No. Simple answer. Are there people who think it will be better for MLS if there is a strike? I'm just curious as to why people voted yes.
I voted Yes because people that make an average of 2.3 MILLION dollars a year....to play a GAME...and then want to strike deserve to screw themselves. Considering an average US salary of about $35,000 a year it would take this average worker 67 YEARS to make what an average ball player makes in 1 year. Enough is enough. I have gone to my last Baseball game. I could care less if MLB dissapeared from the map of the earth. This coming from someone that used to watch every Yankee game he could a few years back.
I just enjoy watching people do stupid things. Especially people who have just completely lost perpective, like average relief pitchers who are paid more than the President, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, an average cardiologist, and Rivaldo combined.
I voted "yes" for a few reasons: 1) I don't like baseball. It is boring, long, tedious, and not very athletic. 2) Baseball is the primary summer sport in the U.S., which puts it in direct competition with MLS. If you do away with MLB games, then you do away with 90% of the summer sports coverage in the U.S. Therefore, ESPN and other must look for other sports to fill their shows. MLS should get more coverage without baseball. While, I don't like baseball, I don't necessarily wish it would die. I just want more MLS coverage in the U.S.
I voted No. The Braves are having a great year and I think they can win the World Series this season. They can strike during any other season but this one.
Baseball has simply become home run derby. I'm sick of the steroid pumped monsters constantly whining. It's so hard to be a professional baseball player, blah blah... Barry Bonds is the prime example. He makes me sick. I'm sick of baseball highlights (spitting, nut scratching) sucking an entire sportscast. I want MLS highlights on sportscenter, not all baseball, not golf, not Tiger Woods got a prescription for stool softener again... I don't think the strike will help MLS much since football is starting, but maybe they'll cool it with baseball next season.
I voted yes, even though I enjoy the dusty chalk of the baseball lines, the fragrance of peanuts, while some vendor screams, "Hot Dogs, Get Your Hot Dogs!" I was there in 94, when two of my favorite teams, the Giants and the Rangers, were chasing the penant. The players, owners & managers need to be punished for blindling supporting the worst organized sport in America. B4 94, the stands were full, the television was rich & things couldn't have been looking better w/ the internet economy coming into focus, then Boom! You cancel the World Series and jam my TV w/ memoriable quotes like," I say we lock these guys in a room w/ refried beans... until they reach a deal." Screw them. Shut it down. While all this was going down, ESPN paid more attention to the world cup and I watched Columbia v USA. I got my fix & so did others. Baseball just doesn't understand that it's stadiums are half empty & it's nielson ratings are sagging on opening night for a reason. People stopped caring. I think the sport will survive until my grandkids, yet to be conceived, are old and grey. I think, however, it will survive on a much less watched form. More like arena football. It has lots of loyal fans & is on tv, but most people could care less. I don't think kids will "drop their bats & pick up shin guards" as said by Alexi Lalas, but I do think people will find other ways to divert their attention. PS if they strike 5days removed from this country's biggest catastrophe, then they can no longer bear the moniker "America's favorite Pastime."
Where's the "who cares" choice? Basebore striking won't effect MLS at all. And to be honest, I could care less as I haven't really paid any attention to basebore in years.
>>B4 94, the stands were full, ..... While all this was going down, ESPN paid more attention to the world cup and I watched Columbia v USA. I got my fix & so did others. >>> I disagree. The strike didnt happen until AFTER the WC was over. And even though attendence was down in 95..by 96 and 97 Baseball was breaking all kinds of attendence record, just as if nothing had ever happened. Baseball fans dont seem to learn. SO get ready for the cliche media to spew "The end of Baseball" and the Fans to cry "Ill never go to a game again", but in 2 years most if not all will be back. As I sat at Shea on Saturday, my first time there (only went cause it was planned by someone long ago and I said sure what the heck) I was bored to death and so were the other 30 Thousand fans. The game was horrible. I couldnt help but wonder why all these people bother coming in mass day in day out to BBal games. My cousin said it best whiule we sat there..."Yeah sure the field looks nice from up here, but the game sucks".
I voted no. I like baseball somewhat. Other people like baseball a lot more than I do. More's the point, I think it's petty and obnoxious to piss on someone else's good time. I regard the tiny majority of baseball fans who feel compelled to put soccer down at every turn as beneath my contempt, and I feel no reason to think any more highly of soccer fans who compulsively bash baseball.
I voted yes. 1) There is so much money in the game. You'd think that players who average a couple million a year and owners who have nice revenue streams would be able to figure a way to split that equitably and peacefully. Yet, ego gets in the way. A strike will hurt (how much is really unknown) them where it counts. The pocketbook. 2) I don't think there will be an immediate benefit to soccer (futbol), but perhaps there will be a short-term small lift. Hey, we need all the small lifts we can get! 3) It would be interesting to see a big sport self-destruct....... (as long as it isn't soccer!)
Amen. I love soccer, folks, but I grew up loving the Braves (still have my Dale Murphy #3 jersey). And not to rehash the same old statements we've seen time and time again, but it's okay to like other sports AND soccer at the same time.
I voted yes. I used to play and enjoy the sport, but for a long while now, it has lost its appeal to me. I think its stupid that one player make 250 million for ten years, and another 105 and a plane for his family (kevin Brown). Then these players have the nerve to go on strike asking for more?! I can't say that I hate the game b/c that makes me no better than the ignorants that say that about soccer. I will say that I have no desire to go to, watch or have anything to do with the professional sport. I hope the stike gets them a salary cap and a roster limit and single entity!
I voted "Yes". I grew up loving baseball and I followed the Red Sox closely. But it has simply lost its appeal for me for two reasons: firstly, the players are vastly overpaid and secondly, I've come to realize how slow and boring the game is. I've noticed that you can't be a big baseball fan without being a big statistics fan. I have nothing against that, I mean it's part of baseball's esoteric nature. But for me, stats just aren't exciting anymore. Baseball is great fun to play, I just can't get excited watching it. I wouldn't mind a bit if it died off as a sport.
I voted YES. My main problem with baseball is that there is too much of it. 14 games every single day for a 182 game season, each game between 3 and 5 hours long. Even baseball fans don't watch baseball. There's no way you could follow that sport and keep a full time job. That's why they have such an obsession with statistics. That way they can know something about all those games that they don't even watch. I don't really think that a baseball strike will mean that much to MLS, at least in the short term. Baseball's problems are far deeper than this current labor dispute. MLS may benefit from a gradual decline in baseball, whether there is a strike this year or not. Baseball lost the casual fan long ago. It has coasted along with a large number of hard-core fans, and the out-dated notion that it is the "National Pastime". The number of games and the pace of the game is an anachronism in the 21st century.
I voted no, I will not be able to put up with the endless coverage and crying about the strike. Also I don;t think a strike will really help MLS.
I used to follow the game closely back when starters actually completed games and games ended in 2 or 2 1/2 hrs. But Tony La Russa and his imitators ruined the flow of the sport with their starter--middle reliever--middle reliever--setup man--closer philosophy of pitching.
there have been a couple of intelligent managers, when it comes to the use of relievers... jimy williams comes to mind... willing to use his best reliever (whether that be considered the closer by others or whatever) when a tough situation came up... not only when there was a save situation... not enough managers out there right now, are willing to do this... larussa sorta does this with steve kline... but then again, isringhausen is the stereotypical closer very frustrating
no. as it will have no affect on mls and my beloved twins are one of the best teams in baseball right now, i'm hoping for a full season.
I voted yes. I have no idea why the Tampa Bay Devil Rays get basically the same amount (and the same quality) of coverage that the San Jose Earthquakes get here in San Francisco. But if the Quakes don't have to compete for ink and air with EVERY baseball team in existence, then I say good. Also, I know it's not good karma to wish ill towards other people, but I wouldn't mind it if a few geezers like Frank Deford get to spend the rest of their miserable lives without seeing another "World" Series game. Peace, Frank.