11/21/24
August 16, 2002
Baseball players union votes to set strike date to August 30: Chicago Cubs Sammy Sosa "... We have to do what we've got to do. I think that's the only way we can get something done.''
we're going to see some great "Strike" graphics on the major news sites - espn's bomb and cnn's rain delay are only the beginning.
posted by djacobs at 12:22 PM on August 16, 2002
It's the end of Baseball as we know it....and I feel fine.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:56 PM on August 16, 2002
it's not the end of baseball at all. Baseball is going to be almost exactly the same, with some trimming of extreme payrolls (probably in the 120million range) and drug testing.
posted by djacobs at 01:31 PM on August 16, 2002
In other news... My team the Diablos is 10 and 2 going into the home stretch. 9 AM Saturday morning we play the Aeros, who are an incredible 13-0. Its supposed to be 80 degrees and we'll be playing at the beautiful Edmonds Community College just north of Seattle. Our starting pitcher will be Chris Rosenberger (last years salary $0) who has struck out 32 in 16 innings of pitching this year. We hear the Aeros are a fierce hitting team, while we are known for pitching, so we are confident that if we can scratch out three or four runs we will topple them from the undefeated ranks. Its good ball if any of you want to come watch. As for the strike, I've said all I care to say about it, which is nothing. Fuck 'em.
posted by vito90 at 01:45 PM on August 16, 2002
Well I was going to post something along the lines of "everyone associated with baseball sucks", but after vito's post, I had to reconsider. Everyone associated with Major League Baseball sucks.
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:17 PM on August 16, 2002
That's kind of ambiguous. I mean the players and owners, not the fans. Only Yankees fans suck.
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:18 PM on August 16, 2002
What Samsonov said. Also, Single A baseball, while often not as skilled, is easier to appreciate because of the heart players put into th games.
posted by insomnyuk at 04:00 PM on August 16, 2002
It's good to see the usual reactionary, knee-jerk responses out in force. Heck, along with death and taxes, whiners condemning those evil, greedy baseball players are easily the third sure thing in this world. Look, folks. If the people you worked for were getting in cahoots to keep your salary down--would you be upset? Would you want to fight back? Even if it were "mere" thousands or hundrends of dollars at stake? What if your local supermarkets got together to fix prices? Your gas stations? Your operating system vendor? Like it or not, the players have a legitimate gripe. What do you expect them to do--sit back and let the owners slash and burn their salaries, just so your daily after-work pleasure is left intact? I think that's far more selfish than you could ever accuse players of being--huge salaries or no. If the owners weren't such an unstoppable force--that is, if it weren't for that niggling little antitrust exemption--it wouldn't come to a strike. But with the owners so unwilling to negotiate, this is the only option available. Bring on the strike, boys. I'll be here waiting when you get back.
posted by kjh at 05:25 PM on August 16, 2002
kjh: I agree entirely. The players are absolutely in the right. I do want Jeromy Burnitz to reimburse me for 9% of my season tickets (he eats about 9% of the Mets payroll)
posted by djacobs at 07:30 PM on August 16, 2002
Answer me this...aren't the players still working under contract right now, through the end of the season? So they don't 'have' to do this now, not like if there was no agreement in place at all. They are only walking now because they only have leverage during the season. If they care about THE GAME and THE FANS, they would not abandon a season midway. *caveat: sorry if I'm wrong about the agreement.
posted by msacheson at 07:43 PM on August 16, 2002
kjh, Yes of course you are right, the players have every right to do what they must to be treated fairly. Speaking for me, I'm on the record for never having paid a single dollar towards baseball since the 94 strike (1). They cancelled the World Series, I don't give a good goddamn whose fault it was, it just was. Here's my problem: Look, folks. If the people you worked for were getting in cahoots to keep your salary down--would you be upset? Would you want to fight back? Even if it were "mere" thousands or hundrends of dollars at stake? I honestly believe, and call me naive if you must, but this is how I was raised, this is how I am, and this is how I believe I will always be: Playing baseball is a privelege, not a right. I would play professional baseball for an amount that put me at the poverty line, and work as a substitute teacher in the off-season. I would walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play professional baseball. I do in fact pay good money ($350 per season including nice uniforms) to play 16 games in a local league. There are millions like me who would take their place in a heartbeat...that's all I'm saying. And we would run out every goddamned groundball to first base, even those we tapped right back to the pitcher, for the opportunity. I just have a hard time accepting the mentality of not taking the good with bad, the fair with the unfair, when making that kind of money. (1) we don't need to go into detail regarding direct (tickets, concessions, souveniers, parking, paraphanelia) vs. indirect (newspapers, drinking at local bars, commercials)
posted by vito90 at 12:45 AM on August 17, 2002
There are millions like me who would take their place in a heartbeat...that's all I'm saying. And we would run out every goddamned groundball to first base, even those we tapped right back to the pitcher, for the opportunity. And you would suck. (I assume. I know I do.) And because I suck, I wouldn't get promotional deals, I wouldn't get huge urban stadiums, I wouldn't get ticket sales of any kind--in fact, I would not be part of any organization that resembled Major League Baseball--and so we wouldn't be talking about revenue sharing in the first place, now would we? Let's accept that, while you or I would be overjoyed to swing the bat, we aren't exactly qualified to fill the jobs that Major League Baseball stands to lose.
posted by kjh at 01:55 AM on August 17, 2002
I agree with kjh, and would like to point out that baseball salaries are only starting to come into line with those of other entertainers of roughly equal reknown. At $25 million a year, A-Rod is making approximately what Rosie O'Donnell makes. Not one ball player comes remotely close to Oprah-sized paychecks.
posted by alex_reno at 03:57 AM on August 17, 2002
I think you have to take into consideration that baseball is a monopoly, and that it's purpose is to be entertaining. Revenue is also directly related to entertainment value. In order to make th eleague as entertaining, and therefor profitable, some sort of parity is needed. Salary caps are one way to do it, another is that the league owns the contract, not the team, shifting talent as they see fit (see MLS for an example).
posted by mick at 11:51 AM on August 17, 2002
Parity is required to make baseball entertaining? In my view, baseball is inherently entertaining. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd far rather watch any team try to beat the Yankees (I am NOT a Yankees fan) than be forced to sit through an episode of Oprah or Rosie. Also, (preparing to be flamed) I'd far rather watch any MLB game than the most recent three Star Wars movies.
posted by alex_reno at 03:45 PM on August 18, 2002
exactly. the owners are going to lose and they now it. My favorite quote in the AP article is "Baseball is a perfect 8 for 8 in possible work stoppages."