Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
another issue is loyalty; with the invention of so many scouts and the attitued of both players and teams, the thought of a young man starting and finishing his career with the same team is a thing of the past. Of course this is true in life as well. How many of us had fathers that retired from a company with 25,30 or even 40 years with the same corporation? How many of us or our children can say the same thing? This is one part of our society I do not think is good.
Andy Messersmith and free agency put an end to the days where many players played their entire careers for one team.
I'm not against the theory of free agency, but I think what's missing is the accountability on the player's side. More and more, the players and their agents like Scott Boras demand huge long term deals, but there is usually little accountability for the player. If they get injured or otherwise don't perform, the money is guaranteed. There is also the issue with large market teams like NY, Boston, LA being able to bid up salaries and move the mark to the point where smaller market teams just cannot compete for top level free agents.
To me, there needs to be some serious overhaul to the MLB CBA, but the players won't go for it, and the owners will not force a strike. What is sorely needed is a system like the NFL with a cap and with contracts that do not automatically guarantee money if a player is released.
So IMHO, free agency allowed the players to break free of the stranglehold the owners had on them to that point and allowed them to share more evenly in the money being made, but now the pendulum has gone way too far to the players, who are getting way too much money with no responsibility to earn that huge contract and little option for the team if they aren't performing.
Andy Messersmith and free agency put an end to the days where many players played their entire careers for one team.
I'm not against the theory of free agency, but I think what's missing is the accountability on the player's side. More and more, the players and their agents like Scott Boras demand huge long term deals, but there is usually little accountability for the player. If they get injured or otherwise don't perform, the money is guaranteed. There is also the issue with large market teams like NY, Boston, LA being able to bid up salaries and move the mark to the point where smaller market teams just cannot compete for top level free agents.
To me, there needs to be some serious overhaul to the MLB CBA, but the players won't go for it, and the owners will not force a strike. What is sorely needed is a system like the NFL with a cap and with contracts that do not automatically guarantee money if a player is released.
So IMHO, free agency allowed the players to break free of the stranglehold the owners had on them to that point and allowed them to share more evenly in the money being made, but now the pendulum has gone way too far to the players, who are getting way too much money with no responsibility to earn that huge contract and little option for the team if they aren't performing.
I am not against it etiher, I just like the way loyalty used to mean something, on both sides, not just one. Yes, the players have gotten so greedy it has changed the sport. Our son, who signed in the early 90s (I think I mentioned this earlier) is appalled at the signing bonuses and the salaries.
I see three big reasons why baseball is no longer considered America's past time:
1. It' easier and less costly to play football and basketball. I think that's one of the primary reasons that more kids especially inner city kids don't play baseball. It's difficult to organize plus you have to buy gloves, bats, and balls. Not to mention the need for multiple players. You can throw together a football or basketball game with just a few friends and far less organized.
2. The lack of parity turns a lot of people off. If I live near Pittsburgh or Kansas City or Seattle or San Diego, why should I care? My team has a very small chance of competing unless somebody smarter comes along (a la Billy Beane). Even if they do, it only allows your team a chance to compete during a very short window but the better players will certainly leave for New York, Boston, or Anaheim where they can overbid the other teams. Until there's some kind of salary cap, the interest will remain regional.
3. Baseball isn't as tv-friendly. I don't think this can be overstated. It's a lot easier and more entertaining to watch football and basketball. Those sports are made for tv and they're star driven. Baseball, on the other hand, is made to watch in person where you can take in the sounds, the smells, and the atmosphere. You can pick up things that you can't on television. I grew up a baseball fan and it is my first love, however, I find that watch far fewer games on tv than I did when I was a kid. I'd prefer to go to the stadium any day of the week and I can't say that for football or basketball. I'd much rather watch those games on tv. And, unfortunately, tv is where the money is.
I don't know where you live, but certainly playing football for the kids isn't any less expensive than little league. I don't think we are even talking about the same thing here. The Op started by talking about the fan base, not the kids playing the sport. Actually you should take time to visit a little league feild if you are basing your response on the number of kids playing.
yes, you are right, baseball isn't very TV friendly. We do watch it but we watch more football. As for basketball other than March Madness, we rarely watch it. I find it a fast moving game but not particularly interesting.
II just like the way loyalty used to mean something, on both sides
Well, I can appreciate that sentiment, and based on your comments I'm assuming you are a senior citizen who lived in a different era in this country. I'm in my late 40's (probably old to some) and I know where you're coming from, since my parents were old enough to have been children during the depression with my late dad serving in the Army in WWII.
I think the difference today is that baseball is much more of a business than it used to be. TV contracts, revenue sharing, merchandise contracts, naming rights to stadiums, etc., have made MLB and their franchises huge businesses. Additionally, even in the rest of society, education, technology and the information economy has led us away from the days where someone works at the widget factory for 40 years and retires with a party and a gold watch, having worked their way up from the production line to the board room. While that does happen in rare cases, it's almost unheard of these days.
More common is a more even view of the employee/employer relationship. The employer pays you a salary or hourly wage, provides you benefits, and in return you do a job and perform tasks assigned to you by management. Your pay is your reward for your work, and neither you nor your employer really have any "loyalty" in that relationship. You can leave to seek a better opportunity, and your employer can release you when necessary due to changing business needs. Frankly, the old notion of loyalty was a little misguided in my view. You make yourself necessary through the job you do, and the loyalty is based on your work and your contribution to the business, not by how long you've been employed.
The issue to me with MLB is that all the burden and risk is now on the owners and the team. The player signs a big contract and makes a bunch of promises about how they will be the next coming of Babe Ruth, but in the end when they fail to perform and/or cannot remain healthy, the team is left holding the bag. If they release the player, then they are stuck paying them for the term of the contract. If they trade the player, they are usually going to also keep on paying the player's salary as part of the deal, and they hope to recoup some value in the trade. It can be a no win situation.
Well, I can appreciate that sentiment, and based on your comments I'm assuming you are a senior citizen who lived in a different era in this country. I'm in my late 40's (probably old to some) and I know where you're coming from, since my parents were old enough to have been children during the depression with my late dad serving in the Army in WWII.
I think the difference today is that baseball is much more of a business than it used to be. TV contracts, revenue sharing, merchandise contracts, naming rights to stadiums, etc., have made MLB and their franchises huge businesses. Additionally, even in the rest of society, education, technology and the information economy has led us away from the days where someone works at the widget factory for 40 years and retires with a party and a gold watch, having worked their way up from the production line to the board room. While that does happen in rare cases, it's almost unheard of these days.
More common is a more even view of the employee/employer relationship. The employer pays you a salary or hourly wage, provides you benefits, and in return you do a job and perform tasks assigned to you by management. Your pay is your reward for your work, and neither you nor your employer really have any "loyalty" in that relationship. You can leave to seek a better opportunity, and your employer can release you when necessary due to changing business needs. Frankly, the old notion of loyalty was a little misguided in my view. You make yourself necessary through the job you do, and the loyalty is based on your work and your contribution to the business, not by how long you've been employed.
The issue to me with MLB is that all the burden and risk is now on the owners and the team. The player signs a big contract and makes a bunch of promises about how they will be the next coming of Babe Ruth, but in the end when they fail to perform and/or cannot remain healthy, the team is left holding the bag. If they release the player, then they are stuck paying them for the term of the contract. If they trade the player, they are usually going to also keep on paying the player's salary as part of the deal, and they hope to recoup some value in the trade. It can be a no win situation.
Yes, you are right and I could be your mom, you are about the age of my kids. the interesting thing, you and I do agree pretty much, I just don't want to put all the blame on either side. Players have always had egos, but not like today and the agents don't help, but the teams and owners could start cracking down with the huge salaries. Of course then we have to deal with the unions. Everything today seems to be big business, from running a home to politics, to whatever.
How many of us had fathers that retired from a company with 25,30 or even 40 years with the same corporation? How many of us or our children can say the same thing? This is one part of our society I do not think is good.
I disagree whole-heartedly.
I have one life to live. Why should I not live it in as many incarnations as possible?
Andy Messersmith and free agency put an end to the days where many players played their entire careers for one team.
I'm not against the theory of free agency, but I think what's missing is the accountability on the player's side. More and more, the players and their agents like Scott Boras demand huge long term deals, but there is usually little accountability for the player. If they get injured or otherwise don't perform, the money is guaranteed. There is also the issue with large market teams like NY, Boston, LA being able to bid up salaries and move the mark to the point where smaller market teams just cannot compete for top level free agents.
To me, there needs to be some serious overhaul to the MLB CBA, but the players won't go for it, and the owners will not force a strike. What is sorely needed is a system like the NFL with a cap and with contracts that do not automatically guarantee money if a player is released.
So IMHO, free agency allowed the players to break free of the stranglehold the owners had on them to that point and allowed them to share more evenly in the money being made, but now the pendulum has gone way too far to the players, who are getting way too much money with no responsibility to earn that huge contract and little option for the team if they aren't performing.
A couple of points.
First. Teams don't have to sign players to huge long-term contracts. Teams choose to. If you don't think that Prince Feilder is worth 9 years and $250 million then don't sign him to that contract. Piece of cake.
If teams consistenly signed players to contracts that they weren't worth then smarter teams would have a competitive advantage by not signing players to those types of contracts.
Second. Everyone likes to complain about players getting these huge contracts and then not living up to them. But they rarely look at the other end of the spectrum. For a player's first 3 years, regardless of how well he performs on the field, he is payed (relative) peanuts. Tim Lincecum made $100,000 while winning 2 Cy Young awards. Joey Votto made $500,000 in 2010. He also led the majors in OBP and SLG. Clayton Kershaw won a Cy Young award last season and was paid $500,000 for his efforts.
I'd much rather see a change to the CBA that allowed players to earn their worth in the beginnings of their careers than a CBA that limited that ability in their later years.
I have one life to live. Why should I not live it in as many incarnations as possible?
and this is your right to disagree, whole-heartedly or otherwise. I just happen to think we lose something when loyalty goes out the window. I am not suggesting every player spend his/her entire career with the same team or people should not better themselves, even if this means changing companies. I think you are spinning this to mean something I did not mean. I am talking about the constant changing that occurs, be it in corporate work (how quickly a company can let someone go just to hire someone at less pay) how quickly an athlete can jump from team to team or management can dump him/her for something they think is better. Oh well, you and I don't agree on anything, so I will leave it there.
This is in line with the attitude I see in Atlanta. I can tell you that in NY and New England where I have lived, this is not the case. In fact, it's the exact opposite. People in those parts of the US don't give a rat's ass about anything college.
In New England and NY, people are rabid baseball fans. Fenway is packed every night and has been for years. NY has enough fans to support two teams and the Yankees draw 3 million every year. Look at Philly. Same thing...Phillies are huge.
I grew up in NY and lived for 15 years in Massachusetts after I got married, and I never even knew that college football was a big thing until I moved to Atlanta. If you attend Boston College or another school, then maybe you care about watching that school, but otherwise it's all about the Sox, Pats, Bruins, and Celtics. College sports don't exist.
What is strange is that even Braves mania isn't as big as it used to be. This year I knew a few people who skipped school to see opening day. Other than that, college football seems to be very popular here. I personally couldn't care less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
