There is an article in SI that states that Selig should be replaced by Nolan Ryan as commish. Here's a link to the crux of their argument. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2002/07/30/nolan_ryan/ What do you all think about this idea?
I'm still wondering why Selig is to blame for 99% of MLB's numerous problems. Fay Vincent is the man to blame more than Selig. I really don't think ANYONE would be capable of fixing this mess. Unless Bill Gates were commish, and gave owners and players his own money. Also, I don't know how much negotiation skills Ryan has developed over the years. It's good that he owns a few banks, but I don't think he ever had to deal with a group like the MLBPA.
He's not the cause of the problems, but he has not gained the trust of the players. In a situation like this rapport can be the difference between a deal and a strike.
That's what's funny. Why does their have to be a commish, who kisses the MLBPA's ass? I know that Selig kisses the owner's ass... Ideally, you would have a neutral guy as commisioner. But a neutral commish doesn't mean that players and owners will suddenly find happiness. This is basically the owners vs. the MLBPA. I really don't think a neutral commish plays that big of a role in preventing a strike. He would "mediate" I guess, but mediation wouldn't mean owners and players changing their minds. Those 2 factions are way too stubborn for anything good to happen.
It's simple psychology. Assume for a moment that everything Selig says is true. The players do not trust or like him. That being the case they won't accept anything he says in negotiating. This is very counterproductive to getting a deal done. There is an adage that says it is just as important to be well liked as it is to be good at what you do. The same logic applies here.
Selig lied to congress. I wouldn't trust anything he has to say. Why are the owners afraid to open their books and show how much trouble the game is in financially? Everyone knows player salaries. Why shouldn't everyone know how much the owners are making or losing? http://www.coxnews.com/washingtonbureau/staff/dart/120701BASEBALL-HEARING07.html
Because they aren't publicly traded concerns. This isn't about who is losing how much or making how much. The reality is that if the mid market teams spent as much as the Yankees they'd be out of business in a few years. This is about competitive balance. I find it funny that the same people who complain that the owners aren't really losing money and don't see a need to change the system are the same people who complain that the same 3 teams compete with one another to go to the World Series. The system has resulted in the lack of parity...why shouldn't we change it? What I really want to know is what people think of Nolan Ryan being the commish. Would it be good or bad? Would it help the game or not?
I really don't understand the article. Did the author just pull Nolan's name out of a hat? Why not Ernis Banks? Harmon Killebrew? Rod Carew? What does Nolan have to say about being the Commisioner of MLB? Very poorly written article in my opinion.
I didn't read the article, but I don't think an ex-player is going to be ultimately any better than an ex-owner. You have to get an independent student of the game. Bob Costas, for example, would be a reasonable choice, in my opinion. No vested interest in the success of either party.
How can there be competitive balance with the anti-trust exemption? Why is it that no other major sport has this exemption and are not in the trouble that baseball is? The system needs changing. The owners monopoly is a good place to start.
Competitive balance and the antitrust exemption have nothing to do with one another. I could go off on a discourse explaining the antitrust laws, but that would take up way too much space. In short, all it really means is that the players can't sue the owners in court when they have a dispute...they just go on strike. The best answer to your other question is that the other sports have MUCH weaker player's unions. Since MLB has a strong labor union, they have had to live with the current arrangement for far too long, causing some teams to have an inability to compete. The other sports have a salary cap. The owners in baseball would like one, but the players would strike. It all comes down to the owners wanting the game to continue so they haven't gone the extra step of "breaking" the union on this issue.
I agree that it is poorly written, but your assertion that Nolan was pulled out of a hat isn't fair. The author made it abundantly clear that he chose Nolan because Nolan has been a player AND an owner. Therefore he understands the issues of BOTH sides as well as anybody out there.
I think that's true. If there was an indepedent commissioner who really was looking out for the good of the game (not saying Nolan Ryan is necessarily the guy, either. I don't know if he'd be good or not) and was known for his independence, it might be easier to get the players and owners to come to an agreement that really is in the best interests of the game (whatever that agreement might be). It's hard for the players to believe anything Selig says because he is "one of them". Even if Selig were completely honest about everything having to do with the game and offering a deal that really was in the best interests of the game, I suspect a large number of players would not believe him or whatever deal he put forth.
Robina Ventura might have issues, as well as the some odd 5,000 batters he struck out, and the 10,000 he brushed off the plate
and he would also prove capable of accomplishing something other than labor peace that I have previously thought impossible: equaling david stern's level of commish arrogance.
I wouldn't want Costas as the new commish simply because I have heard him speak many times (quite vehemently, actually) against the wild card. He thinks it is wrong and against the game, and I think he would try to eliminate it. But I understand Major's point as to why he would make a good commish for this negotiation.
Just because somebody is a baseball purist does not mean that they would eliminate a level of the playoffs that has proven to grab the attention of casual fans. And yes, I think he'd make a great commish.
Well, obviously not. I wasn't suggesting that every baseball purists would do this...I was suggesting that Costas would, based on what I have heard him say about it.
