I was set to feel that way, but reading articles about all the "little people" that would lose their livelihood by a strike, I don't feel bad at all that it didn't happen.
It may just be me, but the attitude held that baseball (or any sport for that matter) needs to be around for September 11th cheapens the meaning of the tragedy.
Number of independent league games I've been to this summer: 25 (and we're gonna be in the playoffs!) Number of MLB games I've been to since '94: 2 Baseball and Major League Baseball are not synonymous. Our problem for years has been that soccer and Major League Soccer are not synonymous either.
Actually, I think a last-minute thrown together deal that keeps the game limping along will kill baseball before a strike would have. It doesn't matter that a ton of money will be flowing from bigger to smaller markets - none of that money is required to show up on a payroll. With no incentive, or perhaps better put directive, to place at least a percentage of that money into building a better team, small-market teams will continue to be Class 4a minor league development squads for the Yankees, Braves, Dodgers, Mariners, Red Sox, and so on. Revenue sharing and luxury taxes were implemented in 1994, and we can all see how well that went. The next 4 years will be more of the same. You have about 6-8 teams that have a legitimate shot of winning - the same 6-8 teams every year - and the have nots. The smaller markets will continue to suffer, and they'll bleed right through the bandaid of revenue sharing and luxury taxes. Worse yet, the disgust fans feel towards the game right now will keep voters from passing tax proposals to build new stadiums that artificially inflate the number of people in America who actually give a rat's ass about the game. As a soccer fan, I couldn't care less. The rise and fall of baseball will send minor wake-like swells our way, but will not make or break the game of soccer. As a baseball fan, a diehard Mariners fan for all of my life, surprisingly I am caring less and less.
You mean, cheapening it by turning a tragedy into a marketing opportunity? Nope, that's not just you.
They seem to want to strike every World Cup year. In 94 they did just after the WC, would have been nice if it was before the WC. In 2002 again almost after the WC. Now in 2006 thats when the next labor issues will arise...I hope though this time we get a 2006 WC with NO BASEBALL taking up screen time. For the record. I was an avid baseball fan and slowly lost interest after 1994. >>It may just be me, but the attitude held that baseball (or any sport for that matter) needs to be around for September 11th cheapens the meaning of the tragedy.>> I totally agree. Its disgusting to even mention baseball in the same breath with 9-11 and its victims. Nuf Said.
That's a pretty...unique...characterization of a deal that they've been working on for almost a year.
My understanding on this is that the next time a strike would be possible would be at least 2007, not 2006 like everyone is saying here. The following is from ESPN's article on the strike: "In an effort to avoid the chaos of this year, when the sides were working without a contract, this deal calls for a rollover of the terms on revenue sharing and the luxury tax to rollover into 2007 if a new CBA still is being negotiated. Players agreed not to challenge any contraction moves in 2007." So the attendance "bump" from a baseball strike some of you are waiting for will take a little longer than you think. Of course MLS might not be around by then or we'll have 14 teams to grab all those extra fans with. We'll see.
Same here. Everybody always forgets about the little people, like the ushers, the beer men, the ticket taker, all of whom would get nothing if there are no games. And I don't know how it is in other cities, but a lot of the concession stands at the Ballpark in Arlington are manned by various youth groups who volunteer to work these concessions stands as a fund-raiser. What happens to them if there's a strike? On the one hand, I would've been pretty blase if there were a strike. After all, it's soccer season and now, it's also football season. On the other hand, I'm not disappointed that they reached a settlement.
Yes, I just didn't know how you gleaned all that and were able to make a blanket pronouncement within 20 minutes after the deal was announced. Dan Patrick was a total suckup on his show, saying the players had nothing to apologize for, that it was all the owners' fault. I mean, Dan, I realize you have to keep up relations with players because you have them (and not owners) on your show, interview them (and not owners) for the back pages of ESPN The Magazine, and go out to cover big events and interview them (and not owners), but don't be so blatant about it, huh? And I also love how quickly the common wisdom has now shifted from "a strike will kill baseball" to "well, now they have an agreement, and that will kill baseball". Nothing's going to kill baseball, okay? It's in the DNA. Get used to it.
The Strike I'm glad the strike was averted, since my lifelong favorite team (the Cards) are ahead in the Central. I just can't turn my back on baseball, although soccer is definitely #1 on my list of favorite sports.
A deal that they've been "working" on? That's a good laugh. An agreement that many of the baseball owners have disagreed with, and the player's union has opposed, and all of the sudden we are to believe that they've been sitting at tables for over a year working together on a solid compromise for the good of the game? Whatever.
Re: Re: Sorry, kids: No baseball strike Yeah, it's you and a couple of other strange people. Most Americans want America's pastime to be around on 9-11. Corny as it is, no baseball on 9-11 would be profoundly troubling to a lot of people. This has nothing to do with "marketing opportunties."
Ahh, that's nice. I love the 'cool' bigsoccer posters who stick up for the great American bull*************** like soccer bashers, little league world series, MLB baseball strike, etc., etc.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The first two sentences are setting the scene. I don't understand why "working" is in quotes, tho. Usually that indicates that you don't agree with the word. Were they "playing" on an agreement? "Sleeping?" "Eating?" What other verb could possibly be appropriate? The next sentence says that many owners disagreed with it. I don't understand the significance of that. Did you think there was going to be a plan that inspired unanimity? So what if the interest of the Yankees, Indians, and Royals were not all equally served. That's impossible anyway. The important thing is that the owners as a group agreed. The next part of the sentence is untrue. The players have been on board with the owners' basic framework for a very long time now. Besides, they have an agreement, so the notion that the players opposed it is just stupid. It defies the very definition of the word "agreement." Then you say something about the good of the game. WTF??? When GM and the UAW reach an agreement, nobody is foolish enough to think they're doing it for the good of the auto industry. I don't know why anyone would be so foolish as to think baseball is any different. The agreement was between the players and the owners. Period. Anyone who thinks this negotiating was about anything else shouldn't be told the truth about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, either. And then you end with a "whatever." You could have saved the electrons, your whole post is a big "whatever." Dude, here's your next post for you. You're welcome.
There was an interesting spot on ABC news on Thursday that claimed that baseball revenues were up 17% per year since 1990. It also said that revenues had increased something like $900 million more than player salaries had increased. (Can someone confirm that number? It seems awfully high, but that's what I remember hearing.) Throughout this whole thing I felt to me like the real conflict is between three different groups of owners. A) The super-rich owners who are doing just fine with the status quo, on the field and in the bank. B) The mid-level owners who feel they can't compete, or make any money until the business model of the game changes. If that change requires a long work stoppage to break the union, so be it. C) The poor owners who are in such bad shape that a prolonged work stoppage would kill their franchises. It seems that the As and the Cs have won out over the Bs. So we have the status quo. When its time for a new CBA, we get to see the same thing happen all over again. Anyway, count me in the group that's disappointed that there was no strike. I'd like to be able to turn on ESPNnews to look for a score without having to watch 15 baseball scores scroll by every single day (and they load that scoreline with so much crap that it takes about 1 minute each for them to go by). Or watch a 30 minute sportscenter without seeing 25 minutes of baseball highlights. My problem with baseball is that there's just too much of it.
A strike wouldn't have done much to help MLS. The lack of a strike hurts nothing. And this deal makes a lot of baseball fans (including many of my friends) happy. What's there to complain about?
Godot, agreed. Baseball has nothing to do with the advancement of soccer. Everyone should focus on going to games and supporting MLS sides, and shut up.
Re: Godot, agreed. And also try to watch all the soccer (including international matches) that you feasibly can on TV -- TV ratings ultimately matter the most.
You're right. All of these running dog, bourgeois imperialists must be dubbed counter-revolutionaries and sent to the nearest internment camp achipeligo as soon as the revolution takes place. Seriously, I think we do need a name to describe these posters. We already have Eurosnob--would Americanasnob work? How about Mellow-out-snob? How about "Reality-snob?" How about "anti-soccer basher basher baiter"? I'd love to be placed in a specific category on this board.