There better not be a strike

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The Twins are 13 games ahead. The White Sox are heartless, so it looks like a good chance the Twins will be in postseason play. That is unless the players go and ruin the season by going on strike. If this happens, I will personally take batting practice on Denny Hocking's head. Than work on my fastball on Donold Fehr's head.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

Plus the Red Sox have a shot at the playoffs. They better not cut the season.

[Guest Some Guy]

Verne the Twins won't make it out of the first round anyway, their startinf oitching just isn't good enough to compete with the Yanks, M's, A's, Sox, or the Angels in a five game series.

 

But there better not be a strike regardless of where the Twins or Red Sox are in the standings, it'll really cripple the game. Plus none can even figure out what the fuck the players want. The owners apparently are having finacial problems and want revenue sharing and possibly a luxory tax and the players don't, but what do they want? More money to cause a further rift between the good and the bad teams?

[Guest alkeiper]

The key word is apparently. The owners are NOT having any kind of financial problems, and any of the ones they do have are their own damn fault. The players don't want anything. They just want to keep what they have now.

 

More money to cause a further rift between the good and the bad teams?

 

You mean between high revenue teams like the Mets and low revenue teams like the Athletics? Or teams who play in big markets like the Cubs and Phillies? Say did you know St. Louis has a smaller population than Minneapolis. My god, how can they possibly compete?? I'm tired of this competitive balance bullshit. The owners are greedy fucks who want more money, period.

 

But there better not be a strike regardless of where the Twins or Red Sox are in the standings, it'll really cripple the game.

 

It may cripple the business, but it won't cripple the game. Kids will still play in sandlots without the major leagues.

 

Verne the Twins won't make it out of the first round anyway, their startinf oitching just isn't good enough to compete with the Yanks, M's, A's, Sox, or the Angels in a five game series.

 

Five games, anyone can win. An upset win or two and who knows? Besides, Milton, Mays and Radke are a pretty good starting 3. When healthy, I'd rank them above Seattle actually.

[Guest bob_barron]

If they strike- I'm done.

 

What with the Braves kicking ass and all

[Guest Some Guy]

Al the A's are going to lose their top three in a few years when their contracts run out. Zito especially keeps getting better and better, I know they all recently signed contracts but when they're up they're gone. There are not enough fans in Oakland who pay to watch baseball. Which is sad considering how good the A's are. There are exceptions to the rules and I don't beleive that small money clubs can't compete but it is very hard for them. They don't have enough revenue to mantain a high pay roll.

 

Detroit inexplicably trading Jeff Weaver to the Yanks was just stupid, they had him signed for 2 more years, trade him when you can't afford him, not now.

 

Look at Cleveland, they had a great team for over 5 years, one year they didn't make the playoffs and the fans stopped coming, how is the owner to be expected to lose money hand over fist when the fans won't even watch? Why should he?

 

If the business is crippled the game will follow. Look at Soccer here, there is no money in it so nobody stays with it after high school. I don;t see any record that can be broken to get the fans back. Home runs are passe, Ripken is retired, The NY doesn't draw great ratings for the WS, what's left to bring the avgerage fan back?

[Guest Human Fly]

If they strike, there are only two positives that could come out of it. (I don't see either happening) Revenue sharing and getting rid of Bud Selig. Even if those two things happen MLB will have hurt itself tremendously.

 

If I were the owners I would have replacement players on the ready. It wouldn't be as good, but it would be good PR for the owners, and at least we would still have baseball.

[Guest alkeiper]

the A's are going to lose their top three in a few years when their contracts run out.

 

Hudson isn't eligible for free agency until after 2005, and Mulder and Zito aren't until 2006. A smart organization like the A's willtrade a pitcher like Hudson in 2005, when he's 30, and trade him for prospects. Then continue the cycle anew. Lose them to free agency? High level players like Mulder and Zito net lots of compensation draft picks. Then, instead of being saddled with high salary players in the decline phase of their careers, you have good young players.

 

There are not enough fans in Oakland who pay to watch baseball.

 

They live eight miles from another major league team. They're always gonna have an uphill battle to draw fans, especially when their rivals have a gate attraction hitting 73 home runs.

 

Detroit inexplicably trading Jeff Weaver to the Yanks was just stupid

 

How so? They get 6 years of the best 1st base prospect in baseball before he hits free agency. Pitchers are a tricky species anyway. You invest too much money in them (Mike Hampton for example) and then they go south.

 

Look at Cleveland, they had a great team for over 5 years, one year they didn't make the playoffs and the fans stopped coming, how is the owner to be expected to lose money hand over fist when the fans won't even watch? Why should he?

 

The fans stopped coming? When did this happen? Here are the complete list of teams that drew MORE fans than the Indians last year. The Giants, Mariners, and Yankees. That's it. The Indians drew 3,175,523 fans. Fourth in all of baseball. I'd call that good attendance.

 

what's left to bring the avgerage fan back?

 

The fact that baseball is superior to the other sports? I mean, a city with a football team witnesses 8 home games a year. For the average person, that is not enough sports. Basketball is horribly repetitive. And besides, the first truly exciting game and the fans realize what they've been missing.

 

If I were the owners I would have replacement players on the ready. It wouldn't be as good, but it would be good PR for the owners, and at least we would still have baseball.

 

The problem with replacement players is that they aren't even as good as the AAA players. And why would I go watch replacement players when I could go to Scranton and watch Marlon Byrd play, and at $7.50 a pop no less?

 

If they strike, there are only two positives that could come out of it. (I don't see either happening) Revenue sharing and getting rid of Bud Selig.

 

They have revenue sharing. They just want to increase it.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Just curious. If MLB goes on strike, does the International League go on strike as well?

[Guest alkeiper]

Everything I know would indicate a "no" but if anyone knows otherwise feel free to correct me.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Verne the Twins won't make it out of the first round anyway, their startinf oitching just isn't good enough to compete with the Yanks, M's, A's, Sox, or the Angels in a five game series.

 

But there better not be a strike regardless of where the Twins or Red Sox are in the standings, it'll really cripple the game. Plus none can even figure out what the fuck the players want. The owners apparently are having finacial problems and want revenue sharing and possibly a luxory tax and the players don't, but what do they want? More money to cause a further rift between the good and the bad teams?

I don't care if the Twins don't score any runs in the playoffs. It's been 11 years since they've made the postseason, and 8 of those years they were terrible.

 

There was reports of a September 16th trade deadline. I can't believe the players union would be stupid enough to go on strike. Donold Fehr might be a leach but he at least seemed smart enough to figure out that the players would be hung if they went on strike.

[Guest Some Guy]

Kahran they go on strike in the sense that they can't be called up to MLB. The replacement players in 94 were guys like Brian Daubach, who was in the independent leugue at the time. He is probably the most well known replacement player. He said in an interview that he expects to be let in the union after the new agreement is made, but unions are notoriusly unforgiving of people trying to feed their family.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

But they still play, right?

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

To the best of my knowledge, yeah.

 

From a historical standpoint, I think the IL finished out the '94 season. They did crown a champion - Richmond, I think - and I'm almost positive that they had a playoff for it. I wish I knew for sure, and I'd know for sure if Scranton\Wilkes-Barre were involved in the playoffs, but IIRC, they blew ass that year. The only time I know for sure that they stopped a season early was last year, post-September 11th. I think they had played one Governor's Cup game before 9-11, and then took a few days off in remembrance, and then said "screw it" to the rest of the games and awarded the Cup to Louisville because they beat Scranton in the first game.

 

From what I know about the minor leagues, they still play. I'm pretty sure that to be in MLBPA actively you have to collect a paycheck from a major league ballclub. Minor league clubs are a separate entity from MLB, and I don't think they have a union of their own. The only ties that a major league franchise has to its farm system is player allocation. The franchises of NAPBL (aka minor league baseball) pay for everything, including player's salaries. So, since the minor leaguers don't collect their pay from major league baseball, I can't see why they'd be forced to strike with MLBPA.

 

So, my answer is "yes, they still play".

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.