Blanton Extortion

In article <c6eada5f-34e3-4e0d-8b2b-639cee77a532
@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, wrab.RemoveThis@usa.com says...
> On Jan 28, 5:29 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo....RemoveThis@paccbell.net> wrote:
> > wrab wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, The Dave© <n....RemoveThis@no.com> wrote:
> > >>> w....RemoveThis@usa.com wrote:
> > >>> Less, because the sports-minded owners would not be pushed to the wall
> > >>> paying absurd player salaries and would be able to lower ticket prices
> > >>> and increase their fan bases. The Commissioner has reported that 22
> > >>> owners (of 30) are losing money.
> > >> You can already watch these people play for free at the park.  Do you?
> >
> > > Yes. That's how I know even small-town sandlotters can draw crowds. We
> > > don't need to pamper ballplayers. There are thousands who would play
> > > for the minimum wage. All that's required is some backbone on the part
> > > of owners and we can take back our national pastime.
> >
> >    Right, people will drive from all over to see players making $25 a game.
> >    By the way, you never explained why, if unions are communist, they
> > are banned in Cuba and China .
>
>
> People do. Let me ask your attention to summer baseball in many
> California cities. The players are collegians, receiving no salaries.
> The quality is good, ticket prices are low, and the players actually
> interact with fans.
> I don't care what's banned or promoted abroad, nor is that relevant to
> a baseball-oriented newsgroup; I just know the Players Association is
> a conspiracy in restraint of free trade, a commnist organization.

You don't know what words mean, do you?

There is not a single instance in baseball in which an owner is forced
to pay a single penny more to a player than he wants to. That's the
very essence of free commerce.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan.RemoveThis@baseballprimer.REMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is
not a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Blanton Extortion 

> Dan Szymborski wrote:
> In article <LFnoj.41761$m6.34024@newsfe18.lga>, no.DeleteThis@no.com says...
> > > Dan Szymborski wrote:
> > > > >>> Less, because the sports-minded owners would not be pushed
> > > > to the wall >>> paying absurd player salaries and would be able
> > > > to lower ticket prices >>> and increase their fan bases. The
> > > > Commissioner has reported that 22 >>> owners (of 30) are losing
> > > > money. >> You can already watch these people play for free at
> > > > the park. Do you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. That's how I know even small-town sandlotters can draw
> > > > > crowds. We don't need to pamper ballplayers. There are
> > > > > thousands who would play for the minimum wage. All that's
> > > > > required is some backbone on the part of owners and we can
> > > > > take back our national pastime.
> > > >
> > > > Right, people will drive from all over to see players making
> > > > $25 a game. By the way, you never explained why, if unions
> > > > are communist, they are banned in Cuba and China .
> > >
> > > And, even if we assume for the sake of argument that unions tend
> > > to be socialistic, the MLBPA's stance has been for free markets,
> > > which is certainly not communist.
> >
> > Well, not entirely true. The MLBPA is in favor of manipulating the
> > 'free' market to their benefit... hence supporting a somewhat
> > restricted free agency instead of every player being a free agent
> > every year, etc. They know that a true free market would actually
> > drive salaries down from what they could be.
>
> The problem is that it's a negotiation. They couldn't entirely get a
> free market from the owners, so they asked for a few things in lieu
> of that. If a player with 2 years of service time can't be a free
> agent, it makes sense that there would be some sort of protections
> for what he can be paid.
>
> In fact, when the owners complained about arbitration distorting the
> free market, the players happily offered to make those years free
> agent years. And when the owners proposed a salary floor for teams,
> the players objected to that, too, saying that it was unacceptable
> even without a salary cap.

Going back to the first days of free agency Charlie Finley proposed
making all players free agents every year. I don't remember what the
other owners felt about the idea, but Marvin Miller specifically
rejected it. He didn't want that at all. He knew that allowing some
restrictions would create an artifical shortage and actually push
salaries up.

A manipulated supply-and-demand, if you will. Free market... kind of.
 >> Stay informed about: Blanton Extortion 

In article <oQxoj.1063$5M1.120@newsfe23.lga>, no.DeleteThis@no.com says...
> > Dan Szymborski wrote:
> > > Going back to the first days of free agency Charlie Finley proposed
> > > making all players free agents every year. I don't remember what
> > > the other owners felt about the idea, but Marvin Miller specifically
> > > rejected it. He didn't want that at all. He knew that allowing
> > > some restrictions would create an artifical shortage and actually
> > > push salaries up.
> >
> > I think this is a rather different situation than we have day, simply
> > because of the maturity of the market.
> >

> > Flooding the market would probably have had the effect of lowering
> > salaries for a time, but it would have been a short-term effect - the
> > relative values of contributions would still have sorted themselves
> > with time, but with teams now getting "one-and-one" from their star
> > players instead of six. It's not that Finley was wrong, it's that
> > Finley desired a short-term outcome that benefitted him.
>
> Finley was about Finley, that's for sure. And the market has certainly
> evolved over time.
>
> I find it interesting the recent trend in locking the best players up
> in long-term contracts before they can even become free agents.

Yeah, that's another good example of the market maturing. Players are
always going to have substantial amounts of risk attached and teams have
gotten to the point where most of them are realizing that a guy with 6
years of service time isn't really any less risky than a guy with 4 or
5, so why not try and strike a fair deal while you actually still have
leverage rather than let it go to an auction?

We're probably already seeing some of the effects of this new reality
setting in - with teams locking up the players they want more often,
there was a kind of panic among GMs when the quality available to buy
just wasn't there, but there are already fewer Carlos Silva-type
signings compared to 3 years ago when GMs started panicking and throwing
3-year, $30 million contracts at anyone with an arm.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan.DeleteThis@baseballprimer.REMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is
not a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Blanton Extortion 

Dan Szymborski wrote:
> > I find it interesting the recent trend in locking the best players
> > up in long-term contracts before they can even become free agents.
>
> Yeah, that's another good example of the market maturing. Players
> are always going to have substantial amounts of risk attached and
> teams have gotten to the point where most of them are realizing that
> a guy with 6 years of service time isn't really any less risky than a
> guy with 4 or 5, so why not try and strike a fair deal while you
> actually still have leverage rather than let it go to an auction?

I think it's actually a win-win for the teams and the players. The
players gets the security he wants in case of injury or his skills
suddenly disappearing. The team gets something they can count on in
terms of expenses and that helps with overall stability and planning.

I've heard some sports commentators speculate that the union may not
like it, but I have yet to hear the union say anything one way or
another.
 >> Stay informed about: Blanton Extortion