Thread View: atl.atlanta
8 messages
8 total messages
Started by Rugrat
Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00
World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: Rugrat
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00
74 lines
5314 bytes
5314 bytes
It was recently reported by one news reporter that a baseball fan somewhere (I think it was a Redsox fan) said before the playoffs began that he didn't really care who won the world series, just as long as it was not the Yankees... yet AGAIN!!! The big problem with major league baseball today is that it is no longer a sports competition as it was intended to be but rather has become strictly a business, indeed a very big business. Certainly a great deal of baseball history resides at the house that Ruth built and indeed it should always remain that way. I remember well my days as a child in Tampa. The Cincinnatti Reds (I think... maybe it was the Cards) always took their Spring training in Tampa's old Al Lopez field. In the Spring of 1958 or '59 my granddad took me to see the game when the Yankees came to town. From that day forward, Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra became my greatest heroes and the Yanks earned an everlasting place in my life even though as an Atlanta resident, I am now a Braves fan. Baseball has changed though over the years as is shown by the Yanks almost habitual win of the Fall classic. When one team wins a title such as the Series so many times, the title ceases to have its meaning of an accomplishment of true competitiveness and becomes just another exhibition where one team beats up on another almost as if by plan. The problem here is that it is now possible to buy the best baseball team with a few more millions of dollars and consequently the World Series title that goes with it. This was never shown any better than when the Marlins, a relatively new team, gained such financial backing that it was able in one year to overcome all other teams to take the Series, only to return to the shadows of obscurity when such backing was not continued. Certainly the same thing applies to my Atlanta Braves as well. What kind of team would we have if Ted Turner had not poured so many hundreds of millions of dollars into it. In New York's case, they are so awash in money thay don't know what to do with it all. Then last year I think it was, the city wanted to build a new stadium for the Yanks at a cost of perhaps half a billion dollars just to keep them happy, when nobody really wanted to abandon the house that Ruth built to begin with. The only true solution to the problem is to spread the wealth so that the South Dakota Buffalo Biscuits (my apologies to South Dakota) has a truly equal chance to win a national title as each and every other team does. This may be a bit too much on the socialist side for most people (and Karl Marx would certainly approve), but perhaps it is time to take all the private funding of individual baseball teams and to put it into one "kitty" to be shared equally among all teams recognized in baseball. This way everyone would have the same chance as others. One team would not be able to buy all of the best players simply because it would not have access to the excess funding necessary to do so. It would also serve to reduce players salaries from their already astronomical levels (and how many players really NEED 100 million to retire when 5 or 10 million would allow them to live like a king). If one player demanded an exhorbitant salary, then there would be that much less available to fund the rest of the team meaning that he would certainly be playing next to a losing team. A player would have 3 choices, 1) demand the high salary and be on the losing team, 2) accept a reasonable salary and play with better players or 3) don't get to play at all. It might also be a good idea to recruit players not based on money but based on their residence in the area of that team. Since players could still move their residence around, there could be a residency requirement of perhaps 2 years, weighted in favor of the smaller areas which would have access to a lower population and thus fewer players. This might not be the perfect solution, but it certainly would be better and more equitable than seeing the Yanks win the Series each and every year and seeing the Braves win the NLCS almost as often, only to be beat up on by the Yanks, all due to the amount of funding poured into each team by their owners and other financial backers. Come to think of it, this wouldn't be too bad of a solution to the political election campaign funds problem too - just put it all into one kitty and divide it equally. As it is, the baseball season is becoming far too predictable and money is the real culprit. I think it is time that some of the other teams in baseball had a fair chance at the title too, just like it used to be. Rugrat ********
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: David J. Grabiner
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00
29 lines
1813 bytes
1813 bytes
Rugrat <rugrat@nym.alias.net> writes: > The big problem with major league > baseball today is that it is no longer a sports competition as it was > intended to be but rather has become strictly a business, indeed a very > big business. Baseball was a business even before there was a major league. Certainly a great deal of baseball history resides at the > house that Ruth built and indeed it should always remain that way. That house became the House that Ruth Built because of business; Harry Frazee couldn't afford to pay his players and finance his broadway shows, so he sold his best players to the Yankees. > Baseball has changed though over the years as is shown by the Yanks > almost habitual win of the Fall classic. As opposed to the period from 1921 to 1964? The Yankees won four in a row from 1936-1939, and five in a row from 1949-1953, and 14 pennants in 16 years. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@wcnet.org (note new Email) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine (note spelling) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, erc.
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: The Sanity Inspector
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
12 lines
1241 bytes
1241 bytes
Look how horribly communism failed in real life; how is it going to make baseball better? Central planning is not the answer. There is no answer but to let things flow naturally. Players come and go, managers come and go, and the centers of talent shift constantly. No pencil-necks in the MLB front office can ever take such control of the game that natural competition is eliminated. And who would care about the game if they could? -- bruce The dignified don't even enter in the game. --The Jam
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: urfos
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
18 lines
1956 bytes
1956 bytes
In article <3817c116.5251669@news.mindspring.com>, chollanamdoSPAMLESS@mindspring.com wrote: > Look how horribly communism failed in real life; how is it > going to make baseball better? Central planning is not the answer. > There is no answer but to let things flow naturally. Players come and > go, managers come and go, and the centers of talent shift constantly. > No pencil-necks in the MLB front office can ever take such control of > the game that natural competition is eliminated. And who would care > about the game if they could? Personally I like the surprises (even the Falcons getting to the Super Bowl) that are a product of "central planning" as you refer to it in other major league sports. Other than Yankee and Brave fans, who likes to see the same teams in the playoffs EVERY year? Boring and predictable is as exciting as boring and predictable. rrf
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: Brett Wilson
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
20 lines
1887 bytes
1887 bytes
urfos (urfos@post.com) wrote: : In article <3817c116.5251669@news.mindspring.com>, : Personally I like the surprises (even the Falcons getting to the Super : Bowl) that are a product of "central planning" as you refer to it in other : major league sports. You mean like the 1998 Padres and 1997 Marlins and 1993 Phillies -- and 1991 Braves? There are lots of "surprises" in *recent* baseball history. The NFL has had a persistent upper class itself through most of the 1990s: Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Broncos, Steelers, Chiefs, and let's not forget the frustrating Bills. --BW. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Wilson | "But you could win the _pennant_, Program in Comparative Literature | Mrs. Trust--" "And enslave and Literary Theory | mankind in the bargain? You University of Pennsylvania | must be mad!" --Philip Roth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- bwilson@dept.english.upenn.edu * http://dept.english.upenn.edu/~bwilson
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: urfos
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00
19 lines
1913 bytes
1913 bytes
In article <7va08v$p59$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, bwilson@dept.english.upenn.edu (Brett Wilson) wrote: > urfos (urfos@post.com) wrote: > : In article <3817c116.5251669@news.mindspring.com>, > > : Personally I like the surprises (even the Falcons getting to the Super > : Bowl) that are a product of "central planning" as you refer to it in other > : major league sports. > > You mean like the 1998 Padres and 1997 Marlins and 1993 Phillies -- and > 1991 Braves? There are lots of "surprises" in *recent* baseball history. > The NFL has had a persistent upper class itself through most of the 1990s: > Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Broncos, Steelers, Chiefs, and let's not forget > the frustrating Bills. --BW. Hehehe-the '97 Marlins? What a ringer lineup that was! rrf
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: Brian Glen Palicia
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00
47 lines
2990 bytes
2990 bytes
Brett Wilson <bwilson@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote: >urfos (urfos@post.com) wrote: >: In article <3817c116.5251669@news.mindspring.com>, > >: Personally I like the surprises (even the Falcons getting to the Super >: Bowl) that are a product of "central planning" as you refer to it in other >: major league sports. > >You mean like the 1998 Padres and 1997 Marlins and 1993 Phillies -- and >1991 Braves? There are lots of "surprises" in *recent* baseball history. >The NFL has had a persistent upper class itself through most of the 1990s: >Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Broncos, Steelers, Chiefs, and let's not forget >the frustrating Bills. --BW. The Marlins were a very high payroll team. Kinda silly to use them as an arguement against this thread's title. The Phillies and Braves were not world champs, either. High-salary teams are the only ones winning world titles, and many cities can't compete on that level. I suppose you can starting axing lesser teams, but heck, let's axe them all except for the Yankees and just hand them rings every year, no? Let's be honest. What we want is competition *on the field*, not in the wallets. The true competition in MLB is not on the field. It needs to be put there. People point at the Orioles and exclaim "See, high salaries DON'T guarantee a world title!" That arguement is faulty logic. The theorem is "If you are a world champion, you are a high salary team." For some reason, many people have assumed a communative property to that statement. They think since a implies b, b must imply a, so they say, "Well, you must also mean that if you are a high salary team, you will win the world series! Ah HA! The Orioles stunk! You're WRONG!" I can just shake my head. Sure, in the NFL, you also must spend money to win. But everyone has the money, they just need to spend it right. Now, the competition IS on the the field. The popularity of the NFL will never be threatened until MLB gives all teams equal chances to win. Cutting teams really will only hurt MLB. Bri
Re: World Series... For Sale to Highest Bidder
Author: Brett Wilson
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00
22 lines
1974 bytes
1974 bytes
Brian Glen Palicia (bpalicia@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu) wrote: : Brett Wilson <bwilson@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote: : >urfos (urfos@post.com) wrote: : >: In article <3817c116.5251669@news.mindspring.com>, : > : >: Personally I like the surprises (even the Falcons getting to the Super : >: Bowl) that are a product of "central planning" as you refer to it in other : >: major league sports. : > : >You mean like the 1998 Padres and 1997 Marlins and 1993 Phillies -- and : >1991 Braves? There are lots of "surprises" in *recent* baseball history. : >The NFL has had a persistent upper class itself through most of the 1990s: : >Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Broncos, Steelers, Chiefs, and let's not forget : >the frustrating Bills. --BW. : The Marlins were a very high payroll team. Kinda silly to : use them as an arguement against this thread's title. The : Phillies and Braves were not world champs, either. Well, I was replying to the statement that something like "the Falcons getting to the Super Bowl" doesn't happen in baseball (it does, and has, and recently), more so than to the title of the thread. --BW.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads