.

Fenway
12-25-2005, 08:59 PM
There are times I wish MLB HAD used the replacement players to start the 1995 season....

Had they done so MLB would be more like the NFL today. ( Remember the illfated 1987 NFL strike?)

Many fans today root for the uniform as they understand players move around today.

Bill Veeck saw the problem 30 years ago, it is not the high price superstars, it is the high price stiffs that ruin the game

bigfoot
12-25-2005, 10:11 PM
There are times I wish MLB HAD used the replacement players to start the 1995 season....

Had they done so MLB would be more like the NFL today. ( Remember the illfated 1987 NFL strike?)

Many fans today root for the uniform as they understand players move around today.

Bill Veeck saw the problem 30 years ago, it is not the high price superstars, it is the high price stiffs that ruin the game

Veeck also realized that the egos of many owners gets in the way of prudent business decisions. When the parties, owners and agents, are involved in the running of a baseball club much logic gets tossed out the window.

Tom Hicks and A-Rod's agent(Boras?) a prime example.

Mohoney
12-27-2005, 03:18 AM
I'd love to have 40,000 people come and watch me do my job all day long but it just wouldn't be that exciting...

I would definitely buckle under the pressure.

:jaime

MadetoOrta
12-27-2005, 10:25 AM
I think the premise of this guy's rant is accurate - baseball cannot sustain itself as constituted with the salaries skyrocketing as they are. I side with the players; if these idiots want to give a mediocre pitcher like Burnett $11 million, that's not AJ's fault. This year [before the playoffs] I began to more fully appreciate how the Sox organization operates. I expected and predicted A-Ro being traded b/c the Sox had a young, solid and cheap replacement at the ready [Anderson]. I laugh at people on this site including Brandon McCarthy in trade proposals. He's a young, inexpesnive and solid SP. The Sox organization knows you can't charge $55 for bleacher seats. I expect a major lockout during the next CBA negotiations. We'll see who blinks. I bet it'll be the owners ..... again.

voodoochile
12-27-2005, 11:01 AM
I think the premise of this guy's rant is accurate - baseball cannot sustain itself as constituted with the salaries skyrocketing as they are. I side with the players; if these idiots want to give a mediocre pitcher like Burnett $11 million, that's not AJ's fault. This year [before the playoffs] I began to more fully appreciate how the Sox organization operates. I expected and predicted A-Ro being traded b/c the Sox had a young, solid and cheap replacement at the ready [Anderson]. I laugh at people on this site including Brandon McCarthy in trade proposals. He's a young, inexpesnive and solid SP. The Sox organization knows you can't charge $55 for bleacher seats. I expect a major lockout during the next CBA negotiations. We'll see who blinks. I bet it'll be the owners ..... again.

Of course it will be because they don't want to see MLB go through an NHL style lockout - which the league will take YEARS to recover from. MLB did that once and knows the damage it will do first hand. Plus the owners are still making money in terms of higher franchise values. What did the NHL lockout do to the collective value of the league's franchises. I bet they took a healthy hit.

Big cities like Chicago have a higher end bubble on ticket prices. KC cannot charge what NY, Boston, Chicago and other major cities can charge. It's just not feasible. Eventually the owners will have to get serious about revenue sharing if they want to maintain ANY kind of competitiveness, IMO.

Don't look for the players to hand the Owners a free chunk of change unless the owners are willing to clean up their own house first.

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 12:48 PM
Here we go again!!

$60 million for Millwood? This is absurd!! Sure he may have lead the league in ERA, but so what? It was his first year in the AL and runs scored were down a ton. Not only that, he gave the Braves and Phils fits for his inconsistency. A guy that pithces well enough to lose, has never won 20, gets this?

I guess Hicks will never get it. The Rangers are one of the few teams that could lose any of their starting line up and still score a ton. They trade Soriano for nothing, dump Chris Young for a goofy flake, then this?

You can bet Garland is history now, especially if Millwood gets $12 million a year. Thanks for overpaying another one, Rangers!

DenverSock
12-27-2005, 01:04 PM
Veeck also realized that the egos of many owners gets in the way of prudent business decisions. When the parties, owners and agents, are involved in the running of a baseball club much logic gets tossed out the window.

Tom Hicks and A-Rod's agent(Boras?) a prime example.
May I add George Steinbrenner as evidence for the prosecution?

Big cities like Chicago have a higher end bubble on ticket prices. KC cannot charge what NY, Boston, Chicago and other major cities can charge. It's just not feasible. Eventually the owners will have to get serious about revenue sharing if they want to maintain ANY kind of competitiveness, IMO.

They also have higher attendance.

Eventually the free market should correct but as other posters have noted the market for baseball has several distortions involved in it, i.e what economists call market inefficiencies. People who exploit these inefficiencies are called agents.

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 10:01 PM
There was never a "glory" era in baseball. The days of the reserve clause just meant that owners reaped off the majority of the profits, not the players. Today's players receive a much larger share of the profits than ever before. I don't have the numbers, but I would think baseball is a lot more fiscally healthy today than ever before--the late 60s and early 70s seemed times of growing salaries and dwindling revenues.

A lot of money is made on this sport, and players receive a lot of money off of that. The crowds who went in suits in the early days? Were they working class? Just sounds like another person harkening back to some better days of yesteryore.

Sorry to break any dreams of those waxing nostalgic, but they never have existed.

While I believe many owners in the past were greedy and treated the players like indentured servants, I do not totally agree with your summarization.

For one, skyboxes either did not exist or were by far lower in number. They were created to increase revenue.

Plus, naming rights and much more advertising are obvious in most parks, even in Fenway they had to bring back outfield banners for advertising.

Expanded seating options are now common. Before the newer parks of the 70's you had box, reserved, and bleachers. Today you have three levels behind the plate alone. The guys in suits sat in the box seats, not in the OF.

And most importantly, ticket prices. In Comiskey's last year bleachers were what, $3? Now they are $20. Payrolls have increased dramatically so revenues have to rise.

So yes, the smaller markets get hit because they cannot demand this kind of pricing. But to say that the game was not once more reasonable across the board is not accurate. When Pittsburgh and KC were among the baseball powers, it had little to do with money, it was their ability in acquiring and drafting players. Today, they don't have a chance.

SoxSpeed22
12-28-2005, 02:35 PM
I fully expect Kenny and Jerry to never sign another free agent again, until the next CBA duel. Free agency is a lost art.

soxinem1
12-29-2005, 12:34 AM
I fully expect Kenny and Jerry to never sign another free agent again, until the next CBA duel. Free agency is a lost art.

This statement may be more truthful than one may be lead to believe on first glance. But realize that other teams are already copying KW's moves, so like the last time, the players may cave in more when the CBA duel comes up....