September 16th:

LA Times/Times Mirror story via Baltimore Sun site

If they do decide on this date, it gives them very little time to work out a deal and resume the season.

If they do strike I will have a hard time beliving in pro baseball again. It's bad enough those of us in Detroit are stuck with the modern day Bad News Bears, now the entire league is thinking of closing down. I say we cancel the rest of the season, pit NYY vs ATL for the world series, and call it a season before 9/16. Thank god for college football, at least in MI.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but so what? So what if MLB goes on strike? Will life as we know grind to a halt? Especially in the wake of the first anniversary of 9-11, I doubt that many people will be able to feel much sympathy for the millionaire crybaby owners or the millionaire crybaby players.

There will be plenty of other activities, either to watch, or to participate in.

Again, my comments are not directed at Wurm or any other lister here, but at MLB.

I just shake my head in disbelief, thinking how profitable Major League Baseball could be, for everyone involved, if the owners and players kept stewardship of the game foremost in their minds. Instead we have monstrous tantrums, abysmal management, and huge economic losses, all of which could be avoided. (I understand your sentiment of "Just visiting Earth," twin58! I'm reminded of that frequently-used paraphrase from the original Star Trek: "Beam me up, Scotty; no intelligent life-forms here...") Perhaps these feuding parties, will, by some miracle, come to their senses before they bleed the life out of the sport (I've been known to offer up prayers for devine intervention in just such seemingly hopeless causes, and I'll be doing so, here!) or maybe their behavior will become so ghastly (as in the current Wall Street scandals) that lasting reform will be enacted. Either of these scenarios would be preferable to the warm buckets of spit they've been dumping on each other --and us-- for the past year. Am I cranky, or what? My apologies, folks....

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]

[quote]Originally posted by fielderschoice:
I just shake my head in disbelief, thinking how profitable Major League Baseball could be ...

---

An article in the Sporting News reminded me that Pres. Clinton, of all people, had the best line from the '94 strike: "It's just a few hundred folks trying to figure out how to divide nearly $2 billion. They ought to be able to figure that out."
Same thing now -- but the article says the number is now closer to $3.5 billion ...

Let 'em strike! The game has been ruined by greed - on both sides. By Sept. 16, most people's thoughts will have turned to football (not to mention that we'll have just marked the one-year anniversary of 9-11). I hope I'm wrong on this one, but sadly, I think that when the strike ends sometime next year, fans will again fill the ballparks as though nothing ever happened. And in four years, we'll be faced with another "work stoppage" and complaining about the same problems that are plaguing the game today.

MLBPA people, including Don Fehr, say no strike date has been considered.

And no, BOTH sides DON'T have to "come to their senses" -- because it's the owners who are in the wrong, as Dave Pease of Baseball Prospectus writes. Just because there are two sides warring doesn't mean the just solution is exactly in the middle...

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
If they do decide on this date, it gives them very little time to work out a deal and resume the season.

---

Yes, that's true. But the flip side of that is that it gives them eight weeks between now and then to hammer out a new contract and avoid another strike - which, BTW, I think would be disastrous for the game. Maybe I'm guilty of a lot of wishful thinking, but I'm hoping they can work this out.

I say let them strike and learn the law of supply and demand. They will have ample supply after they hammer out a deal....but absolutely zero demand for their product.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
And no, BOTH sides DON'T have to "come to their senses" -- because it's the owners who are in the wrong, as Dave Pease of Baseball Prospectus writes. Just because there are two sides warring doesn't mean the just solution is exactly in the middle...

---

Ok, hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, and Richard Simmons is dating Pamela Anderson - BILL W AND I ACTUALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!

Just because Bud and his fellow owners are lying doesn't totally absolve the Players Association of blame. They've upped their ante over these many years and gone for the jugular every time, thus hardening the hearts of said owners. The owners have always caved, except in 1994 when a court order forced them to allow the players to return. Barring a similar court order, I don't see them caving again.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
The Players Association [has] upped their ante over these many years and gone for the jugular every time, thus hardening the hearts of said owners...

---

Player envy alert... Oh my, getting market value for one's talents induces coronary thrombosis in employers? THE BRUTES!!!

This kind of illogic just makes me shake my head. Did the Players Association force the owners to pay a turkey like Raul Mondesi $12 million a year? Where was the gun?

The owners' position: "Stop me before I sign Brady Anderson!"

Don't blur the issue. I'm not talking about individual player contracts. I'm talking about the previous labor negotiations. Look at the history from when Marvin Miller was the union leader. The players have fought for every possible advantage they can get and the owners have mostly caved.

espn.com ran this handy summary (by the Baseball Prospectus guys) of the real issues and negotiating scenario:

Labor negotiations: What happens next?


[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
The players have fought for every possible advantage they can get...

---

And the problem with that is what exactly? That's what unions do...

It's not in the best interests of the game for the two sides to be bitterly waging war every few years. For decades the owners had the upper hand and beat down the players. Then the tide turned and the players did the same to the owners.

I don't care about what a union is "supposed" to do (as if a bunch of millionaire athletes constitutes a union in the same way that factory workers, hospital workers, etc. do).

All I care about is that the sport I love has become a laughingstock and is in danger of becoming completely irrelevant. And the players are just as much to blame as the owners.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I think it would help a great deal if they had a commissioner who was capable of acting in the best interests of baseball. And the fault for that does lie entirely with the owners.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by JC:
I think it would help a great deal if they had a commissioner who was capable of acting in the best interests of baseball. And the fault for that does lie entirely with the owners.

---

Totally agree, JC. Bud Selig is what he is. The Commissioner of Baseball is chosen by the owners group, so of course they want someone who is weak and can easily be manipulated to their own selfish advantage. Believe me, I'm not defending Bud Selig (gawd, whatta greaseball that guy is). But wouldn't anybody the owners selected be just as greasy as Selig?

You sometimes hear talk about Rudy Giuliani for Commissioner. Hey, I think he'd make a great commissioner. His love of baseball knows no bounds, and I believe he would work his damnedest for the betterment of the sport. That said, do you think for one second that the owners group, a fraternity of egotistical billionaires who long since stopped taking "no" for an answer, would put up with someone as strong and forceful as Giuliani? Be serious.

The Commissioner is, and will remain, an employee of the owners. Period.

Joe, I wouldn't dispute that the Players don't constitute an "average" union. However, they are entitled to bargain for an agreement, since a $3.5 billion industry wouldn't exist without them.

As the Baseball Prospectus analysts have said, wanting to see all franchises run in a smart and efficient manner -- which is the view of most who think management has traditionally behaved stupidly -- is really "pro-owner" too. And the current management strategy (thru mouthpiece Bud) to attempt to break the union for the umpteenth time isn't going to help anybody.