Quote:
Originally Posted by bkbjones
So...should we go back to the players being mere chattel, often subject to the whims of an owner? Gawd, they probly all have secret shrines to Charlie Finley they bow to every day anyway.
Perhaps a return to a limited reserve system would help things along. Back in the olden days (speaking late 1800s) each club could "reserve" five players. Granted there were only 8-12 teams during this period, and rosters mostly were about 14-15 players. (In some cases, rosters were even smaller, with yesterday's starting pitcher helping take tickets or be the one-man grounds crew. The reserve system was in place largely due to the Players League (1890) and the Western League morphing into the American League in 1901 -- and the ever-present greed of owners.)
BTW, the judge who originally ruled baseball was not subject to antitrust laws was a fellow with weird hair, weird name and Bud Selig's role model, Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Landis was infamous as a federal judge, setting records almost daily for having judgments overturned.
Baseball may be doing well, but there is some fixing that would be in the best interests of the game, owners and players.
|
You mean when the chattle that were part of the community, held down a real job in the off-season, couldn't pay for a meal and other necessities in the team's town if they wanted to and were basically regular guys who wasn't obsessed with their own self-importance? You remember those guys. A pitcher could actually pitch 9 innings without specialized equipment, top-notch ergonomic wardrobe and a personal trainer. They hit, too. And a player played where it would help the team, not where it suited himself.
Rant on!
Yeah, they weren't paid the obscene wages we see today, but maybe that is because our parents were smart enough to not worship a non-hero and throw around money they didn't have.
Yeah, the owners want the most they can get out of their investment, but that's the same to some level with every business in the country.
Here's the catch: The players want it to be a business when it suits them, but then sit back and rip owners for not caring about their personal lives. If an owner doesn't want a contracted player to participate, they still have to pay the contract. If a player isn't satisfied with a contract THEY signed, they just stop playing and blame the owner for being insensitive to his needs. GIVE ME A BREAK!
And, of course, the owners haven't the courage to tell them to take a hike and bow to their whim and fancy. Some of these owners remind me of the nagging spouse who honestly believes they can change their mate once married and is confused when that doesn't happen.
You have to give the owners one thing. They are the ones making the investment, not the players. The player's offer no tangible investment, just the demand of money for unproven production. Yet, the unions demand a cut of the marketing, tv revenue, concessions and just about anything they can get their grubby little hands on. That's the life I want, making a living off OPM & risks.
Rant off!