Conference hbahba::cam_sports

    Gammons dealt with this subject at length in globe sunday and is
    pessimistic because of importance of low market clubs who most need the
    cap.
    
    But I doubt this will last more than two weeks as players are obviously
    prepared to go till next year and owners simply cannot do that.  So if
    they have to do a deal by end of the month then why not now (someone
    hopefully will realize).

    I still think this will be short,because too many owners are losing too
    much revenue. The players are set with most of their salaries banked
    and another 180,000 per player in the strike fund.
    
    The minimum guys(109,000) are making out like bandits.

    I was way off in my strike prediction. I thought the sides wuld come to
    their senses and find some compromise. 
    
    Meanwhile,football is dominating the sports headlines in the NY area.
    US Open Tennis and  Nebraska-WVU are just around the corner and I have
    heard many "The season is ruined" comments.
    
    What do you guys think the date of no return is for this season?
    I would think-Labor Day. You must have some September games to regain
    some continuity.
    
    If the strike is settled in late September,do they pick up the
    schedule,finish the regular season and go on with the playoffs?
    
    Will anyone still care by then?

    September 15 or so might be point of no return. 2 weeks still
    allows for a number of playoff races.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

>>    Will anyone still care by then?

	Not I!


	billl

If they start up in mid/late Sept. it would amount to a faux season, 
and faux playoffs, put on because neither side could let all that revenue
from the 'offs slip away.

=Bob=

    
    
    
    I'll kiss ya Karen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    Chap

    re: .8
    
    I'm sure we could find volunteers.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

I've no sympathy for either side actually.   Screw them all.

I got a really good idea of what sports owners were like by watching
former Whalers owner Richard Gordon.   They're all scum, out for themselves,
and to put it bluntly, Robbie Bob Palmer would fit right in with them.

The players are almost as bad.  


Screw them.  Football and hockey are coming, and much as I love and revere
baseball, this season is spoiled for me.   It's a tainted season now and
whoever wins the World Series will have a tainted championship.....


'Saw

    Nick Cafardo of the globe was talking about the strike and substitute
    players and mentioned the last football strike and doug flutie playing
    in the sub game at foxboro.  And he said something which I have felt
    was true but never stated so boldly and in a major outlet like the
    globe and I'll paraphrase
    
    	"Flutie was blackballed from the nfl for his [scab] role in the
    strike"
    
    It was my personal observation that the majority of patriot players
    jacked it in the flutie games trying to make him look as bad as
    possible but having no real evidence had to be happy with doug's
    success in cfl.
    
    I wonder where Cafardo is getting that information.  He certainly
    wasn't pulling in any punches with the "blackball" remark.
    in

    
    >>	"Flutie was blackballed from the nfl for his [scab] role in the
    >>strike"
    
    I don't know how true this could be.  There's a lot of players who
    locked onto teams after the strike ended.  Steve Bono, fer one, was the
    STEELERS starting QB during the strike. 
    
    JaKe
    

|    I don't know how true this could be.  There's a lot of players who
|    locked onto teams after the strike ended.  Steve Bono, fer one, was the
|    STEELERS starting QB during the strike. 
 
Yabut, unless I'm mistaken, Bono was not on an NFL roster when the strike 
started.  I think the problem Flutie had was that he was an established NFL
player, albiet a bench warmer, when the strike started, and he crossed the 
picket line.

=Bob=

    Bobby Bonilla has now lost $186,000.
    And the meter keeps running.
    
    But no matter how bad things are screwed up,when this ends the fans
    will be back and probably paying higher prices.

    RE Bono and FLutie, Ok, din't catch that angle.
    
    Re Bonilla, breaks my FREAKIN' heart!!!
    
    
    NOT!!!!!
    
    Let em sit in a bread line and beg fer his food, ANY of the ballplayers
    fer that matter.
    
    jaKe
    

>>  jaKe
  
	Is this the new and improved version?


	billl

    Nah, just a fingergraphical error.
    
    JaKe
    

    Meanwhile, some NBA players are taking pay cuts to play for winning teams.

    It agrees with my personal observation but I don't know why Flutie was
    signalled out.  I'd like to know what information Cafardo has.
    
    And if he is talking about coaches blackballing him or his teamates
    freezing him out and if the latter what was the role of Berry.
    
    Could he seriously be accussing a pro coach of knowingly allow a team
    to put forth less than a complete effort.
    
    I wouldn't put to much credit on Berry; he was a disgrace as a coach
    here.

    got note jambled there.  So Tommy you noticed that line.
    
    I'll go along with reasoning pro/con about Flutie talent level being a
    very moot question.
    
    I am just curious where nc is getting grist for his statement. 
    Andleman??/
    A flutie fan bigtime so means nada.

    Montreal put � of its office staff on temporary furlough until the
    strike ends. Yankees and other teams expected to do the same.
    
    Bonilla's up to $217,000  lost. Some players may lose more pay during
    strike than I will MAKE my entire working life.
    
    And the little cogs in the baseball wheel continue to get hurt the
    most. This may be a good chance for parents to explain to their hooked
    little ones that this ISN'T life or death.

fresh off the wire...

If you have had it with the spoiled brats and the spoiled fat cats, hit 'em
where it hurts. Join the Fans Union and strike against the greedy players
and owners.

This is not their game; it belongs to all of us.

FED UP FANS pledge that they will not attend, or watch, the playoff games.
This way the players and owners will lose millions.

This is the way it works: Every week that there is a strike, there will be
one playoff game boycotted. If it goes on for more than seven weeks, the
world series games will be boycotted, one for each week until the strike is
settled.

Show them you are serious. They are counting on that post-season money, and
counting on us to just go along with whatever crumbs they throw us.

No more!
 
Join the fans union FED UP FANS by sending $10 and your name to:
FUF  P.O. Box 69  Winchester MA  01890.  You'll receive a bumper sticker to
display and a membership card. Your money will be used to print and
broadcast this message all over the USA. They will get the message and get
to playing baseball and stop playing this stupid game of pouting.
 

re: FUF

I applaude thaeir effort, but every time a group does something like this, there
are always enough fans to take their seats at the ballpark...

�I applaude thaeir effort, but every time a group does something like this, there
�are always enough fans to take their seats at the ballpark...
    
    I agree woth you =bob=. The only way they would really understand is for
    everyone to stay away.

    I'll Have no Problem Banning Baseball (Boycot)
    
    Of course I may have only watched a few games and then the WS but not
    this year, I can easily not watch or attend one minute of baseball.
    
    I wish just once the Fans would all get together in a united front and
    Hit them where it hurts... WE CONTROL SPORTS, if they could get all 
    Sportfans to start a union they could control salaries, tickets costs
    and Food/Gift cost as well... BUT it will never happen...
    
    The only thing more ridiculous then the high salaries, Ticket and
    conncesion cost is Women's Clothing, every time I shop with my wife
    and see a 100-300 piece of clothe thown together I ask myself who buys
    this (Then I see 2 of them in the checkout line).
    
    Good luck on your boycott, but it will never happen
    								mab

    What impact, other than delaying it, does the stike have on Cal Ripken's
    pursuit of the consectutive games played record?
    
    How close is he?
    
    UMDan
     

    He's ~200 games away.  Since the streak involves several seasons
    anyway, I doubt the strike has an impact.  He probably has already
    survived a few strikes anyway with that streak.

    Ripken is just under 130 games away. Less than a full seasobn.
    
    The Crazy met
    

	Why are these people waiting until Tuesday to meet again? They
	agree on Thursday to resume meetings then wait 5 days! Why? Isn't
	resolving this strike *supposed* to be the #1 concern of both
	sides here? .... maybe not?

	Tom

Tom, I think you guessed it.

I'm wondering if perhaps both sides are milking it in the hopes that the
public uproar will force the other side to make concessions.

To be honest, right now, I don't give a shit.  If they play a World Series
this year, it'll be tainted, tainted, tainted.  It's already tainted as
the first world series with a stupid playoff scheme, and now it'll be
strike tainted.

That, plus that fact that the Red Sox are long out of it, has made my
appetite for one of my favorite sports, very small.  Exceedlingly small.

It's time for football, and before you know it, HOCKEY!!!!! (yes!)


'Saw

Who's got the list of guesses/predictions for the end of the strike?

I like my 9/6 date, still. That gives 'em time to bullsh*t around a
little more, take a week more to make a decision and bingo, just in time
to complete some games to have the playoffs and the series.

TTom

    
    
       The season is over. See you in the spring of '95.

    do you really think they would skip the playoffs and World Series?  If
    they did, they'd really lose a lot of what's left of their fan base.
    
    Interesting survey done by USA Today shows the current degradation of
    baseball.  It's no longer America's favorite sport.  The survey was
    done on Little League-aged kids and asked them what their favorites
    were:
    
    Football   40%
    Basketball 28%
    Baseball    8%

    Hockey didnt even make the list ?  I wonder how the survey would have
    worked out 2 years ago when the Airmaster was ruling the courts :-)
    
    Was the survey done on little league aged kids or actually little
    leauge's, I ask becuase thats a real small set of children.
    
    								mab

    I think the meetings are geared around the coming weekends.  So they
    need to have an agrrement before the end of the wednesday meeting in
    order to field teams by saturday or maybe friday night.
    
    My choice just expired, I would now pick next Thursday (Fri or sat.
    games) as the window is at an end.  Despite the posturing by
    Ravelitch(sic) the whole point of the strike is the owners hitting
    players with a little financial kick in the pants before signing
    something which could easily have been signed a month ago.
    
    It is that simple: players won't sign a cap agreement and owners HAVE
    to play the playoffs = > an agreement within a week or two.

    Any owners' vote needs to be at least 20-8 to end the strike.
    
    There at least 8 franchises that fit into small market:
    San Diego
    Kansas City
    Milwaukee
    Minnesota
    Montreal
    Cincinnati
    St Louis
    Pittsburgh
    
    and maybe...
    Texas
    Cleveland
    Seattle
    
    and others
    
    It takes just 8 of these guys,many of whom desperately want revenue
    sharing,to vote down new proposals.
    
    I really don't think the serious negotiating starts until there is a
    news blackout. Until then...the clock ticks and the season is really 
    starting to look badly tainted.
    
    As of today,117 players have lost over $100,000. Bobby Bo is up to
    248,000 and Jimmy Key has surpassed $200,000.
    
    I'm more worried about Yankee's beer vendor Cousin Brewski

    
  >> do you really think they would skip the playoffs and World Series?  If
  >> they did, they'd really lose a lot of what's left of their fan base.
    
     It's never been about the fan base. All along it has been about
     money and as long as neither side will give up any of it then 
     this won't be resolved for months. For it to end this season
     the owners will have to cave in with those self same 'small market' 
     owners caving in first because they have the more shallow pockets. 
     Look for the owners to neuter Ravitch in the next two weeks or so and 
     guys like Bud Selig and John Harrington to take the lead in the 
     negotiations with the players. Barring that, the owners will stick 
     to their guns and write off the season and next year we *will* 
     see a salary cap in baseball.

    Ironically 5 of those 11 are conending for playoffs with houston a 6 of
    12.
    
    Also ironically the players might be better with a solid cap and owners
    be better off in the direction they've been going - better budgeting ,
    more value for dollar, no lougormanizing

    The cap works well in the NBA.  There are a few things that make it
    difficult for trading, but in general it's positive.

    I'll stick by my Spring of '95 prediction.
    
    Cap in the NBA: it has worked reasonable well for the last 10 years but
    its time has passed. The teams are in good shape, revenue is reasonable
    for everyone and I just don't see the big market teams buying
    championships. It hasn't happened in baseball, doubt it will happen in
    basketball.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

>    for everyone and I just don't see the big market teams buying
>    championships. It hasn't happened in baseball, doubt it will happen in
    
    happened in NY quite often.

|    Cap in the NBA: it has worked reasonable well for the last 10 years but
|    its time has passed. The teams are in good shape, revenue is reasonable
|    for everyone and I just don't see the big market teams buying
|    championships. It hasn't happened in baseball, doubt it will happen in
|    basketball.
 
Yabut good point TCM.  

Problem is that all sport's popularity is cyclical.  Basketball is up right now, 
down a few years ago.  A salary cap means great adjustment in the way the teams
do things (note the changes in the NFL th past two years).  You can't expect
a sport to put on a cap when times are bad, take it off when times are good.

=Bob= 

    -2, I must have misunderstood, but are you saying a big market team
    hasnt attempted to buy a championship... HELLO... A TEAM BOUGHT 2
    if I remember correctly.  Didnt the BLUE JAYS go out and BUY a bunch
    of players for BIG BUCKS and win it all twice with one of the HIGHEST
    PAYROLLS IN BASEBALL !!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!
    
    The NBA Cap works ok, but I think the new NFL Cap will work the best,
    no slotting, no guarenteed contracts, no resigning yourown players
    to 80million doller contracts and oly 250K counting against the cap
    crap...
    
    You need revenue sharring and a salary cap or teams will always be able
    to BUY CHAMPIONSHIPS, the 49ers proved that in Football and the
    BlueJays proved it in Baseball, and it sounds like it happend in
    basketball as well (before the cap) and if you look at what a few
    teasm are trying to do (1 yr contracts in small slots with Unofficial
    guarenteed raised) there's some teams trying to do it again (In the
    nba).
    
    								mab

    Yankees sort of bought championships in 1977 and 1978; much as I loatht
    the Yankees the key "buys" were Jackson and Hunter. ALl the other key
    players came from the farm system or via trades.
    
    Mets in 1986 were a team that was either homegrown or built via trades.
    
    Blue Jays - sort of "boguht" championships. But again they were in
    position to win because of who they already had supplemented by good
    free agent signings. Twins have also won 2 titles since 1987.
    
    Point is that the big markets have not dominated winning the WS since
    free agency came on the scene.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    Being a 49er fan...How did the 49ers buy their championships.
    I think you are confusing them with the Bulls???
    
    

    Nit on Yankees:
    
    Goose Gossage was another key free agent on 1978 team. Don Gullett was
    also a key player in 1977.
    
    But Gabe Paul's trades were a big key,a fact Steinbrenner forgot about
    as he failed to buy titles for Yanks in 1980's.

    re: .50
    
    right on those.
    
    Munson, Nettles, Chambliss, Guidry, White, Rivers, Randolph came via
    the farm system or trades.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

Peter Gammons writes in the latest issue of Baseball America that the
players would return to the field if the owners would agree not to
institute a salary cap unilaterally.  The owners, who intend to do
precisely that, will not agree.  Gammons says this is now unequivocally
"the owners' strike".

I've felt that way all along.  What the owners are trying to do is
bust the union.  In the process they may bust the game.

Steve

    -3 during the 49er's run they had one of the Highest Salaries in
    Football (Like 1-3 the whole time), as comparision to the Cowboys
    who won 2 in a row did it with a middle to low payroll (In comparison
    to the other teams in the league).
    
    Doesnt matter how big the market, its how much money the owner has and
    what they think they can make off a championship.  If they have enough
    money they can buy up the best free agents available, buy/trade talant
    away from other teams and buy a championship.  The teams I listed all
    did it and proved that it works, some true championship teams did it
    thru the draft with a modest payroll.  (Cowboys, Bulls, Lakers).
    
    								Mike

    
    	What was interesting about the Gammons column is what percentage of
    the teams payrolls. Came from Free Agency, arbitration, normal
    increases. The owners claim that arbitration raises salarys. Well the
    total was 67% from Free Agency, 21% from Arbitration, and 12% from
    normal increases/others.
    	Gammons then looked specifically at the Red Sox. How they managed
    to pay at 25 million dollar team 40 million. By offering players like
    Viola and Dawson big money. When nobody else was offering them
    contracts. Giving Danny Darwin a 4 year contract, while nobody else
    would. The owners are losing money because of there own stupidity. 
           They also estimate that if there isn't a new agreement or
    serious talks by Labor day. That the whole season will be lost.
    
    Ron<

    
      RE .54
    
      Yup. The jist of yesterday's Gammons column in  the Globe was
      that the most of the owners problems have been caused by mis-
      management. When the Sox payroll was published the other day,
      I was shocked that Dawson is pulling down 4.25 mil and Joe
      Hesketh 1.7. There's been a lot of hue and cry from the public
      about "overpaid ballplayers" but if I'm a gimpy legged Andre
      Dawson and some idiotic GM throws 4.25 million dollars at me,
      I'm supposed to say no? Of course not. And here the Red Sox are
      pulling bonehead moves like that and still are quite profitable.
      No wonder the players don't want to give up anything. The problem 
      in the league isn't that Barry Bonds is making $6 million per year, 
      it's that mediocre players are getting two, three and four million per
      year and it's largely managements fault. It seems like they need
      a cap just to discipline themselves.

mab,

There's a large flaw in your logic.  Having the highest salary base doesn't
equate with buying a championship.  You could have developed every
player on your team through your farm system, and still have the
highest salary base to keep them.


Further, lest anyone be too naive, every championship ever won has been
bought.   Whether a baseball team goes out and signs a promising rookie that
they hope will develop into a star, or whether they include incentives into
a contract to keep a star on the team, the bottom line is that the BUSINESS
of sport is buying a championship.   Some teams try to do it all at once
in a single stroke of spending, and others doing it over the long term.


As to the 49ers, I cannot remember them going out and pulling in a whole
bunch of folks to win them the championship.  Over the 80s they were
clearly and consistently front runners, having a sound player base.  At least
that's the impression that I have.   Frank Mendez can probably elaborate
on that.....


It's back to logic school for you, mab,


'Saw

    Yes but without a cap teams could sign there players to any amount they
    wanted to (TO Keep them) and pickup any free agents for any amount.
    
    You cant do that in basketball (Well Your not suppose to) with the cap.
    The cap rules are somewhat tricky, you have slots etc and have to sign
    people into those slots with max of 30% raise's etc, but I like the NEW
    NFL Cap. $X is your cap, you cant go out and steal/buy other teams top
    talant without losing some of your own.
    
    And even if you did develope all your talant thru a farm league, you
    cant keep them all if you dont have the money, so the smaller markets
    who make less would lose more top talant to free agency then the teams
    in the larger markets who can pay the key/top talant Big $$$ to keep
    them around.
    
    I will agree with one thing, the cap could make the owner's richer, who
    wnats that :-) but its there buisness theyve devoted there time/money
    effort to building that buisness, the players are employees there for
    a short stint, so should the employee's of a complany making alot of
    money all make higher salaries just becuase the owner/major
    stockholders are ????
    
    I hope they all lose Millions of Dollers and hope it damage's fan
    support and decrese's there profits for the next 20 years :-)
    
    								mab

I think that Peter Gammons was engaging in a bit of revisionist
history yesterday.  In hindsight, of course the Dawson and Darwin
deals look like mistakes.  But at time, Gammons openly gushed about
how great it was that Dawson was coming to the Red Sox, how he was
such a great leader, and how this would pave the way for more blacks
to come to Boston in the future.  He said that Dawson was by far the
best person he had ever met in baseball.  At the time, he never said
that the signing was a mistake.  On the contrary, he even lobbied for
the signing months before it happened.

Re. Darwin, it's simply not true that no other teams were pursuing him.
Darwin was coming off a season where he won the ERA title in the N.L.
He was described as a pitcher with a rubber arm.  It was considered
a very good signing at the time.  

Of course there's no defense for throwing money at Matt Young.

Ken

    
      Gammons never said that signing Dawson was a mistake. The 
     mistake was in paying him $9 million over two years when no
     one else appeared interested. It would seem that they could
     have gotten him much cheaper. 

    Sometimes I think teams throw big money at questionable talent just to
    create artifical excitement in the off-season and say to the fans"Look
    what we're doing to improve ourselves,now pay $3 more for a
    ticket,because that is the price top stay competitive"

    .53,56.57
    
    While the 49ers have spent money on their players they did not buy
    any free agents that allowed then to win any superbowls.  Now you
    can talk about Jim burt but he was retired when the 49ers brought him
    back.  They picked up Fred Smerlas but he did not produce any champion-
    ships at all. Here is partial list of players that the 49ers have
    drafted that produced a bevy of superbowl championships.  Montana,
    Rice, Craig, Jones, Taylor, Lott, Clark, Paris, Wallace, Sapolu,
    Barton, McIntyre, Wright, Rathman...were all obtained through the
    draft.  I missed a bunch of players but the vast majority were obtained
    via the draft.  MAB what do you mean that the 49ers bought all of their
    championships?  If you mean that they bought a bunch of free agents
    that won a bunch of superbowls then you are wrong.  If you mean that
    they drafted quality people and then paid them well and they produced
    championships then you are correct.  But remember they used the same
    rules that EVERY other team abided by in that time frame.
    

      The salary cap thing seems kind of crazy.  To me, its an ommission
      on the part of the owners that they are not mature enough to control
      their own money.  Well, let them grow up and be as truly thrifty
      with their own money as they want to be.  And if another owner
      wants to spend more money, let him!  And if all the owners happen
      to want a cap...what's the problem?  Just grow up and pay according
      to your own imaginary cap, i.e. the amount of money you personally
      want to dole out for your players.
    
      Another thing I have always found intersting is the irony of many
      of the fans that rant and rave about players salaries.  Take your
      stereotypical redneck.  (And please...I am not suggesting that most
      fans are rednecks, I just want to exemplify one.)  Most rednecks 
      would probably hate the idea of 'communism' or 'socialism'.  What
      they would espouse is rugged individualism and free market.  And
      here I have seen so many people support in sport things that are
      anti-free market!   Completely in violation of their own ideology!
    
      I tend to believe free market ought to be the way to go, but the
      one thing that causes me to maybe think otherwise is when civic
      pride is incorporated.  If it ever got to be that the New York's 
      and the LA's generally won because of their size, free market could
      imply sort of a Darwinism.  The Pittsburghs and Milwaukees, if they
      aren't fit, don't survive.  I'm not sure about this.
    
      The one other thing I think of is the logical cause of the player's
      salaries.  Its the fans.  Its us people who are satisfied with 
      purchasing the product.  We pay the cable and the tickets.  We make
      it profitable for the advertizers to pay the networks which in turn
      makes it profitable for the networks to pay the leagues which makes it
      viable for the players to make their salaries.
    
      Lets nip the rose at the bud.  If we don't like how much they make,
      fight back!  Go on strike!  Don't go to the game and don't watch
      the game.  Let the Nielson ratings take a dive.  Let people see
      games where no one is in the stands.  Once the advertizers realize
      no one is watching and thus their commercials are not positively
      impacting sales, they will give the networks less money for their
      commercials.  The networks will then give the leagues less money
      for TV rights.  The owners will then get less money.  You watch
      how fast the salaries will go down!!
    
      I think the owners ought to grow up.  And to the extent that we
      the fan complain about salaries...well, if we continue to watch
      the game, we need to grow up too.
    
                                                  Tony

    	Poor Barry Bonds. He can't make the $15K a month payments
    	to his wife. Had to have them lowered to $7.5K. Then the
    	judge asks him for his autograph.
    
    	Barf!
    
    	Scott

    
 >>  The salary cap thing seems kind of crazy.  To me, its an ommission
>>      on the part of the  owners that they are not mature enough to control
>>      their own money.  Well, let them grow up and be as truly thrifty
    
    
     Bingo! That's the reason they need the cap. The owners can't control.
    It only takes ONE owner to make a horrible signing that causes other 
    problems - especially in arbritration.  This is why we have utility
    type players making MILLIONS..... 

    Last time on the 49ers.. Had there been a cap they would not have won
    the SB's they did, the would not have been able to keep/pay there own
    players to keep them happy and in free agency many may have left (Yes
    they played within the rules that were set at the time) and therefore
    brought in a need for a cap.  Owner's can control there own money,
    thats just it some owner's will PAY ANYTHING to win a championship
    weather thats signing all there own KEY players to HUGE salaries or
    going out and stealing other teams key players they may have more money
    to lose(spend) then teams in smaller markets owned by less capable
    owners (Less Money to Spend/lose).
    
    The Rookie Cap (Which doenst seem to be working very well) in football 
    is another thing, guys always want more then what the guy drafted last
    year makes, they cant make less then the guys drafted behind them, etc
    etc etc.. Are what we making pubic knowledge, should it be, if you knew
    the guy in the corner doing nothing made more then you (Because he's
    the 2nd cousin to the boss) wouldnt you want a raise.
    
    Team Salary Caps in all sports, NO GUARENTEED CONTRACTs and Full
    Discloser between teams/players on what the individual salary
    breakdowns are.
    
    I dont watch/attend any baseball (Havnt seen a redsox's game in about
    3 years), no celtics games last year (Or Pats) and never been to a
    Hockey game.  I think the ticket/parking/food+drink/prizes etc are
    way too expensive.  If my kid's want to go/watch I'll try and steer
    them towards a local team (Shamrocks in marlboro, farm team etc) where
    you get to see the entertainment at a reasoable cost.
    
    								mab

mab,

you still haven't explained a very basic point:

why should the players have to agree to something that protects the
owners from thmselves??

The Crazy Met

   >  Poor Barry Bonds. He can't make the $15K a month payments        to
   > his wife. Had to have them lowered to $7.5K. Then the        judge asks
   > him for his autograph.          
    
    Poor wife, she's got a $1500/month car phone bill.  How's she gonna get
    by?
    
    brews

    Too keep one owner from BUYING A CHAMPIONSHIP !!!!
    
    If you dont have a cap (a resonable one) it gives 2 different teams
    an unfair edge.  The teams owned by Billionaire's that dont care how
    much money they spend/lose/make can pay all there own players and
    anyone else's as much as they want to bring home a championship team.
    Second the teams in a larger market make more money and therefore the
    owner can afford to pay there own talant and anyone else's more money
    to bring home a championship.  Its not a guarentee, you can be rich and
    be in one of the top 3 markets buy the best free agents each year and
    still not win it all, a team from a smaller market, lower salaries can
    always play with more heart and determination to bring home the Rings.
    
    You can only buy talant..
    								mab

>    Too keep one owner from BUYING A CHAMPIONSHIP !!!!

George Steinbrenner seems to be able to prevent himself from doing this
fine, without a cap.

TTom

 Does anyone know what kind of strike insurance the owners have? If they're
 not loosing every single dollar from games not played what motivation do 
 they have to end the strike, other than more moola? I would suspect that
 teams not in the playoff picture if they have good insurance have no 
 motivation at all. Players have a rumored 200 million to play with but
 that won't last forever especailly with 1500 dollar a month phone bills...

 ;^)

 next year

 mike

owners have no strike insurance this time. after 1981 I suspect no company
would insure them.

re: .68

except you really have yet to prove that the richer owners and/or richer
markets have dominated; that just has not happened since free agency.
The richer markets did dominate in the 1950's and in the 1960's but not
in the 1970's, 1980's or so far the 1990's.

The Crazy Met

The answer, mab, is revenue sharing.  The owners talk about a partnership
with the players, but can't put together one among themselves.  They could
institute revenue sharing without consulting the players, which would
level the playing field and encourage rationality in spending, but they
won't, without the artificial tie-in to the salary cap.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: these are peripheral issues.  What
the owners are doing is trying to bust the union.

Steve

 
 Not even Lloyd's of London would take them? 

 mike

Lloyd's took a major beating on the 1981 strike.  They wouldn't touch
the owners again with a fork.

Steve

besides Lloyds has had some serious troubles the last few years; no
way they would touch that risky a proposition.

The Crazy Met

didn't realize lloyd's had them in 81........

 good then imo.......

    It isn't going to happen but I'd be curious about the scenario of
    owners calling the players out and blowing the season (since players
    need certain concessions and no cap to come back).
    
    Do the owners lock the players out?
    
    Do they institute their program unilaterally and allow whatever players
    to play who want to and fill with minor leaguers?
    
    	If so at what point are players free agents vis a vis any type of
    	ball playing they can dig up (exhibitions, international play)
    
    	Is reserve clause (to prohibit the above) enforceable?
    
    re. the globe.  I pretty much agree with the letter writer - if
    milwaukee and san diego can't compete let them become minor league
    franchises.

    Anyone know in which state the City of Earnest is in?  Heard that's
    where the meeting was to be.
    
    Lee

    The meeting is in NYC. I am really starting to believe that getting the
    21 votes is going to be very difficult. There are many big differences
    from 1981 that hurt chances of a settlement.
    
    1) No commissioner.
    2) The owners' terrible track record.
    3) The small TV package.
    
    
    I never thought there would be a strike because I thought that both
    sides would realize how much money they were making and not want to
    ruin that...but now that it did happen and the damage has been done,the
    owners must think that they have to see this through no matter how 
    much damage is done.
    
    I don't see any sort of seriousness on owners' side. The players are
    completely confident that they will win another game of chicken with
    the owners. They should be able to survive thru the 1995 season
    
    Won't owners write off baseball losses against other businesses.
    
    The ONE thing that may save baseball is heavy political intervention.
    
    Will anyone still care?
    
    
    

      If I were the players, I'd start my own league!

>> Owners: Who Needs 'Em!
           
	Ha ha!  Anyone expecting to draw them 7 figure paychecks is my guess.


	billl

    What day is this of the baseball strike???  I honestly do not miss
    baseball one bit.  I have changed somewhat in how I view the strike.
    I lay the bulk of the blame at the owners feet.  They have know for
    a year about this problem and they chose to do nothing about it.  Yes
    the players want more money but who doesn't?  I never thought this
    would happen but I kind of agree with "figure skating" George.  The
    owners make alot of money and want to share it with very few people.
    
    This was the worst possible time for a strike.  College football is
    just around the corner, Pro-football has just started,  and not too
    many people care what happens with baseball.  USA Today did a poll
    of baseball fans concerning the strike and 84% of the fans of baseball
    are not real concerned with a strike.  They plain and simple do not
    care!!!  I think baseball is in trouble.
    
    

    Day 12.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

  >> This was the worst possible time for a strike.  College football is
  >> just around the corner, Pro-football has just started,  and not too
  >> many people care what happens with baseball.  USA Today did a poll
  >> of baseball fans concerning the strike and 84% of the fans of baseball
  >> are not real concerned with a strike.  They plain and simple do not
  >> care!!!  I think baseball is in trouble.
    
     Frank, here in the Boston area I'd guess that more than 84% of sports
     fans could care less about the strike. The Patsies are 3-0 in pre-season
     and going back to last year they're riding a seven game winning streak.
     I can't remember folks being so juiced about the Patriots since the mid
     '70s when they might have been the best team in all of football. If base-
     ball's powers that be were expecting a public outcry for a return of the
     game they can forget it. Here in New England where folks used to live
     and die with the Sox, folks are learning that they can live without
     them. Of course the fact that the Red Sox stink might have something
     to do with it.

 >>    I can't remember folks being so juiced about the Patriots since the mid
 >>    '70s when they might have been the best team in all of football.

	Surely you jest, kind sir.


	billl

    Hmmm... The first part is a definate people are definatly JUICED over
    the pats potential this year, personally I say a 7-9 season would be
    a success but we here in New England are very tough on our sports teams
    and anything less then playoffs will be a dissapointment and of course
    we want them to win it all every year.
    
    I dont think 8-8 will get you in this year so they need 9 Wins to get
    into the playoffs..????... I wouldnt put my money on it, but I'll be
    watching almost every game and will never root against them...
    
    GO PATS (Beat Buffalo Twice, Miami Twice and NYJ twice and Im happy).
    
    								mab

    
       Nope, billl. No jest at all. Back around '76 (?)or so when the
      Pats had John Hannah and Leon Gray, Steve Nelson, Ray Hamilton, 
      Mike Haynes, Tim Fox and a whole bunch of other excellent players,
      the Pats were as good as anyone including your Steelers. If it 
      weren't for one bad call by Ben Dreith on Sugar Bear Hamilton,
      the Pats would have moved past the Raiders and probably would have
      won their first Super Bowl and who knows what would have happened
      from there. Of course you wouldn't know any of that because you're
      one of them Johnny Comelately, bandwagon jumpers.

    Tommy, what was the call you alluded to??
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    the infamous roughing the passer on Stabler in the AFC wildcard game.

 >> one of them Johnny Comelately, bandwagon jumpers.

	Oooo, now you've gone and riled me up!


	billl

 Anyone who thinks Steven Grogan could have won a Superbowl, probably
 thinks John Elway could win one too........

 hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    
    	The latest nationwide poll on the following question.
    
    	"Do you miss MLB?"
    
    	Last figure I saw last week had 75% of the people saying
    they didn't miss baseball.
    
    Ron

At this point, who would?

I love baseball.  It's one of my favorite sports to watch and read about
and go to see.  But quite honestly, whether it's my perception instead of
fact, the ballplayers of today are into it more for money than for love
of the game, and I don't have any sympathy.   I mean, to me, if you played
the game for $8000 and had to wear wool uniforms you had to love the 
game.

And I don't have any sympathy for the owners either.  To them it is business 
pure and simple, but they participate in just about the only monopoly 
allowed in the US.  They've manuevered things such that they don't have
a commissioner to worry about, and they just want to get richer.


Couple all that with the fact that the Red Sox were having a shitty season
and add in the fact that the strike will probably PREVENT the firing
of Butch Hobson at season's end, and my feeling towards baseball is
one of disgust at this point.

Bring on football, so I can piss and moan about Dan Reeves and George Young's
ineptitude with the Giants, watch with interest what Parcells does with
the Pats, and bring on hockey so I can see if the Bruins have a decent
goalie this season.....


'Saw

    Did anyone catch the Braves - Red Sox score from last night?  TBS had
    the game on, but I didn't see the final score (or watch more than one
    inning).  Guess they have to keep the announcers busy during the
    strike.  
    
    Oh, Pawtucket vs Richmond.
    
    UMDan
    

  
|    Oh, Pawtucket vs Richmond.
 
Yes, I'll admit, I watched several innings after the kids went to bed.  The 
Braves won 8-7 I beleive.  It was supposed to be the ultimate Triple A pitcher's
duel, and turned into a slugfest.  Guess that's why the pitchers are still in 
Triple A.

=Bob= 

re: .95

Even in MLB there are times when the top pitchers face one another and
it ends up being an 11-10 game with neither surviving the past the 4th.

The Crazy Met

  >> Oooo, now you've gone and riled me up!
    
     Gee, I would *never* do that inetentionally. Seriously, billl,
     I could understand how it would be hard for a Pittsburgher to 
     buy that any team, much less the Patriots, was perhaps the best
     team for any length of time during the mid to late '70s but those
     really were some great Pats teams back then. Two players from that 
     era, John Hannah and Mike Haynes , are on that all-time greatest list
     posted recently. The Pats were strong at every other position as well.
     Especially the left side with 'Hog' Hannah at guard and Leon Gray at
     tackle. The Pats were unfortunate in that the Sullivans were the owners 
     because when Leon Gray and John Hannah went to the Pro Bowl and found 
     out how underpaid they were, all hell broke loose. And they were unfort-
     unate in that the AFC was incredibly strong then. Still, it took one
     really bad call to stop them because they were a great great football
     team. Infinitely better than the '85 team that got crushed by the Bears
     in the Super Bowl.

	Was it my imagination or did the Richmond Braves' pitcher look
	like Tom Glavine's little brother?


	billl

    I think Pats and Steelers played once of twice between 76-80 and split
    each winning on the others turf in very close battles between the two
    best teams.
    
    And the final Dreith indignity was only the culmination of several
    atrocious calls all against the pats including one involving Russ
    Francis.

|	Was it my imagination or did the Richmond Braves' pitcher look
|	like Tom Glavine's little brother?

Yea, I could see that.

    Re:  look-a-like pitchers
    
    And to top it off, the kid that pitched the ninth had the exact same
    delivery as Steve Avery!  Same size/build for that matter.
    
    					Steve

>>    Re:  look-a-like pitchers

	Hmmm, maybe we've stumbled onto something here.  Where's our
	conspiracy expert, /er?



	billl

    AAA teams sure are lovin' this strike.  They're even packing it out in
    Phoenix!

    
    	I miss it.
    
    	Got a baseball fix Friday night.  Went to see the Sky Sox
    	(Rockies AAA team) play Tuscon.  
    
    	Mr. Baylor was there.  That man is HUGE.  He was great with
    	the kids too.  When he got up to leave (~6th inning), the
    	kids mobbed him in the aisle.  He pointed them to the top of
    	the stairs.  Like good little soldiers, they all single filed
    	up there.  He stood there for at least 45 minutes signing
    	autographs.  He didn't leave until the last kid got one.
    	Class guy...
    
    Claybone

I miss it as well. What is worse is all the pre-season football that is
on. August is meant for baseball not other sports.

The Crazy Met

    -.1 I agree.  Whats even worse is that the local UGA ranters now take
     up all of the local sports air time talking about the "big" game with
     U of Souf Carolina. UGH!
    
    UMDan      

re:  a long way back

I don't believe the players could form their own league...at least not
one that would be immediately successful.  The owners all own existing
names...and with certain TV/radio contracts, maybe even markets.

No, this is definitely coming down to who can sit out longest.
The players talk about waiting as long as it takes to break the
owners' salary cap proposal, but they have mortgages too...and
nowhere else to play.  They say this a big owner-small owner fight
that they shouldn't be a part of, but the owners want to roll back
the clock and correct mistakes they've made.

The '94 season is history.

    Heard an interesting interview with Marvin Miller last night. He
    believes a new league is VERY good possibility if the strike extends
    into 1995.
    
    Rational is that there are lots of wealthy people throwing large sums
    of money to get into baseball. Stadiums would be available,public
    /political sentiment would be so strongly weighted against owners that
    antitrust exemption would likely be rescinded and there ARE a ton of
    free agents that will be available.
    
    Owners seem to be going through the motions. Negotiations don't get
    serious until there is a news blackout.

      re: .99
    
      Yes, the play involving Russ Francis actually riled me more
      than the roughing call.
    
      The Pats had the ball.  Another first down and this game is
      probably history.  Grogan is back to pass.  He passes to
      Francis and Villapiano IS ALL OVER HIM!!!  It is not even
      questionable.
    
      And there is no call.  If the call is made, its 1st down Pats
      and they run out the clock and the roughing call doesn't even
      have a chance to happen.
    
      Truly one of the worst officiated games in the history of
      professional football.
    
                                                  Tony

�      Truly one of the worst officiated games in the history of
�      professional football.
    
    I agree. IMHO it always tainted that first Raiders' title. In that time
    period,the best 3 or 4 teams all played in the AFC.

    I also agree, the Patriots had the game won. Ray Hamilton played
    one of the best games I've ever seen by a DL.

    FYI - negotiations broke off.  The players split the meeting
    today around noon.  News at 6:00.
    
    Pat

    If the strike goes on and on perhaps the players will appear during the
    last week, after playoffs and world series are cancelled "ready for
    work".  That may put them in position come spring lock out to declare
    breach of contract and purport free-agency for purposes of playing in
    any new league or exhibitions.

�    FYI - negotiations broke off.  The players split the meeting
�    today around noon.  News at 6:00.
    
    Is anyone surprised?  For thoe owners to have come this far,there is
    only one way to save face and that is to test the players' wills.
    
    

    Betcha the owners blink first.
    
    UMDan
    

    there's a d-day where tv and advertisers have to have an agreement to
    sponsor post-season.  Its around sep 10 at latest.

I read/heard it was sep15.

The Crazy Met

    
    I hope they stay out.  I love anarchy.  That's why I work at Digital.
    
    brews

    Yesterday's sportscasts were dominated by football and the US Open
    tennis. Baseball is really starting to take a backseat. There's no
    negotiations scheduled,but you still get the feeling that any
    settlement prior to the end of the season would still "save" the
    postseason even if they play the world series in Phoenix in December.

    A column in todays column said that the possibility existed for
    warm weather location playoffs in November if the strike were to be
    resolved at the end of September.  Great, I can hear it now "Honey,
    pass the giblet gravy, and can you switch on the Braves - Expo game?"
    
    Give me a break.  This season is toast.  With football starting in
    earnest, the fans, if they haven't already, have given up on baseball. 
    Any contrived playoff will be recognized for the sham that it would be.
    
    UMDan
    

    More evidence why people really don't care about the baseball strike:
    Labor Day has always been steeped in baseball tradition. Well,the
    Yankees,among other teams were scheduled to have the day off this year.
    Why? Because it would have meant they played 21 straight days,a
    violation of the basic agreement. 
    
    Doesn't baseball realize that people may like to take in a baseball
    game on a holiday? I can remember when there were doubleheaders on
    Memorial Day,the 4th of July and Labor Day. 
    
    The greed and shortsightedness is mind boggling. Basbeall has always
    been able to overcome the stupidity of the people who run it. Maybe 
    not this time.

    Hey Here's an Idea, lets totally wipe out baseball and replace
    it with soccer, seeing that there both on the same level in 
    term of excitment maybe no one will tell the differece.
    
    And if the CFL can change the football field well just modify soccer
    rules and standars so it can be played on a baseball Diamond, who says
    the field has to be a rectangle...
    
    Or Just simple dismiss all the Pro's replace them with AAA Players.
    Just like in the CFL you'll have AAA players VS AAA players, and
    AAA Hitters batting against AAA Pitchers.. May not notice much of
    a difference and maybe the game would then be played by men who love
    the sport for more then money.
    
    								mab

> maybe the game would then be played by men who love
> the sport for more then money.

now where is your plan to do the same for basketball???

The Crazy Met

    tell that to Danny Manning.

    	I miss the Nashua Pirates. When I moved to Nashua in 1984,
    	my family (4 individuals) could go to Holman Stadium and watch
    	a game for less that $15 admission.
    
    	I like the minor league ball so much better than the majors.
    
    	Seen the Mudhens play a couple of times, too.
    
    	Scott

    -3 I bet if everyone in here entered every Basketball player that
    took a pay cut or was below avg for there talant we would have a
    very long list.
    
    Jordan was underpaid and If I remeber correct wasnt even in the top
    10 salary in the NBA during the bulls 3 year run.  He restructured his
    salary and took a cut in pay to keep a decent young team together.  Now
    how many Baseball players have ever done that ?
    
    In terms of there value to there team, bird, Magic, Air, Barkley are
    all underpaid when you compare there salaries to Shaq, Grand Ma Ma,
    Bradley etc...
    
    								mab

>    Jordan was underpaid and If I remeber correct wasnt even in the top
>    10 salary in the NBA during the bulls 3 year run.  He restructured his
>    salary and took a cut in pay to keep a decent young team together.  Now
>    how many Baseball players have ever done that ?

     How many basketball players would do that without the salary cap ?
     
     Would Jordan have pushed to maintain the salary cup during the next
     players-management negotiations, given current NBA financial conditions ?

     Michael Jordan was/is a basketball superstar, but I don't believe he is
     a saint, nor do I believe he claims to be one.  His financial position
     was secure due to the massive amount of non-NBA income, which he enhanced
     with world championships during a down period in the NBA.  He probably
     made more money overall and added to his prestige (and ego) by allowing
     the team to pay more for a better class of surrounding athletes.  This was
     no altruistic decision on his part.

re .127

	And their you have it.

    re .129
    
     That probably went zooming over his head but I appreciated it, billl.

>>     That probably went zooming over his head but I appreciated it, billl.

	I kinda figured that, but I couldn't help myself.



	billl

    PEtty PEtty Petty once again get a life
    
    
    So why dont baseball players take pay cuts to improve there teams and
    get a shot at the World Series ?  Greedy and without the cap greed runs
    wild (See Baseball).
    
    Im just glad there still on strike, TV is much more entertaining.  The
    sportscast are covering real sports, and all the talk is starting to
    die down.  There first year with the new playoff format and it may
    never happen, that would be great.  No Playoffs, No World Series.. the
    poor poor babies.
    
    Again the only sympathy I can feel for any of this is for the Little
    guys (Concessions, parking etc), but then again most of those are more
    then likley owned by some greedy rich guy and thats why they charge $3
    for a hotdog or a beer.
    
    I refuse to get dragged back down into a rat hole unless its with a
    worthy opponent (Like JD), no more battles of wits VS helpless
    opponents :-).
    
    Basketball/Football > Hockey/Baseball :-)
    								MairB

    
  >> So why dont baseball players take pay cuts to improve there teams and
  >> get a shot at the World Series ?  Greedy and without the cap greed runs
  >> wild (See Baseball).
    
     Basketball instituted a cap because the league was down and out and
     in danger of being a weak sister to baseball and football. Financial
     controls were needed to revive the game. Baseball players aren't con-
     vinced that their game is in the same state. And given that the owners
     revise the number of teams losing money downward every time that they're
     called on it, who can blame the players? The thing is, if both sides
     really feel like they can't posssibly give in on this cap issue, this
     situation may not even be resolved by next spring. To me, it's con-
     ceivable that we could go to next June or more with no baseball.

>     The thing is, if both sides
>     really feel like they can't posssibly give in on this cap issue, this
>     situation may not even be resolved by next spring. To me, it's con-
>     ceivable that we could go to next June or more with no baseball.


 geez you say this like it's a bad thing....

 mike

    
    	The answer is simple, How many baseball players are in major TV
    commercials? Baseball does not market there stars. So the players
    don't make that much money outside of baseball.
    	Between Nike and McDonalds Michael Jordan made 20 times his salary.
    The same is true for Bird, Magic, and Barkley. The same is true today
    with Shack and Gran MA MA.
    	The two best players in Baseball today are Bonds and Griffey. When
    is the last time you saw them in a Major TV commerical?
    	Baseball players get money from baseball cards and trade shows.
    The MLB union gobbles a big chuck of that money. Starting in September,
    players will receive up to $8000 a month from there 1993 baseball card
    revenues. The Union has ~250 million dollars of the players money.
    This strike isn't going to end anytime soon, because the players have
    a war chest.
    
    Ron

	As a side note to the strike, has anyone seen or heard from
	Glenn Waugaman since this strike started?


	billl

    don't look now, but it appears that the NHL is also heading for a
    strike.  NHL owners want a cap too.

Aren't the NFL Refs talking about some kinda strike, too?

TTom

    	I don't understand why sports owners just don't do like the
    rest of corporate America and downsize/rightsize all their players
    and hire temps.  That way their profit margin would be in the hundreds
    of millions instead of just millions and maybe then they could survive.
    
    				   /Don

    In the NY area they have been running a show called "Strike Talk" in
    place of the Yankee games on the radio station that normally does the
    Yankee games.Yankee announcers,John Sterling and Michael Kay have been
    hosting the show. Few teams want baseball back more than the Yankees
    who were headed to the playoffs for the first time since the strike
    season of 1981.
    
    The show has had more than its share of interesting guests,but it's
    funny when the announcers(who are dying to do real games again) have to
    debate phone callers on players/owners issues.
    
    I agree with MAB. Let it continue. I feel bad for the little guys
    and the shutins who depend on this,but they will survive too and they
    should just remember the esteem they are held in by the participants.
    
    

>    players will receive up to $8000 a month from there 1993 baseball card

What's $8000/month to these guys ??  Given that *most* people set their
living standards (ie: spending level) based on their income, it's safe
to say that many players will be hurting to make mortgage payments
should this strike wipeout the rest of this season.

The the owners lose this year's TV $$$, they're going to make 'em hurt
next spring.

Well, no baseball would bother me (and Glenn I'm sure).

Glenn and I took in a ball game a couple of weeks ago.  It was one of the
few wins that the New Britain Red Sox earned this year, and it didn't look
pretty (a diving bunt by the Red Sox SS, followed by a triple by the Red
Sox "Parolee of the Year").

But, it still had beer (fine Samuel Adams beer) and hot dogs, a cheezy sound
system, and (gasp) Yankee fans in front of us.


I don't care if the ball players and owners don't come back.  I hope the
owners lose a ton of money, and the players all get outta shape....

'Saw

	Back in the spring I got tickets for the August 12th Red Sox/Orioles
game in Camden Yards from Denny's brother who has season tickets in the
lower luxury boxes, for someone here at work.  At the time Denny charged me
$25.00 for an $18.00 ticket, so I figured his brother was trying to make
a little extra on the ticket.  Found out later that it was a club service
charge since the Orioles provide a waitress in these luxury boxes.  Well 
Denny went down to Baltimore over the weekend to see his brother, so I 
asked him to get me back the money for the tickets.  Turns out the Orioles 
are keeping the $7.00 per ticket service charge and only refunding the 
$18.00.  Now since the owners only act in the best interest of the game I 
have to assume that they are still paying the waitress' salaries during the 
strike.  Mighty decent of them.

				   /Don

  Hello sports hounds. I just got back from a 3 week vacation to Paris, London,
and Cape Cod. 

  The hotels I was at in Paris and London run a thing called CNN International
which is like regular CNN but more internationally oriented. I was curious to
see what U.S. news made it to the big time. The crime bill was big, a fire out
west seemed to get a lot of time, and the baseball strike was big news. 

  Once I got to London we got the BBC which had lots of coverage of track and
field in the Commonwealth games. 

  The London Cabbies seemed to come down on the side of the owners but then
they were more concerned with the railroad signalmen's strike that had London
streets bottled up with too many people driving into the city. 

  One Lorry driver was frustrated when his truck ran out of petrol near the
entrance to Downing street. He was further disappointed when he returned to
find out that authorities fearing a bomb had blown it up. It was his 1st run
into the city and he vowed that it would be his last. 

  George 

    Well, CNN International never mentioned baseball in Hong Kong,
    Singapore, Sydney, nor Aukland.  The Aussies and Kiwis made a big-deal
    out of the Commonwealth Games, but after I reminded my mates that the 
    Tournament featured badminton, bowling and some wuss variant of floor 
    dancing, and that most of the civilized world was excluded from
    competition, even they agreed that the games were irrelevant.
    
    Watching live rugby was way cool, though.
    
    Mark.

>    
>    Watching live rugby was way cool, though.
>    


The god of rugby works in strange ways. ;^)

    Why dont you see major league baseball stars in commercials, that easy.
    
    THERE NOT MARKETABLE... There not world known, why, obvious, baseball
    is not in the same league with Basketball.  How many people know all
    the players on there own team, do children in other contries know who
    and what barry bonds looks like. (I doubt it).
    
    Even my 9 year old neice knows who larry bird, magic johnson and Air
    Jordan is (And she dont watch basketball), but all the kids at here
    school were basketball jerseys.. I bet she wouldnt know what sport
    barry bonds playerd or who the pirats where ????
    
    If there was a baseball player who was a world wide known superstar
    he would be able to land a huge endorsement contract.  It just comes
    down to what kids/people think of the sport.  Unless youve ever tried
    to hit a FASTBALL you have no idea how hard it is to hit one,  other
    then the great hitters in the game I dont find anything else that
    amazing...
    
    Oh well who cares, we have Football, and basketball is right around the
    courner (When do the Preseason basketball games start ?).
    
    								mab

                 <<< Note 178.147 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    Even my 9 year old neice knows who larry bird, magic johnson and Air
>    Jordan is (And she dont watch basketball), 

  Yeah, but does she know any NBA basketball players? The guys you listed were
in the NBA once but they don't play there any more.

  The Dream Team One players got international exposure because of the Olympics
but I doubt that there are many players left in the NBA that have that kind
of international name recognition. Charles Barkley is probably the only NBA
player left who could sell Big Macs over seas.

  As for baseball, the White Sox organization has a minor league outfielder
hitting .192 with 3 home runs who can sell products better than any basketball
player in the NBA :*)} 

  George

    
      George, didn't you predict that the strike would last almost exactly
      as long as you were on vacation? Do you have the box scores from last
      night?

 Tommy, do you forget anything???

 haaaaaaaaaaaa

  Well actually what I meant was that it would last as long as I SHOULD be on
vacation. The Louve is the most incredible place in the world. Paris is the
most incredible place in the world.

  As for Box Scores, yes I saw one. Pawtucket evened up the series with
Syracuse at 1 game a piece. 

  GO PAWSOX!!!
  George

>  Well actually what I meant was that it would last as long as I SHOULD be on
>vacation. The Louve is the most incredible place in the world. Paris is the
>most incredible place in the world.

Except for that room with row upon row of the same friggin' Grecian urn.
Boring!  8^)

Actually, I really enjoyed the Louvre, the Army Museum and Napolean's tomb.


For me, I much prefer Munich, or almost any German city, since they seem
so much cleaner than the French cities, unless the French have gotten
their act together in the 5 years since I've been there.

What I really DID enjoy about France was the Normandy area....



>  As for Box Scores, yes I saw one. Pawtucket evened up the series with
>Syracuse at 1 game a piece. 
>
>  GO PAWSOX!!!

George, we FINALLY agree on something!  8^)  Yeah, what he said, go Pawsox!


'Saw

    Re: several back
    
    Shaq is certainly internationally known. The most well known baseball
    players are probably ex-players like Nolan (Advil) Ryan and Reggie
    (Panasonic) Jackson.
    
    It's really hard to name an active major leaguer with a national
    endorsement deal on TV.
    
    BTW,Bobby Bo goes over the $800,000 mark in lost wages today.

    .192 thats not too freaking good....
    
    Even withough Magic/Bird/Air Id still bet that shaq/zo/grandmama/KJ
    etc make a he'll of alot more endorsement money then any baseball
    players.  None of them are in the same class as the first group but
    I'd say their all internationally known/supported.
    
    So is baseball officially over yet or what ?

Probably the hottest commodity today is Neon Deion Sanders.  He don't play
basketball....


'Saw

�Probably the hottest commodity today is Neon Deion Sanders.  He don't play
�basketball....
    
    Sanders and Bo Jackson get more pub for being multi-sport than pure
    baseball  players.

    
>>    BTW,Bobby Bo goes over the $800,000 mark in lost wages today.

	sniff, sniff

RE                 <<< Note 178.155 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    Even withough Magic/Bird/Air Id still bet that shaq/zo/grandmama/KJ
>    etc make a he'll of alot more endorsement money then any baseball
>    players.  

  It depends on who's in season. This summer I saw a lot of Ken Griffey Jr.
ads. Maybe Bonds doesn't want to do commercials, who knows.

>    So is baseball officially over yet or what ?

  Today's Globe said that this coming Friday is important with regard to the
strike. They didn't give a reason but they said that if the strike was not
settled by Friday continuation of the season was unlikely. 

  Gammons was saying that if they did resume the contending team with the best
AAA franchise would have a big edge since the regular players would be out of
shape. That would be good for the Braves since they are in contention and
Richmond is playing well. 

  George

Yeah, lots of Griff, Jr.


re Neon Deion:

	I wasn't making the point that he WAS a baseball player, only
	that he WASN'T a basketball player.  Subtle difference....8^)



I'm a big baseball fan, but quite honestly, they've taken all the enjoyment
out of it now, for me, and to resume the season would be a travesty.....


'Saw

  I agree, it was a stupid move. Baseball had it's best season going in a long
time and the owners screwed it up. Yeah the players could have accepted the cap
and played anyway, but it's the owners who control the sport, make the rules,
decide when and where the teams play and it's the owners who will be around
after any group of players grow old and fade away.

  They've proved the players claim that they are poor at managing a business.
There's no way they will recoup the losses that they created with this move
even if they get their salary cap. 

  The baseball owners have proven they can't govern themselves. It's time for
the U.S. Congress and the Canadian parliament to take over and pass a law
providing some system where the President and/or Prime Minister of Canada can
appoint a commissioner who can rule the owners with an iron fist and act in
"the best interest of the game". 

  George 

    well I have to eat some crow after telling Tommie how wrong he was
    about the length of the strike.  I was convinced (rightly) that players
    would not give in on cap (rightly) and that owners would have to back
    off to save the tv money.
    
    one factor not noticed is lack of pressure from tv moguls - perhaps
    they are not upset about no postseason and would as soon save the
    money.
    
    One question now that George is back... "Can players just show up last
    week(s) of season regardless of cancellation of post season and declare
    themselves "ready to work, play me, pay me".?
    
    billthe

    George:
    
    Good to have you back. I agree with you about the strike and the
    governmental remedy.
    
    The baseball owners basically said: "We've been f_____g up for 20 years
    and it's time to make up for it by trying to break the union. Stay
    tuned for the result of this struggle in May or June 1995.
    
    

RE<<< Note 178.162 by 25022::BREEN "When are ya com'n back?...can't cha hear me" >>>

>    "Can players just show up last
>    week(s) of season regardless of cancellation of post season and declare
>    themselves "ready to work, play me, pay me".?
    
  Well it appears that the owners have the right to declare a lockout so if the
players did come back the owners could refuse to let them play but it's not
likely that they would since the owners stand to gain a lot of money if play
resumes. 

  Of course if they came back at the end of the regular season, only those
teams that made the playoffs would continue and most likely they would only get
playoff money. The rest would be done for the year. 

  There is another possible factor at work here. I read somewhere that the
'81 strike ended when it did because that's when the owners strike insurance
ran out. If the owners have similar insurance paying the bills they may
actually be making money with the players on strike which would explain their
reluctance to negotiate.

  George

>  The baseball owners have proven they can't govern themselves. It's time for
>the U.S. Congress and the Canadian parliament to take over and pass a law
>providing some system where the President and/or Prime Minister of Canada can
>appoint a commissioner who can rule the owners with an iron fist and act in
>"the best interest of the game". 

	Now there's a real waste of taxpayers' money.



	billl

    
      Why should the government do a damn thing about the baseball
     strike when the vast majority of Americans don't give a ...er, 
     care?

 Considering the amount of note traffic in here about the strike one might
 conclude that soccer has more appeal........

 ;^)

>  The baseball owners have proven they can't govern themselves. It's time for
>the U.S. Congress and the Canadian parliament to take over and pass a law
>providing some system where the President and/or Prime Minister of Canada can
>appoint a commissioner who can rule the owners with an iron fist and act in
>"the best interest of the game". 
>
>  George 


 I can't agree; it sets a bad precedent for other industries in the U.S. (and
 Canada).  We don't need baseball that much that we need the Congress involved
 in this.

 BTW, George, would we also want the commissioner to rule the players with an
 iron fist ?  No claims to renegotiate contracts, perhaps kick any one caught
 in a drug offense or gambling or sex offense of any kind out of the game, etc. 
 Certainly none of those things are in the best interest of the game.

RE             <<< Note 178.165 by MKFSA::LONG "Strive for five!" >>>

>>  The baseball owners have proven they can't govern themselves. It's time for
>>the U.S. Congress and the Canadian parliament to take over and pass a law
>>...

>	Now there's a real waste of taxpayers' money.

  How so? It shouldn't cost anything.

  If that law were in effect right now, Clinton would appoint George Mitchell,
the Senate would approve it on a voice vote and it would be done in a day.
Where's the cost?

  George

RE                     <<< Note 178.168 by MIMS::ROLLINS_R >>>

> I can't agree; it sets a bad precedent for other industries in the U.S. (and
> Canada).  We don't need baseball that much that we need the Congress involved
> in this.

  The only precedent that would be set is that any industry with an anti-trust
exemption would be regulated. Who else would be effected?

> BTW, George, would we also want the commissioner to rule the players with an
> iron fist ?  No claims to renegociate contracts, perhaps kick any one caught
> in a drug offense or gambling or sex offense of any kind out of the game, etc. 
> Certainly none of those things are in the best interest of the game.

  Well I don't see why the commissioner would disallow players from negotiating
contracts but yes like most commissioners they would regulate those other
areas.

  As for drug offenses, they currently kick out repeat offenders and if anyone
is convicted for a sex related felony or any felony they would also be tossed
out of the game. In fact they'd be in jail so there would be no question of
them playing. That's the way it works today, why bring that up?

  George

    I believe the lock out can be executed at the beginning of spring
    training because contracts have not been renewed (in anticipation of
    lockout).
    
    At the present time players have a contract for pay for playing and if
    they report to play and owners refuse then they would have an argument
    for free agency.
    
    However, I have read that that is exactly what owners would want as
    they would then resign players at far less than existing contracts.
    
    Now players if locked out could organize a 50 game world series
    elimination with sites thruout caribbean, asia, u.s. (where they could
    find a stadium), australia, perhaps Spain,France....  Owners would then
    attempt to invoke the reserve clause followed by a Maiewskian legal
    brouhaha with endless appeals and effectively the end of baseball for
    most of this decade (as we know it).
    
    The final result would be two leagues with CBS, Fox covering players; A
    new stadium in Boston to house new league team and Pats could be the
    result of this baseball Bosnia.
    
    Hey, at my age any fantasy I can imagine is worth pursueing
    
    Billthe(dreamer)

>>  How so? It shouldn't cost anything.

>>  If that law were in effect right now, Clinton would appoint George Mitchell,
>>the Senate would approve it on a voice vote and it would be done in a day.
>>Where's the cost?

>>  George

	Surely you don't think our bureaucratic government is cable of doing 
	anything at all without exorbadent(sp?) over-expenditures???

	Back to the issue of baseball....

	If the two parties can not come to agreement then close the thing
	down, lock it up and start over again from scratch.



	billl

RE             <<< Note 178.172 by MKFSA::LONG "Strive for five!" >>>

>	Surely you don't think our bureaucratic government is cable of doing 
>	anything at all without exorbadent(sp?) over-expenditures???

  If they have to do anything yes, but where are the expenses in appointing
a commissioner? The President or Prime Minister names someone and the Senate
or Parliament takes a vote. Bingo done.

>	If the two parties can not come to agreement then close the thing
>	down, lock it up and start over again from scratch.

  Ok so if you don't like the government being involved, who's going to shut
it down? The exemption seems to make it difficult for a new league to start
so it appears that the two sides can bicker on indefinitely.

  At some point either the owners insurance or what ever is keeping them going
will run out, or the players will give in, or scabs will be employed and play
will resume. 

  George

>>The President or Prime Minister names someone and the Senate
>> or Parliament takes a vote. Bingo done.

	So the time that the Senate, or Parliament, spend debating over
	whether or not to confirm is all FREE time.  Reality check!

>>  Ok so if you don't like the government being involved, who's going to shut
>>it down? The exemption seems to make it difficult for a new league to start
>>so it appears that the two sides can bicker on indefinitely.

	It, the whole system, shuts itself down when the owner decide they've
	lost enough money and start filing Chapter 11.  Don't need no stinkin'
	bureaucrat to do that.


	billl

    Owners do not have any strike insurance.  They are losing money as we
    speak.
    
    They do have a line of credit that they can draw off of, but that money
    has to be repaid(I don't know the terms).
    
    I'm a baseball fan but I'm sick and tired of listening to the daily
    whinings of billionaires arguing with millionaires.  I hope the both
    lose ALOT of money.

    Long live the baseball strike!!!!
    
    
    JaKe
    

    Word in today's Boston Globe is that the two sides did meet yesterday.
    Supposedly, the players offered a variation of an earlier "taxation"
    proposal.  Big market clubs would have to share part of their revenue
    with the smaller market clubs if they were to exceed a certain payroll.
    
    					Steve

    
    	I for one don't care if they every play baseball again, I don't
    miss it and I use to watch a lot of games. The big losers in this
    whole thing, is the Charitys. ESPN showed a little segment again
    last night. An organization in Philadelphia use to pack Veterens
    stadium for a silent auction. Last year they raised 500K. The money
    went for some kind of treatment (Can't remember). Where the money
    for the treatment came from the fund.
    	A lot of players donate money based on there stats. With fewer
    HR's/RBI's they are donating less. Granted some are projecting there
    stats for the year and paying the full amount. They had Rod Beck of SFG
    on last night. He still donated money to a Summer Camp for children/
    familys with AIDS.
    	Some charitys were getting a percentage of the gate receipts. No
    gate attendance, no money for charity. The owner and players are losing
    money, but charity's are the big losers in this strike.
    
    Ron

>> Error opening HUMANE::NOTES$LIBRARY:BASEBALL.NOTE;as input 
>> Remote node is not currently reachable

	I think this kinda sums everyting up nicely.


	billl

    It looks like they will get it done at what they perceive to be the
    last possible date of salvaging the postseason. Their arrogance is
    astounding.
    
    They are telling the public that starting on Sept 16 with a 19 game
    finish to the season will restore some semblance of dignity to the
    season.
    
    And the fans will probably come back.

	If the players hold their ground the owners will cave in because, 
as always, they do have the most to lose.  I for the life of me can't 
understand why it has to be policy that when you buy a baseball team you 
have to be guaranteed to make money.  Colorado isn't exactly a big market, 
yet they're making money hand over fist.  If they did in the computer 
industry what they want to do in baseball, we wouldn't have to be worrying 
about layoffs.  I don't really care if they play baseball again this year, 
but they will.

				   /Don

             <<< Note 178.174 by MKFSA::LONG "Strive for five!" >>>

>	So the time that the Senate, or Parliament, spend debating over
>	whether or not to confirm is all FREE time.  Reality check!

  Let's see, if they don't debate we pay the salaries of 535 Congressmen and
Senators. If they do, we pay the salaries of 535 Congressmen and Senators. 
I'm still looking for a cost here.

>	It, the whole system, shuts itself down when the owner decide they've
>	lost enough money and start filing Chapter 11.  Don't need no stinkin'
>	bureaucrat to do that.

  Chapter 11 is the chapter for reorganizing. After Chapter 11 a company
typically starts up again. Perhaps you are thinking of Chapter 7. In any
case, neither is likely.

  George

    I dunno what happened at the meeting with the commish and the players
    and the owners tonight, but if the season doesn't resume, I think the
    players will lose bigtime.
    
    If they wait til nexted year, the owners may just say the hell with the
    present players, and bring in "replacement" players, players just out
    of college, and from the minors with no big league contract, etc.,
    sorta what football did back a few years, and before ya know it, the
    players will start trickling back in, and the unions will lose.
    
    As I said, I don't care if baseball ever returns.
    
    JaKe
    

  Bob Lobel on Boston WBZ seems to feel the season will resume. He had an
interview with Roger Clemens who is the Red Sox rep and Clemens says he is
confident they can get it done and will start throwing. 

  If they can work something out tomorrow the season would resume in
about 6 days.

  George

I personally don't think the owners will accomplish anything by hiring
scabs, for the simple reason that the difference in skill level is too
obvious, particularly on defense.

The last couple of notes are the first upbeat indicators in quite a while.
I spend the month of October in the States, and I've been wondering how
I'm going to pass the time, particularly if the NHL goes out as well.

Steve

    They wouldnt be hiring scabs would they, wouldnt they just bring up 
    there AAA, AA and if need best A players from all there farm leagues.
    
    I would love this, and I would proberbly become a fan if the game was
    played by real ball players.  These guys would all give 100% every
    night and many of them would be happy to just be playing the game.
    
    I played in a softball league a few years back and one of the guys (2nd
    baseman) Was from one of the teams AA clubs, he was awsome (Compared to
    the rest of the team who wouldnt be) but he loved the game and just
    wanted to play (Baseball, Softball, maybe wiffle/stick ball as well).
    
    Bring up the Farm Clubs finish the season, the fans will come...
    
    Let the so called pro's try and make it in the real world, they can
    try it out in the Japan league
    
    								mab

According to the terms of their contracts, minor leaguers who are
promoted to the majors instantly become members of the Players'
Association.  If the Association is on strike, so are they.  The
only players to whom this would not apply are players not signed
to the standard contract.  By definition: scabs.

This strike could be over in thirty seconds if the owners would
get it into their skulls that the players will *never* accept a
salary cap.  I have to say that this "taxation" idea sounds to
me like one of the dumbest I've ever heard, but if it gets the
two sides talking, I'll take it.

Finally, I don't buy the claim that minor leaguers play any harder
than major leaguers, or love the game any more.  You don't get to
the major leagues without hard work, baseball is just too damn
difficult.

Steve

    I dont see why the owner's need it in writing, they should agree not
    to carry a total salary over X $'s (Gentalman's agreement) and get
    the players back on the field.
    
    :-)
    
    Face it the Owners OWN THE LEAGUE, they call the shots, they make the
    rules, give the players what they want get the strick done, then fire
    all of them and bring up the AAA players ....
    
    								mab
    (Do baseball players get guarenteed contracts ?)

    According to CNN, the players are in one hotel, the owners in another
    about a block away from each other.  The players have backed down from
    the no salary cap to the taxation thingy as we all know.  However, it
    now looks like the owners are starting to also back away from the
    salary cap demand too.  
    
    Today is the last day to reach an agreement for this season.  Hopefully
    an 11th hour agreement can be reached.  Nothing solid yet, but it looks
    like an agreement is not impossible.
    
    zamboni

    I hope they don't reach an agreement.

    
       Real wise of them to wait until all of about three people in
      the US and Canada really care to see the season resume. I tend
      to doubt that the '94 season will resume. The question that I'd
      like to pose to baseball guys like TCM and Glenn Waugaman is,
      what do you think the long range effects of this strike will be
      on baseball's popularity? Will the fans eventually forgive and
      forget? Or has irreparable harm been done?

    My .02 - 
    
    I hope they don't play again this year.  I don't want two weeks of
    spring training ball and then a month of playoffs.
    
    But then, neither side seems to give a rats ass about the fans, so if
    they (players and owners) can somehow agree and end the strike,
    baseball in 94 will continue.  They know people will show up.  They may
    not get the attendance numbers or the Neilsens(?) that they want, but
    they will get the revenue.
    
    If they are gonna have baseball the least they could do would be to
    slash ticket and concession prices.  Right.
    
    Being a Friday cynic (and the Terps play FSU tommorrow.  The over under
    is about 150 - FSU Score only!)
    
    UMDan

    Dont go, dont watch and they'll wish they had never went on strike.
    
    What people forget is we the consumer's control everything.  If we
    wanted our country to be stronger we would all buy american, if we
    want to teach the Baseball owners/players/etc a lesson we wont watch
    or go to the games.
    
    But if baseball resume, just as sure as the stands will be full the
    parking lots will be full of foreign cars.. Consumers are suckers..
    
    								mab

>    What people forget is we the consumer's control everything.  If we
>    wanted our country to be stronger we would all buy american, if we
    
    ...or become a nation of producers again instead of consumers.  The
    producing nations (to capactiy) are the best off, financially speaking.
    
    Mike

    
    >>             <<< Note 178.188 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>
    >>           -< Bummed out, there will be baseball next week >-

    >>I dont see why the owner's need it in writing, they should agree not
    >>to carry a total salary over X $'s (Gentalman's agreement) and get
    >>the players back on the field.
    
    Because that "Gentleman's agreement" is also known as "collusion".
    
    Something that has cost a few bucks to the owners so far.
    
    JaKe
    

> The question that I'd
> like to pose to baseball guys like TCM and Glenn Waugaman is,
> what do you think the long range effects of this strike will be
> on baseball's popularity? Will the fans eventually forgive and
> forget? Or has irreparable harm been done?
    
    I hope they do return this season.  Even though I've lost all interest 
    in this season, and may not even watch some of the World Series games 
    if there happens to be some good college football games on (hey, that's 
    a big sacrifice for me ;-), they might as well get the healing process
    started now.  It won't be forgotten by next spring, regardless, but
    losing the World Series altogether is an almost unpardonable sin.  And
    sorry, I can't use words like "travesty" like some indignant media 
    types are if they do come together to play out the final 2-1/2 weeks 
    and then the postseason.  Baseball has made a huge mess for itself, and 
    marginalized any interest in the postseason, but *on the field* a month 
    from now the quality of those Series games should not be terribly 
    compromised, even if no one is watching.  They might as well play the
    damn thing for posterity's sake.
    
    "Irreparable" harm?  I don't think there's any such thing, to almost
    anything.  I don't recall any devastating aftereffects to the two 
    major NFL strikes of the last decade.  You can make convoluted excuses 
    about how those work stoppages were under completely different 
    circumstances but they really weren't; the underlying principle was 
    the same: they were battles over money that the general public could 
    not care less about since they weren't getting their games.  Are 
    there still some fans holding out?  In spite of the illogic from the 
    likes of MAirB, in the athletic chromosone the "baseball player" gene 
    is not a defective one, the exception to all exceptions.  The game is 
    damaged, maybe extensively and maybe for an extended period, but it's 
    only a matter of time.  And hell, when you get right down to it real 
    devotees to any sport aren't wed to a single league or entity anyway 
    (I got as big a thrill out of watching Oklahoma kick Arizona St's 
    butts around the field on their way to winning the College World Series 
    as anything else I saw in baseball this year...)
    
    I generally agree with what I read in SI last night: "the fans" are
    not those who are screwed.  If there's a cancer that needs to be
    removed rather than linger, maybe "the fans" are better off.  I'm as 
    big "a fan" as any but any reasonably adjusted person moves on 
    to something else, even within the sporting spectrum.  They're only 
    screwing themselves.  For most fans, even dedicated ones, basically 
    the "who cares?" attitude should and does kick in.  Perspective... 
    
    glenn
    

    re: MAir and "real" players
    
    Can it guy. in the NBA (of your MJ Goddom) the regular season counts
    for diddly squat. if you think those folks put in all their effort
    every night you really are living on a different planet than the rest
    of what we call humanity. For the moment the regular season in baseball
    still does mean something.
    
    re: Tommy's question
    
    The short term effect will clearly be bad; the post-season will have an
    asterisk in it in many peoples minds for 1994. Long term I think the
    effect will be minimal. By 1995 spring training most fans will have
    forgiven, if not forgotten, about this strike. Fans will come out for
    their teams and players; in some sense this year may be less damaging
    long term than others (in pure baseball terms) since the percentage of
    folks who "support" the players in the strike is much higher than in
    the past. Fans root for the players on the teams, owners do not come
    into play. On the other hand short term this strike is much much worse
    for baseball because football is in full swing, NHL camps are opening,
    NBA camps are right around the corner. So the real hit will be 1994;
    1995, especially if there is the possibility of a long term labor
    peace, will be fine.
    
    The Crazy Met
    
    

RE                 <<< Note 178.186 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    They wouldnt be hiring scabs would they, wouldnt they just bring up 
>    there AAA, AA and if need best A players from all there farm leagues.
>    I would love this, and I would proberbly become a fan if the game was
>    played by real ball players.  

  Think for a minute about what you are saying. Of the 700 guys currently
playing major league ball, the vast majority of them were playing AAA, AA, or A
ball in the mid 80's. They're the same guys. 

  What ever influences that unite the guys currently in the majors will be at
work against any new bunch coming along. 

  On the other hand, if what you say is right and the guys currently in AAA,
AA, and A ball are dedicated to the game and don't care about money then all
the owners would have to do would be to though it out for about 5-7 years until
the current guys got old and those "gamers" came up and voted out the union. 

  Of course they know that won't happen. The owners know that when those guys
you are so excited about hit the majors they will be just as pro union as the
guys playing today.

  George

RE                 <<< Note 178.193 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    What people forget is we the consumer's control everything.  If we
>    wanted our country to be stronger we would all buy american, if we
>    want to teach the Baseball owners/players/etc a lesson we wont watch
>    or go to the games.
    
  This is not necessarily true. If foreign companies are producing better
quality products than American companies then the  way to make American
stronger is to buy foreign, drive the inefficient American companies out of
business, and make room for newer more efficient American companies.

  A large free trading market like NAFTA will beat a small protected market
every time. Why do you think Europe is trying so hard to created a free
trading zone like the U.S.? They are trying because it works.

RE Long term effects.

  If they play the World Series, the strike will be mostly forgotten by the
middle of next season. If they cancel the season and don't settle until next
June the effects will be noticeable next year, measurable the year after that,
then it will fade away to a baseball trivia question. (Q: Since the modern
World Series was started what were the two years with no World Series? A: 1904
and 1994) 

  Remember how everyone was saying they'd never watch football again after
the scab season? Guess what? They're watching.

  George

Would one of you East Coast early birds be so good as to drop a note
with the results of the weekend's negotiations, if any?  CNN International
didn't have anything last night, preferring to concentrate on items of
less significance, like plane crashes, the Population Conference, the
invasion of Haiti, Castro's downsizing, and such.

Glenn, TCM, George: right on.  If there is a postseason while I'm in LA
next month, I'll watch every minute of it.  I won't worry about its
significance being compromised.  I'll simply enjoy the game of baseball
being played by four of its best teams (plus the two West "champions").

Usually the '81 Dodgers are referred to as champions of the "strike-
shortened" season, even now.  Sure, it's a tainted championship.  But
it was a very entertaining postseason.

Steve (passing away from the suspense)

  Last Thursday and Friday the players offered a deal that involved no salary
cap and richer teams being "taxed" to pay poor teams over a 3 year period. The
owners turned it down. 

  The players are now saying that they are trying but the owners are stone
walling. The Owners are saying that the players offers don't include the thing
they want which is the salary cap. 

  Today the Player reps will be talking it over for what is probably one last
time before the season is canceled. The owners extended the deadline of
canceling the season from last Friday to early this week but it now seems
unlikely that anything will happen. 

  Roger Clemens (the Red Sox rep) was on TV last night and said they are no
further than they were 9 months ago. So while he was optimistic last Thursday
he seems to feel now that the season will be canceled. 

  So if you are going to L.A. next month, you might want to look into Rams or
Raiders tickets. 

  George 

Thanks, George, for taking the time.  Well, I can hope hockey starts on
time (I'd love to get down to Anaheim and check out the Ducks and the
Pond).  And the Olympic Auditorium has reopened, so maybe I'll go see
a fight or two.  And if my mother's cable system has added ESPN 2, there'll
be hockey on TV three or four nights a week (not to mention dumptruck
racing or whatever).  And maybe I'll even visit a live human being
now and again.

Nothing I've heard changes my belief that the owners wanted this outcome
from the beginning, in an attempt to bust the union.  I'm kind of sorry
to say so, but I think the time has come for Congress to lift the anti-
trust exemption.

Steve

ESPN reported that on Thursday night it looked like they might be close
to a deal - might have meant working out some numbers (more or less of
a "tax") but a workable scenario. The Selig came to NY and nixed it.
Selig, the acting commissioner, owns a small market team, hmm ....

The Crazy Met

RE Hockey,

  Don't hold your breath hoping to see a lot of hockey games. The hockey
owners are trying to impose a salary cap on the hockey players and there
is talk of a lockout if the players don't go along.

  Looks like it's football or full contact beach badminton.

  George

  Bob Ryan had an interesting article in the Globe about the last time the
World Series was not played. The year was 1904. The "Modern" World Series had
only been played once in 1903 between the Boston Pilgrims (Red Sox) and the
Pittsburgh Pirates, the Pilgrims beating Honus Wagner and the Pirates in the
best of 9 series in 5 games behind the pitching of Cy Young. 

  In 1904 the New York Giants had the National League wrapped up early and
announced that they would not play the American League Champion. Meanwhile
Chicago, The New York Highlanders (Yankees) and the Pilgrims fought all season
for the A.L. Pennant. Chicago dropped out with about a week to go and it all
came down to the season ending 5 games between the Highlanders and Pilgrims
(Yankees and Red Sox) with the Pilgrims needing 3 games to win. 

  The Highlanders won the 1st game in Boston but then Boston took both halves of
the double header the next day. Then they traveled to New York where Boston won
the 1st game of the final double header to clinch the pennant. 

  The Pilgrims issued a challenge to John McGraw's NY Giants but the Giants
announced that they would not accept the challenge and no World Series was
played. That was the last time that the two league champions failed to meet for
the fall classic including the years of the depression and two world wars. 

  George

    Owners will vote today wether to cancel the season or not.  This whole
    thing is only going to get uglier.  I hope the Congress has some gonads
    on Sept. 22.
    
    					Steve

Cancel it.   Cancel it and let everyone see what October is like without
a world series.

Let it stand forever as a memorial to the folly of the hunger of the
money-grubbers.

Besides, I think it's great that the first year of this "wonderful" new
playoff scheme the entire playoffs are in jeopardy.

If they resume the season, they've effectively taken away most of the 
pennant races, and the WS will be tainted.....


JMHO,
'Saw

    
    
        Figures a Red Sux fan his team marred in mediocraty would complain
    of the playoffs being tainted. That's all I hear from people up here in
    Mass. But the thing is if the season continues, and the Yankees win it
    all that Champagne in my fridge will still taste just as sweet!
    
    
    Chap

I've heard people all over the country say that Chap....

    
    
       Betcha not as much as up here in Red Sucks country.
    
    
    
    chap

>             -< If the Sox were in 1st. People would be beggin!!! >-
>
>    
>    
>       Betcha not as much as up here in Red Sucks country.
    
    
    
Nope.  I've heard it from friends all over.

I was looking forward to the race between the Yanks and Baltimore.  I wasn't
looking forward to the playoffs, but the races would've been interesting...

But this whole season is history anyway.....

    I second yer "CANCEL IT", 'Saw.
    
    Hell, just disband the league and start up a softball league.
    
    JaKe
    

>
>    I second yer "CANCEL IT", 'Saw.
>    

This I agree with.

>
>    Hell, just disband the league and start up a softball league.
>    

This I don't.

I don't have any great solutions, but I think there should be baseball.
I'm not sure about the salaries.  They seem awfully high to me, but then
again, I've never been one to favor management pissing all over the 
employees either (like here at DEC 8^))


'Saw    

    One thing I don't understand is antitrust law which seems to require a
    specialist to interpret.  But, I certainly don't understand how one
    sport can have an exemption and others not have it.  Apparently the
    owners in baseball(some) have relationships with members of the Senate
    (same Country Clubs?) which have precluded bringing the subject to
    votes in congress.
    
    But in order to run their business without a strong union the coalition
    of owners who control mlb are counting on their ability to control
    public opinion (blame strike on players) and congress (no exemption, no
    lockout) to pull this off.
    
    Apparently from day 1 (January?) the owners have had a quid pro quo on
    cancelling post season being okay with TV money providers (who in some
    way must be bankrolling the owners position).
    
    billthe

  The Globe talked about another way the owners will get burnt this winter.
Turns out the teams depend on early ticket sales to bring in revenue during the
winter. Odds are if they cancel the season people will think twice about buying
tickets for games that might not be played. 

  I'm at a loss as to what the owners are thinking. I see no way that they will
gain from any of this. They'll never get back the money they are losing unless
they have some other source like strike insurance. 

  And I don't see how the cap would help the poor teams who seem to want it
the most. In all likelihood the cap would be set at a price that is high for
them and the rich teams would just get richer. This whole thing is nuts.

  In Minor League News, the AAA International League has finished it's season
and the playoffs. The Richmond Braves swept the Syracuse (Blue Jays) in the
final five game series three games to zip. Syracuse had beaten the Pawtucket
Red Sox in the division final.

  George

    
>>I don't have any great solutions, but I think there should be baseball.
>>I'm not sure about the salaries.  They seem awfully high to me, but then
>>again, I've never been one to favor management pissing all over the 
>>employees either (like here at DEC 8^))
    
    I think both sides are money grubbing a$$holes.
    
    The players say they are "entertainers" and look at the salaries of
    other in the entertainment field.  Fine, let them go out on their own
    and make the money all by themselves.  Not a single baseball player can
    step on the field and do a damn thing without a TEAM joining them.  It
    is a TEAM sport, no one man can play the whole thing by hisself.
    
    Hell, make everybody's salary $750k, then, for pitchers, if you win 5
    games, you get x amount of $$$a, 10 games, more cash, and so on, so
    they that perform, make the BUCKS, them that don't get the minimum. 
    Same with hitters.  The guaranteed contract is the biggest waste of
    paper in the league.  If itwas pay fer perfom=rmance, then it would be
    fairer, IMHO.
    
    As far as entertainers salaries goes, I think they too are exhorbitant,
    and who pays it, the hard working stiff who goes to see
    them/movies/whatever.
    
    ANd, while I'm babblling like a fool, who the hell said that the
    baseball playes should be set for freakin' life upon retirement from
    the game at the ripe old age of 30 something????  What's wrong with the
    idea of them going out and working for a living like any other real
    person.  they say that since they're career is only for a limitied
    timespan, they are ENTITLED to make these massive amounts of $$ so they
    can keep themselves in fast cars, drugs, wimmen, drugs, mansions,
    drugs, ets...
    
    The opinions expressed above are in now way opinions of a normal sane
    person.
    
    JaKe
    
    

    I gots another thing to spew.
    
    The players bitch about the salary cap and point to the NFL and the
    release of players to stay under the cap.  This won't and can't happen
    in baseball.
    
    Why???
    
    Cain you say, "Guaranteed contract".
    
    They release somebody, they're still responsible for the $$$ owed in
    the contract fer the life of the contract.  That's why it cain't go the
    way of the NFL if a cap is instituted.
    
    JaKe
    

RE   <<< Note 178.214 by 25022::BREEN "If there's nae excuses,it's nae golf" >>>

>    One thing I don't understand is antitrust law which seems to require a
>    specialist to interpret.  

  I don't completely understand it either. What I've heard is that because of
the exemption the players can't take the owners to court which might have
resolved this issue without a strike. 

  Red Sox owner John Harrington did an interview with the Boston Press last
night and he said that losing the exemption would hurt most in the area of
player development. Somehow the exemption protects the farm systems by holding
off on competition allowing the major league franchises to invest in a system
that brings minor league baseball to many small communities around the country.

  Harrington went on to say that without the exemption new teams would pop up
all over the place making the investment too expensive. 

  I have yet to see a clear explanation as to how the exemption protects the
existing teams from competition. As others have said, other sports seem to do
fine without the exemption. 

  George 

    >And I don't see how the cap would help the poor teams who seem to want
    >it the most. In all likelihood the cap would be set at a price that is
    >high for them and the rich teams would just get richer. This whole thing is
    >nuts.
    
    
    I always thought that a cap would be advantagous (perhaps temporaily)
    for players since current budgets are way below 'cap.  Owners public
    theory is for rich teams to subsidize cap level for poor teams while
    privately reducing overall payrolls overtime.
    
    Players are simply saying the only thing we trust is a free market and
    will trade arbitration/early free agency for training (farm teams,early
    mlb years).
    
    billthe

RE                      <<< Note 178.216 by PTOVAX::JACOB >>>

>    The players say they are "entertainers" and look at the salaries of
>    other in the entertainment field.  ... 
>    ...As far as entertainers salaries goes, I think they too are exorbitant,
>    and who pays it, the hard working stiff who goes to see
>    them/movies/whatever.
    
  Right but once again keep in mind that what you are arguing for would result
in owners and movie studios making larger profits. The "working stiff" would
never see a nickel of that money if a cap were put in place.

  Same thing in entertainment. If Werner Brothers figures that they can make
$100,000,000 box office for a movie do you think that they would give tickets
away cheaper just because Harrison Ford's share were being held down by a
salary cap or would they charge what the public would pay and pocket the
difference in profit?

  Salary caps never mean lower prices, only bigger profits for the owners.

  George

    Maybe we need congress to regulate the business!!!
    
    (8^)*
    
    I see what you say, but all it REALLY says is that EVERYBODY in the
    business  is bleeding the sh_t out of the public.
    
    All it is is outright GREED, nothing more.
    
    I rarely pay to go see a movie.  Anymore, I rarely PAY to go see a
    ballgame, be it any sport.  I have much better things to do with my
    money. THe players and owners, and concessionaires, ans parking lots
    can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.  My money's got much
    better places to be spent.  
    
    JMHO
    
    JaKe
    

RE           <<< Note 178.219 by 25022::BREEN "It IS necessarily so" >>>
    
>    I always thought that a cap would be advantageous (perhaps temporally)
>    for players since current budgets are way below 'cap.  Owners public
>    theory is for rich teams to subsidize cap level for poor teams while
>    privately reducing overall payrolls overtime.
    
  If this is true they why have the cap. George Steinbrenner keeps complaining
that he needs the cap because he doesn't want to give money to a poor team
who will turn around and use that money to buy his players. But if the poor
teams are already below the cap, they will do that anyway.

  The only way that Steinbrenner's problem gets solved is if a cap is set
below what the poor teams can pay by themselves. And if that were done, revenue
sharing would not be necessary.

  But that will never happen. The result of any negotiation is going to be
a cap set between what the richest and poorest team can afford which means
that revenue sharing will still result in Steinbrenner's money being used
against him.

  It makes no sense,
  George

RE                      <<< Note 178.221 by PTOVAX::JACOB >>>

>    I rarely pay to go see a movie.  Anymore, I rarely PAY to go see a
>    ballgame, be it any sport.  I have much better things to do with my
>    money. THe players and owners, and concessionaires, ans parking lots
>    can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.  My money's got much
>    better places to be spent.  
    
  Paris! I recommend Paris.

  It's the most incredible place on earth, definite "go see".

  George

    Re .216
    
    >The guaranteed contract is the biggest waste of paper in the league.
    >If itwas pay fer perfom=rmance, then it would be fairer, IMHO.
    
    Two very interesting statements.
    
    Why is the guaranteed contract such a waste of paper?
    
    It's certainly not for the player.
    
    It's not clear that it's bad for the team, in some cases.  When
    Cleveland signed players like Baerga, and Belle, and Lofton, and
    so on to long term contracts, they did a few things.  First, they
    managed to rebuild some of the long ago eroded respect the Indians
    once held.  This has brought Cleveland to the attention of free
    agents.  Second, they avoided arbitration - it's been nearly four
    years now since the Indians have had an arbitration case come up.
    That's got to help the team spirit - do you really want to work
    for a team that, just a few months earlier, explained to an arbitrator
    just why you _aren't_ as valuable an employee as you believe you are?
    
    Long term contracts for older players are, almost without exception,
    dumb for the team.
    
    And would pay for performance be more fair?
    
    Maybe.
    
    If I'm a pitcher, though, there's no way I want it to be based on wins
    if, for example, I pitch for the Padres.  I know that I'm not going
    to get much offensive support, and I don't want to be hurt in the
    pocketbook for the failings of my teammates.
    
    If I pitch for the Indians, I'm quite happy with the idea.
    
    If I'm a hitter for Colorado, and the stats are park adjusted,
    I'll actively lobby for it.
    
    For all the work that's been done, there's no clear way to determine
    comparative performance completely fairly.  On top of that, some
    players do draw in fans - Valenzuela & Ryan being particularly good
    examples.  In the later stages of their careers, they were average
    or worse performers on the field - but still contributed significantly
    to the bottom line.  Does gate draw then get counted as part of
    performance?
    
    Joe

     Bob Costas was on the Today show this morning and he pretty
    much sided with the players. His reason being that owners have
    created the mess themselves. He pointed out that after the 
    owners got their new tv deal, they went right out and spent 
    like drunken sailors and salaries for the top players doubled
    almost immediately. My question is, has it ever been established
    that there is a direct correlation between spending and winning?
    You look around the league and you see Bobby Bo' making $7 mil
    and gimpy legged Andre Dawson making $4.75 mil and on and on and
    I can't fault the players for taking the money or for wanting
    to protect it. Especially, after you see the Philadelphia Eagles
    asking players to take big pay cuts to fit under the cap. It's 
    to the point now where the owners will either have to capitulate
    and some teams will be moved and owners will have to start to
    exhibit some financial discipline or the owners will stand firm
    and this will continue into spring and the owners will hope that
    some of the players break ranks, the way the NFL players did, and
    they get a cap after all. Either way, this season is over and it 
    could be well into next year before this is all resolved. The 
    only people benefitting from this all are the NFL and the NBA.
    

RE        <<< Note 178.225 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

  Hey, we pretty much agree. That's weird.

>    My question is, has it ever been established
>    that there is a direct correlation between spending and winning?

  Whether it was really due to big free agents or not, many people are of the
impression that George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees championships of the
late '70s by buying big players. That impression, even if it's flawed seems
to have started this whole thing off. If one team is going out and buying
talent it works, but when they all do it they just spread it around again at a
higher price. 

>Either way, this season is over and it 
>    could be well into next year before this is all resolved. 

  Thus it would appear. I believe that if they came to some miraculous 11th
hour settlement and finished the season it would still be good for baseball in
the long run. After a season or so it would be one big trivia question, but if
they cancel the entire season it may have measurable effects for several years.

>The only people benefiting from this all are the NFL and the NBA.
    
  Yes, but I have all the confidence in the world that the NFL and NBA will do
something to screw it up sooner or later and a day will come when people say
"the heck with greedy football/basketball players, let's watch baseball". 

  George

    
 >> Yes, but I have all the confidence in the world that the NFL and NBA 
 >> will do something to screw it up sooner or later and a day will come 
 >> when people say "the heck with greedy football/basketball players, let's 
 >> watch baseball". 

    Doubtful. Baseball's owner could take lessons from the NBA and the NFL
    on how to market their sport and its stars. They could start by hiring 
    a competent commissioner. Baseball doesn't have anyone on a par with
    with David Stern or Paul Tagliabue and never really has. Basketball and
    football passed the salary without so much as a blink of an eye. Base-
    ball has had 8 times as many work stoppages as the other two combined
    and seems to succeed inspite of itself. 
    

    
    	I can't understand either side in this strike. The SF Giants were/
    are one of the poorest teams in a small type market. Yet, they spent
    42 Million to get Barry Bonds. The owners always over pay and the
    players rarely produce.
    
    	One of the reasons Baseball has the anti-trust exception. Is
    because MLB funds/develops players from Instructional league, A, AA,
    AAA, and some winter league teams. The thought is that if there was
    another Baseball league, they would be competing for the same players.
    Thus, the salary's in the minor leagues would sky-rocket. MLB could
    lose exclusive rights to players in the minor leagues.
    	Wheras in Football and Basketball. The players are drafted right
    out of college/high school. There is no minor leagues for them. You
    either make the team or you are a free agent and can go anywhere you
    want. Hockey is basically the same, except they draft from Juniors and
    can retain the rights to a Junior player for 2 years. After the 2 years
    however a hockey player is a free agent also.
    
    Ron

Re.

 >>    One thing I don't understand is antitrust law which seems to require a
 >>    specialist to interpret.  

 > I don't completely understand it either. What I've heard is that because of
 > the exemption the players can't take the owners to court which might have
 > resolved this issue without a strike. 

This has been bugging me too.  Reporters like Gammons throw around the
antitrust word all the time, but I have yet to read or hear a good explanation
of how the exemption affects baseball.  Gammons would be doing us all a
service by devoting one of his Sunday columns to explaining this in detail.
God knows it would be more relevant than the column he had one or two
Sundays back about which playoff teams would be better off when the strike
ended because of their AAA players.

Ken

    Maybe with AAA players filling out the rosters next season, we can
    recapture the "When it was a Game" spirit.

    As I mentioned in another note this seems to be golden opportunity for
    colleges to take a piece of the action for their role in acting as a
    minor league for football and basketball.
    
    American Business (the nature of) abhors a vacuum and it surprises me
    to see ncaa not maximizing (they do pretty well right now) a revenue
    opportunity.

RE               <<< Note 178.230 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

>    Maybe with AAA players filling out the rosters next season, we can
>    recapture the "When it was a Game" spirit.

  I still don't understand this myth about how minor leaguers have more
"spirit" than major leaguers. They are the same guys. Today's major leaguers
are yesterday's minor leaguers. Today's minor leaguers are tomorrow's major
leaguers.

  If there was a fundamental difference involving more "spirit" or what ever
all the owners would have to do is tough it out a few years until the younger
guys came up and voted out the union. But they know that won't happen. Once
these young "spirited" minor leaguers hit the big time they will want their
share just like anyone else. 

  George

    re somewhere back a few
    
    The reason I said guaranteed contracts are a waste is becuase all too
    many times, a player signs one and then proceeds to play like sh_t,
    cause he doesn't HAVE to produce.  Even if the team cuts him loose,
    they are obligated to fulfill the $$ defined in the contract.
    
    A few years back, Dave Parker signed one of the highest $$ contracts in
    Pirates history, and proceeds to snort anything white and powdery that
    came near him, and his play suffered, and the Bucs still had to pay him
    mucho $$$ thru the life of the contract, even though he put very little
    forth as a player.  The Bucs later went to court and sued to get the
    deferred part of the contract thrown out, saying his rampant drug abuse
    constituted breach of contract.  PArker and the Bucvs settledout of
    court, but the settlement was sealed so noone cept the Bucs, Parker and
    GOD know how much he got paid.
    
    Now, although he's am mental midget, Barry Bonds has given the Giants
    about everything they paid for.  An MVP year, good power, good hitting
    and good fielding.  
    
    A player cain have one great year, get a megabuck contract, and then
    play like a little leaguer for the rest of the contract time, and still
    chuckle his ass off all the way to the bank, all because of the
    guaranteed contract.
    
    Hell, give everybody one year contracts, but then, it wouldn't cure the
    money woes of the small market teams.
    
    JaKe
    

    	Kind of funny to see John Harrington on the news this morning
    blaming this whole mess on the players.  I have a hard time believing
    something said by one who sucks every dime from his loyal paying
    customers' pockets.
    
    				   /Don

    Re: AAA players
    
    the spirit is called "gratitude and appreciation and love of the game"

RE  Guaranteed contracts.

  Guaranteed contracts are like anything else. The teams offer them because
they want to do what ever is necessary to attract the talent. They don't have
to offer those contracts, any team could have a club house rule of no more than
one year but then they wouldn't sign anyone. 

  Actually things like salaries and long term contracts even out. Sure there
are some guys making millions and not producing but we never hear about the
guys on the other end who just came up and are tearing the cover off the ball
for the minimum major league salary. 

  Why is it that the guys who complain that players not producing should not
get paid don't complain about how a rookie having a terrific year should get
paid more? 

  George 

    One point of view I read and agreed with had free-market economics
    being forced on owners with the result that small market teams were
    indeed forced to get out of the competition.   This would put the
    pittsburghs, san diegos, milwaukees into a AAA+ type of league with
    lower prices for tickets and beer and more spirit.
    
    Those willing to compete (and having fans such as Boston willing to
    pay) would go after the big prize.
    
    My observation is that the national league as a whole has been
    unwilling to pay as much as al and to some extent is a AAA++ today with
    the exception of retaining some stars.  The repatriation of Bagwell
    (now forestalled) would have been an example of this.
    
    Maybe a better topic is where will(/would) Bagwell play in Boston
    (dh,3b-Mo dh?)?

RE               <<< Note 178.235 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

>    the spirit is called "gratitude and appreciation and love of the game"

  Hey, call it anything you want the same argument applies. If today's minor
leaguers really have "gratitude and appreciation and love of the game" then why
don't the owners just wait 5-7 years until they become the major leaguers and
stand back while these noble and pure hearted youths vote out the union? 

  Take the case of Braves rookie Jose Oliva. At the start of the season he was
playing at AAA Richmond showing all the signs of "gratitude and appreciation
and love of the game". Then he came up to the majors and started tearing the
cover off the ball.

  When the players decided to go on strike, Jose Oliva was ready to go out with
them but then the Braves sent him back down to AAA Richmond for experience and
he started playing with "gratitude and appreciation and love of the game"
leading Richmond to the International League Title.

  They're the same guys. They feel the same pressures. There is no fundamental
difference between the way the minor leaguers feel about major league salary
and the way the major leaguers feel about it.

  George

	Montreal owner has said season is cancelled.  Selig to talk within
	1/2 hour.

	Kevin

It's a done deal.  Baseball is cancelled in '94.  The fat lady has sung.

t

    Halelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    JaKe
    

  It's already been mentioned that this is the 1st time since 1904 that there
has not been a World Series, but this is the 1st time since the leagues were
started that no A.L. or N.L. Pennant will be awarded.

  The A.L. has managed to pick a champion going back to it's 1st year of 1901
and the N.L. has had a pennant winner since 1876.

  A few weeks ago I read that season ticket holders of one club, I believe it
was Atlanta, were threatening to sue to get all their money back including
games they had already seen. Their argument was that they bought season tickets
but what they saw was not really part of a season. 

  Legal pundits give the suit little chance for success.

  George

Seems like Ken Burns "Baseball" is coming out a year too early.

Somehow I think this is something that will have a bigger affect on 
baseball that Curt Flood ushering free agency back whenever it was, and 
it should be in Burns' film.....


'Saw

    
    Guess the owners have some decent strike insurance.  B^P
    
    Re .242
    
> It's already been mentioned that this is the 1st time since 1904 that there
> has not been a World Series, but this is the 1st time since the leagues were
> started that no A.L. or N.L. Pennant will be awarded.

> The A.L. has managed to pick a champion going back to it's 1st year of 1901
> and the N.L. has had a pennant winner since 1876.
    
    Interesting point.
    
    Some quick thoughts:
    
    1) If Fay Vincent was still comish, things wouldn't be in the mess
       they're in.
    2) The Curse of Colavito lives.  (Got that book for my birthday;
       looking forward to reading it.)
    3) I'm not going to lie and say that I won't go back to watching
       baseball when it returns; however, I doubt I'll have the same
       enthusiam for the game I had when it left.  I certainly didn't
       in '81, even with the all-star game in Cleveland marking the
       return, but the Indians have changed significantly since then.
    4) The rumor in Cleveland is that the Indians now owe the Twins
       either Russ Swan or $100 and a good meal for Dave Winfield.
    
    Joe

    Is it really true, is it over, so how much money will the players lose.
    Do they get paid during the season only or are they paid for 52weeks.
    Id love it if they would continue to lose money in the offseason.
    
    And not that too many have them but I hope any/all endorsement
    contracts were smart enough to not guarentee them :-)...
    
    Long live NBA/NFL :-)
    
    Bye Bye Baseball, I didnt think for a minute that the whole season
    would be scrapped, and no way do I think they wont settle by next
    season, but we can hope :-)
    								mab

    Layoffs have started already too.  Texas and Montreal have already let
    some front-office people go.  More to come by Friday.

  The baseball players get paid for the part of the season they played which
comes to something like 60%. It's the owners who in theory really take a bath
because most of their TV income comes from playoffs and the World Series.
That's why the players picked this time to strike. 

  I still think they must be getting money from somewhere else. The poor teams
who are supposedly the ones holding out would be hurting the most by losing
their share of the late season and winter take.

  You know what would be a good read? A book written by some insider near the
owners. I bet there have been some interesting discussions between owners who
wanted to continue and owners who wanted to hold out. Might even make a good
movie. Not much sex but there might be some violence.

  George

The owners are forfeiting ALL THAT MONEY !  I wonder if the players
still think they'll cave-in ?

I said it before:  people who know labor relations say strikes are
all about miscalculation(s) on one side or the other.  I think it's
clear that the clown leading the players (Fehr) has blown this one.

By canceling the season, the owners will become even more united
in their stand because they've lost most of their '94 revenue.
On the other side, knowing the owners took this huge hit should
make it clear to the players that they're gonna feel some pain for
this job action, which should push their unity to the breaking point.

The owners will implement their cap system and open camps next
spring.  It'll be fun to see who scabs and breaks rank.

The players claim they'll start their own league...yeah, right.
No minor league system.  No established team names.  No history.
No fan base.  No major media outlets.

The players are going to find out that most fans are fans of teams,
not players.  There are some great players on strike, but their
moment in history is a blip in time.  2-3 years from now Derek
Jeter may be a household name in NY, and Don Mattingly will be tossin'
burgers at Mattingly's 23.

I guess that's why Fehr is working Congress for the repeal of
the anti-trust exemption.  It's his only hope.

    I mentioned to 'Saw that I was reading one of his author's Barbara
    Tuchman's tome about the 14th century.  She showed that no matter how
    extreme the hostilities were between French Dukes and French King,
    French nobility vs English nobility (and mainland France allies), the
    minute the common people attempted to assert their rights, all those of
    "the blood" quickly united to stamp out the 3rd estate.
    
    Similarly, the Wasp establishment seems to be uniting behind the
    plantation owners to stamp out unionized, uppity common employees of
    baseball once and for all.  The trump card for the players could be an
    alliance with nouveau riche entertainers such as mc hammer, michael
    jordan etal from the non establishment to back them if they must
    disassociate from the owners.
    
    A pay-per-view of a series between Cuba,Japan, two U.S. teams, other
    latin america and perhaps Australia, something like the Canada Cup of
    1972 could provide the leverage for players to finally break the
    owners.
    
    Being a Celtic fan I thoroughly detest caps anyway.

There was some real interesting discussion yesterday afternoon on WFAN
and on the news last evening.

I won't go all into here, but the general point of it all was that the owners
have been planning this, and moving towards this for the past two years.


Oh well......

    
    
       ....so does anyone wanna buy a bottle of Champagne? :-( :-)

>    
>       ....so does anyone wanna buy a bottle of Champagne? :-( :-)
>

Bring it to a get together and we can toast the fact that we still get
paychecks every week, or we can toast the fact that none of us has flipped
out, come in here with an AK-47 and gone to town, or we can toast the
fact that the ship is going down......


'Saw

    Someone will have to explain a few things to me and hopefully this
    forum will do this. I blame this whole closing squarely on the owners.
    Will someone please tell me why the players are to blame when.
    
    1. Teams fall all over themselves and give multi-year, multi-million
    dollar contracts to the Matt Youngs, Benito Santiagos, Howard Johnsons,
    etc. all. Did these players put a gun to the heads to the managment of
    these teams? Since noone has brought any criminal charges against these
    players I assume then that there is no smoking gun. There should be a
    "Stupidity Tax" on signings like this. It's also a good Revenue-Sharing
    proposal.
    
    2. While teams like the Indians, Expos, Yankees ( I hate to admit this)
    have shown in the last few years that building a farm system is the
    cheapest way to build a contender why is is that the first place these
    mental midget owners cut is scouting and the Farm Systems. Daah!
    
    3. Why the hell do High School Phenoms get a million dollar signing
    bonuses before they participate in one inning of a minor league game
    and which brain surgeons give major league contracts to the Van Poppels
    and Alex Rodriguez's while they are 18 years old? I don't think it's
    the players fault there.
    
    4. If there is such a shortage of revenue why is there one team in the
    3rd most heavily populated state (Florida) while cities that have shown
    they cann't/won't financially support a team are allowed to keep a
    team? ( Montreal, Milwakee). 
    
    This is just a few of my questions. If there is such a big problem with
    salaries why haven't their been any bankruptcies with teams? Why has
    Cleveland, Baltimore and Texas added millions to their attendance with
    new stadiums? The trouble with baseball is their managment!
    
    Mike

  I agree 100% with Mike. 

  I believe that the reason that the players get most of the flack is that most
fans are employees, not business owners, and are more likely to envy someone
with an large salary than someone who runs a fantasy company with huge profits. 

  If the average fan was struggling to meet a payroll rather than picking up a
pay check then you'd hear a lot more criticism aimed toward the owners. But
because most of us are employees fans favor the owners which gives them the
incentive to get tough with the players.

  People are greedy. The owners are greedy for wanting wage/price controls in
their favor, players are greedy for wanting big pay checks and fans are greedy
for showing so much envy toward the players. 

  We're all greedy. We killed the goose and that's it for the golden eggs.

  George

    
    	The 18 old High School players get the big money, because they
    have all the leverage. Todd Van Poppel had the option of signing with
    the A's or going to the University of Texas. Once classes start at
    College the team loses all rights to the player. So it ends up being
    a wasted draft pick. The A's would look like fools if Van Poppel went
    to Texas became the next Roger Clemens and then got drafted by someone
    else.
    	The rule should be changed so that you can draft a high school
    player. The player either goes to college or signs a contract. If
    he goes to college HE MUST stay all 4 years. Upon graduation the
    club retains the rights to the player for 3 years. Then the player is
    an unrestricted free agent. That way the team gets at least 3 years
    out of the player. The player can go to any team he wishes after 3
    years. If the player is a bust in college, he never make the big club.
    He should still be able to play in the minors for his 3 years with
    the team.
    
    Ron

    GWYNN was 165/419 .394 or if 3 outs were hits he's over .400
    
    Would it have counted against Terry and Williams as last to hit > .400?
    
    Don't know if he ad plate appearances to qualify either

-.1 

   It would have been an interesting call.  The rules state that for a player
   to qualify for a batting title, he has to have 3.1 AB for every game his
   team played.   Well, Gywnn sure had that, his team having played around
   110 games.  No doubt there would have been an astrisk next to his name.


Paul

   

>                        -< IT's not the players fault! >-
>    I blame this whole closing squarely on the owners.
>    Will someone please tell me why the players are to blame when.

This situation is not the fault of either party.  Both are responsible
for the strike occuring and the season being cancelled.  It's a classic
mgmt-labor battle.  Did the owners plan it this way ?  Who knows.
But the players are the ones not playing.  They took their best shot
(striking when the owners stood to lose the most money), and the
owners are still standing.

We, the fans, are caught in the middle, and I'm sorry to say that,
despite what these idiots are saying, we don't matter.  This is a
battle over a business' revenues, and if the players won't play,
and the owners accept the financial losses, you can't claim one
is more responsible than the other for this mess.  It's their
game, and since this industry doesn't affect public safety, or
cause public hardship, only these 2 parties can fix it.

Without a negotiated agreement, the players are now left to fight
whatever the owners unilaterally implement in court.  The owners
aren't going to change their minds.  A new players-formed league
won't make it (even if it was solvent, do they really think their
salaries will be better than they are now ???).  If you listen
to Fehr, that's where he's heading --> Congress, then to court.

MLB is going to be very different.  Fehr wants the anti-trust
exemption removed.  The owners want to stop the run-away salaries,
and labor from getting more of the pie than they should get.
This is as big as the battle for free agency.  This is a battle
over who owns and runs the business.

    And if you have the best scenario for the owners, implementing the
    'cap, starting the season with whatever and having players gradually
    break ranks a la nfl '87 and what do they have?  The biggest of all
    problems which I'll call the "Flutie" problem.
    
    This is when the union designates the "scabs" and the "loyalists" and
    plays accordingly.  This was done (I'm convinced) after '87 in the nfl
    but better disguised but still apparent to certain coaches.  Those
    teams most unlike the Patriots who surmounted union politics rose to
    the top (was this the reason behind nfc ascendancy?).
    
    Problem is baseball fans will very quickly get wise to fat pitches  vs
    beanballs and the integrity of mlb, its cornerstone will be in kennesaw
    mountainland.
    
    billte
    

RE                    <<< Note 178.258 by USCTR1::GARBARINO >>>

>We, the fans, are caught in the middle, and I'm sorry to say that,
>despite what these idiots are saying, we don't matter.  

  I don't really buy this. First of all we are not really caught in the middle
since we can go do others things like watch football, play golf, or read a good
book.

  Second, fans are part of the problem. Because greedy fans envy player
salaries more than owner profits, opinion polls still come out in favor of
the owners which causes them to push harder to break the union. That has
aggravated the situation, so the fans have their share of the blame.

>This is a battle
>over who owns and runs the business.

  Not really. The players don't want to run the business, all they want is a
free market. Do you say that employees in the computer industry run all
computer companies just because there is a free market and we can go work for
anyone who will pay our salary? 

  If computer companies were trying to put an industry wide cap on salaries and
we protested would that be a battle to see who runs the computer business?

  George

	I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice this it still comes 
	down to 'millionaires arguing with multi-millionaires over money'.

	Somehow I have trouble having sympathy for either party.


	billl

  Well sure, and if computer companies started imposing a salary cap on us and
we started crying, people who work in restaurants or bag groceries that have no
health insurance would have little sympathy for us. But that doesn't mean that
a salary cap is the way to control costs at DEC. It would be a bad idea here
and it's a bad idea for baseball.

  George

	re -1:

	Apples and oranges, man!

    Hello... We do have a salary cap at dec, for any giving job title
    (Position) you can make a cetain range of money (CAP).  We have trade
    rules (Cant Internally offer a EMPLOYEE/PLAYER more money to come
    work(play) for your group(team)).
    
    And currently we have a FREEZE on the Cap, no one can sign anyone for
    more money until we return to profitablility(sp).  Plus each group
    should have a budget that they try and stay withing (Budget=cap).
    
    Here at Dec they dont even have to give you a cost of living increase
    (Doesnt the league minimum go up every year ?).
    
    The more I hear about it the better I feel about the strike.  The
    little guys will get buy, the money grubbing players/owners will both
    all lose money...
    
    Job CODE X range xx,xxx K thru yy,yyy K Id pretty much call that a cap
    
    								mab

RE             <<< Note 178.263 by MKFSA::LONG "Strive for five!" >>>

>	Apples and oranges, man!

  No, big apples, middle size apples, and small apples. 

  Say you were working bagging groceries for minimum wage with no health
insurance and you read about how workers at GM with full benefits and $20 an
hour had just gone on strike because the car companies were imposing a salary
cap. Would you have a lot of sympathy for the workers? I doubt it. Would that
mean that the salary cap was a good idea? No. 

  It's all relative. The players have big salaries and greedy fans are envious
that someone else is making all that money instead of them. 

  George

RE                 <<< Note 178.264 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    Hello... We do have a salary cap at dec, for any giving job title
>    (Position) you can make a cetain range of money (CAP) ...

  Yes, but you are free to go "free agent" and go to work for another company
at a higher salary any time you want. 

  Now say that all computer companies got together and agreed to impose a
salary cap on computer employees. Then you would have the situation that the
owners want in Major League Baseball. 

  George 

>>  It's all relative. The players have big salaries and greedy fans are envious
>>that someone else is making all that money instead of them. 

	so who went on strike here?  Did the fans go on strike against
	the players or did the players go on strike against the owners?

	I'd say the owners make big money and the 'greedy' players 'are
	evious that someone else is making all that money instead of them.'

	Sound familiar?



	billl

  What you are saying is that no preemptive move is ever justified. I don't
buy that. Obviously if the players didn't strike now the owners would have
unilaterally imposed the salary cap.

  That doesn't mean the players are more greedy, it just means they are not
stupid.

  George

    Well Ive never worked for another Computer company
    
    But can anyone verify/deny weather they have job codes with
    salary ranges or not ?  IF all/most companies have a job for
    computer operators and pay them say 22K-25K thats a cap, SLOT
    etc to pay that individual more he has to earn it.  Also there's
    no guarentee if they hire me and I decide I dont want to work 100%
    but instead work at a 20-40% rate call in sick etc, then can fire
    my but...
    
    I know a few friends of mine that dont work in the computer industry
    and they all seem to carry some sort of title which has a salary range
    to go along with it (A CAP).  Even a burger flipper trainie more then
    likly has a range associated with it(Even if its not written down).
    
    Plus every companay/business on the planet has to work within a budget
    
    If you owned a business your not going to pay some shmuck 2.3 million
    a year even if he's the best damn burger flipper in the world :-)
    
    The thing that really makes sense is some of those burger flippers have
    a higher IQ then some Professional athlete's :-)
    
    								mab

  Most large companies have those slots but most small companies do not.

  When interviewing with  a small company or a startup you often have a good
shot at negotiating a decent salary, stock options, etc 

  And even with the large companies there's no agreement binding them to that
format. If Hewlet Packard decides they want to raid DEC for engineers there's
no agreement that would prevent them from adjusting their structure however
if there is a salary cap the Expos would not be allowed to raise their own
limit to sign players.

  George

    	Brooksy, there is no salary cap in the computer industry.  Each
    company sets what they think is an appropriate salary for a job
    based on their budget, which is based on their profitability.  While
    there are ranges for the jobs in the industry they can fluctuate
    by as much as 40% or more.
    
    	Billl, you're saying the players are greedy because they want
    a proportionate cut of incredible profits that the greedy owners
    get?  Don't you think the skill of the players is somewhat responsible
    for the profit margin?  Would you pay $20.00 to watch a AAA team?
                              
    				   /Don

> What you are saying is that no preemptive move is ever justified. I don't
> buy that. Obviously if the players didn't strike now the owners would have
> unilaterally imposed the salary cap.
    
    But they could have waited until after the season to reject that plan
    when it was presented and been in the same position they find themselves 
    in now (actually if anything a better position, both strategically and 
    with regard to public opinion).  Right now it looks as if the intransigence
    on both sides will irreparably damage the current parties (at least the
    parties affected in the short term, over the next 5-8 years) financially,
    which means not only did they fail the morality test (ha!) but they 
    failed (passed?) the stupidity test too.  For either side, in the chaotic
    aftermath of the post-nuclear wasteland of baseball, it might take 
    80-90% of total revenues to equal 50% pre-1994 revenues.  Owners can 
    gamble that the P/L statement might be improved, though, but for players 
    it's money right down the crapper.  Even though for the most part I 
    agree with the players in principle, it's a hell of a price for 
    principle.  They should have played out their hand from the start of a
    season, not the end.  At least they would have stood a fighting chance
    for the dollars of the paying customers.
    
    glenn
    

  Well maybe and maybe not. I think it's difficult to judge the long term
impact. If they settle before the 1995 season or early in the 1995 season then
it is not clear that the impact in terms of lost revenue will last for more
than a couple years. 

  From the players point of view this was their best shot at forcing the owners
to back down. It was a gamble that looks terrible in hindsight but at the time
it seemed reasonable. Playing out the season would have been a definite loss
for the players since the owners would have unilaterally imposed the salary cap.

  As for a morality test, I'm not sure what that means. In a country with both
freedom of and freedom from religion, morality is simply a matter of opinion.

  George

    But the owners are the reason that the game is perceived to be in 
    deep financial trouble they are in. They refused to bring the Players
    Association into the network negotiations so the players could see what
    happened to the Broadcasting $$. They sign mediocre talent to big buck
    contracts. And looking at the NBA and NFL all the Salary Cap does is
    try to make an even playing field for everyone regardless of how inept
    their managment is. Look at some of the trades this summer in the NBA.
    The Bucks traded a decent player in Kenny Norman to the Hawks for Roy
    Hinson, who hasn't played much in 2 years, just so they can use his
    salary slot. It makes no sense at all.
    And how can a business which has an Anti-Trust exemption get into 
    financial trouble anyway. If IBM had an Antitrust exemption a lot of
    computer companies would never have been started and they would be back
    making a hell of a lot more money then they are now.
    The players struck because the owners forced them to use their only
    weapon they have. They used it, Everyone lost millions and the game
    will never have the same appeal to a lot of people. All because a group
    of owners who cann't run their businesses want someone else to bail
    them out. 
    
    Mike
    

Mab, 

As usual, you're way off the mark.


You can talk about salary RANGES all you want, but they are not caps.
Perhaps you'll be stuck in your job code all your life, but some of us do
get promoted, and make more money.


It works like this.  Digital has salary ranges so that people of approximate
skillsets get approximately the same pay, with variation based on performance.
Ostensibly, the more responsibility you have, the more you get paid.

If Digital makes more money, they can hire on more people.  There's no
ruling in place that says that they cannot hire another worker despite having
more than enough money to pay them.  That's what the CAP is.


So, if you had some big "governing body" in the computer industry, and they
said "Okay, the cap is 2 billion for employee salaries", even if digital
has 4 billion to blow on employee salaries, they can only spend two billion.

A smaller company, say A-B-C computer company, might just have two billion
to spend, barely.

What the cap has done, in effect, is to "equalize" the bigger company
(digital) and the smaller.....



That's the way it works.  Thus endeth the lesson.......

>>    	Brooksy, there is no salary cap in the computer industry.  Each
>>  company sets what they think is an appropriate salary for a job
>>  based on their budget, which is based on their profitability.  While
>>  there are ranges for the jobs in the industry they can fluctuate
>> by as much as 40% or more.


I cannot believe you guys don't think there is not a CAP in every other 
industry in the USA. Yes there are flex style ranges that might at extreme 
conditions reach 40% and right now Digital is about 10-15% less than the 
industry average. In CXO valuable people are walking daily/weekly over to 
MCI for an average 10-15% increase in pay and Digital is encouraging the 
walkout, prevents TFSO. HP is a large employer in this area they pay a 
software engineer about 5% more than Digital but they use the method of 
hire a college grad pay to move him from the Midwest/South/Northeast out 
to Idaho, Washington or Colorado and pay him about 35K which in some
of those areas is a very good standard of living. In 3-5 years if he 
wants to make the BIG league salary head to Mass New York or California 
and see the big city prices. 

In our industry we all work under a CAP unless we came in as a dock worker 
with a PHD and then designed the Alpha chip out of bubble wrap. 

Jeff 

     Some history and alot of opinions. 8^)

     Before free agency, I don't think things were all that great for the
     players. The reserve clause kept them under-paid and under the thumb
     of owners. Very few players had any leverage when it came to contracts.
     Essentially, the player either signed the contract that the owner put in
     front of him, or he went home and found some other way to make a living.
     Imagine if you wanted to leave DEC for a better gig, and they said, "sure,
     leave, but you can't write code anymore, for anyone, anywhere...you'll be
     blackballed from the industry." That's the way it was for the players.
     	All the players were saying was that when their contract is up, they
     want the opportunity to make their own deal. Greed was not their initial
     motivation.
     	To make a long story even longer, the players finally hired some
     lawyers to look into the the reserve clause, so did the owners. The
     owners were informed by their lawyers that they would lose if they went
     into a courtroom to argue their case simply because it is unconstitut-
     ional to deprive someone of their livelihood. The owners conceded, but
     declared it would ruin the game of baseball. Talk about a self-fulfilling
     prophecy.
     	The owners were making money even when they knew very little about
     business. You would too if there was a law that all but guaranteed
     you to make money. When free agency was declared, that aspect became
     glaringly apparent. The owners went into a feeding frenzy over good play-
     ers...and then the not-so-good players. Until then, the players really
     had no idea how much money the owners had because they had always claimed
     poverty. Now they were throwing money around like it grew on trees.
     Imagine making ~$10,000/yr and then being offered $250,000/yr by another
     club because you had a pretty good year.....would you take it?
     	The players took owners offers of huge bucks and guaranteed long-term
     contracts. I suspect any of us would too...especially if you had been
     selling used cars or working with your brother the plumber in the
     off-season to make ends meet. Of course, alot of players didn't play up to
     expectation. The owners figured that if they pay the money, that
     guarantees performance. Is that good business or just plain stupidity?
     They're human beings, not automobiles. I never understood huge long-term
     guaranteed contracts.
     	So what are the owners really afraid of? I'll tell you what they're
     afraid of....they're afraid of themselves. They're afraid that if they
     don't sign a certain player, another club will, maybe one in their own
     division, and it might come back to beat them. They are their own worst
     enemy. And their solution is to institute a salary cap on the players to
     protect them from themselves. They started the feeding frenzy and don't
     know how to stop it. Sure, some players are greedy, but if the owners
     aren't offering it, the players ain't gonna get it. Like in all
     businesses, the marketplace changes and some players have refused to
     believe it...and paid the price like Jody Reed. They'll come around, but
     it'll take time.
     	Free agency brought baseball into the real business world, and the 
     owners failed miserably, and continue to do so. Incompetents ran the
     clubs then, and they're still running the clubs now. I don't believe
     baseball needs laws to govern it, just more competent people to manage
     the business and evaluate players. I don't think it's a good thing to
     strong arm your employees because you've screwed up. I don't see how any
     business can survive if the product is cheapened...and that's what I see
     the owners doing. I'll know for sure next spring.

     Neal-mostly a RON

Re         <<< Note 178.277 by LEDS::ORSI "Cuz I *FELT* like it...OK?" >>>

  That's a good way of looking at it. In fact, owners have had this problem
before. Back in 1900 when it was clear that the A.L. was about to start up, the
last thing the N.L. owners wanted to do was recognize the American League as an
equal but they went along with the agreement not to compete for major league
players and live with the A.L. because they were afraid of a bidding war. 

  Then in the 1960's, the last thing the NFL wanted to do was to merge with the
AFL but once it was clear that the AFL wasn't going away they felt they had no
choice. Remember the big bonuses wars between the two leagues over new players?
I believe that Joe Willie got one of those bonuses from the Jets the year they
signed him and John Huert. 

  One reason these bad management practices happen is that the established
major leagues are industries in which you hardly ever see a company go out of
business. Sure start up leagues fail, but no Major League baseball team has
folded since 1899. 

  In any other industry, rather than having price and wage gimmicks to prop up
failing companies they are allowed to go out of business. Once other companies
see this they straighten out their act or they go the same way. 

  Same thing should happen in baseball. If they are really in trouble, let a
few teams really go under. The free market will determine how many teams there
should be and how much money players should make. It works in every other
industry in the free world, why not give it a chance to work in baseball. 

  George

    Players made fair money prior to the depression and during the 30s
    salaries dropped off to become attractive as working men's salaries
    into the 50s.
    
    With the advent of tv in the 50s owners made big profits of which the
    players shared a small part with scouts, coaches, 7 levels of minor
    leagues...  Only with the advent of the agent and the unstated threat
    of wildcat strikes (see burleson,fisk,lynn in '76) and the stampede to
    buy Charlie Finley's players was the cat out of the bag as to just how
    much money was available.
    
    Ironically with deals like madison square garden entertainment and
    other big city packages more and more money is becoming available which
    the owners don't want to share with mere players.  They feel they can
    easily hide excess revenue and profits from union and agents once a cap
    is put in.  The rounded bellies and sated looks of their nba and nfl
    counterparts is enough evidence of the rich life to be had from the
    'cap system.
    
    One thing that no owner in all of sports cares a pin about is the
    welfare and integrity of the game nor what's best for the fans that
    support these games.

    (WAY -3)
    
    I dont know if youve ever actually sat in on salary planning or not but
    back in 88 when I did this is how it worked.
    
    You have a budget of X $$$ Digital sets a % for increases, so you take
    your current salary add x% and then divide that up accross your people.
    The better players get more the little guys get less.  So there still a
    cap if you salary budget in 1993 is X dollers your salary budget in 94
    is x +%increse = newbudget.  Of course unlike in baseball your budget
    and salaries go up every year while your headcount stays the same :-).
    
    Its still a cap, and if baseball players dont like it, just like here
    at dec we can go get another job, let the baseball players go get
    another job. (I bet there's a ton of jobs out there for tabaco chewing
    fat guys who can swing a club).
    
    I for one will savor this moment and the more money the players lose
    the better.  Cam you could be the #1, best in the world at what you
    do and I doubt you'll every see a 1.3Million a year contract :-) and
    when dec was making money hand over fist I still doubt there were many
    players makeing in excess of 1mil a year.
    
    The players need to get back down to reality, The owners will
    eventually have to fold, after all there the ones with all the risks
    payroll, taxes, investments etc etc that there losing money on.  They
    play a game want big buck, no risk contracts, and if they suck oh well
    sorry stupid you signed the contract so give me my money...
    
    Offer the Players no Cap, but No Guarenteed contracts, or more
    incentives, you suck you get paid accordingly... All the younger
    guys coming up from the farm leagues would love it, the over paid
    whinning useless baggage would be in an uproar...
    
    Here's hoping next spring comes along and the fields are still empty
    
    								mab

RE                 <<< Note 178.280 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    You have a budget of X $$$ Digital sets a % for increases, so you take
>    your current salary add x% and then divide that up accross your people.
>    The better players get more the little guys get less.  So there still a
>    cap if you salary budget in 1993 is X dollers your salary budget in 94
>    is x +%increse = newbudget.  Of course unlike in baseball your budget
>    and salaries go up every year while your headcount stays the same :-).
    
  No, you are just plane wrong. It's only a cap if you have employees who are
too stupid to realize that there are other companies where they can get paid to
do the same job. 

  Unlike baseball players, if your salary planning committee decides that
employee x should get y dollars, employee x can go to work for HP at a higher
amount and tell your committee to go pound sand. 

  A baseball player would not have that option under a cap. Once a team decided
to put him in a slot no other team could offer him more without creating a
slot on their team limited by the SAME CAP. That is NOT the system facing a
digital employee. Digital does NOT set the percentage increase or salary limit
for employees at HP.

>    I for one will savor this moment and the more money the players lose
>    the better.  

  Ok fine, so for what ever twisted reason you are in love with billionaires and
get your jollies watching rich owners rake in more profits. If that's what
turns you on then fine but what that has to do with baseball I'll never
understand. Me, I go to the games to see the players play, not to see some
billionaire run a business in a guaranteed profitable industry at someone
else's expense.

  George

	Just for my information, am I correct in understanding that 58% of
	the operating costs of MLB franchises is in labor costs ?  If that
	is correct, how does that compare to other industries ?

	Also, has anyone heard officially whether players are willing to
	trade arbitration for the salary cap ?  IMHO it is not the Sandbergs,
	Bonds, and Bonillas that have led to the problem, but arbitrators
	continually siding with mediocre players and causing the average
	salary to inflate uncontrollably that is a main problem for the
	owners.

	I have no sympathy for either side; both are way too greedy, with
	neither side caring for the fans.  People who say the players aren't
	at all responsible are clueless, just as those who think the owners
	are completely in the right are in a stupor.

    
>>  Ok fine, so for what ever twisted reason you are in love with billionaires and
>>get your jollies watching rich owners rake in more profits. If that's what
>>turns you on then fine but what that has to do with baseball I'll never
>>understand. Me, I go to the games to see the players play, not to see some
>>billionaire run a business in a guaranteed profitable industry at someone
>>else's expense.
    
    GUARANTEED PROFITABLE!!!!!!   BULL$HIT!!!!
    
    Lessee, where's the "guaranteed profitable" for the small market teams
    that are losing money hand over fist???????????
    
    I'm not REALLY on either side, but if I had to pick a side, I'd tend to
    go slightly towards the owners side.  Where in the hell does it say 
    that it is wrong for someone to make a profit????  The owners didn't
    just get HANDED the franchise, they bought it.  So, lessee George, say
    you owned a McDonald's franchise, and by some string of good luck, you
    made $5 million in one year, after only making 1 million$$$ the year
    before.  You didn't increase headcount, so does that, when it comes to
    the players logic, mean you have to distribute, evenly, the extra $4
    mil between you and the workers?????   
    
    Both sides are money grubbing fools.
    
    JaKe
    

    
> Just for my information, am I correct in understanding that 58% of
> the operating costs of MLB franchises is in labor costs ?
    
    Yep, something like that.  On the other hand, the NFL players just 
    successfully negotiated for 64% of revenues (not costs, that'd be 
    higher) and MaB's selfless basketball players are also in the 60+% 
    range.  It's all about "partnership", and perception, I guess.  When 
    a hoops draft pick magnanimously agrees to have his $100M contract 
    paid out over 15 years to keep the team under the cap (while the
    league authorities wink), he's just a hell of a guy... ;-)
    
> Also, has anyone heard officially whether players are willing to
> trade arbitration for the salary cap ? 
    
    Players might be; in response to questioning owners have already 
    dismissed this as an alternative to a salary cap.  Apparently the 
    costs of arbitration are overrated and the owners aren't enthralled
    with a giveback here in the absence of a cap, even though it is the 
    only significant area where free-market forces are removed and an 
    owner is _forced_ to pay a player more than he might have wanted to.  
    But when you add up all the arbitration awards for 3-year players in a
    given season they don't amount to a large percentage of labor costs,
    anyway.  Owners want to change the system for 4+ year players to
    allow free agency with right of first refusal but only with a salary 
    cap, because they know how valuable the great young players would be on 
    the open market (fact is, probably a good half of 6+ year free agents 
    are too old to command the longterm contracts they do, and with baseball 
    owners generally unable to control themselves with those players, god 
    only knows what the younger, truly valuable properties like Griffey, 
    Thomas, Bagwell et al would bring).
    
    The owners' position just doesn't make a whole lot of sense in that it
    contends that the system is rigged not due to a minimum salary, not due
    to any fixed salary scale that is overly high, not due to arbitration,
    but rather due to the continued irresistable urge of competing teams to 
    give a guaranteed multi-year contract to Spike Owen.  The best players 
    are restricted, in the owners' favor.  The shame of it is that the
    owners looked like they were making great progress last winter in
    combatting mediocrity *on their own*, which is as it should be.
       
    glenn
     

    re: Glen a few back.
    
    Actually the players basically had to strike when they did. Assume
    thety played the entire season and the owners got the TV money for the
    posteason. In November the owners then uni-laterally inmpose their last
    contract proposal because they consider themselves to be at an impasse.
    Players could go to court but the anti-trust exemption is a real big
    issue when it comes to labor relations - that is one of the real big
    things the owners benefit from. The owners basically forced a strike
    and I think they miscalculated when/what/how long it would go.
    
    fwiw this is the first strike in which a large number of top
    columnists, other media folks have made statements favoring the players
    side.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

Well, you guys have managed to keep this discussion going pretty well
while I was out of town.  As usual, George and Glenn have supplied the
arguments I would have made, as well as (do I remember right) Neil,
whose .277 was a real contribution.  Let's hear more from you.

The view I really don't understand is "The season is over, great, I hope
it lasts into 95".  Thank you for your sensitivity and compassion.  Hey,
you don't like the game, don't watch it.  I don't like football, so I
ignore it, but I don't trash the game or the players in the topics
where the fans are noting.

Re about 60 back: yes, George, I know the hockey season is in trouble,
because the owners, as in all the major sports, scream "Free market"
whenever the government prevents them from using toxic waste in their
employees' cafeteria, but can't deal with a free market in running
their teams.  But I am an incurable optimist.  Just as I hoped up
to the last moment that the baseball postseason would be rescued,
so I will hope up to the last moment that hockey will start.

I will be watching the owners' next moves with great interest.  My
view is that they are now exactly where they wanted to be (this gives
them credit for cunning).  Let's see where they take it from here.  I
continue to believe they will fail to break the union, and consequently
fear they will do great damage to the game before they cave in (this
gives them credit for stupidity).

Steve

Re.

>  Not really. The players don't want to run the business, all they want is a
>free market. Do you say that employees in the computer industry run all
>computer companies just because there is a free market and we can go work for
>anyone who will pay our salary? 

>  If computer companies were trying to put an industry wide cap on salaries and
>we protested would that be a battle to see who runs the computer business?

Please don't compare major league baseball to the computer industry.  You
cannot expect owners to act the same way as computer company CEOs because
their job is to ensure that other owners stay in business.  Would you
really want baseball owners to try to run other owners out of business 
the way computer companies attempt to do to each other?

Ken

RE                     <<< Note 178.283 by PTOS02::JACOBR >>>

>  Where in the hell does it say 
>    that it is wrong for someone to make a profit????  

  No where. And if someone makes a profit in a free market then fine. No one
is saying that anyone should put a cap on profits. However the owners are the
ones who are saying it's not all right for someone to pull in the salary that
the free market will pay and I believe that's wrong.

  I agree with you though on Arbitration, that seems like overkill. It's
regulation in the player's favor and is just as bad as the salary cap.

  George

RE                     <<< Note 178.287 by DOCTP::TESSIER >>>

>Would you
>really want baseball owners to try to run other owners out of business 
>the way computer companies attempt to do to each other?

  Letting poorly run companies go belly up is actually good for an industry. In
major league sports it's not really a problem because when a team is about to
go belly up through poor management some other billionaire comes along and buys
the franchise. 

  That's actually good for the league because it weeds out the bad owners.
Putting in artificial controls to prop up those bad owners will ultimately
weaken the quality of management in the league which at this point would
mean going from bad to worse.

  George

    Yes I understand in Dec we have the right to leave at any time to go
    to another company for more money, better benifits etc etc.
    
    So what your saying is baseball players have no other option, bullshit.
    If there not happy playing a game for Millions of dollers they can 
    leave at anytime, mid season whatever.  And there options are limitless
    there plenty of jobs open from flipping burgers to sweeping floors....
    
    Becuase they cant leave baseball and do some other job that requirs you
    to know how to sit on a bench and spit and be paid Millions they
    deserve more money ????
    
    The Owners have made Millions/Billions in investments on buying the
    team/franchise working out staduim deals etc and if the team stinks
    and no one comes and watches the players still get paid, they have
    no risks, guarenteed contracts etc.  If there salaries were based on
    performance and not guarenteed then the owners would have a Less Risk
    investment....
    
    So I guess the owners arent losing any money this year right... They
    Still have to pay there bills...
    
    I dont care if the owner's are making 500X more then the players they
    build the team/franshise and they did it with there money, there
    investment there risk....  IF the players dont like it, they can get
    together and buy there own teams and they can be owners, there's
    nothing stopping them from making that kind of investment....
    
    								mab

RE                 <<< Note 178.290 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    So what your saying is baseball players have no other option, bullshit.
>    If there not happy playing a game for Millions of dollers they can 
>    leave at anytime, mid season whatever.  And there options are limitless
>    there plenty of jobs open from flipping burgers to sweeping floors....

  If DEC was empowered to put a cap across the industry and your choice was
take the DEC salary or go flip burgers then your analogy would work but as it
is it does not work. It's not the same thing. The labor market in the computer
industry is a free market and that's what the players want with they say "no
cap". 
    
>    If there salaries were based on
>    performance and not guarenteed then the owners would have a Less Risk
>    investment....

  That's only because the owners have signed those contracts of their own
free will. They don't have to do that. That's why people say that the salary
cap's only real job is to protect owners from themselves.
    
>    I dont care if the owner's are making 500X more then the players they
>    build the team/franshise and they did it with there money, there
>    investment there risk....  

  No, they do it with our money.

>IF the players dont like it, they can get
>    together and buy there own teams and they can be owners, there's
>    nothing stopping them from making that kind of investment....
    
  Yes there is. The owners control who has the right to buy a franchise and
the anti-trust law makes it difficult for anyone else to start a new league.
Competing against the owners is like playing a card game where one side
controls the Aces and can use them when ever they like. 

  George

    The owners dont use our money, they make an investment and hope to god
    we come watch the games and spend money.. THere taking a risk if nobody
    goes to a game and they lose money that day, guess what the players
    dont they still get paid (overpaid) for taken no risk.
    
    I consider all sports as one industry, if your a great athlete go
    play another sport, if baseball is the only thing you can do then
    your stuck and live it...
    
    They always have the option of getting another (a real) job....
    
    
    
    Who walked off the field here, the owners were working it out, they
    didnt say take a cap or leave the players said no cap, were walking.
    
    
    
    I just wish the players were losing more then the owners in this war
    
    								Mike

RE                 <<< Note 178.292 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    Who walked off the field here, the owners were working it out, they
>    didnt say take a cap or leave the players said no cap, were walking.
    
  So does this mean that you would side with the players in a lockout?

  George

    The owners have the players and the fans by the huevos.  Been living in
    Colorado for 25+ years and I remember when Marvin Miller had agreed to
    buy the Oakland A's and move them to Denver.  Also remember when Marvin
    Miller agreed to buy the Giants and move them to Denver.  In both cases
    the league (which is made up of owners) decided that the A's could not
    do that.  They cited that no one knew whether the Denver area could
    handle a baseball team.  Same thing happened to Florida a couple of
    years ago.  I heard that Gene Autry has stated that he could no longer
    afford his baseball team the Angels.  Do you know what he paid for the
    Angels?  He paid 1 million dollars.  Do you know what his asking price
    is for the Angels?  Some where in the neighborhood of 150 million
    dollars.  That is some kind of profit!!!!  Now I am not against making
    a good business deal but I have a question.  Why does it seem alright
    for owners to make good business deals but when players make good
    business deals it is called greed.  Face it both sides are in it to
    make money and that is fine.  Remember that it is OUR money that they
    are quibbling over!!!!
                          

re: .294

I am sure you meant Marvin Davis; Marvin Miller was the head of the MLB Players
union.

The Crazy Met

    Yes the owners are in it to make money, the owners made an investment
    the players are the workers, that it....  To demand more to just play
    the game is ridiculous and greedy.  They have other venues they can
    use to make more money off the game if they chose too.  Instead of 
    spending the offseason in the carribean (Dont we wish we had 6months
    off out of the year to hangout), then can do promotinal deals, travle
    do openings, autographs etc etc etc... But were taling about a bunch
    of whinning babies that want there 2+Million a year, want 6months off
    doing nothing all to play a game... Again the players dont care if the
    owners lose money (Granted most dont) but I still say the players have
    nothing to lose, when profits are down they still get paid HUGE BUCKS.
    
    Cap it, and make all the owners give any profits in excess of 1.5 times
    the cap to charity :-)
    
    Or lets pass a new tax, any person paid more the 1Mil a year pays 75%
    in taxes :-)
    
    								MaB
    
    

RE                 <<< Note 178.296 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    Or lets pass a new tax, any person paid more the 1Mil a year pays 75%
>    in taxes :-)
    
  Hey, I think we finally agree. Actually when you think about it this could
be the solution to the whole problem. If you tax the bigibies out of anyone
making over $200,000 a year then the entire problem of big salaries would
go away. Not only would all the players money return to the public till but
the money of all those stock brokers, CEO's, contractors and everyone else
making too much loot would be turned in.

  After all, who needs more than $200,000 a year? Why single out the players,
they aren't the only ones making big salaries.

  TAX THE RICH!!!
  George

    at the risk of being hidden.
    
    Isn't that the platform that Clinton ran on????
    
    

Talk about simplifying economics and tax implications!

The Crazy Met

  Hey, why not? It would take care of the inflated salary problem once and for
all. How hard would players fight for big salaries if they knew that they would
have to give most of it back anyway? 

  As for economic implications there would be few because there are not that
many people making over $200,000 a year and generally those that do don't do
anything that you would call real work.

  George 

Hmm, lets see:

Make up to 200k and pay 40% income tax. Above that pay 75%. So a player
making $1 million gets to keep 25% of the additional 800K - another
200K - not bad, not bad at all. Nope it won't stop anyone from wanting
to make more money.

The Crazy Met

  Or you could keep going up beyond that.

  Up to $200,000              40%
  $200,000 - $500,000         70%
  $500,000 - $1million        90%
  Over $1million              99%

  Let's see for Barry Bond's $7,000,000 a year that would be

  .40 X   200,000            $80,000
  .70 X   500,000           $350,000
  .90 X 1,000,000           $900,000
  .99 X 5,300,000         $5,247,000
                          ----------
                          $6,577,000 Federal Taxes

  He'd get to keep $423,000, plenty. And what's more, every other dead beat
rich guy making $7 million a year would be paying the same thing.

  George

A graduated tax is not a bad thing; but once you get to a certain point it
starts to impact whether people invest in companies and gamble on the
payoff; limits income given to charities; lessens spending. Why this 
interest in giving the government so much of anyones money; they are
certainly not earning it - I mean talk about deadbeats the government
is numero uno when it comes to that.

The Crazy Met

  We elect the government.

  If the government is deadbeats THAT is the fans fault.

  George

>A graduated tax is not a bad thing; but once you get to a certain point it
>starts to impact whether people invest in companies and gamble on the
>payoff; limits income given to charities; lessens spending. Why this 
>interest in giving the government so much of anyones money; they are
>certainly not earning it - I mean talk about deadbeats the government
>is numero uno when it comes to that.

>The Crazy Met

     In case you haven't noticed, 'Mericans haven't been investing much
     in anything 'Merican. But I agree it's a half-assed way for the
     gov't to stop the bleeding. If they REALLY wanted to stop the
     bleeding, they'd tax the crap out of all the stuff coming back
     into the US, manufactured outside the US, by US companies. That's
     what the rest of the world does. They practice an advanced form
     of protectionism. Maybe that's why they're kicking our asses.

     Neal
     

    john harrington of the redsox was on dale arnold duing lunch. 
    Although, he had little news re. the strike except for a veiled warning
    that owners are prepared to go on with or without players.
    
    But finally Dale to break the monotony asks him about b.c. and he had
    to go into the "Leahy fears Idaho" sandbagging routinge which as I said
    before has become the worst epidemic since Legion Flu.
    
    Stopping all the 'baggin is more important than a baseball settlement
    right now.

>    I dont know if youve ever actually sat in on salary planning or not but
>    back in 88 when I did this is how it worked.
>    
>    You have a budget of X $$$ Digital sets a % for increases, so you take
>    your current salary add x% and then divide that up accross your people.
>    The better players get more the little guys get less.  So there still a
>    cap if you salary budget in 1993 is X dollers your salary budget in 94
>    is x +%increse = newbudget.  Of course unlike in baseball your budget
>    and salaries go up every year while your headcount stays the same :-).


It's not a CAP in the baseball sense, what they're arguing about.

Sure, each job code has a salary range and if you don't get promoted, you
ultimately hit the ceiling.

But please, Mab, just for once, try to figure out what's apples and
what's oranges......

    
       Pretty ironic during last night's broadcast of part one of the 
      documentary 'Baseball' to hear read a quote from 1868 by someone 
      decrying what money and commercialism were doing to baseball. Of 
      how players were no longer motivated by a love for the game but 
      by greed. 

    I, too, was struck by the irony of last nights show.  If you closed
    your eyes and just listened, you would have thought that they were
    discussing baseball's situation today.   
    
    Of particular interest was the fact that the fans seemed to be as
    intense back then as they are today.
    
    Hope I get to watch most of the series.
    
    UMDan
    
     

I missed it, and didn't record it.  I'll have to pick it up on the re-runs,
but I do love the quote by Walt Whitman that's been playing on the radio,
about the game of "base"......


'Saw

    Also ironic was the fact that last night's show ended by bringing
    baseball back to the fields and sandlots, and away from the
    "industrialized" version being held hostage by the owners.
    
    I still maintain that this version of the MLB strike will give baseball
    the necessary enema it sorely needs.
    
    Mark.

    OH well I guess I'll just never understand the thinking behind these
    men (If you can all them that)....
    
    A bunch of overpaid millionaire whinners complaining about money when
    they all seem to get paid 7 figures... Maybe they should walk down the
    street and look at the homeless people, or drive thru the inner cities
    and take a look at what hard times are...
    
    I cannot side with the players.... Even if the owners were make 10 or
    100 times more then the players I still cannot side with a millionaire
    complaining over money...
    
    The PLAYERS WALKED OUT, not the owners...
    								Mab

I've been avoiding this rathole, but I have to make a brief
point. 

What sickens me about the whole thing is the TOTAL CONTEMPT
the owners and players have for the fans that pay their meal
tickets. While they are bickering there are millions of kids
who CARED! It's sad and disgusting. May they all end up on
welfare.

josh

    
       In the first of its nine parts that covered the very crude
      beginnings of professional ball, the documentary 'Baseball'
      was eerily relevant to the current situation. From the be-
      ginning the owners treated the players like chattel, using the
      reserve clause to excerise ownership over players. From the
      beginning owners were omnipotent. No more. There is a power
      shift and I believe it's largely due to the media. In the 
      old days, players took what they were given and if you didn't
      like it then too bad. They had absolutely no recourse. Nowadays 
      just about every sport is star driven. We all tune in to watch 
      Junior Griffey do his stuff not to watch John Harrington do his. 
      If Junior felt he was being underpaid and took his case to the
      citizens of Seattle, you better bet the owners would listen up
      (see Sean Kemp). The era of keep 'em poor and hungry and throw 
      'em an occasional scrap is gone. The era of it's my team and I'll
      do what I like is gone. And it was a long time coming. The problem
      is that the owners realized it too late.
     

              
    MaB, you've repeated that "free market economics don't apply after the
    first $100K" mantra so many times you're beginning to sound like Karl
    Marx.  I just hope for your sake that a work stoppage doesn't take down
    your beloved NBA, as the storm clouds are building fast there too (as
    with the NHL) with those "millionaire whinners" (average salary $1.3M, 
    > baseball) battling tooth and nail in the courts for the abolition of 
    the salary cap.

    The Burns commentary wasn't so much ironic as intentional, the battle
    of the moment notwithstanding.  The same "irony" has been 
    applicable at any other point of the last 100 years.  Like I mentioned 
    once before, my grandfather once told my father that the reason he'd 
    not go back to Forbes Field in Pittsburgh was that due to the money,
    the game wasn't the same as when the Waner boys played during the
    Depression.  As America's oldest and most cherished sporting
    institution, baseball has always been held to a higher emotional
    standard...
    
    glenn
    

Not sure how it plays into the "greedy players" 
argument, but as memory serves me, the $2000/year 
that the top players were getting in the early years
of Spaulding et al. was not exactly a kings ransom.  
The option of going and making as good a living doing
something else was very real to these guys.  Today that
is totally irrelivant.

=Bob=

Well, Mab, you can side with the owners all you want, but the fact of the
matter is that owners are the ones who are protecting their interests by
insisting on a salary cap and are the ones who are trying to bust the
player's union.   

That surprises me because, based on your notes, I'd have figured you to
be a union guy.

But anyway, all of that aside, one thing that I keep hearing in here is the
average salary that's tossed around, as if every player is making 1.2 mil.
That's not the case.  There's players out there who make maybe 275-300K a
year.  That's not all that much when you come right down to it.

If you average in Robbie Bob's 12 mil last year alone, I'm sure it pulls
all our average salaries up.

But quite honestly, I'm not so sure, after watching what has happened in
football, that the players are not wrong in striking over this cap issue.

Bottom line, the owners, as always, want MORE money, at the expense of the
players.....


'Saw

   >> The Burns commentary wasn't so much ironic as intentional, the battle
   >> of the moment notwithstanding.  The same "irony" has been applicable 
   >> at any other point of the last 100 years.  

      Burns did not know that there would be a strike when the documentary
      was to be televised. Me not being a student of the game like yourself
      I was really surprised how much of what happened 125 years ago ties
      into and is relevant today. Deja vu all over again and all that. The 
      timing of it all is (at least to me) incredibly ironic. 
    
    

>Bottom line, the owners, as always, want MORE money, at the expense of the
>players.....

Players, workers, employees, etc.

Saw, you're sounding like you're not on the owners side of this great
debate:

	Scumbag Owners vs scumbag players

or

	Owners/management vs union

TTom

    
>>That's not the case.  There's players out there who make maybe 275-300K a
>>year.  That's not all that much when you come right down to it.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    I'd gladly go play a KID'S GAME fer $275,000/yr plus the "meal money"
    they get(even though the team supplies a before game buffet, an after
    game buffet, etc.
    
>>Bottom line, the owners, as always, want MORE money, at the expense of the
>>players.....
    
    You could change the position of the words "owners" and "Players" in
    the above statement and it would also ring very true.
    
    JaKe
    

Right, I never said I was siding with anyone, but if I had to pick someone
to side with I'd pick the players.  

As to playing a kid's game for 275K, sure, so would I, if I had the skill
level that it takes.

When you come right down to it, economically the rarer something is, the
more money it is worth.  Quite honestly, baseball talent is something that
is pretty rare.  If everyone could do it, then the average salary might
be $8.95 an hour.  But not everyone can do it.

Same thing with musicians, or actors, or other artists.

There was an interesting fact on that football history show the other night.
Only about 14,000 guys have ever played pro football.   If you think of how
many generations of young men there have been that were the right ages to
play pro ball over the 75 years, then that 14,000 is a very small percentage
indeed....


I'm not saying the players are right in walking out, and there are a few
who'll never get my respect (Steve Howe for instance), but the owners have
always been scumbags too....


'Saw

> When you come right down to it, economically the rarer something is, the
> more money it is worth.  Quite honestly, baseball talent is something that
> is pretty rare.  If everyone could do it, then the average salary might
> be $8.95 an hour.  But not everyone can do it.

>> Same thing with musicians, or actors, or other artists.

 you lost me here Saw. Are you saying Tom Cruise is talented? or Michael
 Bolton? 

 mike

    Yabbut (fer Kev), I wouldn't call the average talent possessed by the
    average baseball player 'rare'.  What's rare is the opportunity to
    showoff that talent since the number of major league teams is limited.
    
    The reason, INHO, that there are so few teams is because there aren't a
    whole lot of folks with the vast millions available to invest in this
    extremely expensive venture.
    
    
    billl

    
>      Burns did not know that there would be a strike when the documentary
>      was to be televised.
    
    I guess all I was saying was that labor battles are as old as
    professional baseball itself, much more a part of its history than 
    the history of other sports, and especially prevalent in the early
    years when new league after new league cropped up in those days when 
    men were rugged individualists and set out for themselves, and not
    only out of necessity (some of those guys made pretty good bucks--
    witness King Kelly's $10K salary offer and the Cinci Red Stockings' 
    initial $1500 average pay in 1869 which were _huge_ for the times--
    ballplayers weren't really consistently getting severely worked over 
    until after WWII) and those "greedy ballplayer" quotes are favorites 
    with historians.  Ken Burns could not have done even a cursory history 
    of baseball without touching on this subject, the current strike 
    notwithstanding.  But you could still call it irony, considering the 
    near-exact timing of the series against the WS cancellation...
    
    How could they do a series on baseball without mentioning "Old Hoss" 
    Radbourne or "Pud" Galvin, though?  ;-)
    
    glenn
     

    
    
      Most of the stuff in the documentary was quite new to me.
     I used to be in a Sox season ticket pool but I was never the
     diehard fan that some folks in here are. I loved Fenway Park 
     as much as the team itself. But I found at least the first 
     installment of the doc. enthralling. Just about all of the 
     labor-related quotes in the doc. are being echoed today. 
     Virtually word for word. And the pictures of players in the
     earliest days of baseball are priceless. The quotes from famous
     authors, athletes and personalities on what baseball means
     to them and to us all are great too with the possible exception 
     of Billy Crystal (whose appeal I'll never quite figure out). Quote
     of the night for me was from the guy who said that in two thousand
     years the three things that American culture will be remembered 
     for are "the Constitution, jazz and baseball."

    
> with the possible exception 
> of Billy Crystal (whose appeal I'll never quite figure out).
    
    Yes, Billy Crystal should be taken out and shot.  This might be
    sacrilege but I thought that Bob Costas was infringing dangerously
    on that territory too.  But both Crystal's blatant romanticizing 
    and his mere visual presence seem so out of place in the setting 
    of a (mostly) historical documentary that I have no idea what the 
    thinking here was.
    
> Quote of the night for me was from the guy who said that in two thousand
> years the three things that American culture will be remembered 
> for are "the Constitution, jazz and baseball."

    That was a great quote.  I also liked what Robert Creamer had to say
    about the game itself aside from all the metaphorical (I believe he
    used "metaphysical") nonsense from the likes of Costas that, after all, 
    is mostly a modern invention that has nothing to do with the reasons 
    that the game became so ingrained in American life over the first 100
    years of its organized existence-- it is the game itself and its simple 
    basic elements that produced that influence with common folks and kids, 
    not the intellectual reminiscing around the game.  Maybe aside from 
    the money aspect there's another hint to the root of baseball's recent 
    decline.  As a former 2B, I couldn't have given a better example of why 
    I love baseball than Creamer's mental image of the man in the pivot on 
    the double play.  Former Negro League (don't miss that segment) great
    Buck O'Neil's comments reflected the same simple theme...
    
    I'm pleasantly surprised that some of the stuff like the afore-
    mentioned quote didn't set you off, Tommy.  To be honest, I think
    18-1/2 hours of this at one time is going to wear long, but it'll 
    always be there with its logical division of eras as a great 
    reference.  Even aside from what one might think of the story being
    told, the number of photos and footage (many newly discovered) 
    assembled in one collection is unprecedented.
    
    glenn
    

re                 <<< Note 178.312 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>

>    I cannot side with the players.... Even if the owners were make 10 or
>    100 times more then the players I still cannot side with a millionaire
>    complaining over money...

  I'm really struggling to understand this. It's ok for billionaires to
complain about money but not for millionaires, is that it? The more you have
the more you can complain? I'm curious, what if there were trillionaires and
they complained about money, would that make them saints? 

>    The PLAYERS WALKED OUT, not the owners...

  So if it were a lockout, then you'd be on the player's side?

  George

RE        <<< Note 178.320 by PTOS01::JACOBR "Follically Challenged!!" >>>

>    I'd gladly go play a KID'S GAME fer $275,000/yr plus the "meal money"
>    they get(even though the team supplies a before game buffet, an after
>    game buffet, etc.
    
  Sure, but do you think anyone would want to pay to see you play?

  George

    
> MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!"            19 lines  19-SEP-1994 14:34
>
>      just about every sport is star driven. We all tune in to watch 
>      Junior Griffey do his stuff not to watch John Harrington do his. 
    
    The difference between ownership and employee, as I see it, is that
    employees are rarely willing to take the risk to invest in a team, 
    stadium, public mood, etc., etc., and all the other things an *owner*
    has to risk in order to front a business.  They trade off that risk for
    a little less control and a little less reward.  
    
    Granted, the owner makes BIG $$$ if things pan out - and rightly so, he 
    took the risk.  If Team X fails, Player A can move on, Owner B gets stuck
    with the loss.  If Player A wants it ALL, front it all like the owners do.
    Players have a contract - they know what they're getting.  Owners get
    payed on "spec" - perhaps the players would like to join in the risk in
    order to get a little more reward? 
    
    Will Ken give up some of his salary if fan attendance goes down because
    of a recession or if the team sucks or, heck, even if *he* has a
    crappy year?
    
    I think the fans come to see Griffey, but I don't think most believe
    he should get as much as owners get.
    
> CAMONE::WAY "Pony Boy take me home..."               24 lines  19-SEP-1994 15:16
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Well, Mab, you can side with the owners all you want, but the fact of the
> matter is that owners are the ones who are protecting their interests by
> insisting on a salary cap and are the ones who are trying to bust the
> player's union.   

    "Bust the union," schmust the union.   :^) :^)  The players are
    trying to "bust" ownership -- see how silly that sounds?  This is
    America, people join (union) together in the *hope* that their collective
    power is worth more to ownership than any single employee's is.  
    Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - but it is just plain
    silly to call it "busting a union" when it doesn't. It's a business crap 
    shoot!  Unions shouldn't be guaranteed to get all they want just because 
    they exist -- and I don't see how they are being busted any more than I 
    am when I don't get the raise I ask for.  
    
    If anyone's being busted, its the fans.
    
    - Sean
    

 I can see where folks might think owners are taking a risk, but when you
 consider every single sports team that has been sold in the last quarter
 of a century or so has been sold at a profit, the chance are that even
 if they operate in the red for 5 years they'll still make a profit when
 they sell.

 Also to be considered is that many of them own other businesses and have
 the ability to write off losses.

 They dug their own mess and until they show the players that they are 
 willing to help themselves out by doing revenue sharing first, why 
 should the players agree to cap?

 I can't see how anybody can take the owners' side in this one. The
 players gave them plenty of time to get their act together. They
 refuse to open their books and prove their point so how can they
 be trusted?

 mike

|re                 <<< Note 178.312 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>
|
|>    I cannot side with the players.... Even if the owners were make 10 or
|>    100 times more then the players I still cannot side with a millionaire
|>    complaining over money...
|
|  I'm really struggling to understand this. It's ok for billionaires to
|complain about money but not for millionaires, is that it? The more you have
|the more you can complain? I'm curious, what if there were trillionaires and
|they complained about money, would that make them saints? 

It's mab-logic George.

It's my prediction that physicists will come up with a Unified Field theory
long before anyone ever understands mab-logic.......


'Saw

    
>> consider every single sports team that has been sold in the last quarter
>> of a century or so has been sold at a profit, the chance are that even
>> if they operate in the red for 5 years they'll still make a profit when
>> they sell.
    
    The Bucs are about to change this.  So called "market value" on the
    Pirates is said to be $75 to $80 million.  Considering that the current
    consortium that owns/mismanages the Bucs paid ~$25 million for them,
    and the fack that the team is in excess of $60 million in debt, they
    WILL take a loss on this team when they sell them.
    
    The owners, to save the smaller market teams, MUST set up a revenue
    sharing plan, and follow thru with it.  When you consider that the
    Yankmees get, what, $40 million a year from their local TV contract,
    and the Pirates cain only get $4 million a year from one here, there's
    a big difference in what kind of players you cain attract and pay for.
    
    Also, when ownership of a team like the Pirates is so tight you
    conldn't pull a greased pin out of their ass with a tractor, you don't
    get many players who cain draw fans into the park, much like the Bucs
    of lasted year, AND this year.
    
    I say get a HUGE meeting of all the owners and the players, and nuke
    them all, cause, admit it everyone, their ALL greedy sons of bitches,
    regardless of what side their on.
    
    JMHO
    
    JaKe
    

    
  >> I'm pleasantly surprised that some of the stuff like the afore-
  >> mentioned quote didn't set you off, Tommy.  
     
     A review in the Globe before the doc. started being televised said
     that the series might not appeal to non fans. I don't think that
     I'm quite a "non fan", a casual fan maybe. A very casual almost
     oblivious fan. BUT I think it's more interesting for folks like
     myself who weren't at all familiar with Rube Waddell or Rube Foster,
     who didn't know that Ty Cobb was a violent racist or that Walter
     Johnson requested a return ticket when he signed his first Major
     League contract in case he went bust. I didn't know that the Harry 
     M. Stevens Company that handles the concessions at Fenway was founded 
     90 years ago. I didn't know how the hotdog was invented or how 'Take 
     Me Out To The Ballgame' gained popularity. Some of the philosophising 
     by the likes of Billy Crystal grates on the nerves but some of the more 
     incisive comments by more literate types is quite poetic and poignant. 
     Baseball inspires such beautiful use of the language. When you watch 
     the doc. and see it in its historical context and watch footage of some
     of the greats perform and the emotional involvement of the fans, I get 
     some small inkling of why. 
    
  >> Former Negro League (don't miss that segment) great
    
     Those are really my favorite parts. I called my dad last night when
     the small bit on Rube Foster was on and he was watching and then proc-
     eeded to tell me about a great uncle who played for St. Paul. Again,
     it's the rich history and tradition of the sport that you really
     don't see with basketball or football at least not nearly to the same
     degree.
        

    
 > I can see where folks might think owners are taking a risk, but when you
 > consider every single sports team that has been sold in the last quarter
 > of a century or so has been sold at a profit, the chance are that even
 > if they operate in the red for 5 years they'll still make a profit when
 > they sell.
    
    Easy to say when it's not you.  I know I love when people tell me how much
    of I risk I'm not taking when it's my butt on the line.  
    
    Over and above that, though, is that how you want businesses to be run?
    "Hey you future owners of anything -- take a risk, invest, build up
    something!  If you do bad, sorry Charlie; if you do okay, great; but if you
    do *too* good, well we got some employees and armchair business-crats who
    can tell you how you really didn't take any risk and what your profits
    should be knocked down to."
    
    You start a business and see how receptive and understanding you are when
    people tell you a) how to run it and b) that you should easily make a 
    nice profit, we'll tell you what that is and c) by the way, there's not 
    that much risk.
    
    Sure, its the American way to hate the big, bad, business owners.
    But sometimes the people who put themselves on the line (and unabashedly 
    expect great rewards) get a raw deal and I think that's the case here.  
    If the players don't like their salaries, they can walk.  They did.  If 
    the owners don't want to pay what they want, they decline.  They did.  
    Why is one more right (or wrong) than the other in the world of business?  
    
    In the end the fans weild the most power (and they'll probably never
    use it).  Two groups of grown men should have found a way to share
    this golden gift from heaven, but they couldn't.  Bad business decision
    on both parts and I blame both sides equally.
    
    - Sean

        <<< Note 178.332 by PTOS01::JACOBR "Follically Challenged!!" >>>

>    The Bucs are about to change this.  So called "market value" on the
>    Pirates is said to be $75 to $80 million.  Considering that the current
>    consortium that owns/mismanages the Bucs paid ~$25 million for them,
>    and the fack that the team is in excess of $60 million in debt, they
>    WILL take a loss on this team when they sell them.
    
  Yes, there are a hand full of teams that have been run so poorly and/or who
get so little fan support even when they win that they can't make it. And there
are others who do poorly because they are never contenders. If their owners
lose money when they sell the team so what?

  The Pirates have been playing in Pittsburgh since at least 1876 and have done
well relative to the rest of the league for most of that time. If things have
changed and the fans won't support them when they win then they could have
moved to Tampa Bay or somewhere else where they would have gotten support. 

  In America, just because you invest your own money that doesn't mean you will
be successful. That's why we have a bankruptcy code. If you invest your own
money and do a lousy job of of managing it, it will be gone. As the saying goes,
"A fool and his money are soon parted".

  George

re: "Baseball" by Burns

As something of a student of the history of the game, I
still am enjoying the series.  A lot of things which 
were not brought up in the histories I read as a kid
(Cobb's racism for one) give new perspective on the 
early days of the game.  Also, you tend to forget things
like the contrast of Mathewson and McGraw or just how
early Branch Rickey made his commitment to get African-
Americans into the major leagues.

One thing that Burns must have struggled with was the 
chronology of the series.  he is staying stricktly with
a historical chronology, despite the temptation to 
follow a story line, then come back in time.  The Branch
Rickey thing is an example.  He planted the seed of 
Rickey being affected by the racism he saw in his early
years as a college baseball coach.  I'm sure the story
line will germinate when he discusses the 40's-50's time 
frame.

I agree that the "cuts" to the celebs pontificating 
about the game are out of context, and generally add
nothing to the show.  In "the Civil War", the cuts were
directly related to what was goign on in the series.  I
get the feeling that Costas, Crystal, Shelby Foote,
George Will, et al. begged Burns to be included, so he
let them, then had to squeeze their comments in some-
where.

=Bob=

	Oh boy, I can see where this PBS Baseball documentary is going to 
bring out the "Baseball/Life metaphor" crowd who wax poetic about 
"athletes" (see John Kruk), whose invaluable contribution to society is the 
ability to spit chewing tobacco and scratch their filberts at the same time.  
Wake me when this LoveFest is over.

				   /Don

    
>>  Yes, there are a hand full of teams that have been run so poorly and/or who
>>get so little fan support even when they win that they can't make it. And there
>>are others who do poorly because they are never contenders. If their owners
>>lose money when they sell the team so what?

>>  The Pirates have been playing in Pittsburgh since at least 1876 and have done
>>well relative to the rest of the league for most of that time. If things have
>>changed and the fans won't support them when they win then they could have
>>moved to Tampa Bay or somewhere else where they would have gotten support. 
    
    FAN SUPPORT MY ASS, George.  Back a coupla years ago, when the BUcs was
    winning the division, they set attendance records 2 years in a row. 
    The result, they lost money, bigtime.  They drew 2.2 million fans,
    which would be the equivalent of NY or LA drawing about 9 million,
    comparing the size of the areas and the draw the team has to work from.
    The team has a horrible lease, in a lousy concrete donut, in a good
    town, with a lousy roster.  WHat would be so different in another city,
    by moving the Bucs, after the novelty wore off, if the new owners
    wouldn't put out the necessary $$$ to attract marquis players???It
    isn't just a few teams that lose money, it's more like half of the
    teams are in, or shortly will be in, financial strife.
    
    The current owners decide not to pay big bucks to anyone who resembles
    a ballplayer, the team falters, and attendance drops off some, o about
    1.6 mil lasted year.  Would you expect the mediocre bunch of bums on
    the Bucs to draw 2 million every year????
    
    THis is a small market, economically depressed(but getting better,
    finally), and the team is basicaly AAA bal + a little.  SO, we're
    supposed to shell out major bucks to see the bucks, even though there's
    nobody worth seeing. 
    
    BTW, THe Rooneys, who own the STEELERS, have thrown their names into
    the hat as one of 5 possible new onwers who WILL keep the team in
    Pittsburgh.
    
    JaKe
    

  Ok, but how does that justify a salary cap? If for what ever reason baseball
doesn't work in Pittsburgh, then try somewhere else. 

  That story seems similar to the Boston Braves story in the late '40's. After
winning the N.L. Pennant in '48 they still couldn't make money. So in 1952 when
the city of Milwaukee built a 28,000 seat stadium and the St Louis Brown
started talking about moving back to Milwaukee, the Braves jumped at the chance
and moved there 1st. Then they moved to Atlanta and now they seem to be doing
fine. 

  If the owners are too incompetent to run the Bucks, then they should get new
owners. If there is no way that Pittsburgh will support the team, then they
should move to some city that will support the team. In either case I don't see
how it justifies the cap. 

  George

re: George/JaKe's LDUC

The theory is that small market teams don't draw 
the fans, thus don't make the money that large market
teams do.  They then have less money to invest back into
the team.  The cap would prevent big market teams from
buying more players.

The flaw here is that, despite what the books say, NO
MLB team is losing money.  It just becomes a matter of
owners not wanting to re-invest as large a percent of 
their profits.

=Bob=

>
>The flaw here is that, despite what the books say, NO
>MLB team is losing money.  It just becomes a matter of
>owners not wanting to re-invest as large a percent of 
>their profits.
>


I agree.

One thing I've learned over the years, ESPECIALLY here at DEC, is that
you can make the books say anything you want them to say.   Now I'm far
from being a bean counter, but I sure do know that....


Owners are like Bob Palmer -- as long as they get their big fat paycheck/raise
they really don't care what happens....


'Saw

  One thing that is kind of nuts is that it's not clear that the cap will help
the small clubs. Yet they seem to be the ones who want it most. 

  Even if there is a cap, there will still be an argument as to where the cap
should be set. Most likely it will be set somewhere below what the large teams
can pay and above what the small teams can pay. This means that the small clubs
will be peddling to keep up just as they are now while the rich teams just get
richer. 

  Transferring money from rich to poor teams would result in the same problem of
owners like George Steinbrenner giving poor teams money which they then use to
buy players from the larger clubs. 

  The only way the cap would work is if the owners clobber the Union so bad
that they can then impose a low cap but that's not likely. Even if they manage
it for now, the Union will come back over time.

  What the cap will do is take us back to the bad old days of yesteryear where
a few rich teams get the talent and hold on. Once again only a few teams will
be able to win and the gap between rich and poor teams will grow even more.

  It's a terrible idea,
  George

    "Browns (St Louis) move BACK to Milwaukee.  Now that's something I
    never knew - that St Louis Browns were once based in Milwaukee.
    
    Speaking of Browns, I hope Burns features George Sisler who Connie Mack
    and Joe Dugan among others rated so highly.  Also, Sisler was a college
    star and the college game was extremely competitive right into the 20s
    and I hope Burns talks about that.
    
    I'm very pleased with the series and one note I'd like to make is about
    Cobb as racist vs Cap Anson as true racist.  Cobb was a nut and didn't
    like most everyone but had little influence and the incident with the
    black worker and his wife I'd contrast with Anson using his
    considerable powers to turn the tide against blacks in baseball which
    had a chance to happen in the 1880s.
    
    Cobb in his position of enmity vs establishment actually was very good
    to some younger players.

    re "no team is losing money".  Bullsh_t!!!
    
    The Bucs have been deep in the red for a few years now, and are in
    debt to the tune of $60 million+ to the league and to the city of
    Pittsburgh, who has been making them loans off and on to keep them
    here. 
    
    RE Cap...I never stated in my diatribe on the state of BB here in Pgh
    anything about the cap.  I think they should institute revenue sharing,
    although they won't.  When CBS paid Major League Baseball over $1
    billion for rights to telecast, free agency went thru the roof, cause
    the owners had mucho more $$$ to spend.  Now, without as much $$$, the
    smaller teams don't have the $$$ to spread around like the
    Steinbrenners of the world.  Hell, the Yankmees local TV contract alone
    would've paid the Bucs payroll lasted year.
    
    JaKe
    

    Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out.. IF the good teams
    in the larger markets with hugh salaries have to drop some players or
    restructure salaries of there current teams to get under tha cap then
    they dont have enough money to buy away the top players from the
    smaller market teams.  Take a team like the blue jays, how many fans
    does there stadium seat, they sell out ?(Alwasy ?) and they bought the
    best players money could buy and bought a couple of championships.  SO
    it can be done (And has been done).
    
    So if you put a cap on a team, the big market teams cannot afford to
    throw these hugh salaries around, and now with the new playoffs how
    many post season games does this add.  It now becomes very financial
    important to make the playoffs and get HFA for those early/extra games
    so the big teams will be looking to steal away more players.
    
    All owners/team benefit by the cap, only the smaller market teams lose
    in a free market with no cap..
    
    								mab

Marx, Lenin, Mab....sounds like a MrT p-name....


Just one question:  what in the world is a hugh salary?  I thought Millen
played football?


'Saw

RE                      <<< Note 178.343 by 25022::BREEN >>>

>    "Browns (St Louis) move BACK to Milwaukee.  Now that's something I
>    never knew - that St Louis Browns were once based in Milwaukee.

  In 1901 when the American League started one of the 8 original teams was the
Milwaukee Brewers. In 1902 they moved to St Louis and changed their name to the
Browns. Around 1952 Bill Veck Jr wanted to move them again and he considered
going back to Milwaukee but when the Braves moved there he sold the team and
they moved to Baltimore to become the Orioles.
    
  Another interesting point is that one of the 8 original teams was the
Baltimore Orioles. In 1902 they moved to New York and changed their name to the
Highlanders. Some time later they moved to the Bronks and became the Yankees. 

  The other 6 original A.L. teams were:

  1901                     Later                        Now
  ----                     -----                        ---
  Chicago White Stockings                               Chicago White Sox
  Cleveland Blues                                       Cleveland Indians
  Detroit Tigers                                        same
  Philadelphia Athletics   K.C. Athletics               Oakland Athletics   
  Washington Nationals     Washington Senators          Minnesota Twins
  Boston Summersets        Boston Pilgrims              Boston Red Sox

  The rest of the A.L. teams are expansion teams.

  George

    
    
    Small nit  
    
       The last Washington Senators team is now the Texas Rangers!
    
    
    Cadzilla2
    

RE<<< Note 178.348 by OLD1S::CADZILLA2 "How Unkind, Arrested for flying while blind" >>>

>       The last Washington Senators team is now the Texas Rangers!
    
  No, the old Washington Senators are now the Minnesota Twins. After they
moved there was an expansion team called the Washington Senators who are now
the Texas Rangers. 

  George

 the reason the small market teams are so behind the cap is big market
 owners are supposedly willing to talk revenue sharing with their smaller
 brethen if they get a cap.

 I find it hard to believe the Bucks would loose money but anything is
 possible. Still if 1/2 the teams were loosing money, why not open your
 books and prove it? If I'm a player and there's really that many teams
 loosing money I'd soften my stance and pitch in by agreeing to a cap.

 Still can't find the risk factor depiste the fact that it ain't my butt
 on the line. I'd gladly put my butt on the line to own a team. Anyone know
 anyone giving out 100 million dollar loans???????

 mike

    
    
    Like I said, the last Washington Senators team is now in Texas!
    playing with about the same success as the Washington Senators
    they replaced.
    
    Cadzilla2

    
    Well, George, if you're going to list the Pilgrim's nickname for the
    Sox, at least include the Naps name for the Tribe... B^)
    
    Joe

>                     <<< Note 178.342 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
>
>  One thing that is kind of nuts is that it's not clear that the cap will help
>the small clubs. Yet they seem to be the ones who want it most. 
>
>  Even if there is a cap, there will still be an argument as to where the cap
>should be set. Most likely it will be set somewhere below what the large teams
>can pay and above what the small teams can pay. This means that the small clubs
>will be peddling to keep up just as they are now while the rich teams just get
>richer. 

 It's true that the rich teams would get richer, BUT they could not use those
 riches to bring in highly paid players once at the salary cap (unless players
 would play for less on a contending team).  This makes it more difficult for
 players on franchises like Montreal to find new markets at the prices so high
 the Expos can't compete; teams Montreal will thus be more likely to sign some
 of their young talent that they will otherwise lose almost entirely.

>  What the cap will do is take us back to the bad old days of yesteryear where
>a few rich teams get the talent and hold on. Once again only a few teams will
>be able to win and the gap between rich and poor teams will grow even more.
>
>  It's a terrible idea,
>  George

 Nope, a salary cap would make the leagues more competitive.  That doesn't make
 it a good idea, it just wouldn't do what George is suggesting.

RE                     <<< Note 178.353 by MIMS::ROLLINS_R >>>

> Nope, a salary cap would make the leagues more competitive.  That doesn't make
> it a good idea, it just wouldn't do what George is suggesting.

  Spoken like a true owner. In fact, baseball, which has no cap, is the most
competitive major team sport. Before free agency the American League was
basically a tune up for the Yankees to play the World Series and even the
National League was a race between 3 or 4 contenders, usually the same teams
from year to year. 

  Once free agency came along the dynasties were pretty much done and now it
seems that just about every team gets their chance to be a winner. 

  Also, even with free agency winning involves building a team through the farm
system then adding a few high priced free agents the way Cleveland did this
year. Trying to go out and buy a championship just plane doesn't work. 

  With a cap it will be much more difficult for teams to find guys to fill
a slot and the poor teams might not even be able to make the Cap. The rich
teams will get so rich that they will be able to afford much larger farm
systems giving them a much bigger edge.

  The cap helps the rich teams get richer. It would make winning for the
poor teams almost impossible and would make free agency so difficult that
the same teams will win from year to year.

  Just look at basketball, that's pretty much what you have there.

  George

    As has been mentioned, it really is amazing just how similar the game
    stands today (owners vs. players) as it was 80 years ago.  From the 
    cheap owners (Commiskey) to the lousy food served in many stadiums.
    
    Ebbetts Field was quite a place huh?
    
    One other thing that I wasn't aware of was just how far down Walter
    Johnson dropped in his delivery.  Never knew a sidearmer could throw so
    hard.
    
    					Steve  

 >> Spoken like a true owner. In fact, baseball, which has no cap, is the most
 >> competitive major team sport. 
    
    And what do you base this statement on? Toronto is two time dfending
    champ and perennial title contender and Atlanta is fast becoming the
    Buffalo Bills of baseball. Meanwhile, though the 'Boys have won two
    in a row the NFl is the very paragon of parity, there is no current
    hockey dynasty and basketball's dynasty now plays baseball in Birming-
    ham.
    
 >> The cap helps the rich teams get richer. It would make winning for the
 >> poor teams almost impossible and would make free agency so difficult that
 >> the same teams will win from year to year.

 >> Just look at basketball, that's pretty much what you have there.

    Not a fair comparison. In basketball one great player and two or three 
    very good players can make you a contender (see Indiana Pacers) that's
    not true in baseball. You can't build a baseball team by surrounding
    three guys with good role players, it doesn't work (see Pittsbuyrgh
    Pirates). 

    Since it is fairly obvious that Michael Jordan quit basketball because
    the 'cap forced him to sell his talent for 10cents on the dollar the
    cap did bring some parity to nba.  As a non-jordan, anti-bull fan I'd
    still like to see him play but he needed about 12-15 million /year,
    bottom to justify his playing (using market economies).
    
    Yankees lost heir domiance 10 years before free agency and latter got
    them back to the top in 70s.  
    
    But in baseball today the lack of a cap has forced good management to
    be the key to success and in some case has pushed towns that are
    rightfully minor league to consipire to destroy baseball if necessary
    in order to hang on using 'cap or some other perversion.

RE        <<< Note 178.356 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>    And what do you base this statement on? Toronto is two time dfending
>    champ and perennial title contender and Atlanta is fast becoming the
>    Buffalo Bills of baseball. 

  Toronto has really slacked off. They are not nearly the team they were the
past two years. And sure Atlanta has had a pretty good streak going but they've
got nothing to show for it.

  Meanwhile look at how Atlanta and the Twins went from last to 1st to get into
the World Series and look at the turn over in division winners. You don't see
that in other sports. 

  This year the Expos, Dodgers, Astros, Yankees, and Indians came out of
obsecurity to be contenders while the Giants and Blue Jays faded away. Atlanta
and the White Sox hung in to continue contending.

  Anything can happen and no matter how bad your team is doing, next year your
team could be right in the thick of the battle. Or maybe not, you just don't
know.

  I see that as a big plus and it's caused mostly by free agency. Put on a
cap and everything will slow down with the same winners year after year just
like we had before free agency.

  George

>> Meanwhile look at how Atlanta and the Twins went from last to 1st 
>> to get into the World Series and look at the turn over in division 
>> winners. You don't see that in other sports. 

   Atlanta developed a core of great young players that has helped them
   stay near the top since then. A salary cap won't preclude a team from
   doing that again. It may prevent them from keeping them all indefinitely.
   The Twins  were a case of several players having career years. A salary 
   cap won't stop that either because the Twins payroll wasn't near the
   top anyways.


>> I see that as a big plus and it's caused mostly by free agency. Put on a
>> cap and everything will slow down with the same winners year after year just
>> like we had before free agency.
  
   That may be your gut feeling but there's really no evidence to support it.
    

    
    I, for one, like what the salary cap is doing to the NFL and I think it
    would be good for the MLB (Im from Pittsburgh).   The salary cap in the
    NFL caused more movement in players than I can remember.
    
    If the baseball players want the big money, perhaps having them sign
    non-guarantee contracts + incentives (like the NFL) maybe the answer.  

    
    	I like the salary cap idea, but I don't like how they are going to
    enforce it. I don't like how the NFL is enforcing it. For the primary
    reason that Phil Simms played 15 years for the Giants. The Salary Cap
    forced him to be cut/retire.
    	In MLB if a team drafts a player and he stays with the team for
    X amount of years. That team should be able to keep the player. How
    would Red Sox fans like it if they drafted Roger Clemens. Then when
    it was time for him to make 5 million a year. The Sox don't sign him
    because they would be over the salary cap.
    	In any sport if you draft a player and he has been on your team
    his entire career. That player should be allowed to be paid as much as
    he is worth without effecting the salary cap of the team. If you
    acquire a player in a trade, same thing. If you acquire a player via
    free agency, after so many years with the team. He shouldn't count
    against the cap.
    	Basketball almost has it correct. You are allowed to sign your own
    players to any amount of money. The NBA needs work on how they figure
    out the Salary slots though. Its a shame when a team loses a player to
    injury or death (Reggie). Then only gets to use half of his base year
    contract. The guy is making 4 million a year, and you get a slot of
    600K to sign a replacement? Then should take the average salary for the
    length of the contract. Then get half of that for a salary slot.
    
    Ron

RE        <<< Note 178.359 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>   Atlanta developed a core of great young players that has helped them
>   stay near the top since then. A salary cap won't preclude a team from
>   doing that again. It may prevent them from keeping them all indefinitely.

  Actually it works just the other way around. Without a salary cap the
Braves would have a hard time keeping the team together since various players
would go elsewhere for big salaries. With the salary cap each player not only
needs to find someone who wants him, there has to be a slot for him to be paid.

  The result is that players are less likely to move and it's easier to keep a
championship team together. That in turn makes it more difficult for other
teams to win and baseball becomes less competitive.

>   That may be your gut feeling but there's really no evidence to support it.
    
  There's plenty of evidence. Just take a look at the division winners before
free agency and after. Before it was the same teams year after year, after
it was anyone's game. Then compare baseball to any other major sport that
limits free agency and salaries. There's no other sport in which any team
can win from year to year they way they do in baseball.

  George

    
    Ask the players union if they'd accept total free agency.  For
    everyone in baseball from day one.  
    
    Bet they find a way to decline.
    
    And the reason is the players aren't stupid - they know when they have
    a good thing and the good thing is to maintain just a few players
    available for free agency every year.  Its the best way to drive up
    prices (several teams may want the 1 or 2 great 1st basemen available).
    
    Keep no cap, but make total free agency a reality and you'll really
    see capitalism in effect (unlike you have now) - and prices will come
    down when the supply equals the demand.
    
    - Sean
    

  I don't think the owners would go for total free agency since they would
get no return at all from the players they developed through the farm system.

  Under the current system, an owner can trade away everyone for a couple
consecutive "classes". That is, they can get a bunch of talented guys who
are about at the same level, say 1st and 2nd year A ball.

  Then they bring them along through AA, AAA, Rookie Year. When they hit about
the 2nd and 3rd year of the majors they buy a few free agents and take a shot
at picking up all the marbles before the talent gets away. That's what
Cleveland is doing. Atlanta managed to get two groups in a row so they were
able to take one shot around '91, '92 and they are set to take another shot
around '95, '96. The Expos are also ready for their shot.

  With total free agency the players would disappear as soon as they hit the
majors and there would be no way to build a winner.

  George

    I liked the idea someone had on a call in show last night.
    Cap for 0-3 years experience with a team
    Cap (higher) for 4-8 years with a team
    No cap for players on a team more than 8 years...
    
    This allows guys like Monk, Simms or whoever to stay and finish their
    careers with the same team.  Same with a Whitaker, Trammell, Ripken,
    etc.... if they then go to another team, they'd go under the 0-3 cap.
    

    >> Actually it works just the other way around. Without a salary 
    >> cap the Braves would have a hard time keeping the team together 
    >> since various players would go elsewhere for big salaries. With 
    >> the salary cap each player not only needs to find someone who wants 
    >> him, there has to be a slot for him to be paid.

       It's you that has it backward, George. Without a cap a team like 
       the Braves with a superstation, a big money owner and in a hot and
       growing market could stockpile players. They could sign a Fred McGriff
       away from San Diego that can't or won't pay him. 
    
    >> The result is that players are less likely to move and it's easier to 
    >> keep a championship team together. That in turn makes it more difficult 
    >> for other teams to win and baseball becomes less competitive.

       That really hasn't happened in basketball which has the most
       experience with the cap. Again, if anything, it's quite the opp-
       osite. There may be an impetus to sign superstars to long term con-
       tracts but player movement in general is anything but stagnant.
       Follow the Suns note, if you doubt it. And in baseball, the Braves, 
       Toronto and San Francisco have stayed together, it's just more diff-
       icult to string titles together in baseball. Toronto stinks this year 
       with essentially the same team that won it all last year. That just 
       doesn't happen in basketball.
    
    >> There's plenty of evidence. Just take a look at the division winners 
    >> before free agency and after. Before it was the same teams year after 
    >> year, after it was anyone's game. Then compare baseball to any other 
    >> major sport that limits free agency and salaries. There's no other 
    >> sport in which any team can win from year to year they way they do 
    >> in baseball.
    
       The salary cap does not eliminate free agency. Players are still free
       to sell their services to the highest bidder. Basketball even with
       it's salary cap is rife with overpaid, underacheiving players. It
       just takes far fewer good players to make a contending basketball
       team than it does a contending baseball team especially when 
       nearly everyone makes the playoffs.
    

RE        <<< Note 178.365 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>       It's you that has it backward, George. Without a cap a team like 
>       the Braves with a superstation, a big money owner and in a hot and
>       growing market could stockpile players. They could sign a Fred McGriff
>       away from San Diego that can't or won't pay him. 

  This was the argument that the owners made when free agency was a big issue
about 20 years ago. With free agency, they argued, only the rich teams will
win.

  What has happened is exactly opposite. Look at the period before free agency.
As I said, the American League was just a warm up for the Yankees who won 3 out
of 4 years. Over in the National League the 1st half century it was most often
the N.Y. Giants, the 2nd half the Brookland then L.A. Dodgers.
    
  Since free agency no one can buy a champion because the talent gets spread
around. Take a look at the division winners of the last 20 years, there is
seldom more than 1 of 4 that repeats and often 0 of 4 repeat. Also look at
where they come from, we hear every one complain about the Pirates yet they
were one of the teams that managed to win 3 in a row and came one lucky swing
of the bat from Francisco Cabrera from being in the World Series.

  Since the turn of the century there has never been a time in which baseball
has been so competitive as they have been for the last 20 years or so. Nor has
there been a time since so many fans have had the World Series in their town. 

  It ain't broke and it should definitely not be fixed.

  George

  >> It ain't broke and it should definitely not be fixed.
    
     This is the first time in 90 years that there hasn't been a World
     Series. I'd say that means that the game is *very* broke.  More teams
     are competitive nowadays as compared to when ball players were nothing
     more than chattel but that's really no great shakes. The point is that
     the cap and free agency are not mutually exclusive.

RE        <<< Note 178.369 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     This is the first time in 90 years that there hasn't been a World
>     Series. I'd say that means that the game is *very* broke.  

  When I said that if it ain't broke don't fix it I was referring to the fact
that before the owners upset the apple cart everything was running along fine
as it has been for the last 20 years. 

  The owners attempted to "fix" baseball with this cap even though it was not
broken and only then did the wheels fall off. Had they left it alone we'd be
watching the end of the division races right now preparing for the playoffs. 

  George 

>that before the owners upset the apple cart everything was running along fine
>as it has been for the last 20 years. 
    
    no they only have had 7 strikes in the last 20 years.

  Right, and most of them didn't amount to anything. If you asked the average
fan I'll bet the only one they could recall would be the '81 strike which was
caused when the owners pulled the same stunt. 

  The pattern I'm seeing here is that if the owners would just forget about
the salary cap, everything would be fine.

  George

    >> When I said that if it ain't broke don't fix it I was referring to 
    >> the fact that before the owners upset the apple cart everything was 
    >> running along fine as it has been for the last 20 years. 
    
       The owners are so pleased with what the last 20 years has wrought
       and the course that baseball was on that they sacrificed tens of 
       millions of dollars to straighten it all out. 
    

RE        <<< Note 178.373 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>       The owners are so pleased with what the last 20 years has wrought
>       and the course that baseball was on that they sacrificed tens of 
>       millions of dollars to straighten it all out. 
    
  This assumes that what the owners did makes sense. It doesn't. They have
essentially killed (or at least wounded) the golden goose by being too greedy.

  And that's not the only thing they have messed up, they have damaged the game
by arranging their TV coverage in such a way as to try to turn baseball into a
"big event" sport like football (i.e. "Baseball Night in America"). It's not
a big event sport and never will be. As George Will says baseball is the
national pastime, not a big event sport. It's meant to be watched night after
night at a leisurely pace.

  Toss in the fact that they can't (or won't) elect a commissioner because
they can't have anyone doing things that are "good for baseball" (read bad
for business) and I think it should be pretty clear just how out of touch
with reality the owners really are.

  George

Last night's episode of BASEBALL gave an interesting perspective on the
strike. It talked about the lawsuit filed by the Federal League in the 
early 1910's that was in the court system for 8 years and was finally
ruled on by the Supreme Court around 1922. The decision was that baseball
is exempt from the country's anti-trust laws, and is the basis for most
of the crap going on today. The assumption was that there would be a 
COMMISIONER in place to balance the interests of the various groups.

I never really thought about it before, but it seems pretty weird, kinda
like a license to steal. 

This decision is evidently being reviewed, according to the news this
morning. Does anyone understand the legal situation as it stands? I may
have to reconsider my position on this - it's possible that the players
are doing the "right thing" to fix an old, intolerable situation. The
news this morning also said that next years spring training is now in 
jeopardy.

josh 

                   <<< Note 178.375 by VAOP28::Rice "tata" >>>

>  This decision is evidently being reviewed, according to the news this
>morning. Does anyone understand the legal situation as it stands? 

  Congress is currently holding committee meetings for the purpose of deciding
if the exemption should be withdrawn. They have called in the representatives
for the owners and players and will use this opportunity today to make vocal
public statements against the players and owners which should go over well in
this election year.

  Next January they will take up the issue and right now it's probably about
50-50 as to whether they pull the exemption. The owners are claiming that if
the exemption is pulled, they won't be able to run as many farm teams. They
currently average about 5 and say that will go down to 2 without an exemption.

  The players are in favor of the exemption being pulled.

  Yes, next season is in jeopardy.

  George

 > The players are in favor of the exemption being pulled.

I guess they are.

Is there any precedent for the exemption? Am I missing something,
or is the exemption a totally outrageous violation of basic
American rights? The guys that set this up are the same guys that
banned blacks from the game, set up the Black Sox scandal, etc....

josh

See it goes like this. In 1922 the Supreme Court ruled that baseball was not
a business and therefore exempt from anti-trust regulation. In the Curt Flood
case the Supreme Court said that baseball should not qualify for the
anti-trust exemption BUT it decided that it was up to Congress to change
baseball's status. Congress has so far not done that.

What this means is that unlike the NFL or NBA where the players can go to
court to argue that the owners are in violation of anti-trust laws (salary cap,
draft, etc.) baseball players cannot take that route since baseball has that
anti-trust exemption. The courts have consistently ruled that a salary cap,
unless it is acheived via collective bargaining, violates anti-trust and
labor laws. If baseball did not have the exemption then when the owners impose
their last offer - which includes a salary cap - the players could decertify
their union, sue in court, and the owners would very likey lose in court
on anti-trust grounds. Since baseball has the exemption the players cannot
win in an anti-trust suit; leaving very little choice than to strike and
hit the owners where it counts.

The Crazy Met

RE                   <<< Note 178.377 by VAOP28::Rice "tata" >>>

>Is there any precedent for the exemption? Am I missing something,
>or is the exemption a totally outrageous violation of basic
>American rights? 

  The exemption was allowed by the 1922 Supreme Court. It is an exemption from
anti-trust laws enacted around the turn of the century to bust up monopolies
created by late 19th century moguls of the industrial revolution. The feeling
was that baseball was more of a sport than a business and didn't need to
be restricted by things like the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

>The guys that set this up are the same guys that
>banned blacks from the game, set up the Black Sox scandal, etc....

  No the Supreme Court had nothing to do with those things. Of course if you
tried to ban a minority from the game today the Courts wouldn't allow it but
they would probably cite the 1964 Civil Rights Act so it's not clear that the
1922 Court acted improperly. I suppose they could have been creative and forced
the league to admit blacks under the 14th Amendment but the 1922 Court was
fairly conservative and not into judicial activism. 

  The 1922 Supreme Court had nothing to do with the Black Sox scandal.

  George

re .374

>>a big event sport and never will be. As George Will says baseball is the
>>national pastime, not a big event sport. It's meant to be watched night after
>>night at a leisurely pace.

Actually, it's meant to be watched day after day at a leisurely pace.
                                   --- ----- ---

re last couple:

Excellent explanation, TCM.  You have made clear to Josh (but probably not
to MaB) why the players have no choice other than to strike.

George, I think he meant the owners when speaking of those who gave us
the color line, etc, not the Court.

As a long time student of the history of the game, I've been interested
to read how revelatory the TV series has been to many of you.  If any
of you are interested in following up, may I recommend Eliot Asinof's
book on the Black Sox scandal, Eight Men Out (there was a movie with
the same title based on the book, but of course the book goes deeper).
Not only does he illuminate the event itself, but you get a wonderful
sense of the time, the years immediately after World War I.

A week from today, I'll be in LA.  My brother-in-law promised to tape
the Burns doc for me, and I'm very much looking forward to it (though
I admit my anticipation is dampened, since I learned that Billy
Crystal makes an appearance).

Steve

Interesting development yesterday, for whatever it's worth.

Congress has said that if they don't resolve this thing (by spring training
I think) they said they will revoke the anti-trust exemption from the
owners.

The players immediately responded with the statement that if that happens
they will immediately file an anti-trust suit.

Stay tuned folks, it ain't even begun to get interesting yet....



'Saw

In todays Constipation, it was revealed that Greg Maddux ace pitcher for the
Braves, and one of my favorite players in the game lost 1.1m in salary for
the duration of the strike.  However, if he wins the Cy Young, his third in
a row, he will receive $750,000.  Greg is obviously the leading candidate to
win this in the NL.  GM John Scheurholz (sp?) said he will pay him, but really
has a problem with this.  Maddux says that he turned down more money to go
to Atlanta rather than the Yankees, so he loaded his contract with incentives.
I believe the Yanks offer was 30m over five years and Atlanta's was 25 over
five.  Is Greg a little out of touch?  He lives in a "Mansion" on a golf
course at the Country Club of the South (he's a golf junkie) that cost about
1m that in the New York area would have cost many times that amount.  Not
to mention he couldn't have used is clubs nearly as much due to climate.

If they struck, should they really expect to receive these incentives?

    
    I don't know if this was posted anywhere already, Don't remember seeing
    it. Any hoo the Ken Burns Baseball series is available through BMG
    Video Service. 1-800-598-3636 or 
    
    Ken Burns's Baseball
    BMG Video Service
    P.O. Box 5203
    Clifton, NJ 07015-9644
    
    You can buy the whole set or  preview each for 10 days. If you keep the
    first one, Baseball, A National Heirloom, you get it at intro price of
    $4.95 + $3.47 shipping and handling. All future tapes arrive about
    every 6 weeks and cost $24.95, if you decide to keep em.
    
    Later,
    	   Dave 

re: .382

The incentive is based on winning an award; the writers have chosen to
give out awards for 1994. So if Maddux wins the Cy Young award I see
no reason why he should not get the money. The incentive is based on 
his performance during the season and he accomplished that goal.

The Crazy Met

    This sure feels strange, but I'm gonna hafta agree with TC* on this
    one.  Most incentives are spelled out very specificly and if the 
    player accomplishes them he's entitled to the compensation.
    
    My question is what happens to the non-awards, ie batting title,
    rbi leader, etc?  Are the people who were at the top of the list
    when the season 'ended' declared the winners and compenated 
    accordingly if they have those type of incentives in there [sic]
    contracts?
    
    
    billl

I think that the decision was to give the batting title, HR title, etc.
to whoever was leading at the time of the strike. For the batting title
it would require 3.1 plate appearances for number of games a team had
played.

The Crazy Met

    
> Is Greg a little out of touch?  He lives in a "Mansion" on a golf
> course at the Country Club of the South (he's a golf junkie) that cost about
> 1m that in the New York area would have cost many times that amount.  Not
> to mention he couldn't have used is clubs nearly as much due to climate.
  
    So here's an example of a player who didn't grab at the absolute
    highest buck available and he's still "out of touch".  Schuerholz is
    grandstanding a bit; he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.  
    Maddux was having one of the great pitching seasons of all time and 
    really needn't explain himself, legally or otherwise.  There's a major 
    labor dispute on and he's in the category of players most hurt by 
    it, regardless of his personal views.
    
    glenn
         

Re: 178.387

-< The situation was foreseeable last winter, when he signed... >-

Um, it was two winters ago.  What I am trying to say here is that these
players are "out of touch".  When the players struck they should been willing
to forego all of their incentives too.  They are a union.  Doug Jones of 
Houston is about bankrupt because of this strike.  He never had an opportunity
to write an incentive based contract.  Then we have Steve "Seven time drug
offender" Howe saying that the owners don't care about the players.  I am on
the players side, believe it or not, in this strike.  But the player's also
need to get a little dose of reality.  Sure there are teams that are making 
money, and most of those make less than what two players on the pitching staff
are getting paid.  


>>So here's an example of a player who didn't grab at the absolute
    highest buck available and he's still "out of touch".  


Yes he is out of touch and so are you.  Do you think the consumer price index
is the same in N.Y. as it is in Atlanta?  I have heard the argument why should 
the player's police the game for the owners.  I think the salary cap is wrong,
but what about arbitration.  It's good in some situations, but again, I will
use the example of the Atlanta Braves.  Jeff Blauser, pretty average SS, has
a career year.  He is making about 1m.  Arbitration gives him 3.5m.  Instead
of hitting .320 he is hitting about .250.  And what about Barry Bonds?  If
he becomes the template, .340 average, 40 hr, 120 rbi and guareented a luxury
suite on the road, and a 7m salary where does it end?   It ends people when
you can't afford to go to games anymore.  I went to a game at Atlanta-Fulton
County shortly before the strike.  Great tickets, behing the visiting team 
dugout.  They were $20.00 a piece.  I brought my girlfriend, a friend of mine
brought his son.  We scrambled to get down there for the opening pitch.  We
didn't have time to stop for dinner.  I got five hot dogs and four cokes.
This was $28.50.  So with parking and tickets and "dinner", we spent $115.50. 
But it was a great game.  Maddux pitched and won.   How many people though
can afford this amount of money to see baseball?  I wouldn't even try to get
season tickets.   

I hope they (players and owners) find a middle ground in all this.  In Ken
Burns Baseball it was told that when the game started out it was for the 
elite class, well for another reason and another topic, there isn't enough
people in most major league cities that are in that class.

That's all,

Paul

RE           <<< Note 178.388 by AIMTEC::MORABITO_P "Hotlanta Rocks" >>>

>Um, it was two winters ago.  What I am trying to say here is that these
>players are "out of touch".  When the players struck they should been willing
>to forego all of their incentives too.  

  I think they are willing to forego just about everything that happens during
the strike. The issue here is that these awards are given for things that
happened before the strike.

>But the player's also
>need to get a little dose of reality.  Sure there are teams that are making 
>money, and most of those make less than what two players on the pitching staff
>are getting paid.  

  Well this is the "reality" the owners would like to have you believe. I
wonder why they keep their books closed and forego the opportunity to prove
that what they are claiming is true?

>Yes he is out of touch and so are you.  Do you think the consumer price index
>is the same in N.Y. as it is in Atlanta?  

  I don't think the players are as effected by the high prices in New York as
other people. If you make $2,000,000 a year you don't have to pay as high a
percentage for living expenses as someone making $50,000 a year. Players on
NY teams can keep a house anywhere in the country (world for that matter) and
live out of an apartment during the regular season.

>If [Blauser]
>becomes the template, .340 average, 40 hr, 120 rbi and guaranteed a luxury
>suite on the road, and a 7m salary where does it end?   

  Well 1st of all I believe that Jeff Blauser is critically important to the
Braves. Yes his numbers are off this year but there are times when he
carries the team. And also you don't need the same numbers at SS that you 
would at 1st base or in the outfield.

>It ends people when
>you can't afford to go to games anymore.  

  There's no reason to believe that there is any relationship between ticket
prices and player salaries. Do you really believe that if the owners get their
cap they will lower ticket prices and give the difference back to the fans? I
don't. I think they will charge the highest price they can regardless of what
they have to pay for salaries. 

  George

> Well this is the "reality" the owners would like to have you believe. I
> wonder why they keep their books closed and forego the opportunity to prove
> that what they are claiming is true?
    
    I agree.  If Greg Maddux and I are the ones "out of touch", then why is
    Maddux receiving the bonus?  Because he's legally entitled to it,
    that's why.  I happen to think that notions like players renouncing all
    potential sources of income on principle and owners giving fans breaks 
    on ticket prices out of the goodness of their hearts are truly 
    naive.  I'm not saying that I feel good (or sorry) for Greg Maddux or 
    anything dramatic like that, but it's certainly not "out of touch" to 
    believe that on the open market he's worth every penny of his $6M 
    salary and that many people will pay top dollar to see him earn 
    that money.  That's reality; the free market reality.
    
    glenn
    

    FLAME ON
    
    Just heard on the radio that as a taxpayer in Fulton County, GA, I will
    have the privelege of paying more <r.o. ing> property taxes next year
    to help offset the payments on the revenue bonds used to build the
    stadium (or something like that!).  This was due to the decreased
    revenues that the Stadium Authority received on account of the <r.o. ing> 
    BASEBALL STRIKE.  I think the amount is something along the lines of
    $2M.  Infrickincredible.
    
    Oughta get Turner to sell a herd of buffalo instead.
    
    Consider me
    
    PissedoffUMDan 
       

Flame,

Who do you think get will get the revenue from the lease of luxury boxes 
for the new Olympic Stadium once it becomes a baseball arena?  It won't be 
you and me.  This strike is a lose - lose proposition for the fans.  Not
only did we not see the conclusion of the baseball season, but we will be
paying for it's cancellation one way or the other.

Paul

    Who else?  Either the owners or the stadium authority.  Think they'll
    ever lower our taxes if they pay off the stadium early?  Yeah, right.
    
    I have been searching the papers for more news on this.  If it ever
    appears it ought to be sent to all of those cities contemplating
    granting tax breaks or floating bonds to attract a pro team.
    
    UMDan

	Ravitch (sp) is out as negotiator for the owners, John Harrington from
	the Red Sox is in.

	Kevin

Ravitch was just a puppet for the owners, as is Selig, and as Harrigton will 
be.  The sooner the owners realize that they are not going to break this 
union, the sooner baseball will resume.  

>This strike is a lose - lose proposition for the fans.  Not
>only did we not see the conclusion of the baseball season, but we will be
>paying for it's cancellation one way or the other.

Only if you agree to.  The owners/players can't take your money unless
YOU give it to them.

By the way, the owners aren't going to break the union...there will be
one no matter what happens.  But they (the owners) will get a 'correction'
in salaries...which (IMO) is what this really is about.

Dec 7 is the next big day (the day when players can declare for arbitration).
If there isn't a negotiated settlement, the owners will impose the new
salary structure.

    Gammon was interesting Sunday for a few reasons
    
    1.  He's no longer an owners mouthpiece - he was hard on them; mainly
    for stupidly wasting money (usa ad) while cutting personnel
    
    2.  he mentioned a theory that with 4 year free agency in the future
    that players may stay in the minors longer and veterans at reduced
    salaries may play longer
    
    	this could lead to a higher (that is more error free) type of game
    which I welcome
    
    Now could this mean a slow down is the escalation in ticket prices
    because of some reduced salaries?
    
    	nah

    Paper today said that the owners have backed off on their position
    regarding the salary cap, opting instead for a payroll or revenue tax.
    
    And, in another note, while many clubs have laid off employees and
    imposed other cost cutting measures, no one must have told the GMs. 
    They are all staying at the luxurious Phoenician, a huge resort where
    standard rooms start at over $200 per night.
    
    UMDan
    

    
    >>And, in another note, while many clubs have laid off employees and
    >>imposed other cost cutting measures, no one must have told the GMs. 
    >>They are all staying at the luxurious Phoenician, a huge resort where
    >>standard rooms start at over $200 per night.
    
    Sounds like the mgmt of a certain company I know of.....
    
    JaKe
    

    Jake,
    
    Not to go down a rathole, but where in Pitt. do you live?  I spent the
    early years of my life (1955 - 63) in West Mifflin.  Still have 
    relatives living in Munhall.  Used to make the twice yearly pilgrimage
    to Pitt. from DC (Easter and Thanksgiving).  Miss the chipped ham from
    Isalys (sp), and seeing the red hot ingots from the mill while driving 
    over the bridge from (mumble) Hill.
    
    UMDan
    

    I live in Pitcairn, which is a small town that was a huge railroad town
    many many years ago, and completely surrounded by MOnroeville.
    
    JaKe
    

    >    I live in Pitcairn, 

    And just what in the hell do you know about Pennsylvania, Heiserp.
    
    JaKe
    

    I thought that MikeH was wishing the rest of Pitcairn
    condolences.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

Boy, it looks like Fehr is 'banking' on the courts to win this one for
the union.  A strategy that will dramatically change MLB, one way or the
other.  If I were a player, I'm not sure I'd want to roll the dice this
way.  There are millions on the table right now.  There will be a lot
less if the owners win this thing.

It's obvious, by their not offering a counter-proposal, that the union
doesn't want to bargain under the current situation.  This "failure
to bargain" will be the owners' reason for implementing their new salary
cap system, which will cause the union to sue the owners for not bargaining
in good faith.

This is going to be fun.

The $trike didn't stop the SF Giants from sending out their Cactus League
season ticket renewal form right on schedule...  I've got a rotten feeling
that I'm shelling out buck$ 3 months in advance to see instructional league
talent.  Unfortunately it's either that or lose the seats for a long long
time.  $hit.

> Boy, it looks like Fehr is 'banking' on the courts to win this one for
> the union.  A strategy that will dramatically change MLB, one way or the
> other.  If I were a player, I'm not sure I'd want to roll the dice this
> way.  There are millions on the table right now.  There will be a lot
> less if the owners win this thing.
    
    I look at it a little differently.  I think that Fehr's strategy of an
    end-of-season strike has already so miserably failed that he's left with 
    little recourse but to battle for total player freedom in the courts.
    The problem now is that whether he settles or not, and even if he wins 
    in court, overall the players are looking at drastic pay cuts even in 
    a completely unrestricted talent market.  The money of last year 
    (never mind the incredible money of 2-3 years ago under the old CBS 
    TV contract) is long gone.  It was over a month ago that the owners 
    pulled their guarantee of 50% of existing revenues, $1B salary "floor" 
    (they had to, no doubt that kind of money just won't be there).
    
    What I hope now happens is that similar with the NFL, the players
    technically dissolve their union in order to pursue this in the courts 
    while they return to work next spring.  I don't see this as being so 
    terrible as opposed to settling.  They may win on the principles 
    they've been arguing (while big losers financially), and maybe just 
    maybe some legal (overturning the antitrust exemption would be a good
    start) as well as financial sanity will return to the sport.
    
    glenn
    

  Last I heard the players were expected to offer a counter proposal. The note
a few back seems to suggest that they didn't. Is that something that just
happened today? 

  In any case, another possibility is that the players feel that the owners
blinked last week (withdrawing their insistence on a cap) and are tightening
the thumb screws. Maybe they feel that the owners are afraid of having their
anti-trust exemption lifted by Congress and are about to cave in. 

  It appears that something happened to change the owners feelings. When they
took the big hit of canceling playoffs and the World Series, just about
everyone was saying that the players had really messed up and nothing would
stop the owners from holding out through the middle of next year. 

  The owners don't make nearly as much early in the year as they do at the end
but holding out until July would really put pressure on the players. And
there's also the possibility of playing with scabs. 

  But none of that happened. After taking the big World Series loss, the owners
dropped their demand for a cap. Something has them scared and the only thing I
can see is the threat from Congress of losing their anti-trust exemption. 

  The players probably see the owners as being on the ropes. Makes sense that
they would apply the pressure to see how far the owners will cave. They can
always offer a counter proposal and take the "tax" in time for opening day.

  George 

>  Last I heard the players were expected to offer a counter proposal. The note
>a few back seems to suggest that they didn't. Is that something that just
>happened today? 

In today's USA Today it is being reported that the players are not going to
make a counter-proposal.  The owners don't expect one, and feel that they
have no choice but to implement their system next week to insure a '95
season.

None of the articles I've read over the last 2 weeks claim that the
players have an upper-hand.  Fehr keeps saying that this 'script'
has been laid out by the owners for over 2 years, and they're just
implementing it as planned.  I feel that he's going along with it,
putting all hope on the courts.  If he doesn't win there, he's lost
the war.

  But still there is the question, if the owners were willing to hold out for
the cap and lose all that playoff and world series income, why back down now?

  Making this offer in time to save the World Series made some sense.

  Not making any offer now and saying "we took the big hit, now we're going
to squeeze the players through mid summer" makes some sense.

  But what kind of sense is it for the owners to insist on the cap and lose
the playoff money then turn around and soften their position in November?

  Sounds to me like they are afraid of losing the anti-trust exemption and are
getting cold feet. If that's the case, then by playing hardball the players
could win. 

  George 

> But still there is the question, if the owners were willing to hold out for
> the cap and lose all that playoff and world series income, why back down now?
    
    They're not backing down, nor for all we know have they softened their
    proposal one bit.  There's no reason for the owners to be religious 
    about something called "The Cap".  I don't know the details of the 
    hundreds of pages in this new "tax" proposal, but one thing for 
    certain about it is that it still involves a maximum payroll, and if 
    you throw a 100% tax (or 50%, or even 25%) on anything above that max 
    and remove some guarantees, it's a hard salary cap by another name and 
    the overall deal might be even worse for the players.  The players' 
    union has explicitly acknowledged this possibility and is hedging about 
    not having enough time to review the plan, but more likely as Joe 
    alluded to the union understands the crux of the offer, doesn't like 
    it, and would just as soon battle on in the courts.
    
    glenn
    

The owners are a mess.  Who was the owner that gave Bagwell a 27.5 million/
4 year contract?  The guy has had one great year (100 games) and maybe one 
other good season.  If the owners want to meet the enemy, they should only 
look in the mirror.  They want sanity in salaries and they give a possible
fluke 27M.  At 6M+/yr, this amounts to  about 1/6 of what a the proposed 
salary cap will be.  Insane.


Paul

    
    
    One good year for Bagwell.  Get real he won the NL ROY and has been
    a consistant preformer ever since.  He will post .300 30 100 numbers
    for the next 10 years.
    
    Jerry

  but why throw that much money at Bagwell (who'll obviously be great forever
  as most former redsoxs are) if you're trying to cry poverty? What the owners
  need is a good old lesson in colusion without getting caught from the good
  ole boys of the NFL....

  mike

    
    The problem the owners have had in the past is a willingness to throw
    millions at free agents - who, often on the verge of 30 when they
    achieve free agency, are on the whole bad investments (the few
    exceptions being guys like Maddux and Bonds who were only 26, and short
    incentive-laden contracts).
    
    Bagwell's the guy you want to give a big contract to - he's worth it,
    at least as much as any player's worth $7 million/yr.
    
    Joe

  ... and then there's the problem that not all the owners think alike. 

  There is one group of owners who have plenty of money and are willing to pay
big bucks to get the best players all the time. At the other end there are poor
owners who can never spend those bucks. 

  Then in the middle there are probably owners who will spend when they have a
reasonable shot at winning but will clean house during rebuilding years. 

  If the poor owners and middle owners joint forces to demand a cap then the
poor owners hold out and refuse to support a 2/3rds vote when the middle owners
cave in and want to join the rich owners, you have the mess we have now. 

  Anyway, this morning's Boston Globe is reporting that the upcoming deadline
for arbitration is being extended a couple weeks and that the players will
now have more time to review the "tax" proposal. This seems to be going on
in Atlanta.

  George

>  What the owners
>  need is a good old lesson in colusion without getting caught from the good
>  ole boys of the NFL....

You got it, Mike.  To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with some
type of rules regarding 'salary structure', on some scale.  And the scale
can be revisited each year, looking at where revenues are going.

The reason collusion killed the owners is because it was explicitly in the 
contract that this was not allowed. NFL agreement never did have that clause.

The Crazy Met

    Well I see there's a chance that non-union players will be invited to
    suit up next spring to break the strike.  Both Shaugnessy and Whiteside
    of the Globe talked about this today.
    
    I don't know how I feel about the owners unilaterally installing the
    cap.  It might be entertaining to see the playing out of this drama.
    
    Some possibilities:
    
    	1.  The "new" league that someone has going.  Players whose
    specific contract has expired could enroll here.  Would mlb try to stop
    them by invoking reserve clause.
    		Would any self-respecting judge uphold such a ridiculous
    clause but with Republicanism rampant naything is possible.
    
    	2.  If no new league how about winner take all tournements.
    
    	3.  Players at end of contract may with blessing of union show up
    "ready to work".  Globe says refusal to allow these players back could 
    result in back paying being awarded in a future judgement (with
    penalties?).
    
    	The ultimate irony would be that so much havoc results that an
    entirely new form of baseball emerges from the dust based on free
    market rules with 6 teams in NewYork area, 2 - 3 around Boston and none
    in say Pittsburgh, Milwaukee.  That is the small markets that
    precipitated the armageddon losing all.
    
    	Franchise values in this scenario would essentially start at the
    value of the ballpark lease arrangement.

    
    Well, I'm come to a decision w.r.t. replacement players/scab games.
    
    I _really_ hope they go through with them.
    
    More than that, I hope the end result is _not_ an end to the strike,
    but instead the formation of a new league.
    
    Baseball's needed a shake up for some time.  The formation of a second
    league has the potential to do some good things...
    
    1) A return of independent minor leagues.  They're making inroads
       already, but competing major leagues makes independent minor
       leagues much more feasable.
    
    2) Expansion of the base from which talent is drawn.  With the need
       for additional players, markets which have been largely untapped
       (most anywhere outside the Americas, really) will be more likely
       to be utilized.
    
    3) More baseball.  I'd love to have more baseball options than the
       Red Sox, Paw Sox, and New Haven.  Worcester, Nashua, and Springfield
       should be able to support teams...
    
    If "scabball" is played, I'll watch it.  If the players form their
    own league, I'll watch that.  And if more minor league teams appear,
    I'll most certainly watch them.
    
    Joe (secretly hoping for Cuyahoga Falls and Westboro rookie-league teams)

  New league, great!!!

  Let's form a Rotisserie league!!!

  George

    
>    I _really_ hope they go through with them.
>
>    More than that, I hope the end result is _not_ an end to the strike,
>    but instead the formation of a new league.
    
    I'd go along with that but obviously that's not the owner's strategy 
    in going with replacement games.  The strategy is to prove once and 
    for all the pre-eminence of the existing historical franchises  
    ("the uniforms") over the players who wear them and if it works, it 
    also works against any idea of new leagues being competitive.  That
    includes minor leagues which if anything would be scaled down rather
    than up.  Personally I think there's some middle ground in the 
    argument of the importance of franchise versus player, but the notion
    of successful new leagues coming out of it is a pipe dream.
    
    glenn
    

Fans' love and devotion are to teams, not players (who come and go, and
are only part of the history of a team).

RE: .421

There was actually an article in yesterday's (?) Nashua Telegraph about
someone who is trying to organize a short-season A league - among the cities
mentioned were Nashua, Newark, NYC, as well as a few others in NE/NY.

It's a perfect fit for Nashua - short-season wouldn't impinge on too many
of the other events at Holman Stadium.  I'd probably go in for a couple of
season tickets if there is such a thing for short-season A ball.

RE                     <<< Note 178.423 by EDWIN::WAUGAMAN >>>

>Personally I think there's some middle ground in the 
>    argument of the importance of franchise versus player, but the notion
>    of successful new leagues coming out of it is a pipe dream.
    
  Isn't that what the owners of the National League said back in the 1890s
when Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey, Connie Mack, John McGraw et.al. said they
were going build a new major league out of the Western League?

  George

> Isn't that what the owners of the National League said back in the 1890s
> when Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey, Connie Mack, John McGraw et.al. said they
> were going build a new major league out of the Western League?
    
    Yeah, so?  That was almost 100 years ago when even the "established" 
    National League was in major flux, and even at that period for the one 
    league that survived (the AL) a half-dozen other major leagues 
    including a couple of attempts at players leagues went belly up.  Let's 
    just say that if they were looking for investors I wouldn't put up a 
    dime...
    
    glenn
    

>>Let's just say that if they were looking for investors I wouldn't 
>>put up a dime...

	Somehow, Glenn, I really doubt you are high on their list
	of perspective high rollers to invest in a franchise.


	billl

    This morning's discussion does bring up a point.  Many of the player
    reps do seem to be pitchers (Cone,Glavine,Clemens) with secure, high
    paying contracts.  Perhaps these players volunteer because others would
    in fact feel threatened.
    
    Now the impetus of the players association has been towards protecting
    the skewed end of the player-owner divvying of the plot.
    
    If the owners have indeed in the past acted or portrayed themselves in
    a manner suggesting possible reprisal toward reps then this is one of
    those "hung by one's own petard" kind of things.
    
    billte

    
>    Personally I think there's some middle ground in the 
>    argument of the importance of franchise versus player, but the notion
>    of successful new leagues coming out of it is a pipe dream.
    
    Successful _major_ leagues?  Yeah, probably.
    
    Successful _minor_ leagues, though, is another matter altogether.
    The interest in minor league baseball clearly seems to be growing,
    not waning, and the impasse is unlikely to cut into this interest.
    
    Of course, neither the players nor the owners will make out if
    independent minor leagues take away fans, and the scenario of
    neither of them benefitting is seductive...
    
    Joe 

    Don't these restricted FA only have a limited time to sign, or their   
    rights revert back to their current teams?  And doesn't the current   
    signing lockout by the union preclude these guys from signing before   
    the rights do revert back?
    
    Brews
    

 naw the pitchers sign up because they want to be one of the boys and they
 have the most free time on their hands....

 mike

|    This morning's discussion does bring up a point.  Many of the player
|    reps do seem to be pitchers (Cone,Glavine,Clemens) with secure, high
|    paying contracts.  Perhaps these players volunteer because others would
|    in fact feel threatened.

Player reps in all sports have traditionally been targets
by management.  I remember many times when a player rep
is cut, traded, or otherwise screwed byt their club.  By
having high profile, big buck guys in their, the teams 
are less likely to take retribution against them.


|	Somehow, Glenn, I really doubt you are high on their list
|	of perspective high rollers to invest in a franchise.

Yabut I bet ol'glenn is gettin' the arm loose in case the 
Scab Sox need a setup man in the bullpen.

=Bob=

>|	Somehow, Glenn, I really doubt you are high on their list
>|	of perspective high rollers to invest in a franchise.
>
> Yabut I bet ol'glenn is gettin' the arm loose in case the 
> Scab Sox need a setup man in the bullpen.
    
    No, that's 'Saw's job.  As I recall, six-packs, Red Man chewing tobacco
    and all the attendant damages are involved...
    
    glenn
    

    But Bob, etal,
    	My point really is whether you agree that this threat or
    retribution has come back to haunt mlb and nhl owners in two costly
    strikes.
    
    	Perhaps if owners had rolled out the red carpet even if it killed
    them and threw perks and post career coaching jobs to these reps that
    in the long term they'd have been better off (at no real cost other
    than pride).
    
    	But that type of thing would be totally opposite in character for
    these owners.
    
    	They all want to copy the nba but they never think of what makes
    nba-players negotiations  work: a mutual trust and the recognition that
    what's good for the players is ultimitely good for the owners.

>    what's good for the players is ultimitely good for the owners.

I don't think I'd accept that statement.  Look at where the NBA is
heading with the spoiled brats that are becoming the stars, having
earned nothing on the floor.  The NBA may have peaked, with future
revenues unable to support the growing player-compensation-monster.

    Part of the problem here is the type of contract offered to the first
    round draft choice, long term.  The Webbers and Hills don't need more
    than a year of orientation to be stars and full contributors.  Why
    shouldn't they ask for full compensation; ironically I do admit they
    have some leverage as high draft choices, something their counterpart
    veterans don't have.
    
    ie I hardly call them spoiled, only savvy marketeers.  It certainly
    does spoil the broth for others such as Pippen who makes half that of
    say Mashburn (true?).  Webber isn't going to allow himself to be put
    into the position of a Pippen(or Michael Jordan for that matter) while
    he has that leverage.  And if he produces Bullet fans won't call him
    spoiled.
    
    But this is also an example of a "problem" which both nba owners and
    players will work together to solve (at the expense of the rookies). 
    
    If they don't get it done soon they'll be a mass exodus this year as
    surely by next year a rookie cap will be in place.  Of course then the
    exodus may be to Europe if the cap is too low.

The reason that the owners are going forward with the replacement 
games is to give the striking players a way to cross the line. No 
games, no pressure on the union. With the replacement games 
going, you'll see a few players crossing that line every week. 
Every player that crosses the line and plays is a nail in the 
coffin of the players union.

daryll

 and what if they don't cross? 

 SO let's see Pittsburg is going to charge 1/2 price for their first 20
 games reguardless of whether it's replacment players or the real players.
 Isn't Pittsburg supposed to be one of the ones suffering the most? Seems
 like a mighty generous offer to try and win fan support imo.........

 mike

>    ie I hardly call them spoiled, only savvy marketeers.

Chris Morris wouldn't tie his shoes during practice, when asked to do
so.  Derrick Coleman was going to be fined by Beard for something, and
Coleman said he'd give him a blank check.  Kendall Gill skips practice
and doesn't care about the fine.  Anfernee Hardaway wants to renegoatiate
his contract after ONE YEAR, and says the 'older guys' are jealous of
the money he and other younger players are making.  Webber and Sprewell
do their best to get Nelson fired.  Rider fights with his coach through
the press.  Donyell Marshall doesn't even try on the defensive end.

And none of the above have won a thing, or even come close.

    	Why pay half price for a Red Sox replacement game when you can
    go see their best AAA talent in Pawtucket for $5.50, or less (along 
    with free parking and reasonable concession prices)?  Unless the
    major leagues force their top AAA talent to cross the line I would
    think the AAA leagues would benefit from scab baseball.
    
    				   /Don

re .441:

	Yeah, what he said.

    
>    	Why pay half price for a Red Sox replacement game when you can
>    go see their best AAA talent in Pawtucket for $5.50, or less (along 
>    with free parking and reasonable concession prices)?
    
    Driving distance, more than anything else, plus the chance to see
    the Indians...
    
    Joe

    Yabbut you would hardly be seeing the Indians.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

 well it's monday and still no agreement but it's interesting that the owners
 backed off the salary cap once the National Labor Board threaten  to take
 them to court. 

 If CLinton wants a deal I think all he'd have to do was say settle it tomorrow
 or we're taking away the anti-trust thing.........

 mike

    Re-1
    I think he did last night. I don't know if the anti-trust thing was
    mentioned but he did send Reich and Usery back to both sides and told
    them to get it done today.
    

    Gammons mentioned in his Boston Globe article yesterday that one of 
    the many topics being negotiated, is the very possible move of the 
    Montreal Expos to either Orlando or a northern Va. city.
    
    I'm not sure about the entire process here, but I would hope that when
    the owners and players fail to reach an agreement today, both sides
    allow Usery to offer his proposal, sign the sumbitch and play ball.
    That way both sides can save what little face they have left.
    
    					Steve  

> If CLinton wants a deal I think all he'd have to do was say settle it tomorrow
> or we're taking away the anti-trust thing.........

You're assuming it's the owners that aren't negotiating, Mike.  I think
both sides are to blame here.

BTW, Gammons (or somebody) wrote a long time ago that removing baseball's
antitrust exemption wouldn't really change the situation very much (from
a negotiating standpoint).  Basically, it would allow 'other' league
competition, and somehow hurt the current minor league setup, but with
regards to the current owners-players impasse, it wouldn't change a thing.

    
>    Yabbut you would hardly be seeing the Indians.
    
    Well, that all depends.  To me, the Indians are the team representing
    the city of Cleveland; Albert Belle, Carlos Baerga, Jim Thome, and
    so on are players whose career's I've followed and whom I root for.
    
    When they're matched up, that's great; when they aren't, I still
    root for them individually.  I still root for Brett Butler, and he
    and the Indians haven't been together for years now...
    
    Joe

  Let's see, Police go on strike and the criminals can run free. Firemen
  go on strike and peoples house can burn to the ground. Nurses and doctors
  can go on strike and people can just die in their beds. Teachers can go
  on strike and the kids can just grow up not knowing how to read or write.
  None of these strikes merit goverment intervention. Buuuuttttt, baseball 
  players go on strike and congress is ready to order the players and owners to
  play ball with a gummermint mandated settlement.

  Something makes me think that our gummermint has it's priorities mixed up.

  I say, let em slug it out. The government has too many other important
  things to work on.

	Keith

    re spoiled vs savvy marketeers
    
    Now you're on the subject of how the team handles them after the player
    has signed the longterm, lifetime security contract before playing a
    game.  I think thought the spoiling happened a long time before.
    
    Apparently the two sides in baseball have a proposal that each equally
    detests so it probably should be forced upon them :-)
    
    The owners would probably be happy with some sort of cap/tax except
    they now want to recoup their losses from last year's strike.  This is
    mostly vengeance  more than anything else which is why Clinton or
    whomever should just impose something on them since they probably can
    no longer bargain in good faith.

I'm starting to be guardedly optimistic.  They're at least talking about
the same thing, for the first time, even though they're still far apart.

I suspect the threat of government intervention is sufficient to concentrate
their minds, and no actual dictation will be necessary.  Anyway, how are you
going to prevent a congressman from grandstanding?

Steve

>I suspect the threat of government intervention is sufficient to concentrate
>their minds, and no actual dictation will be necessary.

Any mature adult would think so.  But it appears the hatred between these
two groups runs so deep, that mature, reasonable thought is out of the
question.  A settlement SHOULD BE imposed on them.  And hopefully it
pisses them all off.

                  
>  I say, let em slug it out. The government has too many other important
>  things to work on.
    
    Only problem with this is that they'll be slugging it out in the
    federal courts at costs far higher than the salary of the single
    negotiator involved to date.  Throw in the fact that there are
    legitimate _outside_ economic interests at stake running into the 
    hundreds of millions of dollars and some limited government 
    intervention (don't confuse the amount of publicity with the amount 
    of involvement) does make sense.  It's unfortunate and perhaps even 
    "unnecessary" but there are all sorts of "national interests" that 
    in theory the government shouldn't need to be involved with but 
    nonetheless are, for practical purposes.
    
    A second point is that it is impossible for Congress (specifically) 
    _not_ to be involved on a legal basis since they have already passed
    legislation exempting baseball from the country's antitrust laws.
    In this case in order to become truly uninvolved they'd have to 
    intervene on this particular issue by striking the exemption.  
    Congress currently "owns" this legislation whether we like it or not. 
    
    glenn 

    Re a couple back
    If teachers, police or firemen go on strike the government via the
    courts do get involved issuing back to work orders and fines if the
    strike continues. Florida and Arizona could lose hundreds of millions
    of dollars in tourism in the next 2 months if the strike is not
    settled. Many cities in each state put up big bucks to entice teams to
    train in their cities. If the strike goes into the regular season many
    cities lose big money in taxes and in stadium revenue. This is a 2
    billion dollar/year industry. It does affect many people.
    
    Mike
    

    re: .454
    
    minor nit on the anti-trust thing. Congress did not pass any law
    exempting baseball from anti-trust. In 1922 the Supreme Court ruled
    that baseball was not a business and thus was exempt from anti-trust.
    In the Flood case in 1970 the Supreme Court ruled that baseball was a
    business, however since Congress never passed new legislation to negate
    the Court's 1922 ruling Congress implicitly held that baseball shuld be
    exempt from anti-trust and Congress would need to pass legislation to
    change that.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

  Whenever any large union goes on strike, it will affect many other people.
  Like when airline mechanics or air traffic controllers go on strike,
  thousands of people are inconvenienced and the travel that is neccessary
  for the well being of many companies is impossible. Or, what if the
  autoworkers or steelworkers go on strike. Then there's a heck of a lot
  less money floating through the cities of Detroit or Pittsburgh not to
  mention all the other problems it would cause in the auto or construction
  industry. 

  I agree, when baseball players go on strike, it affects the
  wallets of many other people who are not owners or players. But it's still 
  not that much different when other unions go on strike.

  Now, if the beer companies ever go on strike, that indeed is a national
  emergency and the gummermint needs to do something to get them back to work.

     Keith     

>  Now, if the beer companies ever go on strike, that indeed is a national
>  emergency and the gummermint needs to do something to get them back to work.

Not as long as the German and Dutch beer workers are still on the job.   :^)
If they go on strike, call an international SUMMIT immediately !

                    <<< Note 178.457 by PEAKS::WOESTEHOFF >>>

 > Whenever any large union goes on strike, it will affect many other people.
 > Like when airline mechanics or air traffic controllers go on strike,
 > thousands of people are inconvenienced and the travel that is neccessary

   In the case of the air traffic controllers, the govt DID 
   step in and handled it appropriately.

   daryll

>   In the case of the air traffic controllers, the govt DID 
>   step in and handled it appropriately.

  Of course they did, they were the employer of the controllers, not a neutral
  party like when the autoworkers or baseball players go on strike.

	Keith

    
>  Of course they did, they were the employer of the controllers, not a neutral
>  party like when the autoworkers or baseball players go on strike.
    
    The government has intervened in the past with steel and autoworkers, 
    too.  I don't think you'll see the President or Congress forcing a 
    solution or anyone back to work and that's a precedent I'd just 
    as soon not see set, but I still don't have a real problem with them 
    mediating and using the forum to exert serious pressure.  Maybe it's 
    been mostly at the state and local levels, but plenty of legislation 
    has been written in favor of these baseball owners in stadium deals 
    and such so there are some public interests at stake.  There are
    also areas under Congress' control like tax law that have been abused 
    in favor of sports industries, and where a much-deserved whacking is
    probably long overdue anyway.

    glenn
    

Suprisingly (ha!), the CiC has backed down and extended the 
deadline.

Next he'll send in Jimmy Carter.

daryll

    This whole thing is really sad. The owners it appears want nothing but
    to break the union. I thought that Harrington would be able to
    negotiate a settlement but Bud Selig and the rest of the small market,
    intellectually clallenged, owners want the players to save themselves
    from themselves. This whole thing is about to turn football into the
    national past time.
    
    mike

    I agree with you 100%, Mike.  I wish I had a dime for every time I've
    heard Paul Tagliabue brag about the fact that the NFL owners and
    players have an agreement in place, both sides are very happy, and the
    popularity of the game has never been greater.  Although I'm a big NFL
    fan, it hurts like hell to hear this because I'm a huge baseball fan,
    but, I believe he's correct.
    
    The biggest impediment to this strike situation in baseball is the fact
    that there's no commissioner to look after the best interests of the
    game.  The whole thing is becoming uglier by the day.
    
    					Steve

The players have won too many battles.  The owners (unfortunately) are
determined to win one.  The players should give them something in this
fight, get a settlement, and maybe they can start trusting each other.

    Re -1
    The players have given up salary arbitration. They have put a proposal
    that would put a tax on teams spending more then X per season. The
    owners tried to put in their own system but saw they were going to lose
    a NLRB verdict and reverted back to the old system. The owners want to
    break the union. They want to have the players give back benefits won
    in previous contracts even though MLB is still making money. They want
    the players to impose salary restrictions on payrolls even though each 
    owner has the power to control their own salary budgets.
    This is all about power.
    
    Mike  

    One thing I'm not sure of and actually wondered aloud awhile ago is if
    in fact the object of the owners is to break union by having players
    actually join the scabs and enough players attrite to make the season
    viable and the rest join (like with nfl strike in '87) then what.
    
    What keeps the union from declaring another strike come the
    playoffs/world series?
    
    The owners must have an answer to this question which is obviously
    being asked by tv.

  Well if scabs are playing then presumably the union would not be able to
convince them to stop playing around World Series time. If the Union could
control them, they wouldn't be scabs.

  If the Union sent them back to work with the idea in advance of pulling them
again come playoffs then the Union would probably bump into some sort of legal
problem for not bargaining in good faith.

  Most likely any type of settlement between the Union and the Owners would
involve some sort of contract or agreement not to strike for some period of
time. Baring that, only scabs who the Union can not control, will be on the
field.

  George

    As expected, Clinton couldn't do anything to move the two sides along. 
    There is supposedly a bill in Congress to force the two into binding
    arbitration.
    
    If one were to believe David Cone, he said that the players were
    willing to agree to binding arbitration, but the owners weren't.
    
    					Steve

Lessee:

In the tradition of USAToday:

	Usery's Proposal	Binding Arbitration
Owners		Yes			No
Players		No			Yes


Does this remind anyone of the Dems vs. the Repubs?

What makes either of these two sides think that the 
results of binding arbitration would be any different
than the results of a mediator?  Maybe I'm missing 
something here, but isn't it basically the same sort
of process.

=Bob=

I dunno.  I guess I just don't get it.

I heard on the radio this morning that there's basically 2 billion dollars
being fought over by 600-700 people.

I'm finding it harder and harder to feel anything for any of them.

The owners are rich b______s, and the players make more money in one season
than I'll make in x seasons.   

What they don't realize is that they are basically pounding nails in the 
coffin of baseball.  Baseball's popularity had been waning anyway, and
now they're just driving it farther under....

JMHO,
'Saw

My impression of this whole situation at this point is that the 
players refuse to give an inch. The owners were willing to accept 
the proposal from Usury(sp) and the players refused it. Selig has 
a valid point, IMO, about leaving the fate of 28 franchises to an 
arbitrator. It's no surprise that the players are all for going 
to arbitration given the results they've gotten in salary 
arbitration over the past few years. Bring on the replacement 
games. The hell with em. I don't see how the threat of removing 
the anti-trust exemption will have any major effect at all. The 
chance of another league starting up is next to nil. They have no 
venues to play in, no investors willing to put up the startup 
cash and I doubt the players have the solidarity to pull it off.

daryll

    You have to love these guys. They will kill this great sport! The
    players say yes will take binding arbitration and then say no to an
    arbitrators suggestion and the owners say the exact opposite. Let's
    face it the owners want to smash the union and won't negotiate in good
    faith, the players want this to be settled in the courts and won't be
    flexible. And it really boils down to the owners trying to get the
    players to control the spending of other owners and guarentee profits
    for the owners. 
    
    Mike

I understand what you're saying Daryll, but what I don't
get is that either side thinks there will be signficantly
different results from what Ussery (sp?) proposes, and 
what binding arbitration would come up with.

In grad school I took a course in labor relations, and 
we studies all this stuff, as it pertained to other 
industries.  Mediation was seldom lead to a specific 
proposal, and as I said, I don't see an arbitrator coming
up with anything different.

I totally agree on new league.  It would take at least a 
year for it to get organized, and by that time, either 
the strike would be over, or MLB would be a mess.  I also
suspect that any player who went to the new league would 
be in violation of his contract, thus would be "off the 
books" of MLB.

=Bob=

    A player is only in violation if his contract in place is '95 and up.
    The reserve clause carries the revolving option and, although upheld in
    1970, probably wouldn't stand up in court.
    
    I'm now 50-50 on this strike.  I'd like to see what alternative
    products could be arranged.  Certainly if teams representing the top
    25% compete in an international tournement with competent, fair,
    objective umpires we might see an excellent product and possibly for
    a fairer price.
    
    But stadia do seem to be a problem.  How much does Omaha seat?

>    I'm now 50-50 on this strike.  I'd like to see what alternative
>    products could be arranged.

I think baseball, more than any other sport, has deep-seated fan loyalty
to TEAMS.  I can't see myself rooting for (or even being interested in)
new teams, even if they are from my favorite city.

The owners own all of the infrastructure of professional baseball.  Parks,
TV and radio contracts, minor leagues.  It would take years to take all
that down, and even then a new league might only be on the same playing
field.  Given the self interests involved, I don't think any player wants
to sign up for that timeframe (especially knowing that all of the revenues
and salaries will be watered-down).  The players have it good within this
'system'.  Neither party wants to change it.

It seems that the next hurdle is the replacement player threat.  Will the
owners go through with it ?  Will the players call their bluff ?

I agree with you Bob. I don't see what either side expects will 
be different in arbitration. However, if I were an owner and my 
investment was riding on it, I'd balk at it. The uncertainty of 
the outcome is something I'd be concerned with. 

I really don't see any difference is seeing the top 25% play on a 
team along with what amounts to players that couldn't even make 
the replacement teams. Greenwell, Clemens, Vaughn and a bunch of 
stiffs vs a bunch of career minor leagues and other stiffs doesn't 
present any real distinction for me.

The players have won every single contract dispute in the past. 
They've grown accustomed to the owners backing down. The owners 
are finally standing their ground. I don't see the point in 
questioning why the owners are doing it. Yeah, it's to guarantee 
profits. So? It's to police themselves because they haven't been 
able to control themselves in the past. So? They've got an 
investment and are trying to protect it. If this is what it 
takes, then so be it.

daryll

>questioning why the owners are doing it. Yeah, it's to guarantee 
>profits. So? It's to police themselves because they haven't been 
>able to control themselves in the past. So? They've got an 
>investment and are trying to protect it. If this is what it 
>takes, then so be it.

The players have acknowledged the need to address the small market
situation by offering a 'payroll tax' option.  So there's no longer
a fight about pure player freedom vs. some type of salary control.
And the owners have backed off the 'salary cap'.  They just need to
agree on the tax % now.

	I think someone hit the nail on the head a few replies ago. Not
	since watching Roberto Clemente at Forbes Field have I gon to a
	ballpark to see one baseball player perform.  I go to see a TEAM
	play.  I don't care who the Pittsburgh Pirates put on the field,
	they'll still be my favorite team.

	I'd no more balk (no pun intended) at going to see a group of
	'replacement' players in Red Sox unis at Fenway than I would 
	to buy Mobil gasoline if the Sunoco staion was closed.  As long
	as it fulfills my need, in this case a desire to watch baseball,
	you can put 'most' anyone on the field.

	Now if they are as bad as watching a bunch of Little Leaguers
	I might reconsider.


	billl

                    <<< Note 178.479 by USCTR1::GARBARINO >>>

>The players have acknowledged the need to address the small market
>situation by offering a 'payroll tax' option.  So there's no longer
>a fight about pure player freedom vs. some type of salary control.
>And the owners have backed off the 'salary cap'.  They just need to
>agree on the tax % now.

Right. But, the plan the Usury put forth yesterday contained no 
salary cap and a "luxury tax". The players rejected it outright.
They're talking out both sides of their mouth. People are saying 
that the owners are not bargaining in good faith. I see no 
indication that the players are. It's seems to be all or nothing 
for the players and if that's really their stance, they're going 
to get nothing because I believe the owners have every intention 
of going forward with the replacement games.

daryll

> In grad school I took a course in labor relations, and 
> we studies all this stuff, as it pertained to other 
> industries.  Mediation was seldom lead to a specific 
> proposal, and as I said, I don't see an arbitrator coming
> up with anything different.
    
    Who knows?  When you're dealing with a single individual it's a
    crapshoot.  The reason that the owners are willing to accept Usery's 
    proposal is because it includes a 50% luxury tax over a salary cap
    figure.  That's a very significant number.  Another arbitrator very
    well could come up with a lower figure but it's highly doubtful that 
    he'd come up with one higher.  Nonetheless, if you consider Usery's
    proposal as something of precedent, arbitration would probably also 
    result in a pretty good deal for the owners, too.  No matter what 
    comes of this, considering where they used to be it looks like the 
    players have taken a good whupping, the only question being how much 
    of one.  What more do the owners want?
    
    I also disagree that the players are unwilling to give an inch.  They've
    offered up arbitration which for years the owners have insisted is the
    single most destructive factor in cost control, precisely because they
    had no control over it (I guess it wasn't such a big deal after all
    because now the owners say its impact, compared to their own free
    spending habits, is negligible).  They've offered a modest tax proposal.  
    Let's face it, all of the proposals we've heard about to date including
    Usery's amount to large-scale givebacks from the status quo, in an 
    industry that was hardly on its deathbed (although it might be now--
    which might actually help and not hurt the owners in a freer system
    with less guarantees, now that the damage has been done).   You can 
    understand where that'd be hard to swallow (even though the union has 
    made some horrible miscalulations, this is still the basis of the 
    dispute).
    
> They've grown accustomed to the owners backing down. The owners 
> are finally standing their ground. I don't see the point in 
> questioning why the owners are doing it. Yeah, it's to guarantee 
> profits. So? 
    
    "So?"  That's a pretty fair trivialization of the very fabric of
    capitalism.  It's unfortunate that it has to go that route but there's
    a very good chance that the courts will see it the same way, that
    guaranteed profits are hardly a right, even for baseball...
    
    glenn
      

    Well I agree with a friend who said why not just go to Pawtucket.  But
    I know I'm in the minority who would enjoy seeing a better brand of
    ball on the field.
    
    For example, my personal observation is that the National League for
    some reason seems to have drifted into a AAAA level (much more
    observable difference than for example footballs nfc-afc).  But as a
    whole I opine that their are just too many teams per the quality of
    talent available.
    
    And with less true competition the teams at the top are not as good.
    
    Finally, if a plan was in place to play a May-June international
    tournement among four major league teams and four from
    Mexico,Cuba,Santo Domingo and Canada that in itself might break the
    log-jam.

    There is too much money at stake for both sides not to agree on
    something.  There will be an agreement.  It is only a question of when.
    
    The owners have the upper hand in getting what they want.  However,
    they also have much more to lose.  They have HUGE investments in these
    teams, up to $100M.  The only way they can get a return on that
    investment is to play ball.
    
    The Players have NOTHING invested, and nothing at risk.  They can hold
    out for as long as their savings hold out.  Then they can go get a real
    job if all alse fails.  I think the sides are pretty evenly balanced in
    terms of strenghts and weaknesses or advantages and disadvantages.
    
    The owners have a slight advantage, but only if they can put a product
    on the field and make some money doing it.  I believe they can.
    The talent diference between triple A teams and teh majors is not as
    great as you might think.  There are a handful of superstars in the
    majors..... and there are the rest.
    
    Every year new stars emerge from the minors to the majors.  This year
    there may be LOTS of new stars emerging from the minors.  They are very
    good players just waiting for their shot.
    
    I think this talent argument is analogous to college basketball vs the
    NBA.  Sure the NBA players are better overall.  But, college basketball
    is still played at a very skilled level and is exciting to watch.  In
    fact I prefer the excitement of college basketball over the
    predictability of NBA basketball.  Believe me, on balance, the skill
    level of triple A players is not that much different from the non
    superstars in the majors.  My next door neighbor is a former major
    league player and now a minor league manager.  He knows the talent
    around the league and he agrees.
    
    The idea of the players starting a league is ridiculous.  They don't
    have the capital, the management, the stadiums, and most importantly,
    the TV contracts.  The players would perform like they do at charity
    games.  It would be a farce that no one would pay to see, especially
    the TV networks.
    
    My guess is that there will be a settlement of some kind before opening
    day in April.
    
    R&G_Don

    Darryl,
    Why should the players agree to a contract where the emphasis is placed
    on controlling what an owner spends on contracts when and restricts Free 
    Agency when,
    1. Poor managment has given multi-million dollar contracts to the Matt
    Youngs, Andre Dawsons, Greg Swindells, etc when their careers are on
    the downside or they have never showed to be worth the money spent on
    them. There were no guns used.
    2. Each owner can set a budget and limit his GM to a certain Salary
    cost. If each owner independantly limited his spending on their own
    then they could control spending. The trouble comes when they get
    together and restrict player movements by saying I won't sign your free
    agents if you don't sign mine.
    3. When the majority of Small market teams need to slash costs they cut
    back on their farm systems and scouting when the best way to keep costs
    down are to have a constant flow of minor leaguers at minimum salaries
    to replace aging expensive veterans.
    The owners have done all of this themselves. The players have given up
    arbitration and gained 2 years of Free Agency. This is exactly opposite
    of what Marvin Miller preached against because he thought that the best
    way to raise salaries was to limit the number of free agents and have
    arbitration rulings raise the rest. By flooding the Free Agent Market 
    the top players will get their money and the average players should get
    average salaries.
    
    Mike   

>    The owners have done all of this themselves. The players have given up
>    arbitration and gained 2 years of Free Agency. This is exactly opposite
>    of what Marvin Miller preached against because he thought that the best
>    way to raise salaries was to limit the number of free agents and have
>    arbitration rulings raise the rest. By flooding the Free Agent Market 
>    the top players will get their money and the average players should get
>    average salaries.

I don't agree.  To be competitive, small-market teams have to get similar
players to those of the big-market teams.  Similar in talent equates to
similar in salary (maybe even MORE salary to get them to come).  BUT the
big-market teams may have a higher 'cap' than the small-market teams.  This
gives the small-market teams a smaller 'margin', which puts them at greater
risk.

I don't believe that any of them is losing 'real' money.  But these 'little'
guys sure don't like the situation, and presently, they have the votes to
hold things up until they get something to make them happy.

And salaries aren't completely set by the owners (via bidding).  As you point
out, the arbitration process has a HUGE part in setting salaries.  And that
process is completely out of their control (especially when you consider that
it's a 'one-or-the-other' deal...ie: the arbitrator picks either the owner's
or the player's $$$, nothing inbetween).


And Glenn, I agree, there's been so much damage done already, the owners
have righted the ship, no matter what settlement is agreed on.

    
RE:    R&G_Don

 But many of the triple AAA players that you expect to step as replacements
 are on the side of the players so they won't play for the owners so the 
 talent the owners can get is considerable less. Why would they be holding 
 open tryouts if they could just move their AAA , AA and A league ball players
 up to the majors?

 mike

    You are right that the owners will keep their top triple A prospects in
    the minors for now.  They don't want to risk alienating them from the
    current major leaguers when they come back.
    
    However, this could all change if the strike drags on.  It could change
    very fast and spread like dominoes if it looks like the players are not
    going to agree.
    
    I believe the strike will be settled.  I'm just pointing out that the
    owners have some other very good options.
    
    R&G_Don

Most of the try-out players are being used to fill spots left 
vacant at the A, AA, and AAA level by players being used on the 
replacement teams.

The problem that the players union has is the same problem that 
every other union in this country has already been through. 
They've been asking for more, more, more and have gotten it. It 
had to stop somewhere. It did for the UAW and it's in process for 
the MLPA.

daryll

    If the "small markets" cann't compete too bad. They should be allowed
    to move to places where they can compete or they should find a way to
    compete with better managment. Why have the Twins, A's and Reds won
    World Championships since 1985 when "Big Market teams like the SOx,
    Yankees and Cubs failed?
    The Indians are a prime example of how to build a competitive team in a 
    small market. Look at what they did.
    1. Refused to get into the major free agent bidding and only signed 
    low risk lower salary veterans.
    2. Rebuilt  their farm system from within and developed and traded for
    young stars like Lofton, Ramirez, Belle. Now they have a bunch of
    pitchers ready for the bigs.
    3. They signed these players to long 3 and 4 year contracts trading
    them security in exchange for arbitration.
    4. Realized that people wanted a new stadium and had a great one built.
    Now their attendance is way up and they should be able to afford their
    stars.
 
    The owners have lost almost a BILLION dollars in greivance arbitration
    cases in the past decade because they didn't follow their contract with
    the players. They have a monopoly but they are going to blow it. The
    players have never lost a NLRB ruling while the owners have lost
    rulings to both the players and the umpire unions. As stated before the
    players have agreed to to some give backs. The owners are just trying
    to break the union pure and simple. They want to be able to poorly
    manage their operations and still make money.
    
    Mike   
    

>The problem that the players union has is the same problem that 
>every other union in this country has already been through. 
>They've been asking for more, more, more and have gotten it. It 
>had to stop somewhere. It did for the UAW and it's in process for 
>the MLPA.

What he said.


re:  the Cleveland success story

Will they still be on the same playing field with LA, NY, Chi, etc... ?
Can they retain ALL of these young stars when they become free agents ?
Won't they fall back into the same rebuilding hole that Pittsburgh and
SD now find themselves in ?  And if so, where will their revenues be
then, when the newness of the park is gone, and the club is at the bottom
of the division ?

    Well the difference between the players and other unions is in the
    power that ml players have, mainly the warchest, unity and in the past
    savvy.  They are not necessarily the strongest guild or union.
    
    For example in hollywood actors and actresses and writers etc were able
    to break a stranglehold that the major studios had forcing longterm
    contracts at low salaries on new players.  But even Goldwyn and Warner
    and their ilk didn't have quite the cheek to make contracts longer than
    (about) 7 years.  Now the producers have to compete in an open market
    and pay the likes of Stallone and Willis multi-millions per picture.
    
    And if they tried to lock the stars out who would whine about who.  And
    if we don't want to pay movie house prices we rent videos at shaw's for
    a buck.  That reminds me, I need to look for Wyatt Earp with that punk
    Kevin Costner.
    
    And as long as Rosemary Clooney is still performing the top music stars
    can all go on strike

|    And as long as Rosemary Clooney is still performing the top music stars
|    can all go on strike

Uhh billte, have you HEARD ol' Rosie lately?

    She does a jazzy kind of style rather than her ol' classic 50s voice.
    
    I did here something by her on the radio that I thought was recent and
    also she periodicly performs at the club in Boston (Harbor?) .
    
    Perhaps it's a style thing

Rosemary DID have it at one point, most definitely.  But the last thing
I heard her sing was the Coronet jingle....

    
> re:  the Cleveland success story

> Will they still be on the same playing field with LA, NY, Chi, etc... ?
    
Possibly.
    
> Can they retain ALL of these young stars when they become free agents ?
    
No - but not all of their young stars are going to become free agents,
at least until they're past their prime (or at least late in it).
    
For example, Baerga's signed through '99.
    
> Won't they fall back into the same rebuilding hole that Pittsburgh and
> SD now find themselves in ?  
    
I don't think so.  It could happen - but the Indians have generally been
fairly logical about who they've been signing to what.  They can't keep
everyone, but they don't need to - _if_ they keep producing players (and
they do have some very good players in the pipeline) and _don't_ start
trading their best young talent away.
    
    Joe

	I think Montreal is the perfect example of the small market teams.
	They have the BEST minor league system there is; they produce 
	wonderfully talented players, who will come to Montreal, play 3 years, and leave.
	The Expos will never win it all, because they can never re-sign
	their great players.

>re:  the Cleveland success story

>Will they still be on the same playing field with LA, NY, Chi, etc... ?
>Can they retain ALL of these young stars when they become free agents ?
>Won't they fall back into the same rebuilding hole that Pittsburgh and
>SD now find themselves in ?  And if so, where will their revenues be
>then, when the newness of the park is gone, and the club is at the bottom
>of the division ?
    If they can keep a flow of cheap minor league talent coming thru then yes
    they can. All teams go thru ups and downs so eventually they'll bottom
    out again but if they have good managment they'll come back.
    If we have a salary cap or luxury tax is it fair to the
    Braves to be penalized and be forced to lose some top players because
    they cann't spend the fair market value on their talent that they've
    brought up and developed. 
    Also where does it say that each team have to stay where they are? If 
    cities like Milwakee and Seattle can not support a team which they have
    shown in the past that they cann't why should other teams be penalized?
    Refresh my memory but has any team gone bankrupt in the past 20 years
    since Free Agency? Hasn't the value of every MLB team skyrocketed in
    that time period. Teams like the Astros and Padres cried that they
    couldn't compete but when the teams are sold they make a huge profit on
    the sale. 
    The whole thing comes down to managment. A sharp GM like Andy McPhail,
    Duquette and the Braves GM who's name escapes me at the moment have
    shown how to build teams with limited budgets. The only big market team
    who has consistently had a top team in the past 10 years is the Blue
    Jays and the vast majority of it's players have come via trades or thru
    their farm Systems.
    All the owners want is the ability to make money and to be lazy. They
    want guarenteed profits. I'm sorry but in the real world there are no
    guarentees.
    
    Mike
    

>    If they can keep a flow of cheap minor league talent coming thru then yes
>    they can. All teams go thru ups and downs so eventually they'll bottom
>    out again but if they have good managment they'll come back.

Yeah, but it's these down years that concern the small-market teams.
Even the best scouting department makes mistakes.  And teams in the
pennant chase do trade young talent to get that veteran who will
hopefully put them over the top.  So when the cupboard is bare, the
only thing left is the free agent market.  Now they've got to compete
at large-market prices.


>    If we have a salary cap or luxury tax is it fair to the
>    Braves to be penalized and be forced to lose some top players because
>    they cann't spend the fair market value on their talent that they've
>    brought up and developed. 

They don't have to lose any talent under the 'tax' proposal.  They'll
just have to pay a little more.


>    Also where does it say that each team have to stay where they are?

This is a valid question, to a point.  These guys aren't making widgets,
which can be manufactured anywhere.  They've built a fan base.  And it's
been proven that if you package it right, and put a winner on the field
(see Cleveland), the fans will come (ie: you'll make money).  But that
can be a costly venture, with no guarantees (that the players you've
put together will win).  The same goes for moving a team.  And this is
the piece of the owners' situation that I agree with.  They cover all of
the expenses, take all of the financial risks, but have very little control
over their payroll...or that their players will produce.


>    Teams like the Astros and Padres cried that they
>    couldn't compete but when the teams are sold they make a huge profit on
>    the sale. 

Hey, there's always another sucker out there.

>the piece of the owners' situation that I agree with.  They cover all of
>the expenses, take all of the financial risks, but have very little control
>over their payroll...or that their players will produce.
    
    Every owner has complete control over his payroll! He goes to his GM 
    in the off season and says "You have X dollars to spend on players." If 
    his GM cann't live with that budget that's his problem. Just like any
    other business. If enough of the owners did this and lived within their
    means then player salaries would stabalize. If the demand isn't there
    then the salaries are kept down.
    
    Mike 
    
    

>    Every owner has complete control over his payroll! 

Yeah, like Montreal (as someone pointed out).  You get what you pay
for.  Cheap on salaries, chances are you get a cheap product.  Then
fans don't come out, revenues go down.

Mike,

What about arbitration? There's no control there.

daryll

  
    How does the current plan help Montreal?  If the tax plan has the
    desired effect of capping salaries (at a level above what Montreal can
    afford to pay, now or ever) so very few taxes are generated, where is 
    Montreal getting the money to pay their players in order to be 
    competitive?  The "revenue sharing" and "competitive balance" aspects
    of this plan are so much smoke and mirrors.  What is being accomplished 
    is guaranteed cost control and profits for the _industry_, period.  
    Everybody's payroll is slashed somewhat proportionately but there is no
    significant re-direction of revenue to Montreal, so they remain in the 
    same competitive position.  What does happen is that the value of the 
    franchises is raised because franchises are a scarcity in a 
    monopolistic system.  Montreal remains a prime candidate to be moved 
    (any guarantees in this plan that small-market franchises won't be 
    moved?), the only difference being that the value of the franchise is 
    higher because costs and profits are guaranteed for whoever takes over 
    in a market that can truly support the franchise.
    
    Hey, the writing is on the wall.  It's ReplacementBall time.  The
    owners have already decided that ReplacementBall is preferable to 
    any movement from a hard salary cap position.  We can talk about
    reasonable compromise all we want but it will not happen because the
    owners have this alternative and are determined to use it (the 
    players have no real alternative-- for making money, that is).  Maybe 
    they're right that it'll work.  Personally, even though I do follow a 
    specific team above most all else, I'm not willing to accept that 
    quality is completely irrelevant.  Otherwise they could be playing 
    tiddlywinks out there and as long as it occupies three hours' time in 
    the surroundings of Fenway Park we'd be expected to buy it.  I just
    can't go so far as to drive 60 miles to pay to see A-level ball being 
    played by old guys.  Others may; it's their prerogative.
    
    glenn
    

    Re .501
    If Montreal can not support a team then move it.  Montreal has been
    crying for years that they cann't compete. How much money would Brochu
    make if he sold the team to Tampa, Charlotte, Phoenix or Orlando? Would
    he share it with the players?
    Re .502  Arbitration.
    To begin with one of the few things both sides have agreed to is the
    elimination of arbitration in exchange for free agency 2 years earlier.
    And even if their still was arbitration each team has the oppurtunity
    to release players BEFORE arbitration. If Joe Average ball player
    thinks he can make big money let him go as a free agent and see. Teams
    then go out and pay the going rate to replace him. Once again the worst
    thing for the players is to have 300 - 400 Free Agents. Some will get
    big money but a lot will get Jody Reed money.
    
    

  Weren't the Expos giving the Braves a run for their money in the N.L. East
this summer? In fact I seem to remember them being ahead. 

  Clearly they had a team capable of winning it all this year and they were
pretty close back in the Dick Williams days coming in 2nd to a number of
different teams. A turn of luck and they would have been in the World Series.

  Another point that comes to mind is that Toronto seems to do ok. Are they
a bigger market than Montreal?

  George

    	I'm with Waugamain.  The only thing I'll miss about not going
    to see the Slobs is the trip to Dick's Last Restort after the game.
    
    				   /Don

>  Weren't the Expos giving the Braves a run for their money in the N.L. East
>this summer? In fact I seem to remember them being ahead. 

But they're losing Hill, Grissom and Wetteland this year 'cause they can't
afford their salaries.


Glen, I know Usery's proposal had tax money going to player pensions, but
wasn't the original idea that this money WOULD BE distributed to the small-
market teams ?

    
> Glen, I know Usery's proposal had tax money going to player pensions, but
> wasn't the original idea that this money WOULD BE distributed to the small-
> market teams ?
    
    The money would be distributed to those that aren't spending it,
    regardless of market standing (ironically enough if you made the 
    calculations based on recent seasons, such needy franchises as the 
    New York Mets were set to be the prime beneficiaries-- this is the 
    trouble with such socialism that has no relation to market reality).
    However, at the tax rates of 75-100% in the owners' plan, you don't
    need a PhD in economics to see that spending is going to come into 
    line with the salary cap in a big hurry, generating few tax revenues to
    be shared.  How likely is it that you would willingly purchase an item 
    if you had to pay a 75% tax on it? 
    
    glenn
    

>    The money would be distributed to those that aren't spending it,
>    regardless of market standing (ironically enough if you made the 
>    calculations based on recent seasons, such needy franchises as the 
>    New York Mets were set to be the prime beneficiaries-- this is the 
>    trouble with such socialism that has no relation to market reality).
>    However, at the tax rates of 75-100% in the owners' plan, you don't
>    need a PhD in economics to see that spending is going to come into 
>    line with the salary cap in a big hurry, generating few tax revenues to
>    be shared.  How likely is it that you would willingly purchase an item 
>    if you had to pay a 75% tax on it? 
>    
>    glenn

     The point isn't that teams like Montreal would get more money to spend,
     but that the average player is going to be able to leave small markets
     to go to the big city -- those teams won't have room under the cap to
     sign everyone who wants to be a free agent.  Then a team like Montreal
     could keep at least some of their best players.    

>     to go to the big city -- those teams won't have room under the cap to
>     sign everyone who wants to be a free agent.  Then a team like Montreal
>     could keep at least some of their best players.    

No, the cap has (effectively) been thrown out by the owners.  It's all
down to some kind of taxation system, under which big-spenders will pay
a tax on payroll amounts over a specific #.  Nothing stops any club
from spending as much as they want.

    
>     The point isn't that teams like Montreal would get more money to spend,
>     but that the average player is going to be able to leave small markets
>     to go to the big city -- those teams won't have room under the cap to
>     sign everyone who wants to be a free agent.  Then a team like Montreal
>     could keep at least some of their best players.    
    
    The large market teams wouldn't have room to sign everyone (nor do they 
    now), but what happens is that based on under-cap true market forces, 
    the best ones still leave poor teams for rich ones, top to bottom in
    descending order as those individual salary caps are filled.  Yes,
    there will be a few more players left over but the pecking order still
    remains.  
    
    The real problem is the extent of the huge revenue disparity which
    does not come close to being addressed by this plan (revenue sharing
    is a micro effect).  Last year payrolls varied from roughly $10M to
    $45M.  Presumably San Diego and the like only spent $10M-$15M because
    that's all they had.  How is that fixed?  Under the original offer
    which included an approximate $25-$30M salary _floor_ for all teams the
    only possible result seemed that San Diego would have to hit the road,
    by league mandate.  Consistent with that Peter Gammons has reported
    evidence that any new contract will be accompanied by an inside deal to 
    eventually re-locate Montreal.  I just don't see that the preservation 
    of these franchises is at all a goal of this plan.  If it is then let's 
    see it in writing for the "protection of the fans".
    
    glenn
     

    
> Nothing stops any club from spending as much as they want.          
    
    I wouldn't call a minimum 75% tax "nothing".  Turn that argument around 
    and apply it on a personal level by saying that high taxes aren't a
    disincentive to earning (or spending, with a sales tax) and you'll be 
    laughed out of town.  Fact is, many fiscal conservatives without a 
    financial or political stake in the matter (like George Will for
    example) consider these proposals to be a joke, counter to everything 
    that is free enterprise.  If you can get past the hangup over that 
    dirty word "union" (which is not a real union anyway because it does
    not attempt to set fixed wage scales or guarantees, only a set of 
    basic rules that are a necessary evil in a monopolistic system-- 
    unless you want to abandon the draft, all player retainer rights, 
    etc.) it's pretty cut and dry that it is the owners' salary caps 
    and luxury taxes that represent socialism.   
    
    glenn
    

>    and apply it on a personal level by saying that high taxes aren't a
>    disincentive to earning (or spending, with a sales tax) and you'll be 
>    laughed out of town.

BUT, the fact is, if you want it bad enough, you can get it.  Under a
hard salary cap system, you're just window shopping.


>    consider these proposals to be a joke, counter to everything 
>    that is free enterprise.

Stop with the 'free enterprise' garbage.  Businesses operating in a
real free enterprise system DO have cost controls.  MLB doesn't.
I still say, if I'm an owner, give me non-guaranteed contracts
and no arbitration and you can have whatever else you consider
to be free enterprise.

> Stop with the 'free enterprise' garbage.  Businesses operating in a
> real free enterprise system DO have cost controls.  MLB doesn't.
    
    Entire industries outside of the federal government do not have 
    built-in, contracted cost controls.  Indirectly baseball has more with
    its 6-year minor- _and_ major-league retainer rights (that's precisely
    why a kid gets his bonus bucks in negotiation after he's drafted,
    because he'll have no negotiation leverage until after 3 years in the
    majors).  No one denies that in any moderately free system baseball
    owners will freely and willingly spend more in the competition for
    players than they will under these proposals.  I don't see how you can
    say that those are not free market forces that are being artificially
    constrained.  If not then what are these uncontrollable urges to spend
    the money?
    
> I still say, if I'm an owner, give me non-guaranteed contracts
> and no arbitration and you can have whatever else you consider
> to be free enterprise.
    
    Well, it's a good thing that you're not an owner because you'd already
    have a deal (or you'd be estranged like such businessmen of principle 
    as Peter Angelos).  Owners have always had the first right, and the 
    second has been offered up.  Neither of those rights will stop owners 
    from freely spending money to compete against each other (arbitration 
    turned out to be a whopping red herring), so they're not enough.
    
    I do believe that there is room to give the owners _some_ guarantees 
    and cost controls.  However, I think that proposals that cap salaries
    at a phased-in cut of 15% and include taxation at rates of 75-100% are 
    so far removed from what players already _know_ (it's been proved) that
    they will make in a freer system as to be completely arrogant about the
    restriction.  We both know what the market for your services is but we
    don't want you to give a little, we want you to give a _lot_.  Players 
    are to accept the cuts merely because they make "enough" (I'm not 
    familiar with the economic theory that defines the "enough" point on 
    the supply-demand curve).  
    
    The owners _know_ that the players will not accept these drastic
    unilateral impositions before a prolonged multi-year holdout and are
    prepared to go with the replacement.  That's the frustrating part for
    me; I am finally convinced by the events of the last two months
    (imposition after declaring impasse, NLRB loss declared as "victory"
    by owners because it ends impasse and allows negotiations, subsequent 
    offer of even more restrictive system, refusal to accept what would 
    almost certainly be a progressive binding arbitration ruling) that the 
    owners are perfectly happy with this (possibly illegal) end result.
    It's very frustrating.  I think it's arrogant and I would rather 
    see no "major-league" baseball (as with the NHL) to start with 
    because at least then I could believe that there'd be continuing, 
    impending pressure towards making a deal.  I don't sense that sincere 
    pressure with the owners.
    
    glenn
    

>> Stop with the 'free enterprise' garbage.  Businesses operating in a
>> real free enterprise system DO have cost controls.  MLB doesn't.
    
>    Entire industries outside of the federal government do not have 
>    built-in, contracted cost controls.

No they don't, but they can lay people off with small serverance $$$
and cut costs immediately.  MLB owners can't.


>    Indirectly baseball has more with
>    its 6-year minor- _and_ major-league retainer rights

That's a protection of investment in prospects, and a way to develop
players within your *system*...something that's very important, and unique
in this business.  It's not a cost-control device.  Costs for minor league
players would be insignificant in a totally free system.


>    No one denies that in any moderately free system baseball
>    owners will freely and willingly spend more in the competition for
>    players than they will under these proposals.  I don't see how you can
>    say that those are not free market forces that are being artificially
>    constrained.

I don't think I said that these are not constraints.  I said that there
are constraints in other industries, in one form or another.  I think
MLB owners need constraints.  Unlike other industries, one team is not
trying to drive the other out of business (by setting exorbitant resource
costs).  And I don't believe (as others in here do) that it's good for
MLB (or any professional league) to constantly be moving franchises from
city to city.  There really are no "America's Teams".  Teams are built
through a local fan base.

    
>> I still say, if I'm an owner, give me non-guaranteed contracts
>> and no arbitration and you can have whatever else you consider
>> to be free enterprise.
    
>    Well, it's a good thing that you're not an owner because you'd already
>    have a deal (or you'd be estranged like such businessmen of principle 
>    as Peter Angelos).  Owners have always had the first right,
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

True, but with the pattern of guaranteed contracts in place now, who is
going to offer a non-guaranteed contract.  That owner won't even be
considered by a free agent.  If the owners act together and begin
offering non-guaranteed contracts, they'll get their *sses hauled into
court on collusion charges.



>    I am finally convinced by the events of the last two months
>    (imposition after declaring impasse, NLRB loss declared as "victory"
>    by owners because it ends impasse and allows negotiations, subsequent 
>    offer of even more restrictive system, refusal to accept what would 
>    almost certainly be a progressive binding arbitration ruling) that the 
>    owners are perfectly happy with this (possibly illegal) end result.

I wouldn't come this far and want to be bound by some 3rd party's decision.
It was written in yesterday's USA Today that we may actually see the owners
declare an impasse again and implement their system.  Their argument would
be that the players rejected a 3rd party's proposal that the owners accepted.
And this time the NLRB would find it hard to say that the owners did not
bargain in good faith.

As for your wish that there be no baseball, so the owners felt pressure
to negotiate a settlement, Lenny Dykstra's comments yesterday convinces
them that they're on the right track.

    
> True, but with the pattern of guaranteed contracts in place now, who is
> going to offer a non-guaranteed contract.  That owner won't even be
> considered by a free agent.  If the owners act together and begin
> offering non-guaranteed contracts, they'll get their *sses hauled into
> court on collusion charges.
    
    And well they should.  You act like this collusion business is a
    trivial legal technicality when it fact it is a serious violation of 
    the basic agreement (or of the law where antitrust laws apply).  
    Collusion to fix salaries or the rules of the marketplace takes the 
    whole system (any system) down, very easily.
    
> I wouldn't come this far and want to be bound by some 3rd party's decision.
> It was written in yesterday's USA Today that we may actually see the owners
> declare an impasse again and implement their system.  Their argument would
> be that the players rejected a 3rd party's proposal that the owners accepted.
> And this time the NLRB would find it hard to say that the owners did not
> bargain in good faith.

    Apparently Usery had no authority to go public with a proposal (it was
    leaked), which is what caused all the fuss.  Usery is paid by both 
    sides only to mediate negotiations and make suggestions, and has 
    admitted that he has not finalized any proposal (although as you say 
    the internal workings of these negotiations could be used in the courts 
    over the impasse question).  Meanwhile, the President of the United 
    States has said let's go to binding arbitration.  The players have said 
    okay, the owners no (nonetheless I pick up the papers and read that the 
    players are somehow showing the president a great disrespect, as if 
    there was any remote chance that this thing was going to be settled 
    over a cup of coffee at the Oval Office).  I maintain that the binding
    arbitration is a way for both sides (especially the players) to save
    face and a way for the owners to pick up some sizable gains this side
    of the nuclear devastation of the sport.  They just won't do it.
    
    I'm with conservative Senator Orrin Hatch: at this point the game is
    being held hostage by a hardline bloc (not all small-market, either)
    of owners who have little respect for the economic principles of the
    country, and will try to get away with whatever they can.
    
    glenn
    

Personally, I think we should get them all in a big room.

Then we should have Hawk come in and




	WHACK THEIR PEEPEES WITH A METAL-EDGED RULER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

    I caught a little bit of Lenny Dykstra on ESPN last night. He and about
    20 other top players are meeting this weekend to see why there is no
    agreement and what the negotiating team is doing. He didn't say he
    would cross the line but when asked he said "ask me again in April."
    Maybe some middle ground can be found.
    

>                        -< 6 mill/yr hard to pass up >-
    
    I'm wondering what happens in the short term if a large handful of
    these guys with the big guaranteed contracts cross, while that large 
    majority of players without contracts (these guys aren't going to get 
    big offers to play ReplacementBall anyway) stay out.  About $10M worth 
    of contracts per team could wreak some real financial havoc with 
    ReplacementBall.  The owners can't very well lock out players with 
    existing contracts while they let replacements in.  It's a bit of
    stretch but the players could almost encourage some guys to go back
    knowing that the rest would hold out, to sabotage the thing, if they 
    were into that.
    
    Now that I think of it, how are the owners differentiating between 
    replacement players and those real major-leaguers that they are now
    refusing to let sign contracts?  Is it by height, weight, or some kind 
    of genetic thing?
    
    glenn
    

    I'd have to ask George but the answers, Glenn seem to lie in what makes
    up the complex labor law code which was essentially drafted to prevent
    complete chaos (and in the past violence) in management-labor
    negotiations.
    
    I wondered aloud too about players playing for several months or until
    playoffs and "wildcat striking".  I assume that some protocol is
    supposed to be observed by the sides and there is the NLRB umpiring.
    
    And the government has stepped in many times in the past in strikes and
    certainly does it all the time locally (yes, teachers are bigger than
    baseball).
    
    I think if salary escalation was tempered then any agreement forced
    upon both sides would be accepted.  In fact a simple escalation index
    in the "tax" to lower or increase it might be the final solution.

  In the case of Oil Can Boyd they signed him to a minor league contract but
they are saying (or at least he is saying) that the reason he was signed is
to play, if needed, as a replacement player.

  So maybe that's it, the scabs are being signed to minor league contracts and
will be "brought up" if the strike doesn't settle. Also they might be putting
clauses in some of the contracts saying that they expire if the strike is
settled.

  Anyone know how the scab football players were paid?

  George

>> Is it by height, weight, or some kind of genetic thing?

	Better be careful, Glenn, you might trigger a sit in protest
	in MKO2's cafeteria.



	billl

|>> Is it by height, weight, or some kind of genetic thing?
|
|	Better be careful, Glenn, you might trigger a sit in protest
|	in MKO2's cafeteria.
|


No, no, Glenn is correct.

Just yesterday they identified the ball gene.  It's a binary gene.  Yes
if you're major league caliber and will be signed to a contract, No if
you're only replacement caliber.


Hope this helped!
'Saw

WFAN interviewed a player who is considering being a replacement player.
He gave all the details of what he's been offered.  I can't remember them,
but it went something like this:  lump-sum just for showing up;  so much
per game;  a severence amount if the ML players come back.


As for Glenn's idea of the MLPA's telling high-salaried players to play
to upset the owners' plans, if you buy tickets right now, you pay 'regular'
price.  You will get money back (most, if not all, clubs) if replacement
players are used.  But if owners field teams with some real stars, are fans
seeing replacement ball ?

They get 20K if/when the strike ends.

>They get 20K if/when the strike ends.


Where do I sign up?  Between that and my DEC salary I might make 21K this year!


Seriously, I always hear them talking about watching carpenters and the UPS
guy playing replacement baseball.  What's wrong with software engineers????

Just came back from another facility and had WFAN on... Apparently John
Franco was on this morning and he said he doesn't care what the tax amount
is, he wants to play.

It was also reported that the union denies that Orza called Usery 'senile',
but they clearly said they'd ruin his career.

    Put all the players in one place, and march the owners in with them,
    and nuke the sons a bitches and start all over without the absoluyte
    greed of both sides.
    
    IMHO, over tha lasted month er so, the owners have caved in and given
    up tons to the players.  If Donald Fehr would get his greeday fat ass
    out of the way and let the player vote on the proposals, I think you'd
    find that the camps would be full o f players fer spring training,
    along with a freshly inked agreement, but Fehr and his moroons at the
    top are working to f__k the owners out of every bloody nickel they
    have.
    
    SOme will use the argument that the players are "entertainers". 
    Partially true.
    
    but, lessee, a movie gets worldwide distribution.  When the Bucs play
    the Cubs, it gets shown in Pgh and Chi., and gets 3 lines in a paper
    somewhere else.  Not exactly Worldwide distribution.  then, you have
    the wonderful guaranteed contract debacle.  Players has one good year,
    signs with new team fer enough money to feed the homeless in 5 cities
    fer a year, and proceeds to play like a AA minor leaguer fer most of
    the contract length, but gets his $$$ cause he "earned it".  I say do
    away wif guaranteed contracts, set up a scale whereby if ya been in the
    league 1 year, ya get $100k, 2 years, $200k, etc.  Then, fer batters,
    ya add incentives.  10 hrs gets an extra $100k, 20 hrs, and extra
    $200k, etc.  Same with batting averages, rbi, runs scored, etc. 
    Pitchers get incentives based on wins, era, saves, innings, strikeouts,
    batters beaned in the haid((8^)*)
    
    JMHO
    
    JaKe
    
    
    

    Yeah,
    Dem damn players have been stickin a gun to dose owners haids for
    years now. I remember the gun that Matt Young used on Lou Gormans head.
    Stuck it right in Lou's ear. I remember looking in his other ear at the
    same time and seeing the barrel of the gun aiming at me.
    Mike   

One does wonder what the outcome would be if the players could 
vote on the Usury proposal...

daryll

    I think that if the proposals that have been flying fer the lasted
    month er so, ANY OF EM, were given to the players to vote on, the
    strike would be over by now.
    
    It's the union mismanagement...er...I mean management.
    
    JaKe
    

    
    'Saw,
    
    	It's cuz software engineers are goofy!
    
    Claybone

  According to the Boston Globe, Boston Red Sox 1st baseman Mo Vaughn has said
that he feels the players should be allowed to vote on recent owner proposals
by secret ballot. He said that leaders like Kirby Pucket, Cecil Fielder, and
Roger Clemens make it difficult for some players to speak openly about the
strike. 

  George

I hope the 'silent majority' (as Gammons calls them) speaks up during
Fehr's cross-country meetings and forces the idiots at the top to get
a deal done.

Gammons' article was great.  Basically said that the fat asses at the
top (Fehr, Cone, Glavine, Feilder, etc.) don't give a damn about the
middle- and lower-tier players, which is what I wrote a week or so ago.
This thing is all about the multi-million-dollar babies.

Did you catch the line about how Molitor was removed from the negotiating
team 'cause he wasn't militant enough ?  I still think Butler fell for
the same reason.

    And in another brilliant move Mike "the brain surgeon" Greenwell
    criticizes both Lenny Dykstra and Vaughn for questioning the MLPA.
    Greenwell states that the players shouldn't be airing their displeasure
    with the union in the media. Mike feels like everyone else should be
    like sheep and follow the Union blindly without questioning Fehr.
    Vaughn has made some good points stating that the Ripkens,Clemons and
    Ripkens can afford to be hawks because they've made their big bucks.
    younger players like Valentin are struggling and cann't afford to
    strike this year. 
    This mess will really get ugly soon if this isn't settled.
    
    Mike

Does anyone doubt that there will be players crossing the line?

daryll

>Does anyone doubt that there will be players crossing the line?

No doubt in my mind.  Instead of trying to muzzle and brainwash
the masses, Fehr should use his meetings to get a real feel for how
quickly the flood-gates will open.  If it looks like it'll be soon,
he should call off the strike and settle or take the battle to the
courts.  But we keep hearing about how the union is determined not
to lose this thing, so they may keep it going even if it's the wrong
thing to do.

I bet Fehr is fired after this is finally settled.

daryll

    I hope that the union does take a secret vote and that it passes, so
    that we can get on with it.  However, if the vote is on the owners' 
    last plan, or Usery's plan without serious modification, I seriously
    doubt that it'll pass, as of March 1.  Basing the players' sentiment 
    on the comments of a few players (apparently these players aren't 
    nearly so censured as is made out) is dangerous.  If nothing ever 
    happens with Congress acting on antitrust, or the courts granting an 
    injunction, obviously the players will have to break at some point.  
    Fortunately or unfortunately, I just don't think it's reached that 
    point yet.
    
    Gammons also wrote that the players are in the right on principle, and 
    went so far as to call Don Fehr a good and decent man in spite of his 
    dour public image.  You have to look past the smoke on the issues.  His
    solution was some kind of compromise on the players' part where they
    return under the conditions they don't like, but work behind the scenes 
    to resolve the matter in court, if necessary.  I don't know if that's
    practical or even if the owners would allow it (would they require the
    players to sign on to their agreement for x years?) but it's something
    that worked in the NFL and that I was advocating previously as a way to
    just get everyone out on the damn field...
    
    glenn
    

  But what I don't understand is why the big name players would be more hawkish
than the middle level players. 

  The big name players will probably be the 1st ones to get what ever money is
available. Also, they don't need it. If you have $20,000,000 why would you care
if you ever got paid again, you could put it in the bank and live like a king
off the interest for the rest of your life. 

  It seems that it would be the middle level guys with the $500,000 - $1.2
million contracts who would get hurt the most because organizations who had put
together teams of hot prospects and a few stars won't be able to "go for it"
and try to win by paying $1 million a pop for middle levels guys to fill out a
winning roster. 

  George

    Buckley on EEI had some player who's had an extended minor league
    career on Saturday afternoon (my wife kills me when I switch her talk
    radio ("Whitley and Snitley" - she should tm that).  This guy says the
    union has cleared his participation to play in scab games.
    
    I get the impression that the union doesn't have a problem with the
    career minor leaguers (cup of coffee careerists) making a few bucks and
    getting a little exposure and perhaps winning a 25th spot out of it.
    
    But I'll bet Clemens has a few beanballs saved for any A.L. star who
    crosses early.  Apparently a lot want to be the 20th or 30th across
    just don't want Flutie like publicity.

    
> But what I don't understand is why the big name players would be more hawkish
> than the middle level players. 

    They're not.  Dykstra is in the exact same boat as Fielder, Clemens
    (haven't heard a peep out of Roger, don't know what that's all about),
    and Cal Ripken for that matter.  All are older veterans and all have 
    longterm contracts so they have nothing to gain from this.  Sure, 
    they can all more easily withstand the hit (except maybe Dykstra, with 
    his history god knows where the money is), but certainly _no_ eventual
    settlement coming after a long layoff no matter what the terms works 
    in their favor.
    
    glenn
    

    George,
    	It's the Jordan-Pippen effect where top mega-stars get slotted in
    somehow and can't get their market worth and can't go anywhere because
    of cap issues.
    	Ironically in my estimation the cap works best for the most.  But
    another issue tends to be revenue that composes the cap base and total
    mlb revenue which somehow escapes the cap.
    	You know the worst feeling in the world is to be making 7mil only
    to find that your employer has some cash hidden away and you could be
    making 8.  Would that just drive you crazy?
    
    Billte

>  But what I don't understand is why the big name players would be more hawkish
>than the middle level players. 

My thinking is that any type of salary-restrictive system has it effects on
all levels of players.  If there are fewer bidders for a superstar, chances
are the amount bid will be less.  And the middle and lower guys are feeling
the pinch now 'cause they know that when they come back (under any scenario)
their pay is gonna be a lot less because of the financial losses the owners
have already suffered.  And if these guys believe the owners' resolve is
strong enough to win this battle, some of these guys could really be in
trouble (Gammons wrote that if this thing took another year, some of these
middle-piddle guys will actually LOSE THEIR JOBS to talented minor leaguers,
who will play this year and be ready next).


BTW, Gammons also acknowledges that the owners do have financial problems.

    Everybody is going to lose more money. The owners will never get the
    money back that they lost for cancelling the season. In order to get
    some of that money back they will have to cut back on this years
    salaries. (When the owners implemented the cap in December the Red Sox
    had something like a 38 mill. cap. Duquette said Harrington gave him a
    33 mill budget.). 
    As far as the superstars salaries going down, I don't think that will
    happen. Just look at the contract Bagwell signed when everyone thougt
    there would be a cap. The Astros traded 3-4 regulars just to get under
    the cap and sign their superstar. The average to below average players
    salaries will fall.
    And for all the NBA people out there who think that there will be an
    agreement remember there are 2 things that the NBA and MLB have in
    common. Jerry Reisendorf and Ted Turner! Reisendorf is probably one of
    the biggest hawks in ownership and Turner has showed no interest in
    really getting involved.

    Speaking of Ted Turner.  Gammons alluded to him as being the owners
    trump card vis a vis the anti-trust (repeal) legislation.  The feeling
    is Ted can put a lot of pressure on Gingrich because of the money
    Turner put into his campaigns.
    
    This is not my opinion except I agree repeal of anti-trust exemption
    will go slow or not at all (it should be a no-brainer - no sport and
    especially baseball after the last 6 month fiasco should have this
    exemption).

    
    Anyone think Ted and Newt are really that tight?  They're on opposite
    ends of the political spectrum.  If Ted gave Newt any $, it was
    probably less than he gave Newt's opponent.
    
    brews

    I cracked up when I read about Newt being in Ted's pocket. The question
    that needs to be answered is Newt in Jane's (Fonda) corner?
     

    
    
     all the Big Stars make more than enough money to survive.  i did see
    Barry Bonds on Renegade last weekend.  The strike hurts all the little
    players.  The Boston Herald had an artilce Tony Fossas. He was smart
    and didn't blow his money.  Instead he bought a regular home and drives
    a 1982 Escort.  The house is paid for.  I could see Lenny d. crossing
    the picket line.  If i had the chance to make 5million a season, see
    ya.  Money talks!!!!!!

Newt's answer to the strike (this is true, I heard it on the radio):

Get all the owners and players together on an island.  Have them pray and then
watch "Field of Dreams"...

=Bob=

  Just heard on the radio the Las Vegas odds of the strike being settled
  soon enough for the regular players to play on opening day. If ya think
  the regular players will start on opening day you can bet 1 dollar
  for a chance to win 35.

	Keith

    
    	I read in another conference that an organization comprised
    	of owners and players (MLBA?) decided to start charging $6
    	per uniform to Little League teams which use names of major 
    	league teams (ie. Tigers, Red Sox, etc...).  If this is indeed
    	true, then a great big boo and a hiss to them.
    
    Claybone

Claybone,

I just heard that, too.

TTom

-.2, Claybone:

>   	I read in another conference that an organization comprised
>   	of owners and players (MLBA?) decided to start charging $6
>   	per uniform to Little League teams which use names of major 
>   	league teams (ie. Tigers, Red Sox, etc...).  If this is indeed
>   	true, then a great big boo and a hiss to them.

Wire report (presumably AP) from The Stars and Stripes of Saturday 18 Feb:

MELBOURNE, Fla. - If a Little League team wants to use uniforms with a big
league nickname, it's going to have to pay extra for licenced products.

	Major League Baseball Properties is cracking down on Little League
teams and amateur adult teams.  They still can use the nicknames, but manu-
facturers will have to pay $6 per uniform for using licensed equipment.

[30]

It's not clear to me from this that the mere use of the name will cost money.
It sounds like it's the logo that they're charging for.  In other words, you
can call your Little League team The East Armpit Cardinals for free; but if
your uniform includes the birds on the bat, that's six bucks a pop.  After all,
the name "Cardinals" is not the property of the St. Louis club; otherwise,
they could make Stanford University pay them for the use of it.  And how can
you own a name like "Indians"?  This is however only my interpretation.

BTW:  MLBP is an organ of Major League Baseball, and has no connection with
the Player's Association, except of course that the Basic Agreement has
clauses regulating the distribution of royalties.

Steve

The Red Sox issued a statement that they had no knowledge of this happenign in
the past, and would not support it for the future.  They said they were going to
investigate, and if it proved true, they would remint any money to Little League
baseball.

Too bad they couldn't do somehting to get kids out playing ball with NO
uniforms, teams, coaches, adults...

=bob=

>Too bad they couldn't do somehting to get kids out playing ball with NO
>uniforms, teams, coaches, adults...

AMEN

    
    Steve,
    	
    	The first sentence in that article is pretty clear.  It says
    	nickname not logo.  Incredible....
    
    Claybone

    This strike it seems has taken yet another turn. It seems like a lot of
    the big market teams have said screw this replacement ball stuff. The
    O's have said they won't field a replacment team period. The Dodgers
    and a few other teams have said they won't make any of their minor
    leaguers play in a Scab games. The Blue Jays "home games" will be in
    Florida if the season opens. It now is the Large markets vs the Small
    markets vs the players.
    
    Also Gammons had the salary structure for Scab ball. Each player gets a
    5k signing/reporting bonus. If they start the regular season they get
    another 5k. When the real players come back they get a 25k severance. 
    So for 35k do you want to be a ML ballplayer?
    
    Mike 

Claybone, I don't see how they can enforce it.  That sentence also refers
to "licensed products".

Even then, I think it is disgustingly small-minded.  They ought to be
delighted that the kids want to wear their favorite team's colors and
grateful for the free advertising.  The amount of money they'll generate
is a drop in the bucket.

Bully for the Red Sox.  If a few more clubs do the same thing, maybe MLBP
will reconsider and crawl back into its hole.

Steve

    
>    Whether the games should or shouldn't be played is a matter
>    of perspective, and not an absolute.

    For me, there's a basic underlying tenet with any sport that the
    competition is being waged on the up-and-up.  If the owners were 
    aggressively trying to put the "best players available" on the field,
    were sincerely trying to engage in a championship pennant competition
    with their second-line minor-league players and extras, I could see it
    differently.  It's obvious that they're not.  You've got managers and
    coaches disgusted with what they're doing, some teams very much
    indifferent to the entire scheme, the Baltimore Orioles completely 
    refusing to compete, the "Toronto" Blue Jays competing out of Dunedin 
    FL and god knows what else to come.  At best you've got the owners by 
    their own admission offering a "temporary" substitution, at worst it's 
    nothing more that a transparent attempt to break the union, a business
    goal which in the short term does not require offering legitimate 
    competition on the playing field (especially if you've got season-ticket 
    renewal rights hanging over the customer).  To me it's the worst insult 
    possible.  I too was disgusted by the players' decision to strike and 
    cause the cancellation of last year's WS, but better no championship 
    than a bogus one that the teams themselves aren't seriously contesting.
    
    glenn
       

  It appears that the owners are really split over this thing. Right now
there seem to be at least 3 groups,

  - a group that refuses to field replacement teams

  - a group that would like to settle but will field replacement teams

  - a group that wants to break the union.

  I wonder if there is any chance that the leagues will break up? I could
see a situation where the O's and several other teams decided "heck, let's
cut a deal with our players and play ball" while other owners held out.

  Now that would be chaos,
  George

    
    Bully choas.
    
    Joe

re:  last few

As long as the MLB players are on strike, WHO CARES if the owners put
little leaguers on the field ???  This is a BUSINESS.  They produce
a product, you either buy it, or you don't !

Glenn, don't turn your %*^@ing TV or radio on.  And don't pay to go
see them play.  As the question goes, "if a tree falls in the
forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound ?".

As long as ML players aren't there, who cares what the owners do ?
If it's the standings you're worried about, well that's tough luck.
Your players (and mine) aren't on the field.  And like it or not,
the owners OWN major league baseball, and the teams we follow.
The players play by, and we follow by their rules.  That's the
privilege of OWNERSHIP.


As for emerging factions among the owners, I don't believe there
is a GROUP of owners that won't field a replacement team.  To-date
only Angelos has threatened to field a team.

I do agree that it appears replacement ball is not only dividing
players, but also owners.  Perhaps it will be the catalyst to get
things done.


BTW, did you hear Fehr say that ANY MINOR LEAGUER playing in
replacement games (exhibition or real) will be considered a
strike-breaker ?  So now he's trying to intimidate players
the owners have under contract, but are not part of the ML
players union.

    
> Glenn, don't turn your %*^@ing TV or radio on.  And don't pay to go
> see them play.  As the question goes, "if a tree falls in the
> forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound ?".
    
    Damn straight.  I'm a season-ticket holder and I most definitely will
    _not_ be subsidizing this travesty.  If that's a tree in the forest,
    so be it.
    
> And like it or not,
> the owners OWN major league baseball, and the teams we follow.
> The players play by, and we follow by their rules.  That's the
> privilege of OWNERSHIP.
  
    First of all, "we" are the customer.  "We" don't follow by anything 
    if "we" don't want to.  Secondly, the privilege of ownership only 
    extends as far as allowed within the law.  The NFL learned that 
    lesson when similar to the current owners' plan, they imposed their 
    Plan B free agent plan.  Their "privilege" didn't extend that far, the
    courts let them know it, and it's not inconceivable that the same 
    thing will happen here.  That seems to be something that you continue 
    to ignore with this defense of "ownership can do anything it wants (and
    we shouldn't care)".  No, it can't, not at an absolute, neither in 
    practice nor in principle in a capitalistic system.  At least not under
    the American capitalistic system.
    
> As for emerging factions among the owners, I don't believe there
> is a GROUP of owners that won't field a replacement team.  To-date
> only Angelos has threatened to field a team.
    
    And as a GROUP, MLB has threatened to tag Angelos with a $500K/game
    fine and/or revocation of his franchise.  So much for non-organized,
    non-intimidating, non-UNIONIZED action on the part of the owners.
    
    glenn
                                                

    
>> Glenn, don't turn your %*^@ing TV or radio on.  And don't pay to go
>> see them play.  As the question goes, "if a tree falls in the
>> forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound ?".
    
>    Damn straight.  I'm a season-ticket holder and I most definitely will
>    _not_ be subsidizing this travesty.  If that's a tree in the forest,
>    so be it.
    
    Fair enough; I think a lot of people will have the same attitude.
    And I'll be more than happy to take advantage of the good seats
    that I expect will be available.
    
>    Their "privilege" didn't extend that far, the
>    courts let them know it, and it's not inconceivable that the same 
>    thing will happen here.
    
    Are you suggesting that "replacementball" will be thrown out by the
    courts?  That would be a shame.
    
    Joe (Sitting clearly in the minority, it seems...) 

    
    Glenn,
    
      How would the players like to share in the risk as well as profit
      of ownership?  I haven't seen any players offer to take a cut if
      all these purported profits aren't made.  All I've seen is a lot of
      complaining about how much owners make.  EVERYONE makes a lot, but
      only one faction is taking a risk.
    
      If you owned Glenn's Bar And Grille, how would you like your
      bartender telling you how much profit you should earn?  Would
      you say "Listen, here's the salary, take it or leave it," or "Geez, how
      greedy I am -- you're right, why don't you tell me what your pay
      should be based on how much profit you think I should be making."?
     
      Chances are he/she'd be gone because your business "is different."  And 
      us customers of GBAG would maybe keep drinking there or not, depending 
      upon how much we liked that bartender.
     
      But that's business.  The owners of businesses take a risk and reap
      the reward.  Employees decide whether or not they want to work for
      said wages or not.  Sometimes they get together and hope their 
      collective power is enough to convince owners to give 'em a raise
      and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
    
      The owners can be as dumb as they want and pay the consequences. 
      They are the owners.  Don't support dumb owners - I'm all for that,
      but I don't understand all the "breaking the union" and "scab" stuff.
        
      If I want to work as engineer for DEC at $X K and you don't, am I 
      a "scab" for taking the job?
    
    - Sean  

    The problem is the owners are the ones who brought on 90% of the
    problems. I have asked this before and noone has answered it. Where are
    the guns the Dawsons, Youngs, Tartabulls etc. used to force the brain
    dead owners to sign them to huge contracts? Where did a poor team like
    the Astros get the money to sign Bagwell to his 7+ mill/year contract.
    I would love to own an franchise which has an antitrust exemption. Face
    it the owners have forced this on themselves thru mismanagment and
    instead of trying to work with the players like the NBA they have
    chosen to try and break the union. And if the owners were correct then
    why are the Umpires now also on strike? Instead of promoting the
    product on the field (the players) they want to trash them. As far as
    taking risks, when's the last time a MLB team went bankrupt? 
    
    Mike

  Exactly right Mike, we so often hear people talk about what it would be like
for the players to have a real job but I always wonder what it would be like
if the baseball owners had to own a real company.

  If only DEC had an anti-trust exemption and some white knight that would
give anything to buy us out and pay all our bills every time we lost money.

  George

    
    > The problem is the owners are the ones who brought on 90% of the
    > problems.
    
    So?  Every owner of every business in the world has to suffer the
    consequences of his bad decisions and reap the benefits of the good.
    Why not baseball owners?
    
    > I have asked this before and noone has answered it. Where are
    >    the guns the Dawsons, Youngs, Tartabulls etc. used to force the brain
    >    dead owners to sign them to huge contracts?
    
    Look in the mirror.
    
    Its the fans who force this.  The fans want the big players.  The fans
    can want *anything* they want, since they don't have to come up with
    the means to pay for it.  But if the teams don't sign those players, the 
    fans get upset, and the sports writers start bashing the team for not 
    "wanting" to spend the money to get the big names.  And if prices go up, 
    watch out!  Can't have that.
    
    If the owners really need to cut costs, how do they do it?  They have
    no way, right now since if they don't pay the bif salaries the fans
    stop going and if they do, they're not cutting costs.
    
    The owners get forced by the market to spend big money, but only they
    are to assume the risks of this spending spree.  The players aren't 
    offering because its easier to just use that good old throwaway line:
    
      "Oh all those teams make money."
    
    Again, in what business do the employees tell their owners how much
    they should earn, and when its enough to give them a raise?
    
    Not any I know.

    I have no problems with owners making money. I have problems with
    owners who cry poverty and as soon as this strike is over are going to
    soak 2 cities about 180 million bucks each to join in there cartel.
    If things are so tough why add teams?
    The owners don't need a salary cap or a tax to keep costs in line. They
    need them to keep other OWNERS in line. If each owner set their own
    salary structure for their team and stuck with it there would be a lot
    more Jody Reeds out there who would get paid what they deserve and not
    what they want.
    As far as looking in the mirror at the fans being a problem I would
    rather my favorite team the Red Sox had admitted a few years ago that
    they needed to retool and rebuild thru their Minor leagues then spend
    million dollars to sign aging has beens and players who never reached
    their potential. I am more then willing to watch the Trot Nixons, nomar
    G., Frankie Rodriguezs get there feet wet the next few years. I have
    turned off the TV the last few years and won't watch the Dawsons, Greg
    Harris's and the other 35 year plus players who give no hope of
    anything.
    
    Also any person can tell their bosses what they want to make. If the
    boss says no then that person has the right to go to another company to
    see if someone else will pay him what he wants. If he finds someone
    then that person can leave and go to a new employer just like hundreds
    are doing now in this company. If the person cann't find someone then
    he probably is overstating his market worth and will have have to 
    reaccess his worth.
    In a Free Market system that most of these owners have made millions of
    dollars there are no guarentees. When Wang went Chapter 11 no other 
    computer company felt sorry for them and started screaming for employee 
    relief. Why should MLB be any differant.
    
    Mike
     
    
    Mike
    
     
    

>      How would the players like to share in the risk as well as profit
>      of ownership?  I haven't seen any players offer to take a cut if
>      all these purported profits aren't made.  All I've seen is a lot of
>      complaining about how much owners make.  EVERYONE makes a lot, but
>      only one faction is taking a risk.
    
    I'm sure that the players would gladly enter into an ownership
    partnership whereby they assume the "risk" (about as small in MLB as
    you'll ever want to see) and share in the profits.  Don't kid yourself, 
    though, this is not on the table nor will it ever be.  The owners 
    will have no part of such an arrangement.  It would be far too
    lucrative to the players because the industry is (was) _not_ losing
    money.
    
    What I've heard with both yourself and Joe (when he said "give me back
    arbitration and guaranteed salaries and I'm happy") are sound, legal 
    business propositions.  Unfortunately, they don't remotely match up 
    with the baseball owners' position, and more closely align with what is
    acceptable to the players.  The baseball owners' position is, we've
    seen what the market has produced for salaries, now we want to cut that 
    back by 15% and cap it.  Why?  Because 4-5 franchises are purportedly 
    in "grave financial danger" (even though no one will open up the
    books), which is something that the players in their current position 
    have little control over.
    
    glenn
     

                                               
>    If the owners really need to cut costs, how do they do it?  They have
>    no way, right now since if they don't pay the bif salaries the fans
>    stop going and if they do, they're not cutting costs.
    
    Um, this is life in the big city.  You're talking about balancing
    supply against demand.  That's business.  You don't just magically 
    get everything you want, both low costs and high demand.
    
    With all due respect, Sean, the "fans force this" argument, as if the 
    fans are responsible for baseball's financial position, is pretty
    ridiculous.  The fans are the customers.  They are part of the equation
    (and should be; there's nothing wrong with incentive to winning) but
    they have no direct control over any of it.
    
    glenn
    

    
    I'd be willing to bet that the last thing the players want is a truly 
    all-out Free Market system.
    
    Almost guaranteed they'd all be making less $$$$.  The way that
    salaries are kept so high is with limited free agency.  It keeps the 
    supply of great players artificially lower than the demand in any 
    given year.  If everybody in baseball were all free agents starting from 
    day 1, that'd be a real free market (and guess what would happen to 
    salaries with that kind of competition).  Ever wonder why you don't 
    see players argue for that as much as they argue for no salary cap?
    
    No, I think the players are babmboozling us as much as owners.  The system
    isn't a free market, granted, but the players are trying to make it seem 
    like only the owners are fighting it, and only the owners are winning 
    from it.  The players, imo, are much smarter than the owners, and, as 
    such, better at the marketing campaign.
    
    I'm all for a free market.  I bet the players really aren't.  They like
    the current system, they just don't want give in to a salary cap.
    
    In the end, a free market in sports, WILL change the game.  It's just
    simple capitalism in progress to assume that the better cities to live
    in and the owners with more money will win out over many current 
    baseball towns.  So, it'll be a great game for Boston and New York
    and Chicago, but.....  Do we all want that?
    
    - Sean