From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: A pivotal point in baseball history?
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:23:12 GMT

In article <cubsfan.723966922@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>Right now is the most pivotal time in baseball history:
>
>1. More player movements in a shorter period of time, featuring
>more big names than any other time.

Not really... I think sometime in the early 80s there was as much, if
not more movement and by more than big names.  Now the movement seems to
be of big names while the guys in the middle seem to be out looking
(anyone need Daryl Boston?  or Makey Sasser?)

>2. The new TV contract...could mean fundamental changes in the
>structure of the leagues, interleague play, etc.

The structure of the leagues does NOT include interleague play.  This
has not been discussed as an option and is opposed by many.  I heard
Mets GM Al Harazin say this.

>3. A finanacial crisis...huge gaps between rich and poor teams.

Define rich and poor?  I though the gap was big market vs. little
market--which Ewing Kaufman seems to have little reguard for with his
paying a $9 million signing bonus to David Cone.

>4. The changes in the commisionership.

Not just the person but the position as well.

>5.  Moves in COngress to repeal the (mythical?) anti-trust
>exemption.

There's nothing mythical about it.  It is an exemption granted by the
Supreme Court as part of a ruling (I think David Tate explained it well
at one time, ask him).  However, congress has been having hearings off
and on concerning baseball's anti-trust exemption since 1940.  You see
where it has gotten them at this time.

In one of it more famous hearings, in 1963 Casey Stengle and Mickey
Mantle were subpoenaed to appear before a Senate committee.  Casey's
Stenglese comments are legendary ("This is the best baseball business
that has run baseball at the present time").  When Mantle was asked to
comment, he pointed to Casey, smiled and said, "I agree with him." 
Which caused the chamber to break out in laughter.

>6. Teams threatening to move, chnges in ownership, turmoil
>within the owners ranks.

These are common occurances.  Before the Giants it was the Mariner
threatening to move.  Before the Mariners, it was the White Sox.  With
everyone wanting a team and baseball not expanding as much as some would
like, trying to lure a franchise to your city might be the best
alternative.  Look at St. Petersburg.

Ownership changes all the time.  It wasn't called "pivotal" when the NL
team in the nation's largest market was for sale as well as the the
World Champions.  The Astros have been for sale for a while.  Why is
this pivotal?  Why is it pivotal that the Mariners have new owners?  The
answer, it is not.  It is getting to be a common occurance in sports.

Now the "turmoil" could present problems, if you can call it turmoil.
But this doesn't make it pivotal in the future of the game.  There was
turmoil in 1968 when they hired Bowie Kuhn and debated on expansion and
reorganization.  There was turmoil in 1972 when the players walked out.
There was turmoil in 1981 during the strike.  So what.  Baseball
survived and will continue to survive.  Is it pivotal?  Maybe in the way
the game is viewed for the future, but it will not die.

>7. A countdown to a major labor confrontation that may
>lead to the wiping out of the 1993 season and major changes in the player
>owner relationship, including a salary cap and revenue sharing.

Al Harazin said in front of at least 50 people, all season ticket and
season plan owners (such as myself) that the Mets will vote against any
attempt at locking out the players for 1993.  If you can find seven
other owners (or owner's reps) who feel that way, you will not have a
lockout in 1993.  It serves either side no purpose.

The other ideas (salary cap and revenue sharing) are speculations by
uninformed sports writers.  There have been no discussion on this so
there is no way of finding out what is the real adgenda--mainly because
the owners probably don't know themselves.

>The future of the game for the next 25 years will be determined
>the next couple months.

That's what they said in 1972, 1981, and 1987.  Same song, different
melody.

>PS: Let's not forget "temporary" controversies, such
>as the Marge Schott thing, etc. that while not pivotal toward
>baseball's future, do add to the "crisis" mentality present today.

Before Marge Schott, there was Steve Howe.  Before Steve Howe there was
Pete Rose.  Before Pete Rose there was Steve Howe.  Before Steve Howe
there was Collusion Parts I, II, and III.  Before Collusion there was
Steve Howe.  Get the picture?

>Comments?

Baseball is at a crossroads that needs more thought and planning than
action.  The game is in no danger of falling apart.  No more so than it
was in 1958 when BOTH New York-based NL teams moved; or when Branch
Rickey and Bill Shea tried to start the Continental League in 1961 when
the NL refused to expand; Or Curt Flood's challenge of the reserve
clause (which actually gave us free agency); or the strikes of 1972 and
1981; or Collusion I, II, and III;  or Pete Rose;  Or Marge Schott;  Or
Steve Howe.  Baseball has been through a lot more than a glitch in its
economy.  Sure things will change.  But I don't think it's anything to
get overly excited about.

Pitchers and Catchers report in two months!
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)