PDA

View Full Version : Selig extended through 2012


pierzynski07
01-17-2008, 11:54 AM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080117&content_id=2347936&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

thomas35forever
01-17-2008, 12:18 PM
So five more years of Selig pretending to not hear questions about steroids?

itsnotrequired
01-17-2008, 12:28 PM
I heard the owners have made a lot of money under Selig's leadership.

Word on the street...

johnr1note
01-17-2008, 01:12 PM
http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/exploding-head.gif

CubsfansareDRUNK
01-17-2008, 02:22 PM
Didn't see this posted anywhere

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080117&content_id=2347936&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

russ99
01-17-2008, 02:25 PM
What a freaking joke.

Still, I guess the devil we know can't be worse than whoever the next guy is the owners come up with to take Bud's puppet job.

CHIsoxNation
01-17-2008, 02:27 PM
It was in What's The Score

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96736

skottyj242
01-17-2008, 02:33 PM
Good for him. Keeping the seat warm for when George W. is ready.

skottyj242
01-17-2008, 02:37 PM
I heard the owners have made a lot of money under Selig's leadership.

Word on the street...

You can prove anything with facts.

dakuda
01-17-2008, 04:58 PM
Selig, who pushed for interleague play and wild cards in the postseason, predicted more change over the next five years.
"By the time I leave, you won't recognize the sport," he said.

:mg:

NSSoxFan
01-17-2008, 05:56 PM
Good for him. Keeping the seat warm for when George W. is ready.

:o::D::cool:

itsnotrequired
01-17-2008, 06:27 PM
What a freaking joke.

Still, I guess the devil we know can't be worse than whoever the next guy is the owners come up with to take Bud's puppet job.

The commissioner has pretty much always been a puppet of the owners.

Daver
01-17-2008, 06:32 PM
The commissioner has pretty much always been a puppet of the owners.

Not a true statement.

itsnotrequired
01-17-2008, 06:36 PM
Not a true statement.

That's why I said "pretty much".

Daver
01-17-2008, 07:07 PM
That's why I said "pretty much".

Still not a true statement, the owners didn't start caring till the 70's when FA really started becoming a reality.

FarWestChicago
01-17-2008, 07:18 PM
http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/exploding-head.gifExcellent use of Scanners! :thumbsup:

DumpJerry
01-17-2008, 07:25 PM
Quote:
Selig, who pushed for interleague play and wild cards in the postseason, predicted more change over the next five years.
"By the time I leave, you won't recognize the sport," he said.

:mg:
He's right. In 5 years we will have home run titles won with 30 home runs, a higher percentage of Designated Hitters being over 35 years old, and 220 pound players nicknamed "Big Guy."

The reason why we're talking 5 years from now is because his head will finally come out of the sand by then.

itsnotrequired
01-17-2008, 07:25 PM
Still not a true statement, the owners didn't start caring till the 70's when FA really started becoming a reality.

Except when they wanted to limit the commissioner's power after Landis, in the 40s when Chandler tried to integrate the game and the 60s when Eckert acted the fool.

Oblong
01-17-2008, 08:42 PM
As much as I hate the guy it's hard to argue that he's been a good steward for the interests of the owners. Whether that's his doing or the work of his underlings the revenue is still close to the NFL, something unthinkable a few years ago. They've really done a good job capitalizing on the internet and alternate media. Now they just need to get the TV situation straightened out so that transplanted fans can see more games on TV that they want to see.

The only changes I'd like to see is for interleague play to be tweaked a little bit. The novelty's worn off. Don't get rid of it but try something else. Maybe play NL rules in AL parks and vice versa. I'd also like to see them bite the bullet and not bow to Fox or the TV networks with WS and LCS games. Start them earlier. I'm tired of having to fight to stay up to watch the end of the games.

spiffie
01-17-2008, 09:36 PM
He's right. In 5 years we will have home run titles won with 30 home runs, a higher percentage of Designated Hitters being over 35 years old, and 220 pound players nicknamed "Big Guy."

The reason why we're talking 5 years from now is because his head will finally come out of the sand by then.
Man, we're really going to be going back in time then. Last time a guy won the home run title with 30 HR or less in a non-wartime year was Ralph Kiner in 1946. In the AL you have to go back to 1919 when Ruth won it with 29.

Nellie_Fox
01-18-2008, 12:02 AM
The only changes I'd like to see is for interleague play to be tweaked a little bit. The novelty's worn off. Don't get rid of it...Get rid of it.

Grzegorz
01-18-2008, 05:00 AM
As much as I hate the guy it's hard to argue that he's been a good steward for the interests of the owners. Whether that's his doing or the work of his underlings the revenue is still close to the NFL, something unthinkable a few years ago.

Wow... The guy is terrible for the game. Is money the bottom line here?

The only changes I'd like to see is for interleague play to be tweaked a little bit. The novelty's worn off. Don't get rid of it but try something else.

Get rid of it.

Throw inter-league play in the trash and follow that dreck closely with Bud Selig.

Man, we're really going to be going back in time then. Last time a guy won the home run title with 30 HR or less in a non-wartime year was Ralph Kiner in 1946. In the AL you have to go back to 1919 when Ruth won it with 29.

I'd love to go back in time when statistics were normalized and issues like steroids didn't exist. Why does the game see itself as having to "dumb itself down" in order to market itself to the crash, bang, and boom crowd?

itsnotrequired
01-18-2008, 06:10 AM
Wow... The guy is terrible for the game. Is money the bottom line here?

For the owners, it pretty much is. Steroid issues aside, Selig has helped the owners make a LOT of money over the last several years.

I'd love to go back in time when statistics were normalized and issues like steroids didn't exist. Why does the game see itself as having to "dumb itself down" in order to market itself to the crash, bang, and boom crowd?

When were statistics normalized? The dead-ball era? The lively ball-era? The high-pitching-mound era? The large-strike-zone era? The smaller-ballpark era?

As for the "crash, bang, and boom crowd", what exactly are you referring to? Promotions? Fireworks? Offense-focused baseball? All these things have been around for decades.

Oblong
01-18-2008, 07:39 AM
For the owners, it pretty much is. Steroid issues aside, Selig has helped the owners make a LOT of money over the last several years.


.

That's exactly what what I was going to say. Selig works for the owners and they care about making money. It's hard to argue with Selig's success in that regard. What we think about Selig and what should be important in the game doesn't factor into their decisions. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

Zisk77
01-18-2008, 07:54 AM
At least the hawk will be happy.

kitekrazy
01-18-2008, 09:06 AM
Anyone ever wonder what it would be like if Reinsdorf was commissioner?

Fenway
01-18-2008, 09:57 AM
:mg:

John Harrington who is very close to Selig says he wants to do is a complete reallignment of the teams and eliminate the AL and NL as we know them.

He wants to see the Mets-NYY, A's-Giants, Anaheim-LAD and yes Sox-Flubs in the same divisions.

kitekrazy
01-18-2008, 10:32 AM
John Harrington who is very close to Selig says he wants to do is a complete reallignment of the teams and eliminate the AL and NL as we know them.

He wants to see the Mets-NYY, A's-Giants, Anaheim-LAD and yes Sox-Flubs in the same divisions.

I'd rather eliminate Bud Selig.

soltrain21
01-18-2008, 02:45 PM
He's right. In 5 years we will have home run titles won with 30 home runs, a higher percentage of Designated Hitters being over 35 years old, and 220 pound players nicknamed "Big Guy."

The reason why we're talking 5 years from now is because his head will finally come out of the sand by then.

Oh, I thought he was talking about robots.

Grzegorz
01-18-2008, 08:37 PM
For the owners, it pretty much is. Steroid issues aside, Selig has helped the owners make a LOT of money over the last several years.

I will not put the steroid issue aside. The name of baseball has been sullied. That's Selig's and these current owners legacy. By God though, they made their money didn't they?

Run 'em out...

When were statistics normalized? The dead-ball era? The lively ball-era? The high-pitching-mound era? The large-strike-zone era? The smaller-ballpark era?

Yep, I want the glory years: the late 1920s through the mid 1980s.

As for the "crash, bang, and boom crowd", what exactly are you referring to? Promotions? Fireworks? Offense-focused baseball? All these things have been around for decades.

I am referring to those idiots that solely live off the visceral experience. These dandelions couldn't sit still and watch a pitching dual because their attention span is so limited that they cannot focus for one inning much less nine.

soltrain21
01-19-2008, 12:21 AM
I will not put the steroid issue aside. The name of baseball has been sullied. That's Selig's and these current owners legacy. By God though, they made their money didn't they?

Run 'em out...



Yep, I want the glory years: the late 1920s through the mid 1980s.



I am referring to those idiots that solely live off the visceral experience. These dandelions couldn't sit still and watch a pitching dual because their attention span is so limited that they cannot focus for one inning much less nine.


Someone needs to step off their soapbox. So, no cheating was going on during those sixty years? Right. :rolleyes:

RedPinStripes
01-19-2008, 12:47 AM
The first commissioner kicked 8 players out. He used to be an enforcer. Now he's a pathetic politician.

Grzegorz
01-19-2008, 04:54 AM
Someone needs to step off their soapbox. So, no cheating was going on during those sixty years? Right. :rolleyes:

Sure baseball had its problems. My argument is not that the period back then was pure (nice projection there fella) my argument is how, warts and all, the game could give people hope.

The game enjoyed unprecedented levels as terms of attendance, both physical and virtual through radio, and was integral in the lives of Americans. Baseball was a something people looked to in good times and bad as a reason for hope and renewal.

I want that baseball zeitgeist back.

If anyone thinks this game, at this time, enjoys such admiration and respect than that person is an imbecile.

This game is full of chemically enhanced morons that put their health on the line for fame. That alone should be a sign to any sentient fan that the game has gone pear shaped.

The game has owners that basically look to the bottom line and a Commissioner that sits there in front of a incompetent Congressional body and babbles that things are on the upswing because the game has never been more popular.

At what cost Mr. Commissioner?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"All that is necessary for the triumph of baseness is that good people do nothing." - me

Oblong
01-19-2008, 05:34 AM
Sure baseball had its problems. My argument is not that the period back then was pure (nice projection there fella) my argument is how, warts and all, the game could give people hope.

The game enjoyed unprecedented levels as terms of attendance, both physical and virtual through radio, and was integral in the lives of Americans. Baseball was a something people looked to in good times and bad as a reason for hope and renewal.



Sure.... as long as you were not black.

FarWestChicago
01-19-2008, 07:36 AM
Someone needs to step off their soapbox. So, no cheating was going on during those sixty years? Right. :rolleyes:Shut up, 'roid lover. You are embarrassing yourself. Nothing compares to 'roids.

:nandrolone

soltrain21 is my guy. He knows who butters his bread!

:canseco

Chicks and soltrain21 dig the long ball!

kaufsox
01-19-2008, 09:09 AM
Sure baseball had its problems. My argument is not that the period back then was pure (nice projection there fella) my argument is how, warts and all, the game could give people hope.

The game enjoyed unprecedented levels as terms of attendance, both physical and virtual through radio, and was integral in the lives of Americans. Baseball was a something people looked to in good times and bad as a reason for hope and renewal.

I want that baseball zeitgeist back.

If anyone thinks this game, at this time, enjoys such admiration and respect than that person is an imbecile.

This game is full of chemically enhanced morons that put their health on the line for fame. That alone should be a sign to any sentient fan that the game has gone pear shaped.

The game has owners that basically look to the bottom line and a Commissioner that sits there in front of a incompetent Congressional body and babbles that things are on the upswing because the game has never been more popular.

At what cost Mr. Commissioner?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"All that is necessary for the triumph of baseness is that good people do nothing." - me

then why are you here, seriously? If the game is so sullied, why do you pay attention? Have you attended a game in the last 5 years when we all knew about the extent of the steroid scandal? If you did, then you are giving your consent with your purchase. Also in terms of zeitgeist, baseball will never return to that time, if it ever truly existed (i.e the stain of racism, use of other drugs like amphetimines) because the time your referring to baseball had almost no competition as far as sporting entertainment. Finally, baseball can provide hope and inspiration. I look forward to opening day every year with the hope that my team will win a championship. To hope for anything more from a group of athletes and businessmen would be moronic.

kaufsox
01-19-2008, 09:11 AM
The first commissioner kicked 8 players out. He used to be an enforcer. Now he's a pathetic politician.

He also prevented the leagues from being integrated on numerous occasions. Not exactly the proudest legacy ever.

Grzegorz
01-19-2008, 11:45 AM
I look forward to opening day every year with the hope that my team will win a championship. To hope for anything more from a group of athletes and businessmen would be moronic.

I hope for a Chicago White Sox championship. I want that championship earned while keeping the integrity of the game intact.

Grzegorz
01-19-2008, 11:49 AM
Sure.... as long as you were not black.

Yeah, and all those early trails and tribulations should have taught many involved in the game some lessons.

Apparently it didn't...

kaufsox
01-19-2008, 12:27 PM
I hope for a Chicago White Sox championship. I want that championship earned while keeping the integrity of the game intact.

you cheer for a team that was implicated in trying to fix the World Series, yet you want the integrity to remain intact. Perhaps it would be better if baseball, and all professional sports, gained some integrity before they worry about keeping it intact.

soltrain21
01-19-2008, 12:41 PM
Shut up, 'roid lover. You are embarrassing yourself. Nothing compares to 'roids.

:nandrolone

soltrain21 is my guy. He knows who butters his bread!

:canseco

Chicks and soltrain21 dig the long ball!

Huh?

Oblong
01-19-2008, 12:53 PM
When did baseball have integrity? Until 1947 it didn't. Then you had unreasonable labor practices, enforcable through an outdated anti-trust exemption. Then you had drug scandals and labor strife, including collusion. Then steroids/PED stuff. It's a business, always has been, and everybody's looking out for themselves. They want to make the most money. That's their motivation. Winning championships is just an artificial competition. Romanticizing the past and forgetting the evils is misguided and only half the picture.

schmitty9800
01-19-2008, 12:57 PM
Not a surprise, baseball's revenue has been increasing for like the last five years.

Grzegorz
01-19-2008, 01:23 PM
Romanticizing the past and forgetting the evils is misguided and only half the picture.

Where in any of my posts did I say the game was perfect? Quit reading in convenient tidbits to bolster your arguments.

Steroids have tainted the game to an immeasurable degree. The narcissism and the win at any cost have soared over the past ten to fifteen years. You have greedy owners that game the system (Florida Marlins) and you have a puppet as a commissioner that sits in front of an incompetent Congressional Panel boasting about the lack of a reliable test for HGH, poor efficacy when banking blood samples for testing at a later date, and baseballís leading the way in formulating an "independent" testing program.

These idiots have learned nothing from the past.

itsnotrequired
01-19-2008, 01:29 PM
Where in any of my posts did I say the game was perfect? Quit reading in convenient tidbits to bolster your arguments.

Steroids have tainted the game to an immeasurable degree. The narcissism and the win at any cost have soared over the past ten to fifteen years. You have greedy owners that game the system (Florida Marlins) and you have a puppet as a commissioner that sits in front of an incompetent Congressional Panel boasting about the lack of a reliable test for HGH, poor efficacy when banking blood samples for testing at a later date, and baseballís leading the way in formulating an "independent" testing program.

These idiots have learned nothing from the past.

No doubt the owners have a long history of shortsightedness but greed, ineffective commissioners, cheating, etc. are nothing new. I don't see how the current steroid issue has tainted the game much more than past issues like gambling, collusion, etc.

Oblong
01-19-2008, 01:50 PM
Where in any of my posts did I say the game was perfect? Quit reading in convenient tidbits to bolster your arguments.

Steroids have tainted the game to an immeasurable degree. The narcissism and the win at any cost have soared over the past ten to fifteen years. You have greedy owners that game the system (Florida Marlins) and you have a puppet as a commissioner that sits in front of an incompetent Congressional Panel boasting about the lack of a reliable test for HGH, poor efficacy when banking blood samples for testing at a later date, and baseballís leading the way in formulating an "independent" testing program.

These idiots have learned nothing from the past.

Why should they learn from the past? Revenues are soaring at record levels. That's what it's all about and what's pretty much always been about. The public doesn't care about this stuff. His job is to help the owners make as much money as possible. Whether that's the way it should be is irrelevant because it's not going to change as long as the owners get to decide.

I hate to say it but steroids have not hurt the game. They may have pissed some fans off but there's no negative measureable effect other than bruised egos and embarassment to certain high profile players.

Show me the negative effects of steroids beyond perception of fans which record attendance and revenues is flying in the face of.

tebman
01-19-2008, 03:20 PM
Why should they learn from the past? Revenues are soaring at record levels. That's what it's all about and what's pretty much always been about. The public doesn't care about this stuff. His job is to help the owners make as much money as possible. Whether that's the way it should be is irrelevant because it's not going to change as long as the owners get to decide.

I hate to say it but steroids have not hurt the game. They may have pissed some fans off but there's no negative measureable effect other than bruised egos and embarassment to certain high profile players.

Show me the negative effects of steroids beyond perception of fans which record attendance and revenues is flying in the face of.

The highlighted words are why Selig got a contract extension, of course. We all know that. What the owners worry about is the possibility of MLB losing its antitrust exemption. That's why Selig is useful to them. He's a mope and a hack, but he offers himself as a punching bag for things like the congressional hearings that were held this week.

Bud is not one of my favorite guys. I suppose that's pretty obvious.

FarWestChicago
01-19-2008, 06:22 PM
I don't see how the current steroid issue has tainted the game much more than past issues like gambling, collusion, etc.One of the wonderful things about baseball is the statistics. 'roids pretty much blew up a good chunk of the record book. In a way, the game lost it's history. I think 'roids a at least an order of magnitude worse than any problem baseball has ever faced. But, that's just my opinion.

Grzegorz
01-19-2008, 07:40 PM
Why should they learn from the past? Revenues are soaring at record levels. That's what it's all about and what's pretty much always been about.

I hate to say it but steroids have not hurt the game.

Show me the negative effects of steroids beyond perception of fans which record attendance and revenues is flying in the face of.

My God...

itsnotrequired
01-19-2008, 11:00 PM
One of the wonderful things about baseball is the statistics. 'roids pretty much blew up a good chunk of the record book. In a way, the game lost it's history. I think 'roids a at least an order of magnitude worse than any problem baseball has ever faced. But, that's just my opinion.

And the "lively ball" era of the 1920s crushed the existing records of the time. Shrunken strike zones and raised mounds made pitchers look like super-heroes in the 1960s. The game is constantly in flux.

I'm not defending steroid users and am not dismissing the issue but the people that suggest this is the biggest crisis baseball has ever faced are little more than PPDCs and FOBBs.

:party:

Oblong
01-19-2008, 11:20 PM
My God...

Ok.... show me.

People can complain on message boards all they want about how bad steroids/PED's were for the game but as long as they're still buying tickets, watching the games, and getting the merchandise then I can't see how you can say they were bad for the game from the owner and player's perspective. They're rolling in the dough. Bad from the fan's perspectives? $6 billion and rising attendance doesn't square with that. Attendance and revenues will go up in 2008 too, even after Mitchell's report. They don't seem to care very much either. The game's as healthier than it's ever been.

And the "lively ball" era of the 1920s crushed the existing records of the time. Shrunken strike zones and raised mounds made pitchers look like super-heroes in the 1960s. The game is constantly in flux.

I'm not defending steroid users and am not dismissing the issue but the people that suggest this is the biggest crisis baseball has ever faced are little more than PPDCs and FOBBs.


That's how I see it. Every era had it's little quirks that you have to deal with.

bigfoot
01-19-2008, 11:33 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080117&content_id=2347936&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

5 more years @ $15/yr and Bud the Dud gets an opportunity to preside over the "cleaning up" of the Era of Juice", rather than retire during the last remnants of Capitol Hill hearings and the media shame that will be heaped upon everyone in MLB, for a short period of time. Though in the United States of Amnesia, something else will come along that will capture the talking heads attention and Bud, Jose and the rest will just become tragic footnotes in archival news reports. With any luck at all.

Grzegorz
01-20-2008, 05:40 AM
Ok.... show me.

The number of health journal publishing about the dangers of steroid abuse are too many to publish. But how about you start here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/436283

People can complain on message boards all they want about how bad steroids/PED's were for the game but as long as they're still buying tickets, watching the games, and getting the merchandise then I can't see how you can say they were bad for the game from the owner and player's perspective.

I give a goddamn about the owners perspective; it's about the message they send to the public especially the youth of this country.


They're rolling in the dough. Bad from the fan's perspectives? $6 billion and rising attendance doesn't square with that. Attendance and revenues will go up in 2008 too, even after Mitchell's report. They don't seem to care very much either. The game's as healthier than it's ever been.

You're building your case on the wisdom of the American public? That is really pathetic.

The sheer number of the ignorant public that flock to games does not lessen the negative impact of steroids on the game of baseball. Remember logic and facts dictate; not numbers. If numbers ruled then we'd never get over some of our prejudices or moved forward in exploration and innovation.

That's how I see it. Every era had it's little quirks that you have to deal with.

Steroids, a little quirk. That about tells me all I need to know.

I find it a sign of weakness, ignorance, and moral depravity that so many fans would look the other way at these issues of fiscal and ethical malfeasance.

Oblong
01-20-2008, 06:53 AM
Well... you are giving answers to questions that I'm not asking. I didn't ask if steroids were bad, I asked if they were bad for baseball. I'm talking about in a business sense here because baseball is a business.

Its' not about "looking the other way". It's about reality. Do you still go to games? Do you watch the games? Do you buy merchandise or support the game in any way? If the answer is yes then you are just as guilty as you are proclaiming me to be. You are not putting your money where your mouth is.

All those things you say may be true but it's not hurting the game. The balance sheets prove that.

Grzegorz
01-20-2008, 08:40 AM
Well... you are giving answers to questions that I'm not asking. I didn't ask if steroids were bad, I asked if they were bad for baseball. I'm talking about in a business sense here because baseball is a business.

Show me the negative effects of steroids beyond perception of fans which record attendance and revenues is flying in the face of.

I believe I answered your challenge.

Its' not about "looking the other way". It's about reality. Do you still go to games? No...

Do you watch the games? No; I listen on the radio.

Do you buy merchandise or support the game in any way? No...

If the answer is yes then you are just as guilty as you are proclaiming me to be. You are not putting your money where your mouth is.

We're two entirely different people; please do not equate my beliefs or actions with yours.

All those things you say may be true but it's not hurting the game. The balance sheets prove that.

If it's all about the balance sheet how about taking a pay cut in your salary?

kaufsox
01-20-2008, 10:58 AM
No; I listen on the radio.



So, you still support the game. Higher radio ratings, more ad revenue, more of a premium paid to the clubs. Hard to get away from, isn't it.

Grzegorz
01-20-2008, 11:00 AM
So, you still support the game. Higher radio ratings, more ad revenue, more of a premium paid to the clubs. Hard to get away from, isn't it.

Yeah, I am a bastard and an enabler aren't I? I notice you have to deflect the argument though. Great strategy...

kaufsox
01-20-2008, 11:13 AM
Yeah, I am a bastard and an enabler aren't I? I notice you have to deflect the argument though. Great tactics...

How am I deflecting the argument? You are the one arguing the game had more integrity in previous eras and you just answered a laundry list of questions about your level of support after you have insinuated that supporting the game now is wrong. BTW, I don't think you're a bastard. In fact, this is one of the better discussions I've ever been a part of on this board. Don't start the name calling now, even if it is yourself.:D:

Grzegorz
01-20-2008, 11:41 AM
How am I deflecting the argument? You are the one arguing the game had more integrity in previous eras and you just answered a laundry list of questions about your level of support after you have insinuated that supporting the game now is wrong. BTW, I don't think you're a bastard. In fact, this is one of the better discussions I've ever been a part of on this board. Don't start the name calling now, even if it is yourself.:D:

The argument is whether steroids enhances the game. I make the argument that the integrity of the game is challenged, others feel that the bottom line is most important.

I ask those that look to a better bottom line as marker of success to take a salary cut at their place of employment or send a check to the IRS for whatever extra amount you feel will help towards reducing the national debt (good luck). You want to work for a "better" company or live in a "better" country than give. After all you'll be better off.

If steroids are condoned there will more people accepting the use of such harmful products. Do you want to chance that more of America's youth fall victim to this weakness because it's condoned by society? If steroids are good for the bottom line, why don't those that feel that way take them? Perhaps those that feel steroids are no big deal should let their children use them.

Why not, after all it's about the achievement of fame and glory at any cost. Ethics be damned...

No, the leaders of the sport and those that enable those leaders be damned...

itsnotrequired
01-20-2008, 01:34 PM
The argument is whether steroids enhances the game. I make the argument that the integrity of the game is challenged, others feel that the bottom line is most important.

I ask those that look to a better bottom line as marker of success to take a salary cut at their place of employment or send a check to the IRS for whatever extra amount you feel will help towards reducing the national debt (good luck). You want to work for a "better" company or live in a "better" country than give. After all you'll be better off.

If steroids are condoned there will more people accepting the use of such harmful products. Do you want to chance that more of America's youth fall victim to this weakness because it's condoned by society? If steroids are good for the bottom line, why don't those that feel that way take them? Perhaps those that feel steroids are no big deal should let their children use them.

Why not, after all it's about the achievement of fame and glory at any cost. Ethics be damned...

No, the leaders of the sport and those that enable those leaders be damned...

Life sucks and then you die.

http://whitesoxinteractive.com/chisox716/shrug.gif

kaufsox
01-20-2008, 01:48 PM
No, the leaders of the sport and those that enable those leaders be damned...

better to be damned with baseball than saved without.

Oblong
01-20-2008, 03:37 PM
The argument is whether steroids enhances the game. I make the argument that the integrity of the game is challenged, others feel that the bottom line is most important.

I ask those that look to a better bottom line as marker of success to take a salary cut at their place of employment or send a check to the IRS for whatever extra amount you feel will help towards reducing the national debt (good luck). You want to work for a "better" company or live in a "better" country than give. After all you'll be better off.

If steroids are condoned there will more people accepting the use of such harmful products. Do you want to chance that more of America's youth fall victim to this weakness because it's condoned by society? If steroids are good for the bottom line, why don't those that feel that way take them? Perhaps those that feel steroids are no big deal should let their children use them.

Why not, after all it's about the achievement of fame and glory at any cost. Ethics be damned...

No, the leaders of the sport and those that enable those leaders be damned...

Who has condoned steroids? I certainly have not. I'm not saying that I think dollars and profit should be the bottom line. I'm saying that it is the bottom line. It isn't my decision or your decision to make. It's the people who run the game that get to make that call and they've done that over and over again through the sport's history. I've also not seen anyone here suggest that steroids enhances the game or that kids should use them. Now you are just making stuff up.

Grzegorz
01-20-2008, 06:53 PM
I've also not seen anyone here suggest that steroids enhances the game or that kids should use them. Now you are just making stuff up.

I never asserted that anyone on this board condoned their use.

I hate to say it but steroids have not hurt the game. They may have pissed some fans off but there's no negative measureable effect other than bruised egos and embarassment to certain high profile players.

Show me the negative effects of steroids beyond perception of fans which record attendance and revenues is flying in the face of.

Do you agree or disagree that steroids are harmful?

If steroids have not hurt the game, as you assert above, have steroids helped the game?

Oblong
01-20-2008, 09:15 PM
Do you agree or disagree that steroids are harmful?

If steroids have not hurt the game, as you assert above, have steroids helped the game?

When not used properly, and I assume that all players who have taken them have not used them properly, then they are probably harmful to that individual. It would depend how they used them and how often.

Forgetting what I've said before, I won't say that they have helped the game. That's a question I don't think you can answer in the scope of a message board thread. I can say that they have not hurt the game. Again, I'm speaking from a business and financial perspective. The success since the strike in 1994 speaks for itself. I am not able to attribute that to steroids and alleged subsequent love of the HR.

Having said that, I suppose an argument could be made that perhaps the game would be that much bigger if not for the steroid/PED controversy. I don't know.

ode to veeck
01-21-2008, 09:06 AM
Man, we're really going to be going back in time then. Last time a guy won the home run title with 30 HR or less in a non-wartime year was Ralph Kiner in 1946. In the AL you have to go back to 1919 when Ruth won it with 29.

Bill Melton did it in the 70s did he not?

ode to veeck
01-21-2008, 09:07 AM
Bill Melton did it in the 70s did he not?


OK 33 but still makes the point, we had this happening later than the 40s