From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:25:49 GMT

Roger "I can be an idiot without even trying" Maynard writes:
>In <1993Jan3.092505.4128@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>But anyway, this brings up the question that I've been meaning to ask
>>since I heard about this trade.  Okay, more than one question.

>>1) What rational reason is there for choosing a 35 year-old Tim Wallach
>>over a 24-year old Dave Hansen, when they put up similar numbers last

>Perhaps because Expo FANS who have watched Wallach over the years enjoy
>watching him play?  Is this a foreign concept?  Is this too radical?
>Can you prove to me that Hansen is better?  When it becomes obvious that
>Hansen is better then Wallach should be replaced.  Salaries escalation
>is destroying the game.

Well, number one, I doubt the Expos fans really prefer watching the
Expos play Tim Wallach to watching the Expos play in the World Series.  
In fact, I doubt *any* team really draws more fans by playing an old
useless player than they would by winning more games.

(The only even vaguely relevant study I know of was the one that showed,
in the mid-80s, that Fernando Valenzuela was the ONLY pitcher who caused
a team to draw more fans on the days he pitched.)

Number two, what does that have to do with Los Angeles, which is where
Tim Wallach is now?  The Dodgers are replacing Hansen with Wallach, not
the other way around.

Number three, no, I can't prove to you that Hansen is better.  First of
all, I don't think he *is* much better at this time.  He's as good as
Wallach now, though, and getting better every year.

And furthermore, I can't prove anything to you, since you won't accept any
evidence you don't want to accept.  I can't prove to you that Tim Wallach 
played for Montreal last year by the standards you try to hold me to.

Number four, why is anything destroying the game?  I mean, I'm sure it sells
newspapers for mediots to write things like this, but what does it mean?

At worst, escalating salaries could destroy the major leagues.  They
certainly couldn't destroy baseball.  But that's a side point, since I
can't see how they're destroying the major leagues, either.

They've got record attendance, AGAIN!  Every year, they set a new
record, despite a recession AND rising ticket prices.

Teams are being sold for record amounts of money.  Now, with few
exceptions, the people buying teams have made hundreds of millions of
dollars for themselves.  I doubt they are so stupid really that they
would buy a product for $100 million if they really were worried about
the future of that product.

One person might.  But everyone?  Two expansion teams were sold for $95
million.  The Orioles are being sold and the owner is expected to
receive more than DOUBLE what he paid for the team just *3* years ago.
The Giants were sold, with *two* groups bidding in the $100 million
range.  This was a team that was bought for $10 million not that long ago.


The TV contract?  *Maybe* it is going down, but I don't see any reason
to think so.  The networks claim *every* time that they're losing money
and that the contract will decrease, and it never does.  They cook the
books just as much as any other business.  You don't think they count
the increased ratings they get when they promote their shows during the
playoffs as baseball profits, do you?  But they still get the benefits.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball