LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Longgone]

45 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And you have very narrow scope of thinking on the topic of socialism, without any apparent flexibility to apply concepts related to it beyond the way macroeconomies operate.

I'm willing to agree to disagree at this point.

Some people have taken to calling any government program, any wealth redistribution, any parameters or regulations within a capitalist system "socialism", and use it as a pejorative to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them. None of those things are Socialism, they are simply real life components of a capitalist system, and always have been. 

[buddha]

socialism would be if the government came in and ran major league baseball.  you know, for the good of the fans.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

It makes me chuckle every time I see someone suggest reducing the schedule to 154 games, specifically, as though that were the one and only magic number written on the tablet that was handed down to Baseball Moses from Baseball Yahweh. Other than history, what makes 154 such a magic number? Why not 156 or 152? I'm not actually pitching a bitch about this—I just find it genuinely amusing that this is the magic number everyone always brings up. To me, this makes sense only to people who actually attended games at Ebbets Field.

Personally, I like 162 games. I'd rather have more baseball than less. Hell, I'd be up for expanding the schedule to 168 games! How fun would that be? But I do agree with you that, perhaps after expansion, they will probably end up reducing the regular season schedule (although I wouldn't doubt if they brought it down to 144 or even 140 so they could clear the entire month of September plus October for an expanded playoffs of all best-of-seven series involving 16 teams). Given how revenue in the sport has moved from primarily gameday receipts in the east-of-the-Mississippi 16-team universe to multiple league-wide revenue streams split among all 30 teams, the business imperative for every team to host as many as 81 home games has been dramatically reduced.

No magic number...

Just that historical reference...

Nothing more than that.

[buddha]

and all this talk of european soccer, im not sure any of you would really like that system here.  everyone loves the idea of relegation and teams actually losing something when they lose, but european soccer is VERY top heavy.  the same handful of teams win every year.  and the only way to break into that club is to be bought by a multi-billionaire who just throws money at the team and buys the best managers and players.

is that really what you want?  people complain about the yankees but the yankees havent won anything in years.  real madrid and barcelona and occasionally atletico win EVERY YEAR.  everyone else is playing for third most seasons (covid upset that a bit, but madrid are still winning the league).  

that's what you get in a more free market system where there is no cap on salaries and players can go where they want.  the tigers would simply become a feeder club for the yankees, red sox, and dodgers.  

unless jeff bezos or elon musk was a secret tigers' fan and wanted to buy them.

[oblong]

I think you can distinguish between Socialism and socialism.  When used in the baseball context you can refer to the government approved monopoly, the sharing of assets, the protection that you won't really fail.  It's not the dog eat dog cutthroat world of capitalism, "survival of the fittest", boot straps, government funded stadiums, etc, that these business guys like to fancy themselves as.  

 

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, bobrob2004 said:

Is the lockout over yet?  Someone ask Rob Manfred if Miggy can come out and play.  

More importantly...

Can Greene and Tork come out and play with their prospective new MLB teammates yet?

That is the question...

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

and all this talk of european soccer, im not sure any of you would really like that system here.  everyone loves the idea of relegation and teams actually losing something when they lose, but european soccer is VERY top heavy.  the same handful of teams win every year.  and the only way to break into that club is to be bought by a multi-billionaire who just throws money at the team and buys the best managers and players.

is that really what you want?  people complain about the yankees but the yankees havent won anything in years.  real madrid and barcelona and occasionally atletico win EVERY YEAR.  everyone else is playing for third most seasons (covid upset that a bit, but madrid are still winning the league).  

that's what you get in a more free market system where there is no cap on salaries and players can go where they want.  the tigers would simply become a feeder club for the yankees, red sox, and dodgers.  

unless jeff bezos or elon musk was a secret tigers' fan and wanted to buy them.

I'm no cap expert but it sure seems like the guys in the NBA have that freedom doesn't it?  I don't follow it as close as others but my impression is a guy can end up where he wants if they want him.  They'll make it work somehow.

 

[buddha]

Just now, oblong said:

I'm no cap expert but it sure seems like the guys in the NBA have that freedom doesn't it?  I don't follow it as close as others but my impression is a guy can end up where he wants if they want him.  They'll make it work somehow.

 

much different system.

most of the clubs in europe survive by developing players and selling them bigger clubs.  there is no trading of players for other players (very rarely) like there is here.  players over there are developed and then sold on for profits.  

the equivalent would be getting one or two years of mize and then selling him to the dodgers for $80 million.  then using that money to get a bunch of kids from venezuela for pennies in order to sell them on in a few years too.

the money is much less for most teams in europe and there isnt the income guarantee that there is here because there is no salary cap.  half the teams in europe are near broke!

its a totally different ballgame.  

[buddha]

10 minutes ago, oblong said:

I'm no cap expert but it sure seems like the guys in the NBA have that freedom doesn't it?  I don't follow it as close as others but my impression is a guy can end up where he wants if they want him.  They'll make it work somehow.

 

and youre talking about a scenario where a few nba guys decide they want to play on the same team so they end up in LA for the clips or lakers or philly or brooklyn or phoenix.

there is only one team in germany that the best players go to, two (and a half) teams in spain, one in italy, one in france, and maybe four in england.  thats it.  and thats with hundreds of teams in every country, you have maybe 8 or 9 who get all the best players and they usually win the league every year.

bayern have won 9 straight bundesligas.

juve have won 9 of the last 10 scudettos.

psg have won 7 of the last 9 ligue un titles.

either barca or real have won 34 of the last 40 la liga titles.

the english premier league has existed since 1992 and has been won by one of the top 4 big money clubs every year but two (and the first time by blackburn back before the billionaire money started).

if you want the red sox, yankees and dodgers winning every year, look to europe.

[buddha]

evan mobley wins rookie of the year?  next year he's on the lakers.  cade cunningham develops into a star next year?  the year afrer he's on the celtics.  chet holmgren looks promising?  signs straight away with the lakers.  

thats what europe is like.  smaller clubs have almost no chance.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

Some people have taken to calling any government program, any wealth redistribution, any parameters or regulations within a capitalist system "socialism", and use it as a pejorative to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them. None of those things are Socialism, they are simply real life components of a capitalist system, and always have been. 

I've not used any pejoratives in relation to socialism, so I'm not clear whether you're trying to put something across here about some people.

In any event, I'm not making up the concept about American sports engaging in behaviors widely regarded as socialist. It's been broached many times before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/why-american-sports-are-socialist/487640/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2017/04/18/sports-americas-well-kept-socialist-secret/?sh=cf07ebb7cb04

https://www.dw.com/en/sports-life-are-us-sports-really-socialist-compared-to-the-capitalism-of-european-football/av-54984193

Capitalist country, socialist sport - Sports Business Journal

And, because I like you so well, one that supports your point:

https://businessethicshighlights.com/2015/11/24/are-american-sports-leagues-socialist/

Bonus: here are some flip side articles talking about soccer as a free market capitalism sport:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ironically-european-soccer-is-more-capitalist-than-american-sports

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/153183-the-last-bastion-of-free-market-capitalism-european-soccer

Happy reading!

 

[casimir]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

That's exactly how the 154-game season came about: 22 games apiece against seven other teams. It was put in place in 1904; before that, seasons were 140 games, which was twenty games apiece against seven teams. Only World War I led to any change to that construct (1918: 126 games [18x7]; 1919: 140 games.)

They also managed to maintain 162-game balance, in a way, during the two-division 12-team leagues: 18 games against five teams in your own division (90 games total), 12 games against six teams in the other division (72).

Interleague play has completely blown up any hope of balancing a schedule, or of playing every team in baseball to achieve proper and true balance. BUT: if they ever were to go to 4x4 leagues with no interleague play (lol), they could hit 162 very logically by scheduling 18 games against three teams in your own division (54 games), and nine against the 12 teams in the other three divisions (36 times three = 108). Easy peasy math.

But again, they would never dream of abandoning The Abomination That Is Interleague Play. Would they?

What’s the point of protecting the AL and NL now that both have the DH?  Didn’t we agree last ween to realign geographically if/when they expand?  Heck, let’s do it now.  Got plenty of time to figure it out before an agreement is in place.

[chasfh]

12 minutes ago, casimir said:

What’s the point of protecting the AL and NL now that both have the DH?  Didn’t we agree last ween to realign geographically if/when they expand?  Heck, let’s do it now.  Got plenty of time to figure it out before an agreement is in place.

Getting rid of the leagues entirely, even if they renamed them after Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, might be a third rail issue.

Or maybe not.

Maybe the only fans who care about that are old and dying off. The casual fans probably don't care either way, and the gamblers definitely give no shits.

[romad1]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Getting rid of the leagues entirely, even if they renamed them after Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, might be a third rail issue.

Or maybe not.

Maybe the only fans who care about that are old and dying off. The casual fans probably don't care either way, and the gamblers definitely give no shits.

Wont someone please think of the gamblers?

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, romad1 said:

Wont someone please think of the gamblers?

Won't somebody at Baseball please think of anyone else but the gamblers?

[Tiger337]

Realigning geographically is always a fun exercise, but I don't know what it accomplishes.  If half the teams are going to make the playoffs, why even have divisions?  Every team plays every team 5 or 6 times and then the top 14 make the playoffs.

[casimir]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Realigning geographically is always a fun exercise, but I don't know what it accomplishes.  If half the teams are going to make the playoffs, why even have divisions?  Every team plays every team 5 or 6 times and then the top 14 make the playoffs.

Crud, I forgot about factoring in promotion/relegation like the kewl sports do.

[Jim Cowan]

7 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

He forgot Texas.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

Crud, I forgot about factoring in promotion/relegation like the kewl sports do.

Divide them into three divisions based of records over the last three seasons.  The top ten teams go in the Willie Mays Division, The next ten teams go in the Chet Lemon Division.  The bottom ten go in the Milt Cuyler Division  Seven teams from the Mays Division make the playoffs, five from the Lemon Division and two from the Cuyler Division.  

[casimir]

12 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Divide them into three divisions based of records over the last three seasons.  The top ten teams go in the Willie Mays Division, The next ten teams go in the Chet Lemon Division.  The bottom ten go in the Milt Cuyler Division  Seven teams from the Mays Division make the playoffs, five from the Lemon Division and two from the Cuyler Division.  

I could go with 3 geographic divisions of 10 right now, but get that soccer promo/demo crap out of here.

Edited February 26, 2022 by casimir

[Longgone]

19 hours ago, oblong said:

I think you can distinguish between Socialism and socialism.  When used in the baseball context you can refer to the government approved monopoly, the sharing of assets, the protection that you won't really fail.  It's not the dog eat dog cutthroat world of capitalism, "survival of the fittest", boot straps, government funded stadiums, etc, that these business guys like to fancy themselves as.  

 

None of those things are socialism. The fallacy here is that the entity is MLB, which does compete in the dog eat dog capitalistic world for our entertainment dollar. Each team is simply a franchise of that entity, who deem that parity, a relatively level playing field, is essential for their overall well being. There is nothing socialistic about that, every franchisor practices this, because the health of every individual franchise is important to the over all health of MLB. There is nothing more capitalistic than that.

 

[oblong]

If they all practiced it then they wouldn’t have locked out the players and wouldnt need artificial safeguards.  Are you on the take for the owners? 

[Longgone]

30 minutes ago, oblong said:

If they all practiced it then they wouldn’t have locked out the players and wouldnt need artificial safeguards.  Are you on the take for the owners? 

That's a very big assumption you are making, you seem to have a very strict definition of capitalism, and a very broad one for socialism. Like lockouts don't happen with capitalism.

And no, I'm on the side of objectivity, not hyperbole. 

[oblong]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

That's a very big assumption you are making, you seem to have a very strict definition of capitalism, and a very broad one for socialism. Like lockouts don't happen with capitalism.

And no, I'm on the side of objectivity, not hyperbole. 

Nobody is using the textbook definition of socialism when they say these things. In fact I deliberately differentiated between the two. 

[Longgone]

Just now, oblong said:

Nobody is using the textbook definition of socialism when they say these things. In fact I deliberately differentiated between the two. 

There is no differentiating between the two, just misuse of the term, which I admit, is becoming common. 

But, claiming a lockout,  or a franchisor setting up rules to benefit it's franchisees, two common practices in a capitalist economy, is socialism, is just bizarre. I understand you support the players, but there are many very good reasons to support them without this cockamamie "socialist" bullshit.

If there is private ownership and autonomy regarding the production, distribution and sales of the product, that is capitalism.