I Hope The Baseballers Strike

If it takes a strike to resolve all/most of the problems that MLB is experiencing now, then I'm all for it. I think most fans feel the same way. There would be a huge amount of disappointment with the cancellation of the rest of the season and the World Series, but if no changes are made, baseball will run itself into the ground (further). So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and strike, but get your issues sorted out and then work on gaining fan support back.

 

Well, they have agreed to drug testing.

I'm with boomboom. I don't care how it gets done-agreement, strike, lockout-but as long as baseball's problems are fixed, I'll sacrifice a month without games and the playoff for years and years of a competitive sport.

 

does anyone actually think the drug testing will really do anything? Will superstars (Sosa, Bonds, etc.) really be busted for steroids, if they are using? Personally, I think its just a front and MLB will only bust the 24th and 25th men on various teams... Then they will jump up and shout "see our drug testing works, we have found and punished known users." I really don't think any star has anything to worry about, because they are the bread and butter of the MLB bottom line and baseball doesn't want to get into the whole "superstar breaks records using steroids" scandal. That would cause WAY too much of an uproar in sporting circles.

 

well..i don't mind a work stoppage...if it solves problems....


BUT CAN WE ARRANGE FOR IT TO OCCUR IN A YEAR WHEN THE ASTROS ARE NOT COMPETITIVE???

 

Price of the game
By George F. Will
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, August 11, 2002
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/3896933p-4922549c.html

WASHINGTON -- Major League Baseball's labor negotiations involve two paradoxes. The players' union's primary objective is to protect the revenues of a very few very rich owners -- principally, the Yankees'. The owners' primary objective is a more egalitarian distribution of wealth.

The union believes that unconstrained spending by the richest three teams pulls up all payrolls. Most owners believe that baseball's problems -- competitive imbalance, the parlous financial conditions of many clubs -- result from large and growing disparities of what are mistakenly treated as "local" revenues.

These disparities largely reflect differences in teams' broadcasting revenues. The Yankees' broadcasting revenues ($62 million) are more than those of seven other teams (Kansas City, Minnesota, Oakland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Florida, Milwaukee) combined.

The owners' initial proposal included two recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics (George Mitchell, Paul Volcker, Yale's President Richard Levin and this columnist). One is increased revenue sharing (from 20 percent to 50 percent of so-called "local revenues"). The other, to slow payroll growth, is a 50 percent tax on the portion of any team's payroll in excess of $98 million. Neither recommendation involves a new or radical concept. Baseball has revenue sharing now. It had a luxury tax from 1997 through 1999.

The union's initial proposal was to increase revenue sharing only to 22.5 percent, and no tax. The union likes the status quo. But this is the status quo:

Of the 224 postseason games since the 1994 strike, 219 have been won by teams in the top two payroll quartiles. All World Series games since the strike have been won by teams in the top quartile. In 1991, 13 of the other 25 teams had payrolls at least 75 percent as large as the Yankees' payroll (which was smaller than Oakland's). Today, only four of the other 29 do. When the Yankees play the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, which they do 19 times this season, there is a $97 million payroll disparity ($135 million to $38 million). One day this May the Mets fielded a $63 million starting lineup against a $4 million Padres lineup.

Unlike the NFL and the NBA, both of which adopted their basic economic arrangements after (and because of) the advent of television, baseball's economic model predates radio. And flight. And the internal combustion engine. Today, as when the National League was founded in 1879, locally generated revenues stayed with the local owner.

But the concept of "local revenues" is problematic because no team sells a local product. To buy a team is not to buy an entitlement to all dollars generated by games in that market. Rather, it is to buy an association with MLB. All revenue streams of all teams flow from that association.

As Clark Griffith (of the old Washington Senators family) says, suppose a store sells baseball caps with four different ornithological emblems: a Cardinal, an Oriole, a Blue Jay -- and a Goldfinch. The first three will sell much better than the fourth, and the value of those three derives from their association with MLB, which should receive at least 50 percent of those misnamed "local revenues," to enhance MLB's collective health -- particularly, competitive balance.

Many players have scant knowledge of today's negotiations. On a team flight recently, a superstar, a very intelligent man, discussed the labor negotiations with a team executive. The player said: We will never accept a salary cap. He was startled to learn that no salary cap has been proposed for eight years.

Players who disbelieve MLB's financial difficulties may be convinced by developments already under way. Attendance is down for the third consecutive season (5.7 percent this year, which means almost $80 million in lost ticket revenue alone). Four of the top five amateur players picked in the June draft remain unsigned as teams balk at the players' demands.

The San Francisco Giants' payroll is $75 million, up from $65 million last year. Because of back-loaded contracts, just keeping the current roster would make next year's payroll $85 million. But the Giants plan to trim to $70 million. This is a team averaging a league-best 38,658 fans per game in a park that seats 41,503 -- but a team paying $20 million yearly in interest on that park, which was built without public funds.

Negotiations are creeping at a glacial pace, primarily because the union is being dilatory. It may soon set a strike date, under the pressure of which differences will be split -- or not. The union might miscalculate, as in 1994 when it assumed the strike begun on Aug. 12 would be brief because the owners would surrender. Instead, the postseason was lost.

If a strike starts, do not expect to see baseball before next April. And do not expect to see today's levels of attendance then, or again.

 

As Clark Griffith (of the old Washington Senators family) says, suppose a store sells baseball caps with four different ornithological emblems: a Cardinal, an Oriole, a Blue Jay -- and a Goldfinch. The first three will sell much better than the fourth, and the value of those three derives from their association with MLB, which should receive at least 50 percent of those misnamed "local revenues," to enhance MLB's collective health -- particularly, competitive balance.

This is very misleading. If they are selling hats with NY on them they will sell better than hats with KC on them. The writer is proposing that the local team is in no way responsible for the "local revenue" that is produced. If that were the case, then all teams would have equal revenues (they are all associated with MLB right?) and there would be no competetive balance "problem".

 

But the only reason that hat is desirable is the team's affiliation with mlb. Merchandise is really small potatoes here, local broadcast revenue is the key. I loved this line:

"Unlike the NFL and the NBA, both of which adopted their basic economic arrangements after (and because of) the advent of television, baseball's economic model predates radio. And flight. And the internal combustion engine. Today, as when the National League was founded in 1879, locally generated revenues stayed with the local owner."

 

But without the Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, et al...the Yankees would have nobody to play. Most markets would go without a team...and that will negatively impact national and local broadcast streams. At that point player salaries will decrease...why not just skip all the intermediate steps? Not to mention the fact that player salaries will decline at a much lower rate than if teams started folding left and right. More competition for fewer spots. For the union to dare MLB franchises to go under they are putting a good deal of their membership in peril of not having a job at all. Not a smart move.

 

Obviously there is a necessity to have an entire league for them to play against. But the reason that the Yankees have more revenue than other teams is not because the are affiliated with MLB, it is because they are more popular, in part because they live in a bigger market, in part because they are better, and for other reasons. Computers cannot exist without electricity, but no one is suggesting that computer companies start kicking back money to the power industry.

 

Horrible analogy. These are franchises of MLB. The proposed revenue shring is more akin to the McDonald's on Kirby kicking back money to the corporate office. I don't think anybody has a hrd time with that concept.

 

I hope they strike and then retire the sport of baseball for good-It's pointless! Hey guys let me see how far I can hit this ball. If I hit it really hard you run home blah blah blah I HOPE BASEBALL GETS THE AXE(Strikes out)!

 

That's just ignorant. If you don't understand baseball that's fine...but you went into a thread that you knew would be populated by diehard baseball fans and spewed that trash. Do us all a favor and show a little more restraint next time.

 

Except that most McDonald's are basically the same. I don't choose one over another based on anything except which is closest at the time. I also do not believe that the Houston McDonald's sends money to the Kansas City McDonald's so they can raise employee wages. It is hard to come up with a good analogy for pro sports, especially the business end of it, but I think it would be somewhere between mine and yours.

 

Yep...I agree. I do think it is closer to a franchise situation though. In any event...if the owners agree to it then I don't see where the players have a beef. I understand...it acts as a salary cap. Not really...but even if it did it would be a very soft cap. These guys need to wake up and smell the resin bag.

 

Sorry but I understand all aspects of baseball I just don't like it. So I have a right to voice my opinion. You seem to be the only one that actually cares about it. And once again i will say--Can't wait for them to strike!

 

I'd like nothing more than an agreement that will put all of the parties in check. If you want the demise of all greedy parties then be prepared not to have any goods or services. People go into business to make as much money as they can...that's greed.

"Greed is good...greed works."
--Gordon Gekko "Wall Street"

 

I understand Christopher...and it's troubling. It seems as though they are going to be able to come to an agreement which will restore competitive balance. I don't think the owners will agree to one that won't fix the problems.