Bud Selig to retire

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Bud Selig to retire

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    a very interesting answer youk


    Great posts Beantowne, in line with that great commandment, "follow the money". All parties with a financial interest ought tto have a financial stake in the integrity of the game.

    Zac, the reason I say the union is weak, is two parts, first one is allowing Selig, a sitting owner, to become the commmissioner in the first place. That shifted the job description away from "the good of the game", which tacitly concerns the intersts of the players to one of, "for the interests of the owners". There is no way a strong Union allows this power grab to happen.

    seeing how commissioners have always been voted in by the owners

    and only the owners

    I don't see having an soon 2 B former owner as a much of a difference

     

     

    The second reason is the real money in baseball is not made through tickets and TV deals, although there is a ton coming from there, the real money comes from franchise appreciation. Recent sales of the Cubs, Rangers, Dodgers and Astros are off the charts. Two of these franchises sold due to poor business acumen in the owner's other businesses, (Cubs and Rangers), the Dodgers were dumped due to McCourt's divorce, and the 'Stros were sold after the owner decided to retire. All were sold with tremendous appreciation. There was never any risk of the owner not "making" it, plus the other owners can reject any offer to purchase a team, which allows them the ability to set the value of the available franchise, and artificially inflate the value of their own. Until the players negotiate a place at the table in franchise sales, they will in my mind be weak. After all, the union could blacklist a franchise and tell players not to sign there, thereby decreasing the incentive to purchase a team.

    let me just say I tend to lean towards management / owners more often than not

    so rather than turn this into a political debate

    let me ask you again

    is this really enough to call it a 'weak union'

    how many unions have what you suggest they should have above

    in the sports world ?

    in the entertainment industry ?

     

     

    I also think this from your OP is a tad unfair

    only under pressure from Congress did Selig began to address cheating and illegal activity in his business

    baseball instituted a minor league steroids policy in 2001

    which is all the union would allow at that time

    as far as I know congress didn't step in until  02




    Yes, the position was always voted in by the owners, and the nominee was always someone with enough gravitas to police the owners from themselves.I don't think you get that effect from drawing from the owners. The strenghth of the union might be measured by jobs created or maintained,  back in the day, team rosters were 25 men, the owners reduced that to 24, eliminating one salaried player on each team.  The minor league steroid ban was a start, the league could've gone further, and didn't.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Bud Selig to retire

    Steroids? bud selig nor congress ended steroids in baseball.  jose canseco did.

    WBC?  great concept.  wrong time of year to do it. 

    All star game has meaning!  mmmmkay.

    replay for HR's?  great. but bud should have instituted it the day after Baltimore got jobbed in postseason. not 10 years later.

    wildcard?  love it. 

    unbalanced schedule?  dreadfully unfair.

    interleague play?  fine...just balance it.  players change teams/leagues all the time now anyways.  the romanticizing over seeing NL vs AL players in AS & WS ended with free agency big $$$.  who cares anymore.

    empty seats in Florida is a travisty.  those teams need to be moved.

    Latin influence.  how about a team in PR, DR, Panama, and or Mexico?  not very long flights to any of those countries.

    i will not miss bud 1 bit.  he turned a blind eye during the 90's.  and he should be remembered for that.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Bud Selig to retire

    In response to youkillus' comment:


    Yes, the position was always voted in by the owners, and the nominee was always someone with enough gravitas to police the owners from themselves.I don't think you get that effect from drawing from the owners. The strenghth of the union might be measured by jobs created or maintained,  back in the day, team rosters were 25 men, the owners reduced that to 24, eliminating one salaried player on each team.  The minor league steroid ban was a start, the league could've gone further, and didn't.

     

    you might be right youk

    but I thought most / all teams were back to using a 25 man roster yrs ago

     

     

    Since the formation of the players' union in 1968, the rules have called for a minimum of 24 on a roster and a maximum of 25. In 1986, all the teams acted in unison and carried 24 players, or one under the limit. Relievers Todd Worrell and Jesse Orosco wound up playing the outfield in emergencies, pitcher Dan Schatzeder made 14 appearances as a pinch hitter, and the Mets and Red Sox sacrificed a potential competitive advantage and stayed with 24 in the World Series.

    The players' association filed a grievance, but arbitrator George Nicolau ruled for the owners because there was no language in the basic agreement forbidding teams from colluding on roster sizes. The labor agreement now decrees that the number of players carried on an active roster "is an individual matter to be determined solely by each Club for its own benefit. Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs

     

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=6687005

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Bud Selig to retire

    C & P from

     

    The Legacy of Bud Selig; beyond the discusssion of PEDs

    Selig was the most important commissioner baseball ever knew, maybe any sport. He made baseball big business, raising attendance eight times what it was when he took over on Labor Day weekend, 1992, raising revenues by five or six times what they were after The Great Strike of 1994-95. He got ballparks built, he got revenue sharing, he expanded the playoffs, he helped negotiate incredible television contracts, he helped baseball be a far more competitive business than his NFL counterparts, and, yet, when he made his announcement Thursday the first questions were whether or not he did enough for performance enhancing drugs.

    So let us go there first. We may never know what Selig knew when they came off The Strike of ’94-’95, when Cal Ripken began the healing, or what he knew in 1998 when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa brought baseball back in the high life, again. So go back to 1998. Three years earlier, baseball was a $1.1B industry, and when McGwire and Sosa captured us the sport was rebuilding its revenue streams. If Selig knew—and he may—there was something suspicious about what was happening, if he’d pulled the plug on McGwire and Sosa, he’d have gone the way of Fay Vincent. Gone. And remember, what could he do, given the Players Association. It is now fashionable to blame Donald Fehr and Gene Orza for all things steroids, but in 1998, they were four years removed from a strike that was designed to break the union, smash everything Senator Jim Bunning and Robin Roberts and Marvin Miller fought to accomplish after the arrogant years of control of owners like Gussie Busch?

    In 2002, Selig fought for drug-testing in the negotiations for a new Basic Agreement, but when it was clear Fehr and Orza felt drug-testing was a strikeable issue, he backed off because he knew baseball could not suffer another strike that quickly. Selig and I were both there for the first strike on March 31, 1972, and had seen them in ’76 and ’80 and ’95, etc., and he was right. He got the experimental testing for the next year which, because the players were so dumb, led to full testing, and on and on and on.

     

    the full read

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Bud Selig to retire

    Still doesn't in my mind excuse his involvement in allowing the use to escalate to the degree it took an act of congress to finally get him the union and the owners to take the issue seriously. 

    Fast forward to 2013 and the only thing that has changed is that players are no longer openly abusing. The use of is still very prevalent and will continue to be. That is on Bud who did not take the initiative when it was handed to him on a silver platter by the us congress. Fact is that the current testing and suspension policy is not working and those that want to believe otherwise are naive. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Bud Selig to retire

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Lab Partners ?

     

     

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    Still doesn't in my mind excuse his involvement in allowing the use to escalate to the degree it took an act of congress to finally get him the union and the owners to take the issue seriously. 

    Fast forward to 2013 and the only thing that has changed is that players are no longer openly abusing. The use of is still very prevalent and will continue to be. That is on Bud who did not take the initiative when it was handed to him on a silver platter by the us congress. Fact is that the current testing and suspension policy is not working and those that want to believe otherwise are naive. 

     



    exactly BT

     

    so what makes you think the forced testing without union support

    would have been anymore successful back then

    '' bud had no magic wand ''

    heckle the ped designer will always be ahead of jeckle the test designer

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share