roy@hpmtla.UUCP (roy) (03/11/85)
While gazing at my cover of sports illustrated I noticed that 36
ball players make more than 1 million per. Now Dave Stieb has
become number 37 (and in grand fashion I might add).
The numbers reflected in the issue, along with the current
arbitration trend (which I see as - if any given player in the
league has worse stats than me, then I should make more than he),
what is the future of major league baseball.
It could be said that as long as there are enough ego-maniac
millionaires out there, there will be a league, but is this really
baseball?
I would like to hear from all you hard cores out there. Should we
all start watching indoor soccer?
hpfcla!hplvla!hpmtla!roysdi@loral.UUCP () (03/15/85)
In article <4500026@hpmtla.UUCP> roy@hpmtla.UUCP (roy) writes: > > >While gazing at my cover of sports illustrated I noticed that 36 >ball players make more than 1 million per. Now Dave Stieb has >become number 37 (and in grand fashion I might add). > >The numbers reflected in the issue, along with the current >arbitration trend (which I see as - if any given player in the >league has worse stats than me, then I should make more than he), >what is the future of major league baseball. > >It could be said that as long as there are enough ego-maniac >millionaires out there, there will be a league, but is this really >baseball? > >I would like to hear from all you hard cores out there. Should we >all start watching indoor soccer? > > hpfcla!hplvla!hpmtla!roy Just by the basic laws of economics (supply and demand), as long as there is some fool with money out there who will pay more than the next guy, the player's agents know they can get big bucks. If the ceiling was lowered and stayed consistent then all players would be happy because there would be no "hey Joe got a million-five and I just got 800,000 and we have the same stats". My ideas are all conjecture based on sanity and reasonable salary ranges. The millionaires out there don't look at things like that. They have BUCKS and will "pay anything" to get that right-handed power hitting outfielder to make their team a contender. I don't know if there is much we can do about it. I won't change to indoor soccer until the price of a general admission ticket gets into double figures!
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (03/17/85)
> It could be said that as long as there are enough ego-maniac > millionaires out there, there will be a league, but is this really > baseball? Yes. David Rubin
rossiter@cornell.UUCP (David G. Rossiter) (03/18/85)
In article <4500026@hpmtla.UUCP> roy@hpmtla.UUCP (roy) writes: >It could be said that as long as there are enough ego-maniac >millionaires out there, there will be a league, but is this really >baseball? > >I would like to hear from all you hard cores out there. Should we >all start watching indoor soccer? I certainly consider myself a hard-core fan (weaned on Brooklyn Dodgers, raised on Milwaukee Braves), and I see nothing wrong with huge salaries. If you're looking for purity of motive for playing sport, baseball has always been the wrong place to look! It's a professional sport (and some would say, professional entertainment). You pay to watch the best players, and you pay to watch winning teams (and mystically identify with their corporate entity, but that's the subject for another discussion...). So, within the free agency rules, this is supply and demand at its purest. Reggie Jackson was worth almost any figure he named, because he put people in seats. Same with Dr. K -- I made a special trip to NY to see him pitch last summer -- no way I would have done that for Walt Terrel (no offence, Walt, but there's something about seeing the non-Brooklyn lapsed Dodgers humiliated 12 times...). One might object that some players are not worth what they get (Foster?) but after all, that's management's decision... if they spend too much they'll go broke. Contrast the situation now with years past, when players like Musial didn't come close to getting rich, and when players were virtual slaves of the owners. Where this argument begins to come apart is when we consider baseball, even as entertainment, as a whole (the same may be said about laissez-faire capit- alism, it looks fine until you consider the big picture [no flames please] :-). When one market is much larger than another, and especially with the cable TV superstations, there is a real danger of division into about 8 strong teams and about 18 (+ expansion) weak ones. Should that happen, baseball will become almost an exhibition sport. Consider NBA basketball. I suspect that people go to see the Lakers, Celtics, and 76ers as much for entertainment (it's almost like watching a stylized men's gymnastics) as for the competitive sport. Parity is a real factor in keeping fan interest sport-wide. The NFL has been successful in this regard, basketball (despite the same draft) less so. Since baseball depends so much on team `chemistry', it still takes a good GM to put it all together, even with the $$. See you at Shea!