From: miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:50:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cis.1992Aug25.175027.29150
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

In article <1992Aug25.164740.20196@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.152629.22215@informix.com> barrym@informix.com (Barry Mednick) writes:
>>Is it time to wrest control of the game from the owners?

>If you're not happy with baseball, don't pay for it.  If people don't pay
>for it, it will change.
>
>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com


It is unrealistic to think that not paying for baseball will solve all of 
its problems.  We all love the game too much not to go and unfortunatley, the 
owners seem to know just how much we'll pay to participate in the ritual in its
various forms. Taking away the anit-trust exemption is the neccessary first 
step for any serious revamp of the present system and its corresponding evils.
The larger issue is how much power the owners have over the game itself.  The
owner of the White Sox feels the obligation of the commissioner to the owners 
is like that of the CEO of a corporation to the board of directors. In the 
local paper the other day, he was quoted as saying the commissioner is not 
there to protect the interests of the players or THE FANS as his primary 
interest should be to protect the interests of the owners. This is evil as 
far as I am concerned.  Obviously, the owner should be allowed to profit from 
their investment but it seems clear the commissioner should use his power to 
protect the game from the owners, the players, and the fans if need be.  As 
Bob Lurie said, "I think sometimes the owners in baseball get involved too 
much without really knowing what they're doing, and they become instant 
experts.  It's like any industry, you have got to really have a background 
and have knowledge.  Most owners don't, but they think they do...It's 
amazing how many people out there want to buy a baseball team, and it's 
a pretty lousy investment, overall." The sentiment in the original post was
one of disgust with the behavior of certain owners who not only are greedy, but
compromise the integrity of the game by making stupid business decisions they
think will maximize profits, such as installing artificial turf, not having 
double headers (although the players association is opposed to them also), and
basing positions on the reallignment questions on rivalries, when every one 
know new rivalries, just as intense, can be cultivated rather quickly. Again,
Bob Lurie, "The salary structure in baseball is starting to come down, but we 
have got a long way to go.  I mean, the agents come in and ask for a million 
dollars and we say, `No, we`ll only pay you $900,000,' and then we walk out 
and say we got a victory.  Well, we`ev got to do a lot better than that.  
I 've never objected to a player's agent aking for whatever, and these agents 
are very creative and very bright and the players' association has done a 
terrific job.  But too many times ownership has said yes instead of no." Back
before games were broadcast on radio, the owners were against it because they
thought it would lower gate receipts.  What they discovered was that it 
generated even more interest for the team and gate receipts went up. 
Obviously, having the money to own a team does not necessarily mean you have 
the intelligence to make good decisions regarding your team or The Game 
nor does it meanyou have the moral integrity to respect The Game as an 
institution you have been entrusted to oversee. Without a strong commissioner 
or the end of the anti-trust exemption, we fans have very few options and 
not going or buying major-league regalia will do nothing.  Its kind of
like saying "What if they had a war and no one came?"

--Mike D.--

 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball