From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.180411.18814@cis.ohio-state.edu> miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey) writes:
>	There is no obvious and objective definition of what the game ought
>to be.  And your wrong, your a baseball fan and I disagree with you and other
>people I know who are baseball fans. I just do not think that your 
>"don't spend money on what you don't like" factor is realistic. I 
>have no choice but to sit in an ashtray shaped stadium with artificial turf 
>when I attend a Reds game, and many fans that I 
>have talked to liked Crosley Field better, and do not like Riverfront, but
>we still go to games and spend money.

Obviously, then, the type of the stadium is not of sufficient importance to
you.  So what?  

> If you think most people do not prefer
>a more, shall we say, asthetically correct (Ha, Ha) ballpark, I would
>say Camden Yards and the new stadiums being built in Cleveland, Denver
>and Arlington are evidence that your wrong. 

I agree that there is a current trend to try and marry some of the good
features of the old parks with the good features of the new parks.  Why do
you think that trend has come about?  Do you think that maybe it's because
the owners think that more people will come to an aesthetically pleasing
park?  Sounds like the money of the fans having an impact.

>>What are the tenets and traditions of "The Game" that are important, and
>>should be preserved?
>	This is not the issue. And your still trying to comparet the past to
>the present do defend the present, and I have never invoked the past as
>representative of how things should be.

The reason I bring up the past is because "The Game" wasn't handed down on
a set of stone tablets from on high.  "The Game" has been *defined* by its
past.  

>	I would like to see a commissioner that tries to weigh  all three 
>elements, players, owners and fans alike in any decision that affects the
>game.

I'd like to have $10 million, too.  

The point several of us have been making, that you seem to be missing, is
that the owners *do* weigh how things will affect the fans, because it's
the fans who *pay* for the thing, and if they cease to do so, the owners
don't make any money.  

>Bart Giammatti said that it was unreasonable to expect cities to build a
>stadium just for baseball when they need to hold other events there to make
>it financially viable. I understand and agree with this, but it seems
>that the cities of Cleveland, Denver, Baltimore and Arlington figured
>it was possible to finance baseball-only stadiums and none of these are
>huge markets.

Yes, they've financed them.  We have yet to see whether this is going to be
a good thing or not, whether these will have been financially viable
exercises or not.  Will the fans of Baltimore still be happy 15 years from
now, when they're still paying off Camden Yards but the O's lease has
expired and the O's are wanting more concessions?  Will the fans still
flock to Camden Yards when due to tight budgets, the park isn't being kept
up well?  

> Further, although I have never been to either place, both
>Atlanta-Fulton County and Anaheim are two-sport stadium that are supposedly
>very asthetically correct.

Is "aesthetically correct" anything like "politically correct"?

I've been to Anaheim, and aesthetically pleasing is not something I'd ever
call it.  

> These would be a nice compromise between the
>Camden Yards and the Three Rivers/Riverfronts of the world.

Have you ever been to Busch?  

>	No, but you contiually try to invoke the past to compare it to
>the present to defend the owners. 

Wrong.  I've explained above why I bring up the past.

>Next year, in all likelyhood, the owners will lock out the players and some
>people (writers, commentators, etc) have indicated the owners are ready to 
>lose a whole year's revenue in order to re-open the basic agreement and 
>restructure the present free-agency system, salary-structure, etc. If this is 
>the case, hopefully, all the issues will finally get resolved by salary-caps
>(an inevitability), shared t.v. revenue (a possibility), and maybe ten
>years could go by without a strike or lock-out shortened season.

If you think a lock-out is the way to resolve the issues and eliminate
strikes, I think you need to do some more reading about the issue.  Might I
suggest a few books about the history of baseball and labor negotiations?
_The Imperfect Diamond_, by Lee Lowenfish, and _A Whole Different Ball
Game_, by Marvin Miller, are good places to start.

> The point
>is the owners are just as responsible for the conditions that exist now  that
>they feel will force them to initiate the lock out, and self-regulation 
>by the owners has not worked, strikes by the players have not worked, 
>and fans are still going to games (although attendence is down, see 
>this weeks BB weekly) and it would be nice if a strong commissioner 
>like Landis (not that I want us to go back to the golden days of old!) 
>could emerge to help initiate the type of restructuring that is going to be
>needed.

What kind of restructuring is needed?

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball