Applying The Upcoming Baseball Strike To Your Life

[Marxist]

One day I got a call on voice mail from a headhunter. They asked if I'd like to make 3 times what I'm currently making. That would be a small fortune to someone like me. "Sure," I said.

I went to work for that company and then one day another headhunter called and said, "We'll double your highest fee." I lept and took the deal.

Now one day my latest employer came up to me and said, "Hey look, times are rough in the business, can we put a limit on how much we can spend for your salary?"

"No," I said. "How much you pay me or the guy in the next cubicle is entirely up to you or anyone who hires me. Why should I put a limit on that amount?"

My employer was taken aback. He and the other employers in the industry got together and wanted all of us employees to agree to not make more than they said we could. "You people are rich!" they said. "Not as rich as us, but you have everything anyone could dream of and then some."

"True," I said. "But aren't you the people making us take the money? Don't you think that a free and open market should determine whether or not we make these big salaries? Until you guys work something out amongst yourselves regarding how to share profits industry wide, me and the other employees are gonna strike. Not because we don't make a lot of money. We do. But because we think this is a YOU problem, not an US problem."

My boss had one thing to say, "What about the people that depend on you making our product? Don't they have a say?"

"Very few people DEPEND on our product. We don't make life jackets and we don't put out fires. They want the issue resolved but once again, that depends on you and the other owners to make it work."

 

[JazzManJim]

I've heard the "free and open market" debate from the players an awful lot.

This strikes me as funny considering that their purporrted "free and open market" takes place wholly inside a Congressionally-supported monopoly.

Then again, I decided that, because of tha absolute stupidity of the entire situation I've thrown over Major League Baseball for the foreseeable future. I can't say that I've given it up forever, but I can't see a circumstance under which I'd come back to it. My two fantasy league teams are dead on the vine. I don't even have a basic interest in tracking them.

 

[Marxist]

I've heard the "free and open market" debate from the players an awful lot.

This strikes me as funny considering that their purporrted "free and open market" takes place wholly inside a Congressionally-supported monopoly.

True. But who created the monopoly? Exactly.

I refuse to not look deeper into the issue and simply throw up my hands in disgust.

 

[JazzManJim]

True. But who created the monopoly? Exactly.

I refuse to not look deeper into the issue and simply throw up my hands in disgust.

Essentially, both the owners and the players equally led themselves to this situation.

A couple of decades ago, the owners attemtped to get their heads together to make an ersatz salary cap. They decided that when it came to free agents, they would only spend a certain amount of money. The players found out about it and took them to court, leading to the Collusion I and II court decisions that hamstrung the owners a great deal. Now the situation exists that the owners can only institute any kind of organized spending limits on salary with the players explicit agreement. Anything else would violate those court decisions.

Of course the players aren't going to agree to any such thing. Why should they (aside from, you know, killing the game...). So the only workable situation that exists if each owner, individually, decided to impose their own spending cap. That, of course, goes completely out the window if any single owner decides not to do it and spends what he wants (like Steinbrenner did back then).

MLB really is perilously close to losing their monopoly status. An awful lot of lawmakers have noted with a lot of digsust what's been happening on both sides of the bargaining table and they're about to bring whatever smackdown they can and the biggest one is losing that monopoly.

 

[Marxist]

Essentially, both the owners and the players equally led themselves to this situation.

A couple of decades ago, the owners attemtped to get their heads together to make an ersatz salary cap. They decided that when it came to free agents, they would only spend a certain amount of money. The players found out about it and took them to court, leading to the Collusion I and II court decisions that hamstrung the owners a great deal. Now the situation exists that the owners can only institute any kind of organized spending limits on salary with the players explicit agreement. Anything else would violate those court decisions.

Of course the players aren't going to agree to any such thing. Why should they (aside from, you know, killing the game...). So the only workable situation that exists if each owner, individually, decided to impose their own spending cap. That, of course, goes completely out the window if any single owner decides not to do it and spends what he wants (like Steinbrenner did back then).

MLB really is perilously close to losing their monopoly status. An awful lot of lawmakers have noted with a lot of digsust what's been happening on both sides of the bargaining table and they're about to bring whatever smackdown they can and the biggest one is losing that monopoly.

So you're in favor of collusion? I thought you were a Libertarian? The reason teams can't make money is because they don't spend it correctly (METS, TEXAS RANGERS, L.A. DODGERS) or enough (KANSAS CITY).

The Mets spent as much as the Braves this year. The Mets are almost 20 games back last I heard. Conversely, the TWINS are running away with the American League Central and haven't spent much at all.

What happens if they agree to a cap and the same disparities occur? Are the owners going to ask for mandatory trades?

The whole idea of this thing not falling squarely on the shoulders of the owners is frightening.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I was a rabid, life-long baseball fan until the strike in '94. At that point, I had become so fed up with the way the Major League game was being run that I just quit, cold-turkey. I haven't watched a Major League game or looked at a boxscore since the '94 strike. And, while that first year was rough, now I don't miss it one bit. For those of you contemplating a similar resolution, I'll just say that it is possible to get along without their product.

 

[kotori]

MLB really is perilously close to losing their monopoly status. An awful lot of lawmakers have noted with a lot of digsust what's been happening on both sides of the bargaining table and they're about to bring whatever smackdown they can and the biggest one is losing that monopoly.

It's probably time. This ain't the '20s anymore. The monopoly and free agency just don't jive. Not that I'm suggesting players return to chattel status.

 

[modest mouse]

The Player's Union does not allow a closed vote. The players vote while standing together. It has consistently been proven in interviews and anonymous polls that the majority of players, the ones 'only' making a million or two per year... do NOT want to strike.

The Agebts and the mega-dollar players seem to be the ones to give DOnald Fehr enough clout to be a total dick. The Union has about as much respect as Gary Condit.

That said, the owners are liars. Everyone knows they are liars. Even they do. They want to make money, that is their right once you invest a couple hundred million dollars into a franchise.

The thing is, if you cant make money running a Baseball team then you are one shitty businessman. Kansas City, Minnesota, pittsburgh, etc do have problems with attendance and dont get huge TV contracts but this doest carry over to the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Mariners, etc.

The owners cry poverty but in the same breath say its about competitive balance. I do believe in some form of revenue sharing but not anything like the current one. Much of the luxury tax money that is kicked to less financially wealthy teams is NOT spent on players.

The owners doctor their books. Bud Selig doctors the MLB books. Its a big game of bullshit and disgust.

I agree witha free agency system in so much as before Curt Flood players were treated like cattle.

But I also know that Football is so much more stable and competitive with a slary cap.

I think that MLB should be putting presure on the poor teams to manage wisely and generate players. The shared cash can allow them to keep those players longer than they currently do.

I think the players should use other means to wield power. A strike is playing with fire. I havnt followed this seasona s closely as most because I am off of TV but if games are missed it will be dificult for me to regain interest.


Its unclear who really holds the trump card in negotiations. The owners need teh players to have a product to market and sell. The players need the owners to have a place to play.

Who could be replace the easiest?

 

[modest mouse]

So you're in favor of collusion? I thought you were a Libertarian? The reason teams can't make money is because they don't spend it correctly (METS, TEXAS RANGERS, L.A. DODGERS) or enough (KANSAS CITY).

The Mets spent as much as the Braves this year. The Mets are almost 20 games back last I heard. Conversely, the TWINS are running away with the American League Central and haven't spent much at all.

What happens if they agree to a cap and the same disparities occur? Are the owners going to ask for mandatory trades?

The whole idea of this thing not falling squarely on the shoulders of the owners is frightening.

This is so true.
Excellent post.

 

[JazzManJim]

So you're in favor of collusion? I thought you were a Libertarian? The reason teams can't make money is because they don't spend it correctly (METS, TEXAS RANGERS, L.A. DODGERS) or enough (KANSAS CITY).

The Mets spent as much as the Braves this year. The Mets are almost 20 games back last I heard. Conversely, the TWINS are running away with the American League Central and haven't spent much at all.

What happens if they agree to a cap and the same disparities occur? Are the owners going to ask for mandatory trades?

The whole idea of this thing not falling squarely on the shoulders of the owners is frightening.

I'm in favor of some form of salary cap. Yeah, I'm a Libertarian, which means that I'm not inf avor of the government imposing that cap. If the industry, however, decides that in order to survive, they need to institute a cap, then so be it. Of course, I also believe that MLB should not have monopoly protection. That's where my inner Libertarian stands on the issue.

You can't solve mis-spending. You can solve money inequities inside the industry. I think that, in the end, the solution is going to be a combination of salary caps (similar to what the NBA has in place, which hardly is pauperizing the players) and revenue-sharing. They either put those into place or the game dies. It's pretty much that simple.

In the end, the labor problems may well be solely the fault of the owners. But both sides bear responsibility for hosing the fans on a continued basis. Both sides have used the public relations skills of Atilla the Hun and the fans are walking away. After August 30th, I'd be very surprised to see fans coming back at all.

Nine work stoppages. That's a lot to forgive. I can't anymore, and I'm perhaps the most ardent baseball fan I know.

 

[teddybear4play]

The players have won every strike/work stoppage in baseball's history because the average person always identifies more with the worker than the owner. No matter what, the players usually have that going for them.

The reason why they will lose this strike is because everyone knows they chose to strike on August 30 in order to use the possible lack of baseball on the 9/11 anniversary, or the potential cancellation of the playoffs, as leverage. It's that complete and utter disregard for the game and its fans, by both sides, which is ruining the sport, but the players' actions are a new low.

Nobody will feel sorry for the players anymore, and so long as the owners basically shut up, the players will probably capitulate before the World Series is cancelled, when they realize their strategy will have backfired. Unfortunately, by then it may already be too late.

Unless baseball emerges with a more sound financial scheme that brings in more competitive balance. If that happens, more fans from more areas will be drawn in, but like the recovery after the lost autumn of '94, it will be a long and arduous process, which could be easily ruined if another work stoppage happens by the end of the decade.

TB4p

 

[Spinaroonie]

The other day I was driving through Arlington and A-Rod wiped my windshield with a dirty rag. I gave him a quarter.

The man does know how to prepare for these things.

 

[Spinaroonie]

My two fantasy league teams are dead on the vine. I don't even have a basic interest in tracking them.

But how much does that have to do with the fact that you've probably (If they're anything like mine) been slotted since June and aren't allowed to play your players because of restritctions?

 

[Johnny Cool]

Essentially, both the owners and the players equally led themselves to this situation.

A couple of decades ago, the owners attemtped to get their heads together to make an ersatz salary cap. They decided that when it came to free agents, they would only spend a certain amount of money. The players found out about it and took them to court, leading to the Collusion I and II court decisions that hamstrung the owners a great deal. Now the situation exists that the owners can only institute any kind of organized spending limits on salary with the players explicit agreement. Anything else would violate those court decisions.

Isn't this always the case? That those who refuse to educate themselves about the issue just swallow whatever swill the owners and owner friendly media want them to.

You're wrong about what you think collusion was. It wasn't a "salary cap" it was a backroom handshake amongst owners to go back to the pre-messersmith days. They decided not to spend "a certain amount of money" they decided not to spend any money at all on free agents.

But why did the Players "take them to court" as you put it(It actually went to an arbitrator)? Because what collusion was(The owners acting together in regards to free agents) was specifically against the terms if the CBA. Strangely enough, the Owners insisted on this being in the contract(Their fear being that players would act in cahoots and negotiate in pairs or threesomes.)

But more to the point why does the fact that "the situation exists that the owners can only institute any kind of organized spending limits on salary with the players explicit agreement" surprise you at all? In what industry can employers make sudden, un negotiated changes to the compensation employees receive? Can Ford decide one day to cut salaries in half?

See Jim, as much as I respect your opinons their based on biased views(The idea that collusion was some noble pursuit of fiscal restraint) or just plaing wrong information(There were no "court decisions")

Sadly the people who speak the loudest about baseball labour history tend to be the most ignorant of it.

 

[Johnny Cool]

The players have won every strike/work stoppage in baseball's history because the average person always identifies more with the worker than the owner. No matter what, the players usually have that going for them.

The reason why they will lose this strike is because everyone knows they chose to strike on August 30 in order to use the possible lack of baseball on the 9/11 anniversary, or the potential cancellation of the playoffs, as leverage. It's that complete and utter disregard for the game and its fans, by both sides, which is ruining the sport, but the players' actions are a new low.


TB4p

There are a few things you have wrong. I'll hit them point by point.

1) The "fans" are never with the players in work stoppages. It's a complete falsehood. The players, in every labour dispute, have been viewed as being pampered spoiled crybabies. You might think I'm wrong but another glaring error in your arguement shows how wrong you really are on this issue. If players have "utter disregard for....it's fans" why will their opinion influence the labour battle? The real reason the players always win is because they are always united and the owners never are.

2. Nothing is ruining the "Sport" of baseball. The sport is as good(probably better) than it's ever been. You might dislike the financial issues in the game but the game itself is great.

3. The real reason that the players will most likely "win" this strike? when it comes right down to it, they have all the power. I follow the game because of them, not the owners. My interest in them outweighs everything else. If the players formed a new league that competed with a vastly inferior MLB game I'd follow the better Baseball without a doubt. I'm not loyal to the logo, I'm loyal to the game.

 

[Johnny Cool]

More to the original idea of the thread, Marx is 100% right. I wouldn't cap my earning potential, I wouldn't expect someone else to.

I don't think the business is in trouble, I think the business is overdo for a change. I think in the next 10-15 years there will be a change from the present system to a English Soccer-esque Division 1, Division 2 style.

I think the major misunderstanding in this labour dispute is the idea that this dispute is player vs owner. It's not. Players would happily agree to revenue sharing if that revenue ended up in their pockets. This dispute, like 94 is way more about Small team vs. Big Team.

 

[teddybear4play]

1) The "fans" are never with the players in work stoppages. It's a complete falsehood. The players, in every labour dispute, have been viewed as being pampered spoiled crybabies. You might think I'm wrong but another glaring error in your arguement shows how wrong you really are on this issue. If players have "utter disregard for....it's fans" why will their opinion influence the labour battle? The real reason the players always win is because they are always united and the owners never are.

That last part is definitely true.

I was unclear in my statement. While I hate to cut and paste something, let me use an excerpt from Bob Costas' book Fair Ball: A Fan's Case For Baseball:

Over the years, informed observers have consistently sided with the players, dating back to the days of Curt Flood. There was a time in the late '60s and '70s when supporting the Players Association was a cause that progressive sports fans took up because it transcended the sports world and was connected to threads of egalitarianism and antiestablishment ideals that appealed to most of a generation. These stances communicated a measure of sophistication, a view of the world that was broader and more compassionate than that of the portion of America who insisted on referring to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay, or claimed that the end of the reserve clause was the end of baseball. We knew better. The players were right, in ways both big and small.

So the players grew richer, as they should have, but their true cause was about a kind of justice, self-determination, and basic fairness . . . [But] what today's Players Association is about is often so far removed from the essential principles that Curt Flood was fighting for that it is almost unrecognizable. It is greed and ego cloaking itself in a shroud of moral superiority . . . We have now reached a point where even those of us who have consistently supported the Players Association can see what they apparently cannot or will not: Those who were once the revolutionaries and reformers now run the risk of playing the reactionaries. Despite their respective track records, there's no law that says the Players Association is perpetually right and the owners perpetually wrong. Even DiMaggio's streak eventually came to an end.

The truly progressive stance [today] calls for the players to join the owners in reshaping the game's economics.

Now, as for why I feel that the fans will likely abandon the players now, it's not about the money. It's never about the money. We realize the sacrifices players make on their bodies and in their lives to play the game, and we further understand that since they're the people we come to see, they deserve the lion's share of the revenue baseball takes in.

But the issue is of a salary cap. Only a few players, perhaps one or two on each team, get paid enough where their salaries would even come close to being affected. The everyday, non-All Star shortstop who makes $3 or $4 million won't be affected. Only the Alex Rodriguez's of the world would be affected. And the players would rather shut the game down than tell A-Rod he can "only" make $15 or $17 million than $25 million. That is what's pissing the fans off.

There's no reason why players who make so much money from the game can't sacrifice some of it to improve and stabilize the institution that has set them and their children up for life.

2. Nothing is ruining the "Sport" of baseball. The sport is as good(probably better) than it's ever been. You might dislike the financial issues in the game but the game itself is great.

True, and once again I misspoke. The game, the sport of baseball is as good now as it's ever been, although I'd like to see the knees-to-letters strike zone reestablished, and perhaps the pitching mound raised to slow down the incredibly high scoring rate (and make the games quicker).

But the institution of Major League Baseball is dying. Bobblehead dolls and alternate third-color jerseys won't save it. If the players strike now, they stand a good chance of killing off the game, as we know it. And if it goes, the sport of baseball will irretrievably be diminished.

3. The real reason that the players will most likely "win" this strike? when it comes right down to it, they have all the power. I follow the game because of them, not the owners. My interest in them outweighs everything else. If the players formed a new league that competed with a vastly inferior MLB game I'd follow the better Baseball without a doubt. I'm not loyal to the logo, I'm loyal to the game.

Well, most fan polls that I've seen show a loyalty to the owners in this case.

And I don't think an alternate league would ever work. Baseball has an intimate connection to its past. If that were all severed, and next year there was a team in Boston that wasn't called the Red Sox and one in New York not called the Yankees, it probably wouldn't survive past infancy.

TB4p