Master Index of Archived Threads


You've got the power

AG/DC Sep 05 2008 10:28 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 05 2008 10:35 AM

... and it's great power, to change one and only one thing about Major League baseball. You can't change the laws of physis or anything, but neither can you be held back by political or business interests if you want to elimnate the DH or contract the Yankees or something. Eradicatinon of PED usage an acceptable answer also. Val is on the record as wanting to guarantee that every game is played, no matter what.

metirish Sep 05 2008 10:30 AM

Less IL play is all I can think of right now , I like IL play but I really have little interest in playing Kansas , Detroit and the like.

holychicken Sep 05 2008 10:39 AM

Can I change the flow of the profits into my pocket? If not, I say get rid of IL altogether. I like the idea of teams having not played each other for long periods of time. They can keep their stupid DH for all I care.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 05 2008 10:43 AM

This is too easy and you know it. DH, out. Out. Later.

metirish Sep 05 2008 10:47 AM

The DH doesn't really bother me becasue it's not in our league.Only when we go there do I give a damn and then I see it as a chance to "rest" one of the guys , especially when it was Piazza.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 05 2008 10:51 AM

Years ago I would have chosen to eliminate artificial turf. Since that's pretty much a thing of the past now, I can use my magic wish elsewhere. I'll have to think about this a little bit more.

seawolf17 Sep 05 2008 10:52 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: This is too easy and you know it. DH, out. Out. Later. Yep.

Gwreck Sep 05 2008 11:14 AM

Other than "free season and playoff tickets for life for Gwreck," I'd get rid of the DH first. There can be no other choice.

soupcan Sep 05 2008 11:27 AM

1. DH. 1A. Network television control and MLB not giving a rat's ass to the extent that a Sunday afternoon game that I planned to take my kids to months ago that they were excited about, where they would get a Johann Santana bobblehead and run the bases after the game, got rescheduled to an 8:00 pm starting time with the kids having school on Monday so they can't go.

Centerfield Sep 05 2008 11:28 AM

Eliminate the orange dot on the blue caps of the New York Mets.

AG/DC Sep 05 2008 11:33 AM

Bwow, maybe there should be anti-DH organzation with a website and t-shirts and online petitions and stuff. Folks are not only united that it's a bad thing, but the worst thing. Bwow. Of course, we're still waiting on Centerfield to log on and crusade against the dot.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 05 2008 11:36 AM

Things I'd like to get rid of: The DH. Interleague play. The New York Yankees. The current adherence to pitch counts. The impact that the Save statistic has had on the game. Black Mets jerseys Changes I'd like to make: The way the schedule is balanced. I'd prefer 16 against each division rival, 9 against each team in other divisions within the same league. (Some exceptions would be necessary to fit to exactly 162 games.) Start times of post-season games. Number of minutes between innings. Price caps on ballpark food. $2 for a hot dog is more than reasonable. Same with $2 for a soda or $1 for a bag of popcorn. And all ballparks should allow you to bring in bag lunches. (I especially hate when I'm told that I can't bring food into the ballpark for "safety reasons.") More affordable seating at the newer ballparks. (I'm talking to YOU, Citi Field.) I'd redraw the broadcast territories. (Why is cooby blacked out from Mets games? Ridiculous!) I'd expand the roster from 25 to 27. Given the way pitching staffs have grown, there are no longer enough bench players for any given game. I think if I had to choose one, it would be the one about affordable ticket prices. Going to a game will never be affordable to everyone, but the games should be more accessible than they currently are, and the trend is heading in the wrong direction.

AG/DC Sep 05 2008 11:40 AM

Yes, I was typing away merrily when Centerfield submitted.

Centerfield Sep 05 2008 11:47 AM

Uncanny. It's like another Oprah moment.

bmfc1 Sep 05 2008 11:54 AM

Benjamin Grimm nails everything ("it's like I have a twin!"). The start time of World Series games is pathetic. Two-thirds of the country is on east coast time but the games, because they start between 8:20 and 8:40, and there are 2 1/2 minutes between each half-inning for commercials, last past 11. Oh, and if I could, I would like to bring Bob Murphy back.

Farmer Ted Sep 05 2008 12:21 PM

Organ music only at the ballpark. Yeah, I said Organ.

Fman99 Sep 05 2008 12:27 PM

Buh bye, DH. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

themetfairy Sep 05 2008 12:38 PM

As was previously stated - [list:9b44d73816]Eliminate the DH Eliminate Interleague Play Bring back organ music![/list:u:9b44d73816] Also, bring back Banner Day!

cooby Sep 05 2008 12:39 PM

New parks for some teams every 20 years. Dozens of uniform variations. Non cable TV coverage.

HahnSolo Sep 05 2008 12:52 PM

Change in between inning time from I believe 2:45 now to 1:45.

Frayed Knot Sep 05 2008 12:58 PM

The DH. Not only is it the one thing I most want to see gone but it's the one thing that the people within baseball have the power to affect. Beyond that, I think the next biggest problem is the pacing of these games. There's nothing wrong with a 3 hour game but 3 hours shouldn't be the average with 3:20 games being as common as 2:30. And it only gets worse in the post-season which, when combined with the later start times, makes them that much tougher to follow. Want to know where your TV has gone Bud? There are a myriad of factors which contribute to this so it's not an easy thing to fix, but I feel it's like the solution to our energy situation in this country: TRY EVERYTHING! Game Times: 1969 World Series: 2:13; 2:20; 2:23; 2:33 (10 innings); 2:14 5 games = 11 hours - 43 minutes 2007 WS: 3:30; 3:39 (2-1 game, 8-1/2 innings); 4:19; 3:35 4 games = 15 hours - 3 minutes

AG/DC Sep 05 2008 01:05 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: The DH not only is it the one thing I most want to see gone but it's the one thing that the people within baseball have the power to affect. They may have the power, but the union and (probably) the marketing people don't have the interest, though I'd hope they could be persuaded to actually do pair of deep-drilling studies to see if it's actually in their interests to retain. It's been around som long, it's got it's own culutre, and misguidedly conservatie adherents. When I was growing up, Yankee fans would defend it just to be provincial --- and, occassionally, dicky. I don't put it past Hank Steinbrenner to irrationally be both.

metirish Sep 05 2008 01:07 PM

Get with the times NL

Benjamin Grimm Sep 05 2008 01:13 PM

The DH is such a 20th Century rule. Eliminating it would be at the top of my list if it was in the National League. I'd like to see it gone from the AL only to prevent the possibility of it one day contaminating the NL, but I don't see that as any kind of imminent threat. I also, by the way, hate the balk rule.

AG/DC Sep 05 2008 01:16 PM

It's undermined the record book for almost two generationss.

Nymr83 Sep 05 2008 01:34 PM

]The start time of World Series games is pathetic. Two-thirds of the country is on east coast time but the games, because they start between 8:20 and 8:40, and there are 2 1/2 minutes between each half-inning for commercials, last past 11. i'll take that one. give me no playoff games that start after 7 PM EST if an East Coast team is playing (or 7PM CST if a Central team is playing)

Vic Sage Sep 05 2008 02:55 PM

soupcan wrote: 1. DH. 1A. Network television control and MLB not giving a rat's ass to the extent that a Sunday afternoon game that I planned to take my kids to months ago that they were excited about, where they would get a Johann Santana bobblehead and run the bases after the game, got rescheduled to an 8:00 pm starting time with the kids having school on Monday so they can't go. soupy, after some discussion with Mrs. Sage, I'm taking my son anyway. It's September baseball, with the division lead on the line against our biggest rivals. So, he'll be a little sleepy and grumpy on Monday... it's not worth him missing that experience. I'm more worried about the parking, frankly.

attgig Sep 05 2008 02:56 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 05 2008 02:58 PM

things to change: remove bud remove DH remove the "make it count" mantra of ASG. make it an exhibition again, with modified rules so that they can play extra innings. put in salary cap with luxury tax - from that, bring benefits to fans: -lower ticket prices - lower ballpark food prices eliminate PED take out replays for rest of the year. install CC tv into all ballparks during offseason for all appropriate angles. hire video reviewer for each ball park, and make more things video challengable. earpiece to ump to cue what should be reviewed and what shouldn't. keep strikezone sacred - no arguing balls and strikes eliminate some stupid "sacred rules" ie. allow milledge to high five fans. if there's the lambeau leap, there should be at LEAST high fives in baseball and media based ones: remove blackout restrictions from mlb.tv and allow saturday afternoon games to be watched via online. have at least one out of market game avail on network tv or basic cable (ie, espn, fox, tbs, fx, etc) each day.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 05 2008 02:57 PM

Hopefully he'll see a great win!

MFS62 Sep 05 2008 04:14 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: This is too easy and you know it. DH, out. Out. Later. Yep. Later

duan Sep 05 2008 05:08 PM

promotion & relegation.

AG/DC Sep 05 2008 05:21 PM

Brilliant.

Fman99 Oct 06 2008 07:59 PM

I'd like to change my answer. I'd get rid of the post division series champagne bath. How damn stupid. You want a champagne bath for making the playoffs? Fine. Winning the pennant or World Series? Sure. But winning the LDS, you haven't won shit. NFL teams don't do champagne baths after the first round. Put that crap away please. Thanks, The Management

TransMonk Oct 06 2008 10:15 PM

I agree.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Oct 08 2008 07:17 AM

1. I'd refund all public money given to finance new ballparks, plus stop any teams from accepting it in the future. 2. Impose a limit, in square feet, teams are allowed to sell for advertisement in their stadia. Also, any new television contracts signed will have Masters'-type restrictions on what can be displayed on the screen during a game. (Good-bye, yellow AOL man and cast of new FOX comedies) 3. Impose a minimum salary cap of, say, $50 million a year per team. With most teams receiving money from revenue sharing, there is no reason owners can't at least attempt to field a competitive team. 4. The amateur draft is a farce, and the suggested slotting nonsense has to stop. Either do away with suggested slotting, or enforce mandatory draft contracts (the money players would lose in the latter case could be offset by an increase in minor league minimum wages). 5. Get rid of the DH and add a 26th roster spot to all teams. 6. Make the division series best-of-7. There's no reason the first round of the playoffs after a 162 game season should be such a crapshoot. Compensate for the longer schedule by eliminating the All-Star game. 7. Allow each team to start the season with 30 players, cut down to 28 by April 15th, and 26 by May 1st. 8. Voluntarily surrender all anti-trust exemptions. 9. Collect and keep blood samples from all players for every year they are in the pros for present and future PED testing (no testing will be allowed for recreational drugs). 10. Contract the Yankees. Actually, if I'm only allowed one thing, I'm contracting the Yankees.

AG/DC Oct 08 2008 07:41 AM

1. On board. Hard to stop though. They are in business. This might be what I do when I'm King of America. 2. On board, again. Hard to stop, again. You have to be able to show the teams the value added. Very hard to do. Good dream, though. 3. Un-American. There are ways to empower owners of sad-sack teams without price-fixing the players 4. Just do away with the draft 5. Get rid of the DH, full stop, but if a bribe of 26 new jobs is necessary, so be it. 6. Or elimnate the extra round of playoffs. You can add games six and seven by adding some scheduled double-headers during the season. The All-Star game is a cash cow and a promotional leader and isn't going anywehere. It needs to be fixed, not deleted. 7. This is curious and fun, but why specifically do you want it. 8. Word, but I'm going to take this away when I chair the commerce and banking committee anyhow. 9. Will having these samples prevent HGH use or something. 10. No. the Yankees should be destroyed on the field.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 08 2008 07:49 AM

metirish wrote: Less IL play is all I can think of right now , I like IL play but I really have little interest in playing Kansas , Detroit and the like. I like it -- heck, LOVE IT -- when they play in Detroit. I actually get to see them play in person. And that's the type of thing that makes IL play a good thing.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 08 2008 07:52 AM

I think the way it mucks up the schedule outweighs whatever good comes from the Mets going to Detroit once every six years.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Oct 08 2008 07:56 AM

AG/DC wrote: 3. Un-American. There are ways to empower owners of sad-sack teams without price-fixing the players Revenue-sharing can also be considered un-American, but it does benefit the sport. Also, although allowing owners to pocket unreasonable amounts of money that might instead be spent on labor is a thoroughly American exercise, I can't say it's all that great a practice. AG/DC wrote: 4. Just do away with the draft That might be for the best, allowing amateurs to earn market value; but it also just about guarantees that the Sox and MFYs will get all the best amateurs every year (if the Yankees are still in the league, that is) AG/DC wrote: 7. This is curious and fun, but why specifically do you want it. Most teams, like the Mets this year, have a few roster spots they're unsure of in the beginning of the year. Giving them a few more weeks to decide on final cuts makes more sense to me than expanding rosters in August. It also adds a little more juice to the try-outs if the games count. AG/DC wrote: 9. Will having these samples prevent HGH use or something. It probably won't prevent too much, but it will at least allow cheaters to be identified when better testing technologies are available.

Frayed Knot Oct 08 2008 07:58 AM

="metsguyinmichigan"] ="metirish"]Less IL play is all I can think of right now , I like IL play but I really have little interest in playing Kansas , Detroit and the like. I like it -- heck, LOVE IT -- when they play in Detroit. I actually get to see them play in person. And that's the type of thing that makes IL play a good thing. Sure, but they play Detroit, what, once every 3 or 4 years? And even then it's only 50/50 that they do so in Detroit. What's it been, two series in Motown over the last dozen years? And that's the whole fallacy about the idea that IL allows more fans to see their team. If you were 'MetsguyinEastMissouri' (or LA, or SF, or EastTexas, etc.) you went from 3 visits/year down to 1 partly on account of IL play. IL games are played instead of other games, not in addion to them.

AG/DC Oct 08 2008 08:07 AM

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: ="AG/DC"]3. Un-American. There are ways to empower owners of sad-sack teams without price-fixing the players Revenue-sharing can also be considered un-American, but it does benefit the sport. Also, although allowing owners to pocket unreasonable amounts of money that might instead be spent on labor is a thoroughly American exercise, I can't say it's all that great a practice. Two teams play. Two teams get money. You can give the visiting team a percentage of the gate and a percentage of broadcast revenue, and stop dividing up merchandise revs, but let the teams get to keep the moneys from sales of their own hats. Nothing un-American about that. You can even fluctuate the percentage of the gate and broadcast share based on who wins. A purse. Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: ="AG/DC"]4. Just do away with the draft That might be for the best, allowing amateurs to earn market value; but it also just about guarantees that the Sox and MFYs will get all the best amateurs every year (if the Yankees are still in the league, that is) I'm going to guess that more fairly dividing the gate and the broadcast money, as well as jettisoning the anti-trust exemption would gut the Yankee/Met/Sox/Dodger/Angel competitive signing advantages. It would be traumatic as hell for my team, but maybe the best thing that ocould happen to baseball is four more teams in the New York area and two more in New England.

duan Oct 08 2008 08:14 AM

wouldn't getting rid of the anti-trust measures probably mean that all bets are off in relation to player contracts, minimum/maximum salaries, revenue sharing etc. The way to punish owners who don't spend money is to stop their team eating at the top table. The way to do that is to have promotion and relegation in a pyramid system.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 08 2008 08:18 AM

AG/DC wrote: It would be traumatic as hell for my team, but maybe the best thing that ocould happen to baseball is four more teams in the New York area and two more in New England. I pretty much agree with that. I don't like the idea of expansion (I prefer contraction, though I didn't think the Twins should have been targeted) but if the big leagues ever does expand again, places like northern New Jersey and Connecticut ought to be considered.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Oct 08 2008 08:23 AM

AG/DC wrote: Two teams play. Two teams get money. You can give the visiting team a percentage of the gate and a percentage of broadcast revenue, and stop dividing up merchandise revs, but let the teams get to keep the moneys from sales of their own hats. Nothing un-American about that. You can even fluctuate the percentage of the gate and broadcast share based on who wins. A purse. I gotcha (although I think season ticket sales should be considered only for the home team), but my problem is that some owners are not reinvesting any money in their team, despite receiving more than their payroll in revenue sharing. Perhaps a team could choose to spend less than a minimum cap if they were willing to forfeit any revenue sharing bucks. AG/DC wrote: I'm going to guess that more fairly dividing the gate and the broadcast money, as well as jettisoning the anti-trust exemption would gut the Yankee/Met/Sox/Dodger/Angel competitive signing advantages. It would be traumatic as hell for my team, but maybe the best thing that could happen to baseball is four more teams in the New York area and two more in New England. Yes. The Marlins need to move to Brooklyn and some other team (the Rays?) needs to move to Cambridge. I know a lot of people won't like the Newark Royals at first, but if the teams move to where the fans are, a lot of the fiscal problems baseball faces would disappear.

Frayed Knot Oct 08 2008 08:26 AM

duan wrote: wouldn't getting rid of the anti-trust measures probably mean that all bets are off in relation to player contracts, minimum/maximum salaries, revenue sharing etc. No. Those things are all collectively bargained and would stand up even if such stuff were struck down. The anti-trust exemption has been gredually whittled down over the years (esp in relation to stuff like salaries) and really only exists now to let the leagues regulate the number and placement of franchises - and even then the sports that don't have the blanket exemption are still able to control movement to a large degree. I have no problem with getting rid of the A-T exemption but I don't think it's the sword over the owners' heads that it's frequently portrayed to be.

AG/DC Oct 08 2008 08:33 AM

I think teams not outlaying their income is overstated based on one report years ago about the Twins using a modest revenue sharing payout to give bonuses to non-uniform personnel. At any rate, the answer to that is to fix the system so more wins means more money for everybody.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Oct 08 2008 08:34 AM

duan wrote: wouldn't getting rid of the anti-trust measures probably mean that all bets are off in relation to player contracts, minimum/maximum salaries, revenue sharing etc. The way to punish owners who don't spend money is to stop their team eating at the top table. The way to do that is to have promotion and relegation in a pyramid system. Most salary-related rules are decided between MLB and the union, so I don't think they would change all that much, if at all. I don't think relegation would work, since most minor league teams consist of players that have contracts with major league teams. Unless you're referring to the various independent league teams that regularly feature John Rocker on his fourth comeback or Jose Canseco pitching. Or maybe you're suggesting reducing the number of teams in the major league and forcing the remaining ones into some sort of AAAA. One problem I would have with that is if the AAAA league had a different salary structure, it would ultimately be the journeyman-type player that would be hurt the most by having his team demoted; which, to me, is the wrong direction. Actually, I don't know much about the promotion/relegation system (or soccer in general- why is offsides illegal again?), so I may not be realizing something important about it.

AG/DC Oct 08 2008 08:47 AM

Obviously, a system of promotion and relegatoin would have to include dissolving the system of affiliation. Players under contract's with big-league teams who aren't on the team's roster would have be loaned for a fee to another bidding team rather than assigned to an affillated team.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 08 2008 08:57 AM

Promotion/relegation is obviously unrealistic in pro batball*, but one way that would make it work would be to immediately relegate the two worst teams now and balance the number of teams between the AL and NL. All yous guys get on my case for saying that having 2 xtra teams in the NL makes our league worse than theirs, but I think there's something to it. We kicked their asses when they had 2 extras too. *- Lunchpail Jr.'s word for baseball

Benjamin Grimm Oct 08 2008 09:06 AM

If the worst teams in each league were to be dropped to Triple A, and the two Triple A champions promoted, then here's what this year's results would be: The Washington Nationals would be demoted to the International League, and replaced with Scranton-Wilkes Barre. The Seattle Mariners would be demoted to the Pacific Coast League, and replaced by Sacramento. That would work out well geographically, with Scranton sliding into the NL East and Sacramento going into the AL West. But if the Nationals had finished better than the Padres (and they very well could have) then you'd have to do some divisional realignment, unless you wanted to let Scranton play in the NL West.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 08 2008 09:11 AM

I would make them bring back bullpen cars with the cool caps. They rocked.

AG/DC Oct 08 2008 09:14 AM

I still haven't seen the Shea Goodbye ceremonies, but, in my head, they drove the old relievers out in a fleet of cap-cars.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 08 2008 09:54 AM

AG/DC wrote: 3. Un-American. There are ways to empower owners of sad-sack teams without price-fixing the players. You're certainly right. But on the other hand, MLB isn't your ordinary business either, even without Antitrust exemptions. Regulations that might be unusual, if not illegal in business, might be needed in MLB. Otherwise, an owner would, as one example, be allowed to up and move his franchise wherever he wants to go, whenever he wants to move, as often as he desires. In an unregulated free for all, If I were the last owner of the Montreal Expos, I would've moved my team to NYC in a heartbeat and see for myself if the region could support three teams. (Personally, I think it could) I wouldn't stay in a city where my local TV revenues are one fifteenth, or one twentieth of what the Mets and Yankees get, because I would be at a huge competitive disadvantage. The Yankees and the Mets don't like my move? Tough on them, I'd say. It's business, not personal. ________ All of the good ideas seem to have been taken. One idea I always liked, but have absolutely no reasonable expectation that it would ever come to pass, is the elimination of divisions. Two big leagues. No playoffs. First place teams win the pennant. Like pre-'69.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Oct 08 2008 10:10 AM

AG/DC wrote: Obviously, a system of promotion and relegatoin would have to include dissolving the system of affiliation. Players under contract's with big-league teams who aren't on the team's roster would have be loaned for a fee to another bidding team rather than assigned to an affillated team. But then, wouldn't the promoted teams likely have succeeded with the help of players on loan from a team already in the majors? And if that's the case, what's the point in promoting a team if the players aren't also promoted?

AG/DC Oct 08 2008 10:46 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Oct 09 2008 08:13 AM

*But then, wouldn't the promoted teams likely have succeeded with the help of players on loan from a team already in the majors? Presumably, first-divison clubs would tend to rent players to teams further down the totem poll. * And if that's the case, what's the point in promoting a team if the players aren't also promoted? Well, I'm guessing a team that played it's way from the second-divison into the premiership would hold most of their players" contracts, and if they had two or three players whose contracts are held by other premier teams, they'd either return the players or buy out their contracts. In such a system, ML teams would hold 50 or 60 players instead of the 200 or so they control now.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 08 2008 12:36 PM

I would make a rule that a certain percentage of tickets be made available only on the day of game and at the gate, and set a limit on the amount sold per person. They'd sell out anyway, and it would make it more difficult for brokers to snatch them all up. Even a small percentage. Teams will never do it, of course, since they want the money up front. But it seems like it would give more people to get seats at a reasonable price. My fear is that they're pricing people out of the market. We used to go to a couple Red Wings games a year and even an occasional Lions Thanksgiving game. But $60 a ticket plus ruined that. Considering we'd root against the Lions means they probably don't want us back...

duan Oct 09 2008 07:54 AM

fwiw here's how I'd have it. 16 team top division play each other a number of games home and away (same) top team WINS bottom 2 get relegated to Major League Division 2 Major League Division 2 is 16 teams and so on down. in England there are 92 clubs in the main "football league" pyramid structure. Then as you start getting to what would most often be called "non league" it becomes a slightly more convoluted pyramid, with it being regionally broken up at what could be called the 6th or 7th divisions away from the top flight. Two good examples of how this all works [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_conf/default.stm[/url] 20 years ago Oxford Utd were in the top division of English Football. They're now in the bottom half of "The Conference" - essentially the 5th Division. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/table/default.stm[/url] Whereas here, you can see Hull City - who 5 years ago were in the 4th division of English Football are now sitting in 3rd place in the top division. How did those two things happen? Good quality scouting, good quality player development and investment by owners in Hulls case. Chronic mismanagement - in particular financially but player wise too - in Oxford's case. When the Pittsburgh Pirates are so BAD at being a baseball team, why doesn't somebody else get a chance?

duan Oct 09 2008 07:55 AM

and before you go "but the playoffs ... etc etc etc" isn't the goal to decide *the best* team?

Benjamin Grimm Oct 09 2008 07:59 AM

As was said above, you'd have to get rid of the whole farm system concept. If the Scranton-Wilkes Barre team were to ascend to the majors next year on account of their IL Championship in 2008, then the Yankees would lose whatever prospects they had in AAA. I guess you could make the players from the Nationals (who would be dropped) go to Scranton and Washington would become the Yankees' AAA franchise. And then Scranton would have the task of taking the Nationals players and trying to make them a better team, one that will play well enough to retain their place in the National League.

duan Oct 09 2008 08:06 AM

No - Nationals players go down with the Nationals , Scranton players come up with Scranton. You're right that the whole way that Major League Organisations get to control players rights for about 10 years would be junked. A contract is a contract so to speak. The way football deals with development is this, if a player is under the age of 24 and turns down an offer of a contract from his current club to sign for another club the other club have to compensate the club who 'developed him'. Mostly they'll actually agree a Transfer Fee, but sometimes it goes to a tribunal. Players move between clubs either at the end of a contract or during a contract (when the clubs again must agree a fee).

duan Oct 09 2008 08:09 AM

by the way, I can't understand how american sports get away with 1) 18-22 year old athletes performing in a quasi professional environment for no compensation 2) The lack of rights for young workers - rights which are being signed away by the top 1% of their sport - that the draft involves 3) The lack of rights for any worker that 'trading' involves.

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 08:17 AM

Let's start union for minor league players. Really, the introduction of affiliation and farm systems hurt baseball culture and American culture in myriad ways.

Frayed Knot Oct 09 2008 08:22 AM

The main difference is that a million years ago (give or take) English football and American baseball started and then grew in very different ways; one very much a 'top-down' situation (MLB) and the other more akin to 'bottom-up' The forerunners of MLB were created to seperate themselves from amateur baseball rather than as an extension of it. Then, once all those initial leagues shook out and the NL/AL merger created just one remaining two-headed giant, that top dog took the role as gatekeeper into the pro ranks as well. England's FA is more all-encompansing in the bottom-up 'pyramid' structure that Duan mentions. The closest we have here to that kind of set up is the way USGA runs golf in this country. Changing any of the team sports in this country so that they could handle a promotion/relegation system would require, if not blowing things up and starting again, then at least a severe overhaul.

Iubitul Oct 09 2008 08:23 AM

1. Have a constitutional ammendment written that outlaws the DH at every level of organized baseball. 2. Stop Interleague play and go back to an unbalanced schedule with two divisions in each league, and no wild card. This would involve contracting two teams, and making each league 14 teams deep. 3. shortening the commercial time between innings. 4. instituting a minimum salary cap 5. World Series = weekend day games. 6. Instituting a World-Wide amateur draft - this would include any player coming out of the Japanese leagues. 7. Revoking Scott Boras' license.

duan Oct 09 2008 08:33 AM

Iubitul wrote: 7. Revoking Scott Boras' license. I have to say, I don't understand the hatred for Scott Boras either. If his job is to get the best possible price for his players he's very good at it. The reality is, MLB will try and get the most for the TV rights it can - it doesn't go "hey it'd be great to have MLB on PBS because that would mean that a whole raft of people who don't get exposed to that kind of quality programming on a regular basis might hang around after watching the ball game and see what's on." Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that money *should* be the only motivation, but with people it often is.

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 08:37 AM

He makes players millionaires. Why should we resent him and them and not the billionaire owners? Nor do I agree with the extension of the draft. That too would just give the owners more anti-competitive leverage over players. Destroy the draft. Blow it up.

metirish Oct 09 2008 08:38 AM

Yeah it's not like The Players Union don't put their own pressure on certain big ticket players to take the most money.

Iubitul Oct 09 2008 08:52 AM

AG/DC wrote: Nor do I agree with the extension of the draft. That too would just give the owners more anti-competitive leverage over players. Destroy the draft. Blow it up. And we'll have big market teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc., hoarding minor leaguers like the Yankees and Cardinals did in the 40's and 50's...

Benjamin Grimm Oct 09 2008 08:54 AM

I think Boras' bad rep comes from the perception (and maybe it's true) that he'll always chase the last penny and disregards his client's wishes. For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got. It's frustrating for the fans. If Pelfrey said, "Scott, I want to be a Met for a long time. Let's sign a six-year contract now" the perception (again) is that Boras wouldn't allow it. If in fact he doesn't consider any of the player's non-monetary desires, then it's up to the player to fire or replace or overrule him, like Alex Rodriguez appeared to do last year. I don't really think he should get any more "blame" than the players who go along with his plan. They're the bosses, after all, in the agent-player relationship.

TransMonk Oct 09 2008 08:57 AM

Iubitul wrote: 2. Stop Interleague play and go back to an unbalanced schedule with two divisions in each league, and no wild card. This would involve contracting two teams, and making each league 14 teams deep. Yes, please. Except for the WC...I don't mid it.

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 09:02 AM

Iubitul wrote: ="AG/DC"] Nor do I agree with the extension of the draft. That too would just give the owners more anti-competitive leverage over players. Destroy the draft. Blow it up. And we'll have big market teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc., hoarding minor leaguers like the Yankees and Cardinals did in the 40's and 50's... The answer then is to restrict the anti-competitive rights of the big market teams to control their markets without challenge --- not to further whack the players who have limited opportunities to sell their skills. In real dollars, minor leaguers today make less than they did in sixties. I heard some yo-yo on the LIRR my last trip to Shea insisting that minor leaugers make $400,000. Totally wrong. The only big dollars come in bonuses, and they're only what you'd call large for the first round and a half. They get one crack at those and then they're slaves for 10 years --- no rights, no union, no leverage, and very limited opportunitites if they walk away. Drafting is an abomination. Could you imagine if you were drafted into your career?

Benjamin Grimm Oct 09 2008 09:02 AM

They're not going to want to lose the extra round of playoffs. The other way to go would be to expand to 32 teams and have four four-team divisions in each league. That way only first-place teams would make the playoffs

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 09:05 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They're not going to want to lose the extra round of playoffs. Well, acknowledging impracticeablity is part of the game. Is that a word? Impracticeablity?

batmagadanleadoff Oct 09 2008 09:07 AM

AG/DC wrote: He makes players millionaires. Why should we resent him and them and not the billionaire owners?. The billionaire owners who never ever truly opened up their books to the public. You're right.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 09 2008 09:15 AM

duan wrote: and before you go "but the playoffs ... etc etc etc" isn't the goal to decide *the best* team? I think you've made an excellent point. This is also precisely why I lose interest in post-season baseball if the Mets aren't involved. Baseball is the worst team sport in which to have expanded playoffs. I don't like that more than half of all NBA teams make the playoffs, for example. But at least in basketball, a four out of seven series is a reliable, though not perfect way to advance the better team. It doesn't work in baseball. The difference between two very good baseball teams is subtle enough that it would take many many more than seven games to reliably determine the better of the two teams. That, and there's a lot more luck at play in baseball than in the other team sports. That's why these short series' in basebal are crap shoots, as they say.

duan Oct 09 2008 09:38 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think Boras' bad rep comes from the perception (and maybe it's true) that he'll always chase the last penny and disregards his client's wishes. For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got. It's frustrating for the fans. If Pelfrey said, "Scott, I want to be a Met for a long time. Let's sign a six-year contract now" the perception (again) is that Boras wouldn't allow it. If in fact he doesn't consider any of the player's non-monetary desires, then it's up to the player to fire or replace or overrule him, like Alex Rodriguez appeared to do last year. I don't really think he should get any more "blame" than the players who go along with his plan. They're the bosses, after all, in the agent-player relationship. that's the thing isn't it. The senior player ALWAYS knows what the agent is doing (I'm sure there are some young ones who do get swept along). I guarantee you that Boras is more then happy to be the shield for his clients and indeed, that's probably part of the plan.

duan Oct 09 2008 09:49 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got. that's a calculated risk on both sides. Because of his slightly more circuitous career path it's not a direct comparison (I didn't find one easily) but by your reckoning, Chris Carpenter would be (if represented by Scott Boras) facing into Free Agency this winter Instead he's 19 million into a 65 million deal. One that he's made 4 starts since signing.

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 10:37 AM

Excellent point. If I were Chris Carpenter And Scott was my lady I would love him anyway He could have my baby

Vince Coleman Firecracker Oct 09 2008 11:04 AM

The only players that are "forced" into a contract by Scott Boras are the ones that choose him to be their agent. All the anti-Boras nonsense spat out by the sports media is just another example of how labor is vilified in this country while owners are given free reign to hoard an unreasonable percentage of the income. Hmm, when I'm commissioner, my league might be a little different than I first envisioned: - The DH will be considered the opiate of the sponsors, and any practice of it, from the majors down to little league will be outlawed - All income will be centralized in the Kommisioner's office, and owners will be paid based upon how many games their team has won. - The Cleveland Indians will be the Cleveland Bourgeoisie, and their offensive American Indian logo will be replaced by an offensive grinning WASP with a pig's nose wearing a monocle and a top hat. - 4.00 ERA good, 2.00 ERA better On second thought, maybe the major league player's association should really start working for minor league players' rights, since, basically, all major leaguers were once minor leaguers.

soupcan Oct 09 2008 01:31 PM

Since you guys were discussing Boras... ] October 10, 2008 Baseball Playoff Analysis Baseball’s Super Agent Is in the Game By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT Scott Boras at Angels Stadium in August. Boras's field-level luxury box behind home plate gave him plenty of airtime during the A.L.D.S. Scott Boras has had more airtime this postseason than a lot of players and managers. For nearly every pitch of the two division-series games played at Angels Stadium in Anaheim, Calif., he stood in his field-level luxury box behind home plate. His position placed him directly over the umpire’s right shoulder and on millions of television screens and served as a direct reminder that Boras is front and center as always, impervious to the fuming and fussing he stirs up as baseball’s most visible and unrelenting player agent. It was only last October that Boras came in for the heaviest criticism of his career when word got out during Game 4 of the World Series that Alex Rodriguez, his client of clients, had decided to opt out of his contract with the Yankees. People within baseball, and many who write about it, were infuriated, saying that Boras had showed a lack of respect for baseball’s traditions by letting Rodriguez’s intentions be known just as the Boston Red Sox were about to capture their second World Series in four season. Many suspected, and said, that Boras had deliberately leaked the news, thereby stealing attention away from the Red Sox. But a year later, there are no discernible signs that Boras suffered as a result. He remains the happy warrior of agents, finding himself in new controversies and moving right through them. As baseball’s league championship series begin on Thursday, Boras will be represented everywhere, with 10 active players on the four teams. Boras will not be as visible on TV because the Los Angeles Angels, and Boras client Mark Teixeira, were eliminated in the division round by the Red Sox. But Boras will be up the road in Chavez Ravine, sitting in his box at Dodgers Stadium (although not behind home plate) and watching another client, the slugger Manny Ramirez, lead his Los Angeles teammates against the Philadelphia Phillies in the N.L.C.S. And rather than upstaging the World Series this year, Boras could be casting it. Should the Dodgers and Red Sox advance to the World Series, there could be an all-Boras moment among his clients, with Daisuke Matsuzaka on the mound for Boston, Ramirez in the batter’s box, Jason Varitek squatting behind the plate and outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury and J.D. Drew converging on the ball in right-center field, if Ramirez hits it to the opposite field. Of all the Boras clients still playing this October, Ramirez looms largest. He drove the Red Sox to distraction in the first half of the season with assorted forms of misbehavior, and they finally traded him to Los Angeles, where he proceeded to tear into National League pitching for two months and carry the Dodgers into the playoffs. But that is only part of the story. As a member of the Red Sox, Ramirez was not automatically eligible for free agency. Boston could simply pick up his option for 2009. But the theory among many in baseball is that Ramirez was acting out deliberately in the hope that the Red Sox would trade him, and that Boras went along, knowing that if a trade did occur, he could insist on Ramirez becoming a free agent after the World Series. Indeed, the trade will allow Ramirez to become a free agent and Boras will collect a healthy commission on a new deal. All of this caught the attention of Commissioner Bud Selig, who asked one of his deputies to look into the matter without it apparently leading anywhere. None of this makes any sense to Boras, who during a recent interview in his posh offices in Newport Beach — a 45-minute drive from the Angels, an hour from the Dodgers — lamented that media coverage of him is overwhelmingly unfavorable. Sipping hot tea from a mug with his name on it, Boras zeroed in on July, when Ramirez was still playing for Boston. “Everyone said we went to Manny and said, ‘Don’t do things on the field that you would normally do,”‘ Boras said. “I can only say this when people raise that question: Manny hit .360 in July, led the team in home runs, r.b.i.’s, the whole thing. What is it that Manny wasn’t doing? I would like to be responsible for Manny hitting .360.” Actually, Ramirez batted .347, not .360, and Kevin Youkilis slightly outdid him in home runs and r.b.i. But the numbers were only part of Boras’s counterargument; he was also willing to take on the notion that Ramirez wasn’t always running hard in Boston, wasn’t always trying. “I’ve played the game a long time,” Boras said, “and there are a lot of players that don’t run particularly hard a lot and they are great hitters because they are trying to save their legs. I see it as a matter of practice that you would like to see him run hard, but the fact is they don’t want to wear him out and that’s the pace they play at.” Whatever the merits of the controversy, Boras will almost certainly have the last word because Ramirez’s onslaught with the Dodgers virtually guarantees that some team — the Dodgers? the Mets? — will give him a lot of money for the next couple of seasons. Boras also seemed to come out on top in the other client controversy he encountered this summer, this one involving Pedro Alvarez, a third baseman from Vanderbilt, whom the Pittsburgh Pirates took with the No. 2 pick in the June draft. After Alvarez agreed to a $6 million signing bonus and a minor league contract with the Pirates, the deal was held up by a dispute about whether Major League Baseball improperly extended the negotiating deadline. Some questioned whether Boras was using technicalities to get more money out of the Pirates, particularly because a player picked after Alvarez had received a signing bonus of $6.2 million. Ultimately, the Pirates and Boras agreed to a new contract that will pay Alvarez at least $6.4 million and as much as $8 million over four years. Reflecting on the criticism, Boras said: “I only get the negativity because it’s written so much, about here he goes again doing something different, it’s always about money. Seventy percent of what we do is not about money; it’s about advancing players and getting players to be better. “When I have families come in when we represent the premium people in the draft and they look at me — mothers, fathers, players — and thank me for what you do,” Boras said, nothing else matters, especially the criticism. And certainly not, he added, when the criticism is coming from “a writer who is without the facts.” Boras again maintained that he was unfairly made the fall guy in last October’s Rodriguez uproar. “I didn’t disclose anything,” he said unapologetically. “I tell everybody I didn’t.” The disclosure “certainly didn’t help me,” he added, “because it hurt my negotiating position with the Yankees.” Rodriguez ultimately re-signed with the Yankees for a fortune and won’t be in play this off-season. But Ramirez is, as is Texeira, who could end up with the biggest free-agent contract of any position player. That will mean more spotlight time for Boras, even if he isn’t standing behind home plate.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 09 2008 01:35 PM

I think this is just the start of the Manny-to-the-Mets rumors we'll be hearing this winter.

HahnSolo Oct 09 2008 02:01 PM

Is it asking too much of the New York Times to know how to spell Ellsbury and Varitek?