Sorry, but this would have happened no matter who was sitting in the commissioner's office. I agree with your assessment of the "position" he was dropped into by his cronies, it is a sham.

Personally, I think the owners got screwed by the judge as I do not believe she has any authority over a private business. And before you bring up their anti-trust exemption, there is no inherent right of ANYONE to play, umpire, watch or make money off of a child's game being played by overgrown, overpaid babies.

If the owners were smart, which IMO they are not, they would take that anti-trust exemption and tell congress where to put it. Granted, it would be more difficult to obtain aid and financing by the local governments, but so be it. They don't need to pay the prima donnas all that money.

I happen to agree with your view that the judiciary overstepped, but (IMO) if the owners, led by the pretend commissioner, had not engaged in unfair labor practices and other shenanigans, the judge would not have had the excuse.

As to the antitrust exception, since when does a private business even need be concerned with antitrust issues with how it handles internal financial issues? Antitrust concerns how a company colludes with competitors (e.g price fixing or market dividing) or how it tries to engage in monolopy practices with competitors. The problem with this model of business behavior with professional sports teams is that no MLB team is a BUSINESS competitor of any other... they are sports competitors but not business competitors. This is easy to demonstrate: what would the NY Yankee$ do if they drove all of the other MLB teams out of business? The business entity in professional sports is the league, not the individual team. This also means that the whole free agent system is also a misapplication of federal labor law to professional sports. JMO.

You could, but I could also counter with his so called successes. My point is, look at the history of the game. It is rife with conflict and greedy owners manuevering to get more for less out of the players. There also exist all sorts of conspiracies by owners throughout time and collusion by the very people entrusted to prevent these sorts of things. (League presidents, when they existed, and commissioners.) Do you really think the names Landis and Frick and Kuhn are any more deserving of respect than Selig?

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.

Doesn't the entire concept of revenue sharing kind of prove the case against being business competitors as well? I mean, how often will you see Microsoft giving Apple funds so that there can be parity in the tech business? :D

I'd put the pretend commissioner at the bottom of the list in terms of integrity and operating in the "best interests of baseball" of any MLB commissioner in my time as a somewhat informed fan (meaning my adulthood).

I realize that last sentiment ("best interests...") is ill-defined and has been used in the past for all kinds of power plays, etc., but apart from his seeming near complete lack of any personal integrity (based on his actions), he has failed the game in many, many ways from the hostile attitude toward the players union, to the lack of any real check on the free-spending ways of the Yankee$ and the Red $ox, to encouraging (at best through knowing wink-wink, at worst through collusion) the use of performance enhancing drugs to rebuild fan interest after he presided over the near destruction of the game.

MLB is one of many employment opportunities for professional male athletes in the USA and the world. If a college student wants to pursue an education that qualifies him for only one job with only one employer, that does not mean the employer must have its internal divisions bid for him just to avoid violating antitrust or federal labor laws. The same applies to an athlete who decides to pursue only one employer, whether that be MLB, the NFL, or the NHL.

Considering Apple now has more cash on hand than Microsoft, not terribly often. ;)

Okay then, how about Apple sharing with HP? :rolleyes:

You get my point, though....

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!

Mike, I agree with you about the players. If I got a job and failed 70% of the time when it counted, I'd be fired in a heartbeat. :D

This is why I only call softball and not baseball, though you have some of the same mentality in a lot of the weekend warrior softball players who think that they're actually playing for something more than a t-shirt or a trophy in their sponsor's lobby. It's through that idol worship that we've done ourselves in - the players know that if they were to leave a particular team, the fans would revolt. Thus, the owners of the team are stuck between a rock and a hard place when the players don't perform as promised, yet the fans still seem to love them.

There are very few pro athletes whom I respect: Ron Dayne (I know he's football, but they're in the same pickle), Reggie White (again, footbal), Larry Bird, Robin Yount, etc. These guys play(ed) for love of the game, not the paycheck, and they are producers. They realized from the beginning that they're only one small part of a team, and that they get nowhere as individuals. Yet if they play together as a team, they stand a much better chance at success.

We no longer value character in an athlete, but rather the character athletes. Look at Dennis Rodman, Shaq, Michael Vick, etc. These are the characters that our children idolize, yet they bring nothing to the table in terms of values. It's all money, look at me, money.

So where/when did we go wrong? Free agency? Mass televised marketing?

"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?"

I don't know...I think you're describing quite a few gov't jobs there! :D

I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I'll add KC Chiefs Linebacker Donnie Edwards as another pro player I greatly admire. He has a strong work ethic, doesn't talk smack and isn't out getting arrested on his days off.

Add Zach Thomas to List A and Barry Blownup Bonds to List B. (IMHO, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe belong in the HOF before Bonds. I hope his nads shrunk to this size oo)

Well, a 72 hour rain delay is not in the rule book, either. In fact, there is no time limit on a rain delay. That the pretend commissioner was having the game continue in unplayable conditions just to avoid having to actually step forward and make a courageous decision is no surprise.

Whoops, I deleted my post because I heard him clarify that he would suspend the game for as long as it took and I already got quoted. And you're right--a game can be suspended as long as he wants to suspend it, and now the rules support him. Good job, Bud!

Of course, Bud's tendency to take the path of least resistance might come in handy for him if he wanted to try umpiring. ;)