Furture of Baseball - Page 3

Carlton · 07-01-2002, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hisstorymn
Umm.. cant be New York. We would kill and eat anyone named Slappy!

Are you sure you are from NY?

Slappy is a derogative pronoun to address another individual with...i.e...Mamaluke...or Snapperhead.

You must be an "Upstate" New Yorker...which doesn't qualify

I am originally from THE City

hisstorymn · 07-01-2002, 09:49 PM

I've lived in Brooklyn my whole life (31 years) and have never heard anyone refered to as Slappy (except maybe Slappy White). Maybe its generational or a neighborhood thing.
I've heard Y'oll (an attempt at spelling it as I have never seen it written)
Snapperhead I've heard and used.
Mameluke (an oldie but goodie)
a few I cant repeat on this board ( to stay in the realm of good taste)

I'll ask my dad about Slappy.

Crapshoot · 07-02-2002, 01:29 AM

explain to me logically how someone who buys a product has the right to bitch about how much the employees of the producer has paid ? this whining that they should be happy is bull****; this is a capitalist society, and everyone has the right to maximize their earnings. If you hate the salaries, dont watch it; but the basic prinicple that you should have some say over anyone's salary is laughable. Can i go to your boss and tell him I dont like paying x amount for your product, and thus there needs to be a salary cap on how much he can pay his employees ? That I dont like the idea that you are making x dollars a year; never mind that you earned, but it "offends" me. The salaries are set by what you pay; what you pay is not set by salaries. Understand this principal.

Bohunk · 07-02-2002, 08:39 AM

Be it the players are to greedy, the owners are too stupid or both, the system is screwed. You have a sport with 30 teams and only 4 to 5 teams have a shot to win it all.

As a fan this gets frustrating, and strike or no strike, I can see most fans getting disinterested in baseball. The average baseball fan roots for a team that has no realistic chance of making the playoffs. Couple that with a hatred or jelousy of those teams that do win all the time, can turn the average fan away from baseball. Which in turn can cripple the sport.

And soon there is going to be a strike and the players will want even more money. How can you justify wanting even more money when the league is thinking of contracting two teams that can't pay a decent payroll enough to compete, thus losing their fan base. Can't the players see the crippling effect this is having. By having these monster salaries they are hurting the sport and hurting the future of their jobs. If I was an average baseball player I would definatley think twice about the direction the players seem to be headed. If contraction is the only thing tha Bud can do to save the sport, players will continue to lose jobs. Teams will continue to lose money, and baseball will be nomore. Even the Yanks and Mets got to see that.

The need of a salary cap and revenue sharing would definately help baseball out of this predicament. I don't care whether its communism, socialist or any type government, this form of baseball will solve the problem.

Carlton · 07-02-2002, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Modern Relic

The only problem is that every time owners try to control salaries, the players union screams, "Collusion!"

Amen MR,

Most of you guys are too young to remember when the owners became "pro active" and for every "dumb ass owner" comment, you guys don't realize that the owners are now the "slaves"

In the mid 80's when Jack Morris and some other big name free Agents became available...the owners got together and said we wont let the Union screw us over and we wont let Agents play off of us...so the owners as a group of business men said "We ain't offering them a dime"

Pretty good cooperatioon by the "imbecile" owners isn't it?

Well, they got slammed...by the liberal Media, Union PR hounds, those scum sucking Agents...and finally our "assinine" Judical system, which IIRC fined them pretty damn good.

So the owners HAVE tried to fix Baseball's escalating salaries BEFORE they became a problem...but the Union and the Agents' GREED forced them to...now how fair is that?

Just something for you younger guys to think about before you just spew out your opinions which probably you've heard in the newspaper or been spoon fed by the Agents and Unions' PR men

Malleus Dei · 07-02-2002, 09:30 AM

Some analysis, from:

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sauerr/cl...ps&balance.htm

EFFECTS OF A SALARY CAP

ASSUME PERFECT ENFORCEMENT &
REALLOCATION OF TALENT FROM LARGE TO SMALL MARKET

1. LEAGUE REVENUES FALL BY DIFFERENCE IN MR OF LARGE & SMALL MARKET TEAMS (A & B)

2. PAYMENTS TO PLAYERS FALL

3. TEAM PROFITS INCREASE

PROBLEM: INCENTIVE FOR PLAYERS TO MOVE FROM SMALL TO LARGE MARKET REMAINS SINCE MRA > MRB

BALANCE REMAINS IMPROVED UNDER SALARY CAP ONLY IF PLAYER TRANSFERS FOR CASH ARE PROHIBITED

MAIN RESULT: OWNERS GAIN AT EXPENSE OF PLAYERS

Carlton · 07-02-2002, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hisstorymn
I've lived in Brooklyn my whole life (31 years) and have never heard anyone refered to as Slappy (except maybe Slappy White). Maybe its generational or a neighborhood thing.
I've heard Y'oll (an attempt at spelling it as I have never seen it written)
Snapperhead I've heard and used.
Mameluke (an oldie but goodie)
a few I cant repeat on this board ( to stay in the realm of good taste)

I'll ask my dad about Slappy.

im younger so its more than likely a generation thing...although ive come up with many an original insult so that may be a JT original...like calling a feminine acting male a "Susie" or "Pillow Biter"

I dont know Y'oll but I know "Yous"

You Italian, African American or Jewish? Which is from what my Mom has said is th eethnic makeup of Brooklyn...I was born on the outskirts of Brooklyn Heights...I think towards Flatbush, but I'd have to ask my Mom to be positive.

Anyways...I think this is a good Off-Topic subject and is digressing my bitch-off on baseball...so ill start a thread about creative insults...I think the New Yorkers will have tons

Carlton · 07-02-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
Some analysis, from:

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sauerr/cl...ps&balance.htm

EFFECTS OF A SALARY CAP

ASSUME PERFECT ENFORCEMENT &
REALLOCATION OF TALENT FROM LARGE TO SMALL MARKET

1. LEAGUE REVENUES FALL BY DIFFERENCE IN MR OF LARGE & SMALL MARKET TEAMS (A & B)

2. PAYMENTS TO PLAYERS FALL

3. TEAM PROFITS INCREASE

PROBLEM: INCENTIVE FOR PLAYERS TO MOVE FROM SMALL TO LARGE MARKET REMAINS SINCE MRA > MRB

BALANCE REMAINS IMPROVED UNDER SALARY CAP ONLY IF PLAYER TRANSFERS FOR CASH ARE PROHIBITED

MAIN RESULT: OWNERS GAIN AT EXPENSE OF PLAYERS

ok Mal proved me wrong and I am man enough to admit it...

A Salary Cap is NOT communism, but Facism!!

hisstorymn · 07-02-2002, 09:43 AM

Im mostly Italian with a bit of Spainard. Ill try the Y' oll phonetically (Y yol). I believe its Italian but so many things in Brooklyn are a hodge podge that its hard to find the correct provenance of slang terms. It is however a term of friendship pehaps a direct antonym of Slappy.
Your mom is essentially right however there is still a rather large Irish contingent and a large Hispanic community. My neighborhood is still the original Brooklyn "mixed" neighborhood Irish, Italian, and Jewish.
The Heights is still a rather exclusive area and the Promenade is the still the best view of Manhattan your ever likely to see. My wife and I schlep there a coulple of time a summer.

Arbiter · 07-02-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bohunk
Be it the players are to greedy, the owners are too stupid or both, the system is screwed. You have a sport with 30 teams and only 4 to 5 teams have a shot to win it all.

As a fan this gets frustrating, and strike or no strike, I can see most fans getting disinterested in baseball. The average baseball fan roots for a team that has no realistic chance of making the playoffs. Couple that with a hatred or jelousy of those teams that do win all the time, can turn the average fan away from baseball. Which in turn can cripple the sport.

Have you actually tried the exercise of *picking* which of the "half" of the teams (to use BS's figure) have no shot at the playoffs, during spring training? Doug Pappas has done such a survey the last couple springs, and I'll tell you: not only does it get *real* hard after you've listed about 10, I've always picked at least two teams to have "no chance" which actually did make the playoffs -- and I like to think I know *something* about baseball. (Unfortunately, BS has declined to participate in this survey.)

By most measures I've seen -- spread in winning percentage, autocorrelation of winning percentage from year to year, number of consecutive losing seasons, etc. -- baseball is more competitive today than at any point in history, with the exception of the 1980s, which coincidentally would be the *other* period where there was the most hang-wringing about the state of the game. (And, for what it's worth, you can find lots of newspaper articles about the "state of the game" and how it's "destined for ruin at today's salaries" dating back to about 1883 -- yes, I meant to type 1883.)

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing there's nothing I'd change about the structure of MLB currently; I'm merely pointing out that there is very little today different from *any* time in history, and yet the NL is into its 127th season this year...

Quote:

And soon there is going to be a strike and the players will want even more money. How can you justify wanting even more money when the league is thinking of contracting two teams that can't pay a decent payroll enough to compete, thus losing their fan base. Can't the players see the crippling effect this is having. By having these monster salaries they are hurting the sport and hurting the future of their jobs.

Well, as far as "monster salaries" go, did you know that, as a percentage of revenues, major league baseball players receive LESS than their colleagues in the NFL, NBA, and NHL? And this is a percentage of *reported* revenues -- so this isn't accounting for the discounted media revenues received by the superstation and other media-owned teams.

Salaries are high for one simple reason: revenues are high. People like watching baseball, and are willing to pay to do so.

Quote:

The need of a salary cap and revenue sharing would definately help baseball out of this predicament.

Baseball already has tons of revenue sharing; salary caps don't necessarily help, see my paragraph above. Most evidence is they don't work, unless it's to transfer wealth from players to owners. And, frankly, if you do ask me, I'd rather the players get more of my dollar than the owners.

Arbiter · 07-02-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carlton

ok Mal proved me wrong and I am man enough to admit it...

A Salary Cap is NOT communism, but Facism!!

You misspelt "bad idea". HTH.

CBL-Commish · 07-02-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carlton

Amen MR,

Most of you guys are too young to remember when the owners became "pro active" and for every "dumb ass owner" comment, you guys don't realize that the owners are now the "slaves"

In the mid 80's when Jack Morris and some other big name free Agents became available...the owners got together and said we wont let the Union screw us over and we wont let Agents play off of us...so the owners as a group of business men said "We ain't offering them a dime"

Pretty good cooperatioon by the "imbecile" owners isn't it?

Well, they got slammed...by the liberal Media, Union PR hounds, those scum sucking Agents...and finally our "assinine" Judical system, which IIRC fined them pretty damn good.

So the owners HAVE tried to fix Baseball's escalating salaries BEFORE they became a problem...but the Union and the Agents' GREED forced them to...now how fair is that?

Just something for you younger guys to think about before you just spew out your opinions which probably you've heard in the newspaper or been spoon fed by the Agents and Unions' PR men

The owners are in this position because they put themselves there. They fought tooth-and-nail to keep baseball a monopoly. They paid the players the absolute minimum they could for absolutely as long as they could. They bought up the minors to quash competition and limit the amount they had to pay for new talent. They kept players as chattel from the day they signed their first professional contract until they decided to retire or were just released.

This went on for the better part of 100 years. Then free agency came along, the players get back a piece of freedom denied them for a century and the owners go apoplectic. They launch a 30 year campaign to demean, savage, ridicule the players and their union. They cry poverty. They say they're about to go bankrupt. They say free agency killed the game. All the while new owners come along all the time, willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for these supposedly dying, collapsing franchises.

Collusion was wrong. The owners would give anything to keep competition out of baseball. They even sanctioned the movement of the Dodgers and Giants to the west coast at least partially to aviod competition from a third major league (the PCL or the Continental League) But even a sanctioned monopoly can't arbitrarily set wages. They were justly punished for their transgressions.

Competition would have driven down salaries - if the NL and the AL, or MLB and any other league were forced to really compete there would be many more teams, many more choices for media dollars, many more jobs for everyone. If the Twins were threatened with contraction, no one would particularly care because another league would put a team in Minnesota the minute the Twins were gone. If the AL wanted CBS or ESPN to pony up $5 billion to broadcast games, maybe they'd switch to the NL if they only wanted half that. If Washington DC wanted a team, someone would put one there because there wouldn't be any artificial territorial rights, which are just designed to maximize the value of existing franchises.

Like a greedy magnate smothered in his bed by his own hired thugs, the owners have no one to blame but themselves for the current situation.

Le Grande Orange · 07-02-2002, 08:59 PM

A salary cap WITHOUT better revenue sharing between teams is pointless.

You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet, IMO.

But since neither the players nor the owners are particularly interested in either, the future is bleak I fear...

Mel_Ott · 07-03-2002, 03:59 AM

Well, Carlton, I didn't mean to suggest that baseball owners weren't smart enough to collude with one another; they clearly did, and do, have that much intelligence. After all, the reserve clause was enforced for a hundred years by all the teams to prevent any one of them from raiding the others for talent. They saw what was in their best interest, and did it. No problem.

What I meant to suggest was that the A's owners, specifically, were not terribly bright in letting Giambi enter the free agent market, if their actual reason for not signing him was, as they announced publicly, that they wouldn't agree to a no-trade clause because they might have to trade him down the line, if the team fell apart. That was dumb, IMO, because Giambi was clearly the best player on the team, and probably would have continued to be for years to come; and there's always the possibility of renegotiating a contract or having Giambi waive his no-trade clause. And they had agreed on the money already.

I brought all that up because Giambi was being used to illustrate a conjectural flaw in free agency - namely, that the rich teams always do better. Well, Giambi doesn't illustrate that point. The 'small-market' A's blew it, and Giambi went with the best deal he could make.

As for me not remembering the owners getting reamed for collusion, well, you're right. I'm 28. I wasn't paying attention to the business end of baseball 15-20 years ago. I have read about that era, however, and as someone else noted, the owners agreed not to collude. Nobody held a gun to their collective head and forced them to give away their right to collude; they agreed with the players' union not to, and then broke their agreement. Then, as you say, they got reamed. Because they broke their legally-enforceable agreement.

Now, I've heard a lot of players' union rhetoric about how the players are getting screwed right and left. And I've heard from Commissioner Bud about how the whole sport's going broke. And frankly, I don't believe either of them. The players' union is extremely powerful, and concessions they've been given over the years have caused no end of trouble. The owners are extremely rich and successful, or they wouldn't have teams. I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with a battle of equals here. I certainly don't agree that the owners are anyone's slaves. And really, if the sport were in dire straits, and ownership was slavery, why would anyone want to buy a franchise? But they do, and they probably will for the forseeable future.

Personally, I don't think there's anything too terribly wrong with the way baseball is right now. We should remember that the Yankees were lousy in the '80s - and Steinbrenner was in charge then, too. They built a good organization, and now they're having great success. The Orioles and Dodgers have truckloads of cash, too; they've both been mediocre (at best) for years. Free agency gives players the same rights anyone else has to shop their skills around for the best deal. If the owners want to regain the right to collude, they're free to negotiate that with the union. Or anything else, for that matter - they could always draw up contracts, like football, that aren't guaranteed, so if a player didn't justify his salary, the owner could just cut him loose.

And, btw, you don't need to misspell asinine. It means "ass-like" when spelled correctly.

And I apologize for having 'spewed my opinions' at such length!

07-02-2002, 09:43 AM	#49
hisstorymn Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 75	Creative insults Im mostly Italian with a bit of Spainard. Ill try the Y' oll phonetically (Y yol). I believe its Italian but so many things in Brooklyn are a hodge podge that its hard to find the correct provenance of slang terms. It is however a term of friendship pehaps a direct antonym of Slappy. Your mom is essentially right however there is still a rather large Irish contingent and a large Hispanic community. My neighborhood is still the original Brooklyn "mixed" neighborhood Irish, Italian, and Jewish. The Heights is still a rather exclusive area and the Promenade is the still the best view of Manhattan your ever likely to see. My wife and I schlep there a coulple of time a summer.

07-03-2002, 03:59 AM	#54
Mel_Ott Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the deer and the antelope play Posts: 924	Glad you didn't take it personally! Well, Carlton, I didn't mean to suggest that baseball owners weren't smart enough to collude with one another; they clearly did, and do, have that much intelligence. After all, the reserve clause was enforced for a hundred years by all the teams to prevent any one of them from raiding the others for talent. They saw what was in their best interest, and did it. No problem. What I meant to suggest was that the A's owners, specifically, were not terribly bright in letting Giambi enter the free agent market, if their actual reason for not signing him was, as they announced publicly, that they wouldn't agree to a no-trade clause because they might have to trade him down the line, if the team fell apart. That was dumb, IMO, because Giambi was clearly the best player on the team, and probably would have continued to be for years to come; and there's always the possibility of renegotiating a contract or having Giambi waive his no-trade clause. And they had agreed on the money already. I brought all that up because Giambi was being used to illustrate a conjectural flaw in free agency - namely, that the rich teams always do better. Well, Giambi doesn't illustrate that point. The 'small-market' A's blew it, and Giambi went with the best deal he could make. As for me not remembering the owners getting reamed for collusion, well, you're right. I'm 28. I wasn't paying attention to the business end of baseball 15-20 years ago. I have read about that era, however, and as someone else noted, the owners agreed not to collude. Nobody held a gun to their collective head and forced them to give away their right to collude; they agreed with the players' union not to, and then broke their agreement. Then, as you say, they got reamed. Because they broke their legally-enforceable agreement. Now, I've heard a lot of players' union rhetoric about how the players are getting screwed right and left. And I've heard from Commissioner Bud about how the whole sport's going broke. And frankly, I don't believe either of them. The players' union is extremely powerful, and concessions they've been given over the years have caused no end of trouble. The owners are extremely rich and successful, or they wouldn't have teams. I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with a battle of equals here. I certainly don't agree that the owners are anyone's slaves. And really, if the sport were in dire straits, and ownership was slavery, why would anyone want to buy a franchise? But they do, and they probably will for the forseeable future. Personally, I don't think there's anything too terribly wrong with the way baseball is right now. We should remember that the Yankees were lousy in the '80s - and Steinbrenner was in charge then, too. They built a good organization, and now they're having great success. The Orioles and Dodgers have truckloads of cash, too; they've both been mediocre (at best) for years. Free agency gives players the same rights anyone else has to shop their skills around for the best deal. If the owners want to regain the right to collude, they're free to negotiate that with the union. Or anything else, for that matter - they could always draw up contracts, like football, that aren't guaranteed, so if a player didn't justify his salary, the owner could just cut him loose. And, btw, you don't need to misspell asinine. It means "ass-like" when spelled correctly. And I apologize for having 'spewed my opinions' at such length! __________________ jgross's worst nightmare!!!!111 Owner, Sin City Swingers, OBTL

07-01-2002, 09:49 PM	#42
hisstorymn Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 75	I've lived in Brooklyn my whole life (31 years) and have never heard anyone refered to as Slappy (except maybe Slappy White). Maybe its generational or a neighborhood thing. I've heard Y'oll (an attempt at spelling it as I have never seen it written) Snapperhead I've heard and used. Mameluke (an oldie but goodie) a few I cant repeat on this board ( to stay in the realm of good taste) I'll ask my dad about Slappy.

07-02-2002, 01:29 AM	#43
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	explain to me logically how someone who buys a product has the right to bitch about how much the employees of the producer has paid ? this whining that they should be happy is bull****; this is a capitalist society, and everyone has the right to maximize their earnings. If you hate the salaries, dont watch it; but the basic prinicple that you should have some say over anyone's salary is laughable. Can i go to your boss and tell him I dont like paying x amount for your product, and thus there needs to be a salary cap on how much he can pay his employees ? That I dont like the idea that you are making x dollars a year; never mind that you earned, but it "offends" me. The salaries are set by what you pay; what you pay is not set by salaries. Understand this principal.

07-02-2002, 08:39 AM	#44
Bohunk Minors (Single A) Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 73	Be it the players are to greedy, the owners are too stupid or both, the system is screwed. You have a sport with 30 teams and only 4 to 5 teams have a shot to win it all. As a fan this gets frustrating, and strike or no strike, I can see most fans getting disinterested in baseball. The average baseball fan roots for a team that has no realistic chance of making the playoffs. Couple that with a hatred or jelousy of those teams that do win all the time, can turn the average fan away from baseball. Which in turn can cripple the sport. And soon there is going to be a strike and the players will want even more money. How can you justify wanting even more money when the league is thinking of contracting two teams that can't pay a decent payroll enough to compete, thus losing their fan base. Can't the players see the crippling effect this is having. By having these monster salaries they are hurting the sport and hurting the future of their jobs. If I was an average baseball player I would definatley think twice about the direction the players seem to be headed. If contraction is the only thing tha Bud can do to save the sport, players will continue to lose jobs. Teams will continue to lose money, and baseball will be nomore. Even the Yanks and Mets got to see that. The need of a salary cap and revenue sharing would definately help baseball out of this predicament. I don't care whether its communism, socialist or any type government, this form of baseball will solve the problem.

07-02-2002, 08:59 PM	#53
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	A salary cap WITHOUT better revenue sharing between teams is pointless. You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet, IMO. But since neither the players nor the owners are particularly interested in either, the future is bleak I fear...