Comments on: Bud Selig: "it was a difficult year but a wonderful year"

By: credit card reform bill

credit card reform bill — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:36:18 +0000

I don’t know if I totally agree… But, you do make some great points.

By: Pete Toms

Pete Toms — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:30:54 +0000

What don’t you like about this era? The cost of attending? The salaries? The wild card? Steroids? I’m an old purist too but on the whole isn’t MLB doin pretty darn good? I think it is very entertaining, as entertaining as it has been during my lifetime. But, I’m not an American so maybe I don’t get the “cultural fabric” thing.

By: RichardInDallas

RichardInDallas — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:04:03 +0000

@ Pete
If General Motors had gone through their history without a strike, it would have been because of management caving to the ridiculous demands of the UAW time after time. Had that been the case, they would have disappeared long ago. Maintaining labor (note the American spelling) peace for 16 years may not have been in the best interest of the game, at least not long term. I want my great-grandson to access baseball-almanac.com as much as I do, just to compare the players of the 2100′s with the guys that played way back in the 1980′s, when I was a rabid Met fan. If there is no conflict, that means one of two things:
1) One side is consistently getting over on the other, or
2) Both sides have a healthy view of what it will take to succeed long-term.
Given the presence of Donald Fehr and Bud Selig in this scenario, which do you think it might have been? I’m all for players rights, AND owners rights, but above all, I’d like to be able to someday get the morning paper in heaven with my grandfathers that brought me into this game, and have a good long look at the box scores….

By: Bobby Townsend

Bobby Townsend — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:58:56 +0000

You stole my thunder!!!! Yes Bud Light is the problem and I have been calling for him to step down since the strike of 1994

By: Pete Toms

Pete Toms — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:41:28 +0000

@ RID.
Yes Selig has served as MLB’s CEO and not as a Commissioner and there is a phiosophical debate about whether that should change…but….Selig has achieved sustained labour peace (and I know he was one of the major players in 80s collusion) for what will be 16 years when the CBA expires, and that peace was brought about by the staggering prosperity that he reigned over….I also thought interesting that Fehr said recently something along the lines of, it was easier to negotiate with the owners once Selig clarified that he – as Commissioner – clearly represented the owners. Vincent and Giamatti may have been beholden to the “best interests…” but they were ineffective in bringing the owners and players together.
When we discuss who should succeed Selig we need to ask if we see the commissioner as just that, or as another CEO. I gotta believe that the owners will choose another CEO type, the only alternative being political intervention but that seems very remote…or perhaps I’m not qualified to opine on the role of the MLB Commissioner because of my nationality.

By: Neon Noodle

Neon Noodle — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:12:24 +0000

Don’t let those “stats” get in the way of letting you know there’s parity, you can see it with your own eyes!

By: RichardInDallas

RichardInDallas — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:31:31 +0000

Sir Bud would most likely make a great CEO of a huge widget manufacturer. It seems that baseball is to him just a widget. Sell whatever quantity you need to to make the most profit possible for the already priveleged few that have a vested financial interest today. Once the investment is recouped, and a staggering profit made, who cares? On to the next widget! I hear there’s a soccer league that needs to make a profit. Maybe Bud should take that on, and leave baseball to the purists that love this game more than the money.

By: hop

hop — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:16:49 +0000

If Bud really cared about baseball he would have stepped down years ago. “He’s” the problem

By: Pete Toms

Pete Toms — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:33:28 +0000

Competitive imbalance is probably the #1 issue for MLB.
There was a Seton Hall poll taken during the WS which revealed widespread concern amongst sports fans about the inablility of small markets to compete. Also, although leauge wide attendance held up well despite the recession and the smaller capacities in NYC, 22 of 30 franchises experienced declines. And Selig’s frequent boasts about the unrivalled state of competitive balance in MLB (not in 2009 but over the last decade plus) have more to do with the expanded playoff format than true parity.
We’ll see what happens in 10, remember in 08 when the Rays went to the WS and the Brewers made the playoffs us chattering classes were much less preoccupied with this.

By: Wooden U. Lykteneau

Wooden U. Lykteneau — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:17:15 +0000

Maybe the elephant in the room is that MLB needs to consider football-style scheduling (take your pick: American or European). It’s no secret that some divisions are easier than others to win thanks to having one or two whipping boys, or in some cases, being the welterweight among the lightweights.