Quote:
Originally Posted by Questdog
This is why I hate the current MLB financial model.....I WANT to get attached to my players and let the old guys stick around.....When you play to maximize your economic power, then THAT is the game and the baseball and the players become secondary......who's that playing left this year?....does it matter?....he's just a contract that is outperforming his value and the minute that is no longer true, there will be someone different playing......not the way I like to see baseball......back in the days before free agency, the teams were really teams and not just a collection of interchangeable parts....the rivalries of the teams is what made the game so awesome....the Reds really hated the Dodgers in the 70s and the Giants REALLY hated the Dodgers.....now the teams are all indiffernt to one another 'cause opponents today are teammates tommorrow and teammates are just some guys that I see at the ballpark.....don't really get to know them, 'cause after the game I got to manage my millions and I have meetings scheduled......
sorry for the rant......I usually do play with financials, however, but I try to keep the teams together as much as possible.....
|
I don't see ye olden days being radically different. Nobody kept teams together to bask in the warm and fuzzies. If somebody didn't perform, they were gone. If somebody did perform, they didn't have the right to go anywhere else... But they could be sold if the owner needed money... or traded if they tried to hold out... Ask Indians fans how well the team was held together once Colavito asked for a raise... and thank God that Boston finally won a WS, otherwise we'd still be hearing about the worst financially motivated trade of all time. If anything, free agency forces as many players to stay put as it encourages player movement. For every young player that Kansas City can't afford to re-sign, there will be an Angel or Yankee that nobody else would touch with a 10 foot pole due to the contract.