All Star Game

[darth_mcbain]

Ok, what do you all think of that All-Star game yesterday? I actually only turned it on in about the 9th inning, so I can't speak for the quality of the game before that, but from what I heard it was a pretty decent game... But to have it called after 11 innings is a travesty in my opinion...

People payed a lot of good money to see a good game, and apparently a good game it was, until they just decide "You know, this isn't that important, we'll just call it..."

What was their reasoning anyway? No more pitchers? Ok, I'm sorry, but these guys are getting paid WAY too much money to say "my arm hurts a little - take me out". The two pitchers at the end of the game had been pitching for 2 innings. I think it is a crying shame that all these guys got in them is two innings and then they want out... Where are the days where pitchers would routinely throw complete games? These guys need to suck it up and stay in there. Or have the managers come up with some solution - ANY solution... Heck, I've actually seen some real games that went into mega-extra-innings where they had a shortstop or left-fielder pitch... Yeah, they couldn't pitch too well, and it's not their job description, but KEEP THE GAME GOING!!!

Also, their choice of when to make the announcement was terrible. They did it in the middle of an inning. If they were going to call it, how about at the top of an inning to show a little respect to to American League. They should have had one more offensive chance knowing that the game was about to get called....

It just really rankled me, that these guys get paid tons of $$$, complain that they're not getting paid enough, and then only play half a game, because they are out of players and the game "doesn't count for anything"...

Baseball - you'd better watch yourself - you're going down the tubes fast...

[JMK]

I fell asleep last night while watching the game. What a waste of time. I fell asleep at the top of the 9th and woke up and Joe Buck was signing off for Fox. I couldn't understand why the game was called, but Sportsnet revealed the secret:
Butt Selig strikes again. He called the game because the teams were out of pitchers. Gimme a break. The 50,000 fans paid hundreds of dollars each to see that game, and they should have had an outcome instead of what they got. Of course, the managers are not going to complain, they'll be politically correct about the whole thing so as to avoid a fine. So, Major League Baseball creates the Ted Williams award for the all-star game MVP, and on the trophy for 2002, its going to read "No Winner". How typical of a total idiot like Bud Selig.
Ok rant over.

All that aside, once the starters were taken out of the game, I began to lose interest. It was a pretty good game though. I was glad to see A-Rod do nothing at the plate when Schilling told him flat out he was giving him nothing but straight out fastballs. He beat him on 3 pitches.

[JMK]

I fell asleep last night while watching the game. What a waste of time. I fell asleep at the top of the 9th and woke up and Joe Buck was signing off for Fox. I couldn't understand why the game was called, but Sportsnet revealed the secret:
Butt Selig strikes again. He called the game because the teams were out of pitchers. Gimme a break. The 50,000 fans paid hundreds of dollars each to see that game, and they should have had an outcome instead of what they got. Of course, the managers are not going to complain, they'll be politically correct about the whole thing so as to avoid a fine. So, Major League Baseball creates the Ted Williams award for the all-star game MVP, and on the trophy for 2002, its going to read "No Winner". How typical of a total idiot like Bud Selig.
Ok rant over.

All that aside, once the starters were taken out of the game, I began to lose interest. It was a pretty good game though. I was glad to see A-Rod do nothing at the plate when Schilling told him flat out he was giving him nothing but straight out fastballs. He beat him on 3 pitches.

You're right McBain, baseball is fast going down the toilet and it's driving me nuts. What an insult to the legends of the game that were on the field last night; Mays, Spahn, Aaron, Larsen, and every other great that was there. The way the players and owners have treated the game itself is a travesty and an insult to the ones who made baseball what it is.

[CMJ]

How can you call an All-Star game??? Geez...

[Figrin D'an]

I was an excellent game, IMO... enough offense to keep people interested, some great defensive plays by Hunter, Vidro, Giambi, Ramirez... Bonds went deep twice, just got robbed the first time by Hunter (that was an awesome catch). The pitching was pretty good, although it was easy to tell who was an All-Star rookie and who wasn't.

I have to disagree with you guys about the outcome of the game, though. The managers have to protect the health of the players on the roster. Letting Garcia and Padilla pitch for extended periods of time would not have been a good idea. In the normal pitching rotation, Tuesday would have been a rest day for both of those guys... by forcing them to pitch 3 or more innings, they could have risked injury. Then, the All-Star managers have to explain to Larry Bowa and Lou Pinella why their star pitchers are going to be on the DL and miss some starts. Yes, the fans have good reason to be upset, but they also have to appreciate that the All-Star game functions under unique circumstances from those of a regular season game. Perhaps the rosters should be expanded to 35 players... that's a possible solution.

The annoucement itself was not done well... it would have been better if, after the ninth inning, Selig, Torre and Brenely met in the halls behind the dugouts and decided upon a 2-3 inning limit, then make the annoucement right away, before the 10th inning begun.


A good game... ending was disappointing. If nothing else, however, having this kind of controversy, in the midst of a potential labor crisis, may cause both sides to be a little more open to solutions, since the fans are already angry.

[darth_mcbain]

I can sympathize with the other managers not wanting their pitchers to be hurt, but I am just P.O.ed by the fact that there are pitchers who can't go more than 2-3 innings. I understand that closers may only be effective for 2-3 innings, but I think it is a joke that they can't pitch more without hurting themselves. They're getting paid big bucks for only an inning or so (if that) per game - not right in my book...

I also didn't like how they were interviewing Brenly before the game was over, like he had nothing else to do. Given the situation, I would have been looking into other options for pitching (like maybe an outfielder pitching or something - ridiculous, yes, but it would keep the game going) instead of just giving up and starting to talk with the announcers. Granted it is not a "real" game as far as the standings go, but its a game nonetheless, and to just give up isn't right.

Think about it role-model wise... Basically they're saying "its ok if you get tired, you don't have to push on. Its ok to just give up." Contrast that to Ted Williams - who is so rightly honored of late - who refused to sit out that last game and take a rounded .400 average... He stuck it out - he saw it all the way through. I guess its asking too much of baseball to do that nowadays...

I'm rambling here, but it bugs me that they called the game. Bud Selig - you're an idiot...

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree it was a travesty, and some of the players wanted to keep playing, I really liked Schilling's idea about having home run derby to decide the winner that would have worked, at least somebody would have won. Also I don't buy that whole pitcher argument either, maybe they used the pitchers wrong in the game to get playing time for everybody but still back in the 60's there were 2 games that went extra innings one 15, and one 13 and neither ended in a tie. Of pitchers weren't afraid to go longer than a couple of innings back then.

[JMK]

Good post D'an, however I still find it hard to justify calling the game when the best players of today can't play until a winner is decided. They make more in a year than all of us here combined, I'm sure.

Plus in a year of a probably work stoppage, I guess its fitting that the season be completely wacky. They can't agree on a new CBA, and they can't decide an all-star game winner, and they can't decide an MVP either.

I have another bone to pick too: Since when does every player on the all-star HAVE to be inserted into the lineup. Sure its a nice thing to do on the part of Torre and Brenly, but is it necessary? I would have preferred to see Schilling go for a 3rd inning than Pittsburgh's closer (sorry Pirates fans).

[Jedi Master Carr]

Also I read a great report about it on ESPN I liked the one line Capel said about no MVP
This was supposed to be a tribute to Ted? Thanks a lot. Ted would be spinning in his grave had his son not frozen him and placed him upside down in a refrigerator

Also he mentinoned how in 1946 Williams played the whole All Star Game which shows how things are changed. Also I agree with you JMK there is no need to play everybody, why not hold a few pitchers out just in case the game goes more than 9.

[Miklon]

It was handle poorly by the Selig, Torre, and Brenly, I'll give you that.

But, the All-Star Game isn't really about having bragging rights about which league is better (Personally, I think it's the National League. They've been playing better ball all season). It's for the fan; we pick the starters, and this year the 30th man. They did it for the right reasons. Torre made a good point by saying that he didn't want to return Garcia to Piniella, or any player to their manager, injuried. It's an exhibition game, for fun, it shouldn't be about winning.

And if you think the players are overpaid, look at the amount of money Major League Baseball pulls in yearly. Factored with the physical health risk they put themselves in, which can end their careers, they're not as overpaid as everyone thinks.

[darth_mcbain]

Originally posted by Miklon
...they're not as overpaid as everyone thinks.

Lets be real - on the average salary they make (which I believe is about 2.5 million per year) you could play one or two seasons and retire (albeit maybe not extravagantly, but invested wisely you could)... And that's average - if you're just an ordinary Joe player... How about some of the heavy-hitters pulling in the really big bucks... Barry Bonds probably makes more per at-bat then I'll see all year...

How sweet would that be... Play one or two seasons of baseball, PLAY A FRICKIN' GAME for heaven's sakes, and retire for the rest of your life... If that isn't being overpaid I don't know what is...

[JMK]

A-Rod's 25 million dollar per year contract. That's not overpaid? He works from april to september because let's face it, Rangers aren't making the playoffs, not now, not for a while. And he's not overpaid? I don't care if he hits 100 homers with 250 RBI's. He's overpaid, no one should get that kind of coin to play a game.

[Miklon]

Again, what did you say Major League Baseball pulls in on a yearly basis?

[Doc Milo]

I posted this in another thread.

This is an All Star Game. An exhibition. Why can't they make a special rule that players can be re-inserted into the game, only if the game goes extra innings, and only if the team uses all the players on its roster.

That way, everyone gets in the game. And if it goes extra innings, there are still enough players available to play the game to conclusion without risking injury by having a pitcher go too long.

[Jedieb]

Are MLB and other professional athletes overpaid? Yes and no. Yes, in that they are a select group of employees in businesses that generate BILLIONS of dollars. No, in that they are playing games. Despite the strenous and demanding physical work they put into their sports, they're still playing games we all played as kids. They don't DESERVE the kind of money they're making. But who's really to blame? Aren't WE the ones who've put them up on a pedestal? Don't we pay for NFL Sunday Ticket, replica jerseys, ball caps, box seats, etc. ? No one is FORCING us to buy these things.

That being said, what all professional athletes should be is GRATEFUL! They're genetic freaks that have been given a great gift by their genes and sports obssessed fans. So they should shut up about how they deserve to make $8M instead of a paltry $4M. Be grateful you're getting what you're getting and just play your games!

[JMK]

IMO, if a player is afraid of getting hurt, they should pull themselves like Pedro or the Big Unit did. Of course there is the unforeseeable like getting beaned or spraining something, but these guys were worried about their arms going on them, which is lame.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah that was really pathetic. I read a lot of articles last night on the game and that's why I found this...

"Barry Zito, one of the best starters in the league, pitched to exactly one batter. He threw three pitches. He was as superfluous as Jimmy Smits in "Attack of the Clones."

If you check TheForce.net, they posted that reference and credited me. Whoo hoo! I feel special. :) Just kidding, I've had my name on TFN a lot of times for pointing that stuff out.

[Miklon]

Come on, cut them some slack. Like EB said, these guys are genetic freaks, and their jobs rest on their body and talents. Why possibly put yourself at risk of taking a season ending injury during an exhibition, if you can pervent it? Zito pitched the Sunday prior, and Tuesday is certainly an off day for him. If he went any longer than a short inning, there is a chance he could've hurt himself. And what if he did? Torre would get crapped on by the Athletics. Granted I would love to see that, being a Red Sox fan, it would be unfair to the Athletics' organization and fans.

[JMK]

Well, more than anything, I think this is a culmination of everyone's frustration overall with the boneheads running baseball. From steroids to the economics of the game, the competitive imbalance that stems from it, all the way to the all star debacle, fans are sick of the way baseball has been decimated by black eye after black eye in just the past couple seasons.

[Miklon]

Amen.

[Figrin D'an]

To make matters worse, Selig was quoted today as saying that there are two teams (no names disclosed) that are in serious immediate financial trouble, so much so that they neither may have the capital to finish the season, and one supposedly might not make payroll on Monday...


I've been saying it for the past five years at least... baseball cannot survive without a salary cap. I pray that the large market owners will finally accept this before next season starts.

[Miklon]

Expansion teams have really hurt baseball more than helped them, I believe. The Diamondbacks and Marlins are the only two recent ones that have seen any success, but with the Marlins degrading level of play since the '95 World Series, what can we hope fot the Diamondbacks future? Frankly, I think the Devil Rays should be one of the teams cut. They've been walked all over since day one! And, unfortunely becuase they're playing great ball right now, the Expos need to be. They just can't fill the stadium. I'm surprised that they get what they do. I think this is a case of baseball getting too big, too fast.

And I'm not sure about a salary cap. It would certianly redistribute the talent thoughout both leagues, and help small market teams compete as far as payroll goes, but something just rubs me wrong about a salary cap...

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think a salary cap is the best thing, look what it has done for Football, without the Patriots, and Ravens probably never would have won the last two World Series, unfortuntely the players will never except there union is just too strong now, they should have probably used replacements in 95 like the NFL did in 87, to kill the union that way they would give into. Now its too late I think if they try that kind of tactic it would kill MLB, 6 teams would go out of buisness and others could follow, plus the fans might never come back or at least not for years, it could take a decade before the game is right and it might not even exist at that point. The best thing for baseball would be a combination of revenue sharring and a luxury tax the players seem willing to go along with something of both, now they just need to compromise to get to make it work.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And you wonder why Aussies roll their eyes when Baseball is mentioned? Just reading this, man, it was totally absurd. Just keep bloody playing, easy solution.

[Doc Milo]

I keep hearing the term "salary cap" and I think one of the reasons why some people don't like the idea is because the term isn't descriptive of what is being proposed. When I hear "salary cap" I think of it as the owners telling the players, "You can't make more than X amount of money in any one year." But that is not what is being proposed. If the owners were smart, they'd start by calling what they are proposing exactly what it is: A Payroll Cap. They're not trying to cap what any individual player can make. What they are trying to do is cap what any individual team can spend on payroll. They're trying to put each team on a mandatory budget.

And Figrin, it's no the big market owners that have to get on board. From what I hear, the owners are unified in favor of the cap. It's the players' union that is causing all the trouble. Donald Fehr has never done anything that would be in the best interests of baseball.

That being said, I believe if they have a payroll cap, they should also have a payroll floor, so that no team can take the money they get from revenue sharing and put it in their pockets. This would also ensure that teams have to spend a certain amount to maintain a competitive balance.

Now, I don't get why the players should have any say whatsoever in how any team -- or how the league -- budgets itself. If my employer decided tomorrow that it will cap how much it budgets in payroll, me, nor the union that represents my title, would have any say in the matter. Why should their union?

The union keeps bringing up this "capitalism" argument, and the right to make as much money as they can. This falls short of reality. I'm the first person to defend capitalism, but this isn't a case of securing the capitalist system. First off, no one is saying that any individual player can only make X amount of money. Secondly, if two businesses are competing against each other, the goal is for the first to outsell the second. If the first has the money and resources, and ends up putting the second out of business, oh well, that's the way the world of capitalism works. You have to be competitive, or you leave the business. But baseball teams are only in competition with each other in regards to on-the-field activities. Business-wise, all teams comprise one business. Baseball is in competition with the other sports, businesswise. If one big market team with a lot of money puts a small market team with no money out of business, that's not a good thing for the big market team. All the teams need each other, or else there is no sport.

On the issue of the atheletes hurting themselves. Someone mentioned that Zito pitched Sunday, and Tuesday would be an off-day for him, so if he went too long he might hurt himself.

Way back when, there was a pitcher (I forget his name) who was pitching in a World Series. He pitched Game 2, then came back and pitched in game 5 (a complete game) the next day he went out to the bullpen and when the starter got in trouble, began warming up on his own, he was brought in and pitched the rest of the game. The next game he did the same thing. He pitched in three staight games, coming in for long relief outings in the last two and got the win for each of the last three games.

Now-a-days with better physical conditioning, these pitchers have trouble going nine innings every five games. Why? Because they don't pitch enough. In the old days, there were four man rotations, not five man rotations. The more one pitches, the stronger his arm gets. Take the Atlanta Braves. Know why they have such good pitching year in and year out -- pitching that hardly ever goes down to injury? Because they have two throw days between starts, not just one. Sure, there are going to be injuries; but for the most part, their staff has less injuries than most. And their pitchers pitch late into the games.

But, because of the big contracts, all these players get babied. The management pays so much for each player, they don't want to even risk the possibility that they might get a hangnail.

[CMJ]

Great post Doc....simply terrific!

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think that was Bob Gibson, I think he pitched Game 2 and Game 5 and Game 7, if I am not mistaken, I also think Kofax did something similar one year. And hey way back Cy Young in one WS pitched in 5 games out of 7 I think (they played 9 back then). That is probably why the guy one 500 games he probably started 40 times a year and pitched in 60-70 games. That was common until the 30's and even after that they still had 3 man rotations until the 50's or 60s and didn't go to 5 man rotations until pretty recently. Have no clue what has happened to pitchers arms? It could be all these knew pitches like the splitfinger, etc that have put a strain on their arms, I have also heard good theories that too many kids in Little League and High school throw curve balls which really hurt there arms and that is why so many pitchers break down later on.

As far as the cap, you make a very good argument Doc too bad your aren't the commisoner :)

[darth_mcbain]

I forget his name, but there was a pitcher who would pitch both games of double-headers...

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Darth McBain
I forget his name, but there was a pitcher who would pitch both games of double-headers...

Satchel Paige used to do that, mostly in his younger days in the Negro League...


I agree that the players are a big part of the problem, probably moreso this time than in previous work stoppage situations. However, the owners are not unified under the idea of a salary cap. Look at the payrolls of teams like the Yankees, Rangers, Red Sox, Diamondbacks... it's outrageous compared to those teams at the bottom rung of the league. Regardless of the "face" that the ownership puts forward, to appear to be unified as they face off against Fehr and the player's union, there is still a lot that they don't agree upon. I seriously doubt that Steinbrenner would jump on the salary cap bandwagon knowing that it would mean the fracture of his team... he wants rings, and he's shown that he'll do whatever is necessary to get them... there is no one to check behavior like that, so nothing changes. Maybe, now that multiple teams are on the verge of financial collapse, some things will change... but, there is still a long way to go to make baseball a viable institution again.

As I said, the players are to blame as well. In essence, it's the group-think of the player's union that is to blame. In every instance of a work stoppage, or threat thereof, the players' union walks away the winner. They know it, so they continue to press for more... the players have, for the most part, always been the "lesser of two evils" that the fans choose to side with. It's made the MLB player's union easily the most powerful union in the in the history of sports. Fehr will never do anything for the betterment of baseball itself, agreed, but getting rid of him is basically impossible unless the players vote him out, or he's accused of embezzlement or something.

Then there is Bud Selig...

I remember Jerry Reinsdorf stating once, in defense of Selig, that the comissioner is supposed to represent the owners, and as such, he makes a perfect fit for the position because of his experience as an owner... Now, we all know why Reinsdorf is a shmuck, but that statement nearly made me spit my beverage accross the room.

Selig does take quite a bit of flack... some of it undeserved (especially about the All-Star game)... but who can blame the pundits... he has an inherent conflict of interests. It doesn't matter that his shares of the Brewers are in trust, and that his daughter is running the day-to-day operations of the team.... he's still the real owner.

(BTW, don't believe that garbage that Selig is still loved in Milwaukee... he held the entire state hostage to get his new stadium, and people hold some pretty strong grudges about that.)


'k... I'll rant more later...

[JMK]

From what I've heard about Selig, before he became commish was that he was a really good guy to be around, and that he just adored the game. Maybe he still does, but he's become such a spineless sellout now. Do you guys realize that he is going to be the only commisioner during who's tenure did not have a world series (on the verge of a second) AND a winner of an all-star game? He's creating quite the legacy for himself...

[Figrin D'an]

Selig always did have an incredible passion for the game... when the Braves left for Atlanta, he immediately set out to get a new team for Milwaukee, eventually buying the Seattle Pilots, moving them, and renaming the organiztion after the old Milwaukee Brewers of the American Baseball League. I think people (who know their history anyway) still appreciate what he did in that respect, but he doesn't belong in the commissioner's chair. It's too much of a conflict of interests. I have no doubt that he really loves the game, but I just don't think he's the right man for the job because, as you said, he's become almost spinless, both when dealing with other owners and the player's union.

[Jedieb]

Now, we all know why Reinsdorf is a shmuck, but that statement nearly made me spit my beverage accross the room.

:lol

Did you guys here the news today? It looks like one of the teams had to be bailed out by the league because they were in such bad shape that they weren't going to be able to make Monday's payroll. The team was going to have to be shut down in the MIDDLE OF THE SEASON! Some are saying the whole story is bogus, others are saying that it's true and that the identity of the team would surprise many. I hope it's true and I hope all the details get out. That way maybe BOTH sides will accept the fact that revenue sharing and salary caps are in the best interest of the league. But greed and avarice on BOTH sides will not allow for a common sense compromise. How the hell can you not figure out how to divide a billion dollars of revenue so that everybody wins?

[JMK]

I would bet that its just another tactic in the "negotiations". I doubt all of the details will ever see the light of day.

[Jedieb]

Well, more than anything, I think this is a culmination of everyone's frustration overall with the boneheads running baseball. From steroids to the economics of the game, the competitive imbalance that stems from it, all the way to the all star debacle, fans are sick of the way baseball has been decimated by black eye after black eye in just the past couple seasons.
:thumbup


The union keeps bringing up this "capitalism" argument, and the right to make as much money as they can. This falls short of reality.

Doc's right. MLB teams and players operate inside a socialist enterprise that makes one of Stalin's 5 year plans look like free enterprise run amuk. Teams do not compete against each other financially, only athletically. In business, you want to grab as much of the market as you can. It's to your advantage to drive your competitors out of business. In any sports league, you NEED your competitors. Without them, you're playing scrimmages and no one goes to see teams play against themselves. You play by a set of rules that all must follow, that's not the case in business. IBM doesn't have to cut its number of employees so that its work force matches its competitors. Even though the Yankees can afford to put 100 players on the payroll, they're not allowed to. They MUST field the same number of players as the Expos. Doesn't sound much like capitalism does it? As a league, MLB is semi-capitalistic entity because it competes against other sports leagues. I say semi-capitalistic because that Anti-Trust exemption it enjoys doesn't really carry over into the real business world. But the teams within MLB, are not individual business. Players need to realize that and shut up.

Owners, who've actually been in the right for the last few years, still share some of the blame. "The salaries are too high!" Who forced you to pay Arod all that money? The NBA has a combination of team and player caps. I think it would be impossible for MLB to take that route, but an NFL type cap is more than reasonable.

Don't even get me started on Donald F. Everytime he speaks I get the feeling I'm listening to a crooked used car salesman.

[JMK]

Yeah, no one forced Tom Hicks to fork over 250 million greenbacks to A-Rod, but if he didn't snatch him up, someone else would have improved their team. The owners have to decide on how to be more responsible with their money.

[Jedieb]

Most owners have repeatedly shown they just don't know how to be "responsible" with their money. They need a cap just to protect themselves. The Rangers spent all that money, but look at them. They've got a pitching staff full of rag arms. A-Rod's contract is indicative of their inability to spend money wisely. At least with a cap, you don't end up screwing other teams by raising the bar so high small market teams can't keep up. You spend too much money on one guy, you only hurt yourself.

[JMK]

I can't believe they were dumb enough to spend so much one a position player when everyone and their dog knows it takes pitching, pitching, pitching to win in the majors...

[Doc Milo]

Michael Kay on the Yankees telecast today said that he made dozens of phone calls to all the usual suspects (Kay has a journalism background) Tampa Bay, Montreal, Florida, Kansas City, Arizona (who had to be bailed out last year.) And all of them said that it wasn't them -- the team that couldn't meet payroll on Monday. He did find out which team, he says, and it was a surprise. The team just got a new stadium, too. And is a team that has a lot of history in the major leagues: The Detroit Tigers.

The latest is that "the team" (because it hasn't been announced officially that it is the Tigers) will be able to meet payroll because they were able to secure a loan.

If the players want to operate in a purely capitialistic system, how about this: There is no such thing as a long term contract. Every year, every player and pitcher is a free agent.

If the market was flooded with every player, every year, you want to know how quickly their salaries would drop?

"Barry, you don't want my offer, okay, let me go to Jason over here? Not enough for you Jason, how about you Sammy...." There would be so much talent for the teams to choose from every year, that they wouldn't be held hostage by the need to sign the select few top-of-the-line free agents out of that year's pool. And no team would have to worry about a mistake. They wouldn't have to swallow it -- the contract would be for a year, and they can shop around if it didn't work out. And each year, the players would be playing for their next year's contract.

Want pure capitalism, players? There's the way to go. But will they go for that? Nope. Because it would reduce their salaries very quickly.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Exactly Doc, that would never happen. I do blame the owners too look at the Orioles and Dodgers they have been in the top 5 in payroll for most of the last ten years (the Orioles aren't there now) and it hasn't gotten them anywhere. The Orioles also wasted a lot of money on one player Albert Belle that has to be the worst move ever, I think they are still paying him money because he was smart enough not to retire. I am still hopefull this will get resolved because if it doesn't I believe it will be the death of MLB.

[Doc Milo]

The one thing I worry about in trying to get "competitive balance" though, is they might go too far. Look at football. Sure, there is a lot of balance, but what you have is pretty much everyone hanging around the 8-8 mark. There is a fine line between balance and mediocrity. A very fine line.

Now, I believe along with some of the stuff I said in other posts, that contraction is also necessary. I know this is probably not the popular opinion, but part of the problem with the game is that the talent is watered down. There are too many teams. There are players who, with their talent levels, would be lucky to be bench players in the situation of 10 years ago, and now are starting position players, and pitchers. One reason why there isn't a competitve balance is there isn't enough upper level talent to fill the rosters of 30 teams.

But, also, little known fact that was actually on a radio show here today. The host is very much in favor of "fixing the system" to get some balance. But when he did his "research" he found that the balance isn't as far off as people think. He did this: He counted how many different teams have made it to the World Series in baseball since 1995 (the year they came back from the last work stoppage) and compared it to how many different teams have made it to the Superbowl and NBA Finals in the same time frame. This is what he found: In baseball, 7 different teams have played in the World Series (4 different teams have won the WS); 10 different teams have made it to the Superbowl; and 11 different teams have made it to the NBA finals. Now, those numbers are not very far off, especially when you factor in that 16 teams in the NFL and NBA make the playoffs, and only 8 teams make the playoffs in MLB. Right there, there is a wider pool to choose from, and a greater chance that some teams will pull an upset. And with the NFL, factor in that they only play one game playoffs -- meaning that, if an underdog gets lucky in one game, it can knock off a favorite; it is easier in the NFL for this to happen than it is in the NBA or MLB, since they play series. With those things factored in (especially the fact of the amount of teams that make the playoffs) baseball's number is not that low in comparison.

Also, back in the old old days (like the 40s and 50s) the balance was even worse in baseball than it is today. But baseball didn't have the competition of other sports that it has to deal with today... And that is a major factor.

What it comes down to is: I don't think competitive balance would be as major a problem if it wasn't for the high payrolls. Teams have to make a lot more money to meet the demands of the payrolls, and to make that money, they need to compete. Only then will they get the people in the ballpark, and the all-important television ratings. So competitive balance is more important now than it was in the 40s and 50s. I only hope that they can find a way to achieve that balance without making every team mediocre. Unfortunately, if they don't contract, I don't think that they will be able to do that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I like how it is in Football actually because the fans of every team knows they have a chance next year, great example are the Patriots and Ravens both teams were mediocre the year before and then they won the super bowl the following year that rarely happens in baseball (happens in Basketball because of the cap), so that a team like Kansas City or San Diego or Atlanta all have chances to win this year because of this balance. One thing to factor into this is relilighnment which could affect certain teams especially in the NFC West which has 3 great teams (Stl, SF, and Seattle) and one average team in Arizona that what could happen is they could beat each other up and only team could come out of the division of course 3 teams could come out of the division too so it could work either way.

[Doc Milo]

I disagree on football. Sure, any team that was bad the year before can get better and win. But it's at a cost. Teams that are good are not really good. They are mediocre. You hardly ever get a team that can dominate a league in a single season. Everyone is close to 8-8. You get teams winning the division at 10-6. Take any of those teams that you have the last few years in the Superbowl, and would they be able to compete against some of the great teams of the past, before the "competitive balance?"

I mean, sure, every year every team has a chance to win. And that is a good thing. But the quality of the game suffers, IMO. You don't have great football. You have good football from the top teams. But not great football.

I don't mind a dynasty every once in a while. It's good for the game. You won't have that in football anymore. Those days are gone. Not because the bad teams have gotten better, but because the good teams are made worse. To put it another way. If you have two people. One is dirt poor. And one is a millionaire. I don't want a competitive balance that takes half the money from the millionaire and gives it to the dirt poor person so that each of them has $500,000. I want to elevate the dirt poor person to the level of the millionaire without decreasing the level of the millionaire.

I would hope that any competitive balance would not seek to make the top teams worse, but to make the bottom teams better. Unfortunately, in baseball, that won't occur without contraction, because there just isn't enough top talent to go around to so many teams.

[Jedi Master Carr]

You see I actually like it I think there have been some great teams, the Rams are the problem with them is that they can't seem to win in the Super Bowl or at least not dominate like they do in the regular season. Also last year there were 7 teams that won 11 games (Ne 11-5, Pittsburgh 12-4, Oakland 11-5, St Louis 13-3, SF 12-4, Chicago 12-4, Philadelphia 11-5) And I think most of the wild cards were 10-6 except for the NY Jets and Tampa Bay which got in at 9-7 but both were 6 seeds and generally since the league went to 12 teams making the playoffs most of the 6 seeds were 9-7, I think one was 8-8, I think it was New Orleans and that was back in the early 90's. Now I think there are still great teams but I think the problem is it is hard to keep these temas in tact because of mismangament of the cap, the Ravens are a prime example, they had one of the best defenses ever and because of mismanagment of the cap they had to cut half the defense. Sure teams have won their divison at 10-6 but that has happened a lot before the last 5 years, I think SF. won only 10 games in 88 (because Montana was coming back from a back injury that year) and they went on to win the Super Bowl and they are a dominant team in my opinion. Now relenlighment could balance things further though, with the adding of 2 divisons, there is two really weak divisons out there both in the south, you got 7 teams that finished below .500 in those two divisons, ( though the colts had tons of injuries last year) in the AFC South I see the Colts dominating maybe winning as many as 11 or 12 games in the NFC south it is possible that the winner could be 9-7 because it is so weak of course Tampa could finally do something and win 11 games beating up on Carolina, Houston and Atlanta. I think it will be interesting to see how it all works out.