david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/31/85)
> >If there is an LCS and WS this year, then the teams that play in them > >will play under the cloud of an aborted season. But don`t bet on it. > >Burned by the lack of strike insurance, and still smarting from the 1981 > >defeat, the owners will wait out this one a long, long time. > I hope so. As a fan, I'd hate to see the rest of the season > ruined, but I am tired of this crap. I think the owners deserve to > make money and the players are'nt hurting for money, are they? Tell me the owners aren't making money. It's not as if they were involuntary participants in the salary rise. In fact, since the last general agreement, which the owners were presumably happy with at the time, baseball revenues have risen 52% while player salaries have risen 48%. If baseball is in a WORSE financial situation than in 1981, it isn't due to salary increases. The owners have been grossly cooking the books. Steinbrenner, for example, writes off charitable contributions and Tampa hotel losses as Yankee losses. Turner "sells" the cable network rights from the Braves to WTBS for LESS than the Milwaukee Brewers get from their local station, despite the incredible revenue generated by Turner's nationwide broadcasts of the Braves. Why? So millions of dollars generated by the profitably of the Braves are claimed as profits for WTBS instead. Baseball IS profitable (else why are they paying these salaries?), and the owners are seeking to mammothly increase their profits by restricting player movement. 'Tis more than passing strange to see the UNION appealing to the free market...and even stranger to see the owners claim that the players must assume the burden of controlling the owners' "irresponsible" behavior. This is not to say ALL owners are making money hand over fist, just that some who are will go to great lengths to hide it. As a whole, baseball is doing quite well. The answer for teams in trouble is to more equitably distribute revenue among the owners, not to demand the players forego what their services bring in an open market. > I have no sympathy for the players. Hell, I'd do what they are doing > ( if I was capable of it) for 10% of what the average player makes. But you're not, and I'm not going to pay $8 to see YOU play, and I'm not going to watch YOU on TV. If Prince can make 17 million dollars a year, I have no problem with the thought the top baseball stars can make 10% of that. The latter, at least, I find entertaining. > Anyway, if you consider what is best for the fans ( thats US ), the owners > should really stick it out, show the players a hard line and maybe, just > maybe, three things will happen: > - The players will think twice about striking next time. > - Ticket prices will remain stable. > - Cities like Pittsburg will not lose franchises due to > economic woes brought on by high player salaries. It used to be said of the Bourbons that they had forgotten nothing and had learned nothing. It must be said of baseball owners, if they seriously advance such arguments, that they have remembered nothing. Remember the last strike (no, not the one in the exhibition season, but the one that split the 1981 season)? Remember how the owners stuck it out (thanks to "strike insurance" -- the underwriting from Lloyd's that insured there would be a strike!)? THIS is the next time. As for ticket prices, since 1967, as the CPI has more than tripled, the top price for a baseball ticket has almost doubled. Ticket prices aren't any less stable than the prices of food and clothing, and are far more stable than the prices of gasoline, automobiles, and homes. As for Pittsburgh, fan attendance has always been lower than the performance of the team has merited (well, for a decad and a half). It is a lack of interest in baseball in Pittsburgh, not high player salaries. If enough fans went to the games, and if enough fans watched on TV, and (this is the really unfair part, but may be the root cause) if Pittsburghers had enough discretionary income to make sponsoring the Pirates a more valauble proposition (presuming Pittsuburghers began tuning into Pirate games), then the Pirates would not move. Blaming it on Johnny Ray's salary or on Lee Lacy's departure for a higher salary seems a bit simplistic to me. > What does everyone think? We might as well discuss this > issue, since in all probability it will be the only thing to talk > about come mid-August. > - Jay C. > Well, you asked. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) (08/02/85)
>> I have no sympathy for the players. Hell, I'd do what they are doing >> ( if I was capable of it) for 10% of what the average player makes. > But you're not, and I'm not going to pay $8 to see YOU play, and I'm > not going to watch YOU on TV. If Prince can make 17 million dollars a > year, I have no problem with the thought the top baseball stars can > make 10% of that. The latter, at least, I find entertaining. A point well taken. This MUST be the rationale behind the player's strike. In major TV markets, the sports reporter for the 6 & 11 o'clock news on the local network affiliate probably makes more than most of the hometown baseball players. And HE only "works" 5 minutes a day!!! How else could Graig Nettles -- good for over a million per -- be seen on a local sports show a month ago, talking so sincerely about the "wisdom" of going on strike late in the season so that the owners would either give in to the players demands or "lose all of that playoff and World Series money"? Fact is, baseball is part of the entertainment business, and the payoff there for the winners is megabucks. Ballplayers, arguably, are just trying to achieve parity with other successful pop entertainers. On the other hand, it is difficult to sympathize with a millionaire on a picket line -- hence the fact that most polls show fans lining up with owners. But shed no tears for them, either. The last owner who actually made his livelihood from baseball -- Calvin Griffin -- left years ago, driven out by -- you guessed it -- free agency and escalating salary costs. raf ---
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (08/04/85)
As far as I am concerned, both sides can just rot. The owners haven't made any terrific proposals, but at least they've made some proposals. The players' response can be summed up in one word: NO. Not even "No, but maybe something like this..", just "No." They even flatly rejected the comissioner's proposals; Marvin Miller called the comissioner an amateur. I hardly think you can blame the lack of movement solely on the owners. It is also true that the players cannot be expected to solve the owners' financial problems for them, but they could help, if they were interested. The players want a share in all of the owner's new-found wealth from TV, etc.-- Fine. They should also therefore be expected to bear some of the burden if things don't work out as planned. In the interest of the long-term outlook, salaries should be slowed down somehow-- I rather liked the Commissioner's proposal as a starting point. The players not only don't want to slow things down, they want to accelerate them. I don't think there is an immediate problem with this, but no business grows forever; the participants now are, I think, in danger of mortgaging the future for present benefits. Also, the owners should distribute income among themselves better to help shore up weaker franchises, or move franchises to more profitable locations (tough to do, but this IS a business when it comes right down to it). Baseball is not a "free market", either, as some people seem to think. It is entertainment-- and each team has an interest in seeing that the other teams do reasonably well financially (gotta have someone to play against, right?) This means both the players and owners have an interest in making sure that teams make money. Overall, though, neither side seems overly concerned with the future, the fans, or really anyone else but themselves. I, for one, feel there will be a strike, and it may last a while. But I could really care less at this point, since I have resolved not to attend another ballgame (if any) this year. I call upon all other fans to do the same. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
wimp@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Haferman) (08/05/85)
> The last owner who actually made his livelihood from baseball -- > Calvin Griffin -- left years ago, driven out by -- you guessed it -- > free agency and escalating salary costs. Actually, Griffith (not Griffin) sold the Twins in the spring of '84 to Carl Pohlad. Griffith still is somewhat active in the organization, though he is keeping a lower profile than when he owned the team. Also, I don't know how accurate it is to say that he was driven out by free agency and escalating salary costs. Indirectly, I suppose, this is true. In my opinion, Griffith was driven out by the harsh criticisms of the press. Griffith remained tough when the Steinbrenners and the Turners of Baseball came around with their big bucks. TRUE, the Twins haven't been much of a threat the last few years, but there are quality ball-players on the team now, and there are many, many players in the Majors who were brought up in the Griffith oraganization. Ahhh, the days I spent in the old Met, watching the likes of Killebrew, Carew, Darwin, Kaat, Oliva, Blyleven (somehow he made it back)... Tailgating in the parking lot... Yes, I liked the ownership of the Twins under Griffith and it's a shame that baseball is being ruined for the love of money... Jeff Haferman
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/05/85)
The owners, too, rejected Ueberroth's proposals. As for serious
proposals, the only one put forth by the owners makes a slight
concession on the pension fund, but undoes its purpose by allowing the
owners to deduct from the fund any salary increases over a certain
amount. Thus, the owners inability to discipline themselves would
result in money being transferred from players who spend years in the
minors only to break through to the majors for a few years to players
who command the large contracts -- hardly something the union could
accept. The owners also gave no ground on arbitration. Thus, one
step forward and one step back is what it represents.
The players have made an offer to reduce their pension demands
(amount: unspecified) in return for
(1) Preservation of arbitration as is, and
(2) Guarantees that the amount "foregone" by the pension fund
would only go to those teams losing money.
The players could give up something on arbitration, but at least they,
unlike the owners, are actually conceding something. The second point,
in particular, points out the owner's continuing charade: in the name
of the few teams that really do have financial difficulties, the owners
make proposals that will bring financial return to the wealthy and the
solvent teams as well.
The owners are caught in a contradiction: on one hand, they would have
us consider the finances of the most endangered individual franchises
as the standard by which to judge what concessions the players ought
to make; on the other hand, they demand that those concessions be
applied to ALL franchises, whether they merit it or not. If the
financial status of the Pittsburgh Pirates is to be invoked, the
consequent labor concessions should apply to only the Pittsburgh
Pirates. If the concessions are to made to MLB as a unitary
enterprise, then the only relevant standard is the status of MLB as a
whole.
A final note: virtually any owner can sell his baseball franchise at a
tremendous real profit from the price paid for it even a few years
ago. For example when Doubleday's group bought the Mets in 1980, they
paid the highest price ever paid for a franchise up to that point --
$20 million. Teams now trade hands for about $50 million, and it was
recently confirmed that Doubleday had turned DOWN an offer of $100
million for the Mets. Some teams cannot command these prices (if they
are restricted to their present markets), but, presuming the owners
are rational men, if baseball were really in financial trouble as a
whole, I'd expect a lot more owners to exploit the available capital
gains...
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidbbaker@cadsys.UUCP (William Baker) (08/07/85)
> In major TV markets, the sports reporter for the 6 & 11 o'clock news > on the local network affiliate probably makes more than most of the > hometown baseball players. And HE only "works" 5 minutes a day!!! > How else could Graig Nettles -- good for over a million per -- be seen > on a local sports show a month ago, talking so sincerely about the "wisdom" > of going on strike late in the season so that the owners would either give in > to the players demands or "lose all of that playoff and World Series > money"? You'll pardon me for being a bit picky with this comment: It is common misconception that on-air journalists work only the time that they are on the air. Wrong. While it is true that some pay-for-the-face journalists in major markets do not work eighteen hours a day on pure journalism. However, the reverse is most often true. Having grown up in newsrooms, I can well-remember the anchorpeople (known as "the talent" in the business) coming in early and staying late. They write a great deal of what they read on the air. This applies to sports reporters as well. In fact, except for the biggest markets (L.A., New York, and Chicago) the on-air sports anchor is also a full-time reporter. They must put in long hours covering sports events in the evening. Baseball players work less than four hours a day for less than forty weeks a year. Sports reporters often work more than ten hours a day for more than forty-eight weeks a year. The idea that the average sports reporter, even the lead reporter who does the on-air section, earns more than the average baseball player is ludicrous. The average salary of a major league baseball player is ten times what a sports reporter could ever hope to earn in all but the biggest markets. There are only three journalists that I know of who make more than $1,000,000 a year (Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather). I know of no sports journalists who make anything near to the kind of money that the top ball players make. There are sports *announcers* who pull down a lot of money, but they are not journalists. It is interesting to note how much a baseball player's career is like a journalists. Most journalists toil in small markets (just like minor league baseball) and never go further. Those that make it to the big markets often have very short careers. The industry's desire for image over competency doom television journalists as they age, especially women. Phyllis George's career as a female sports television "journalist" is almost at an end because she, like us all, is getting old. Some journalists manage to have long careers in the "big leagues", but they are as rare as forty year-old baseball players. The difference is that journalists get better with age, disregarding alcoholism (one of the leading causes of death among journalists, especially those that cover sports). I don't particularly care if they strike or not. This season just has not been as exciting as last year's (the prospect of a Cub-Tiger Series kept me on edge for a long time). As the signs have been saying, "Football starts soon!". Bill Baker intelca!cadsys!bbaker
pete@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (08/08/85)
>Ahhh, the days I spent in the old Met, watching the likes of Killebrew, Carew, >Darwin, Kaat, Oliva, Blyleven (somehow he made it back)... >Tailgating in the parking lot... > >Yes, I liked the ownership of the Twins under Griffith and it's a shame >that baseball is being ruined for the love of money... > I agree. The days of innocence in the sport (at least as seen thru youthful eyes) are long gone. Too bad. -- Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!pete CSNet: pete@umcp-cs ARPA: pete@maryland