As I've mentioned before, I listen to MLB Home Plate on XM Radio and the afternoon guys on The Show are constantly talking about how MLB doesn't do enough to promote itself. Their usual example of a job well done is NASCAR, where fans are allowed to walk around in the pit, meet drivers, walk across the finish line, storm the field after the race, etc. They also talk a lot about the advertising spots that NASCAR has and how little kids want to grow up to be like their NASCAR idols, something little boys used to wish about baseball players.
One summer during law school, I spent some time interning in the legal department for the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour (women's tennis for those who don't know). Built into their rules are guidelines requiring players to do a certain amount of press after matches. The most is required out of those who finish high in a tournament, who must do meet-and-greets after their matches with corporate sponsors, the press, etc. There is a far greater chance that a fan can mingle with players at these tournaments than there is for a baseball fan to mingle with a player after a regular season game. That's why people love spring training once they experience it - it's more like a college baseball atmosphere and you can actually get close to the players, get autographs, chat with them, etc.
So, I've been thinking of ways baseball could better promote itself. Last week, the guys on The Show were talking about how there are former stars from other sports doing things like Dancing with the Stars and other reality shows. I thought something interesting to do would be to do a reality show following a minor league team for a season, or covering the Cape Cod League for a season. There wouldn't have to be that much shot during the game, so I don't think it would be all that disruptive. It's more about what the guys are going through off the field. People will get attached to players and watch with excitement to see if they make it to the big leagues. It won't even matter what club they end up with, people will always be interested to see where that player goes after having followed their rise to the majors.
America, especially America's youth, is glued to reality tv. Real life drama and excitement is what grabs people these days. MTV has a show right now called Two-A-Days that follows a high school football team and young guys love it - what I'm proposing could be similar to that. I think a show like the ones I've proposed could renew interest and again make young men dream of growing up to be baseball players. It could make baseball "cool" again, something the guys on XM are always trying to figure out a way to do.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Andruw Jones: Love Him or Leave Him?
While I've dreamed of being the first female GM in baseball since I was a kid, I'm beginning to see why there perhaps hasn't been one. Generally speaking, women are far more driven by their emotions than men. I consider myself to be a pretty tough, non-emotional type gal, but it still creeps up on me now and then.
The thought of Andruw or Smoltz leaving Atlanta absolutely breaks my heart. Over the years I've mourned lots of players after their days as a Braves player were over - Steve Avery (my childhood crush), Dale Murphy (named my dog after him), Ron Gant (who gave me a ball one time), Terry Pendleton (I started playing third base in softball because of him), Tom Glavine, Greg Maddox, etc. Sometimes I long for the days when players stayed with one team their entire career. On the other hand, we've acquired many faces I've loved over the years - Renteria being my most recent favorite. Once they're here though, I don't want to let them go. For that reason, my first instinct is to say that the new owners have to do whatever they have to do to keep Andruw.
Upon further reflection though, I think I could let Andruw go, especially if he doesn't give us a hometown discount. I'm not a huge fan of Scott Boras and have always been surprised that Andruw chose him as his agent. Andruw just seems too nice to be represented by such a bulldog. But, if Andruw feels forced to follow the money trail, I'll let him go. I agree that he's probably the greatest outfielder to ever play, but I also think we have plenty of young talent that can fill at least a large portion of his shoes. Although, I disagree with those that say Blanco might be the one - I like to see a little ambition, a real go-getter, and this guy didn't even report to camp early. To be fair, Renteria, who I love, didn't report early either. I know if I got to make baseball my living, I'd be there everytime they opened the gates and let me in. Then again, Renteria isn't trying to make it in the big leagues - he's already there. But I digress...
My point is, if keeping Andruw means we'll have to lose up and coming players like Francouer and McCann when it's time for them to get a raise, I'll pass. No one player should take up greater than 20% of the club's overall budget, which is what would happen if we kept Andruw at the amount he'll want with the budget we currently have. Perhaps things will change and Liberty Media will increase our budget, but all the commentary I've read seems to suggest this is doubtful. Liberty Media isn't trying to gain an asset in the Braves - they're trying to sell off TimeWarner stock without having to pay capital gains taxes. My prediction is that they'll be one of those owners that we neither hate nor love. They'll just be an owner.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy the dozens of chances I'll have to see the greatest outfielder of our time (and possibly ever) play live before my eyes at The Ted, and I'll pretend that these days will never end.
The thought of Andruw or Smoltz leaving Atlanta absolutely breaks my heart. Over the years I've mourned lots of players after their days as a Braves player were over - Steve Avery (my childhood crush), Dale Murphy (named my dog after him), Ron Gant (who gave me a ball one time), Terry Pendleton (I started playing third base in softball because of him), Tom Glavine, Greg Maddox, etc. Sometimes I long for the days when players stayed with one team their entire career. On the other hand, we've acquired many faces I've loved over the years - Renteria being my most recent favorite. Once they're here though, I don't want to let them go. For that reason, my first instinct is to say that the new owners have to do whatever they have to do to keep Andruw.
Upon further reflection though, I think I could let Andruw go, especially if he doesn't give us a hometown discount. I'm not a huge fan of Scott Boras and have always been surprised that Andruw chose him as his agent. Andruw just seems too nice to be represented by such a bulldog. But, if Andruw feels forced to follow the money trail, I'll let him go. I agree that he's probably the greatest outfielder to ever play, but I also think we have plenty of young talent that can fill at least a large portion of his shoes. Although, I disagree with those that say Blanco might be the one - I like to see a little ambition, a real go-getter, and this guy didn't even report to camp early. To be fair, Renteria, who I love, didn't report early either. I know if I got to make baseball my living, I'd be there everytime they opened the gates and let me in. Then again, Renteria isn't trying to make it in the big leagues - he's already there. But I digress...
My point is, if keeping Andruw means we'll have to lose up and coming players like Francouer and McCann when it's time for them to get a raise, I'll pass. No one player should take up greater than 20% of the club's overall budget, which is what would happen if we kept Andruw at the amount he'll want with the budget we currently have. Perhaps things will change and Liberty Media will increase our budget, but all the commentary I've read seems to suggest this is doubtful. Liberty Media isn't trying to gain an asset in the Braves - they're trying to sell off TimeWarner stock without having to pay capital gains taxes. My prediction is that they'll be one of those owners that we neither hate nor love. They'll just be an owner.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy the dozens of chances I'll have to see the greatest outfielder of our time (and possibly ever) play live before my eyes at The Ted, and I'll pretend that these days will never end.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
He'll Always be Hammerin' Hank to Me
Jeff Schultz had a blog on AJC.com today about Barry Bonds breaking the homerun record this year: http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/02/19/bonds_cant_esca.html. Well said, Jeff! As a lifelong Braves fan, I’m saddened at the possiblity (can’t bring myself to say probability) that Barry will break Hank’s record this year. I’ve spent the last two season praying to the baseball gods that Barry would retire. I found myself hoping that knowing what he has done, his conscience would convince him to retire and not break the record. Clearly I was deluding myself, because we all know that’s not Barry. Your article was absolutely right though and I think now I can deal with the inevitible record-breaking event when it comes this season. Without a doubt, I will be one of millions with the mental asterisk in my head next to Barry’s record. Hank will always be the homerun king in my book, and I’m sure plenty of others feel the same way.
I bought Jose Canseco's book last week in the bargain bin for $5. Guess it's old news. I was in law school when the book came out, so reading for pleasure wasn't really an option at that point in time. Although I've already heard the Cliff's Notes version of the book through various commentary since it came out, I'm interested to read it for myself. I'd like to believe that Canseco wrote the book in order to cleanse the nation's pastime of the poisons that currently infect it. In fact, I read somewhere that he actually says in the book that he would have never been a Major League calliber player without the steriods. While the book may seem on its surface to be about helping save the sport from the perils of steroids, one cannot forget that Canseco introduced the poison to dozens of players. First he was part of the problem, now he wants to be part of the solution. Back when he was playing and needed that competitive edge, he was all for using whatever means necessary. Now that he's on the outside looking in, he wants to rat out all the other users and clean the sport up. Very interesting indeed.
The bottom line is that until baseball adopts a stricter testing policy, players will be tempted to juice up in order to be competitive. And after seeing Barry break an infamous record and probably inducted into the Hall of Fame, what incentive will other players have to not juice up?
I bought Jose Canseco's book last week in the bargain bin for $5. Guess it's old news. I was in law school when the book came out, so reading for pleasure wasn't really an option at that point in time. Although I've already heard the Cliff's Notes version of the book through various commentary since it came out, I'm interested to read it for myself. I'd like to believe that Canseco wrote the book in order to cleanse the nation's pastime of the poisons that currently infect it. In fact, I read somewhere that he actually says in the book that he would have never been a Major League calliber player without the steriods. While the book may seem on its surface to be about helping save the sport from the perils of steroids, one cannot forget that Canseco introduced the poison to dozens of players. First he was part of the problem, now he wants to be part of the solution. Back when he was playing and needed that competitive edge, he was all for using whatever means necessary. Now that he's on the outside looking in, he wants to rat out all the other users and clean the sport up. Very interesting indeed.
The bottom line is that until baseball adopts a stricter testing policy, players will be tempted to juice up in order to be competitive. And after seeing Barry break an infamous record and probably inducted into the Hall of Fame, what incentive will other players have to not juice up?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Baseball is Here!
No more countdown to spring training...it's here! To get in the spirit, I've written a little poem:
Winter has been long and cold,
The wait for spring getting old,
The Grapefruit and the Cactus league,
Fighting off the winter fatigue,
Pitchers and catchers warming their arms,
Fine young men up from the farms,
The crack of the bat and the roar of the crowd,
He’s rounding third, they’re getting loud,
Remembering their childhood past,
Knowing this game won’t be their last,
For baseball season has come again,
Come, let’s go to the game my friend,
We’ll eat a hot dog and buy a beer,
For this is my favorite time of year!
While some pick the Phillies and some pick the Mets, the Braves will be in Florida preparing to show some new guys what it means to be a member of the Atlanta Braves. Cox and Schuerholz have never designated a year as a "rebuilding year" - they expect a winning team each and every season. After last year, I don't think the team or the town is taking winning for granted anymore. We expect a winning season, the team has been given the tools to make it a winning season, and I know we'll all be grateful when it indeed turns out to be a winning season.
Winter has been long and cold,
The wait for spring getting old,
The Grapefruit and the Cactus league,
Fighting off the winter fatigue,
Pitchers and catchers warming their arms,
Fine young men up from the farms,
The crack of the bat and the roar of the crowd,
He’s rounding third, they’re getting loud,
Remembering their childhood past,
Knowing this game won’t be their last,
For baseball season has come again,
Come, let’s go to the game my friend,
We’ll eat a hot dog and buy a beer,
For this is my favorite time of year!
While some pick the Phillies and some pick the Mets, the Braves will be in Florida preparing to show some new guys what it means to be a member of the Atlanta Braves. Cox and Schuerholz have never designated a year as a "rebuilding year" - they expect a winning team each and every season. After last year, I don't think the team or the town is taking winning for granted anymore. We expect a winning season, the team has been given the tools to make it a winning season, and I know we'll all be grateful when it indeed turns out to be a winning season.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Bernie Trading Pinstripes for a Tomahawk?
I caught the second half of a conversation on MLB Home Plate on XM this morning discussing Bernie Williams. He has officially declined the Yankees offer of a minor league contract and an invite to spring training. I think his feelings are a little hurt that the Yankees aren’t doing more for him, and I also think he realizes that he probably won’t see any playing time on the Major League level if he takes such a deal from the Yankees. Indeed, Brian Cashman indicated that he’d be somewhere around third in line in terms of coming up if a starting outfielder is injured.
What peaked my interest in this story though is that they were talking about the Braves inviting him to camp. I only caught the tail-end of this discussion, so I’m a little shaky on the details. Hours of time on Yahoo, Google, MLB.com, and both the Yankees and Braves sites revealed no further discussion of this possibility, so I’m not really sure what’s going on here. The discussion on XM revolved around the ability of Bernie to play all three outfield positions, first base and his success as a pinch hitter. The commentators seemed a little confused about why the Braves would need him, despite his versatility. However, they seemed sure that Schuerholz had something up his sleeve if he was looking at inviting Bernie to camp. They also seemed sure that Bernie would only get a minor league contract from the Braves as well. They thought his ego was a little hurt that the team he’s played for his entire career wasn’t offering him a Major League contract, but that he might be willing to take one from another team, like the Braves.
While I think it might be of some value for us to have someone who can pinch hit, play first or play the outfield, I’m not sure there’s room on the roster. Signing him to a minor league contract with the possibility of coming up if there are injuries seems more likely, but it’s hard for me to imagine Bernie playing down in the minors after something like 16 years in the majors. What I do know though is that a name like Bernie Williams might provoke some interest from fans. I know I’d be at The Ted to see Bernie the first time he played in a Braves uniform. While I think we have great young talent, and we certainly have some proven players like the Jones boys, Smoltz, etc., I also think a name like Bernie Williams would stir some excitement in Atlanta. I also know that the Braves are quite possibly the best team in baseball for resurrecting someone’s career when other clubs have written them off as retirement-bound.
I’m interested to see if anyone else has heard about this situation or knows more than I do at the present moment. It’ll be interesting to watch it unfold.
What peaked my interest in this story though is that they were talking about the Braves inviting him to camp. I only caught the tail-end of this discussion, so I’m a little shaky on the details. Hours of time on Yahoo, Google, MLB.com, and both the Yankees and Braves sites revealed no further discussion of this possibility, so I’m not really sure what’s going on here. The discussion on XM revolved around the ability of Bernie to play all three outfield positions, first base and his success as a pinch hitter. The commentators seemed a little confused about why the Braves would need him, despite his versatility. However, they seemed sure that Schuerholz had something up his sleeve if he was looking at inviting Bernie to camp. They also seemed sure that Bernie would only get a minor league contract from the Braves as well. They thought his ego was a little hurt that the team he’s played for his entire career wasn’t offering him a Major League contract, but that he might be willing to take one from another team, like the Braves.
While I think it might be of some value for us to have someone who can pinch hit, play first or play the outfield, I’m not sure there’s room on the roster. Signing him to a minor league contract with the possibility of coming up if there are injuries seems more likely, but it’s hard for me to imagine Bernie playing down in the minors after something like 16 years in the majors. What I do know though is that a name like Bernie Williams might provoke some interest from fans. I know I’d be at The Ted to see Bernie the first time he played in a Braves uniform. While I think we have great young talent, and we certainly have some proven players like the Jones boys, Smoltz, etc., I also think a name like Bernie Williams would stir some excitement in Atlanta. I also know that the Braves are quite possibly the best team in baseball for resurrecting someone’s career when other clubs have written them off as retirement-bound.
I’m interested to see if anyone else has heard about this situation or knows more than I do at the present moment. It’ll be interesting to watch it unfold.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
The Situation in Left Field
I have to admit that I haven't paid much attention to one of our new acquisitions - Craig Wilson. However, when I realized today that he may end up doing most of the platooning in left field with Langerhans instead of Diaz, I sat up and took notice. I know I've talked before about players having that "special something" - we've all had players we feel that way about, just a gut feeling that they have the makings to be great. Well, I felt that way about Diaz last year. That's why I'm upset to read articles and blogs citing Wilson as the most likely to platoon with Langerhans in left field. So, here's a little comparison of their 2006 numbers...
Diaz's batting average was .327 after 297 at bats.
Wilson's batting average was .251 after 359 at bats.
Diaz's on-base percentage was .364.
Wilson's on-base percentage was .314.
Diaz's slugging percentage was .475.
Wilson's slugging percentage was .446.
Diaz's batting average against lefties was .295.
Wilson's batting average against lefties was .278.
Diaz's batting average against righties was .358.
Wilson's batting average against righties was .235.
Diaz had 32 RBIs.
Wilson had 49 RBIs.
Diaz had 7 homeruns.
Wilson had 17 homeruns.
Overall, I think Diaz makes the more dependable hitter. One article I read noted that Diaz was maybe weaker defensively. However, the career stats beg to differ (I used career stats because Wilson didn't play any left field last season)...
Career Fielding Percentage in Left Field:
Diaz .969
Wilson .969
I think Wilson will make an excellent backup for Thorman at first base, could occasionaly be useful in left or right field as needed, and could even be a decent pinch hitter. However, I'd rather see Diaz platooning with Langerhans in left field. As a matter of fact, I might prefer Diaz over Langerhans as the primary left fielder. Here's a look at Langerans' 2006 numbers:
Batting Average: .241 in 315 at-bats
On-Base Percentage: .350
Slugging Percentage: .378
Against Lefties: .308
Against Righties: .232
My personal preference would be to platoon Langerhans and Diaz in left field. If one is really shining, give him more time out there. Let Wilson serve as a backup for Thorman and let him have some time in the outfield now and then. If Andruw were to leave after this year and Francoeur were to move to center, Wilson could play right (something he's done more in the past than left field). That's pretty much how I'd like to see things play out (except for the part where Jones leaves Atlanta).
Diaz's batting average was .327 after 297 at bats.
Wilson's batting average was .251 after 359 at bats.
Diaz's on-base percentage was .364.
Wilson's on-base percentage was .314.
Diaz's slugging percentage was .475.
Wilson's slugging percentage was .446.
Diaz's batting average against lefties was .295.
Wilson's batting average against lefties was .278.
Diaz's batting average against righties was .358.
Wilson's batting average against righties was .235.
Diaz had 32 RBIs.
Wilson had 49 RBIs.
Diaz had 7 homeruns.
Wilson had 17 homeruns.
Overall, I think Diaz makes the more dependable hitter. One article I read noted that Diaz was maybe weaker defensively. However, the career stats beg to differ (I used career stats because Wilson didn't play any left field last season)...
Career Fielding Percentage in Left Field:
Diaz .969
Wilson .969
I think Wilson will make an excellent backup for Thorman at first base, could occasionaly be useful in left or right field as needed, and could even be a decent pinch hitter. However, I'd rather see Diaz platooning with Langerhans in left field. As a matter of fact, I might prefer Diaz over Langerhans as the primary left fielder. Here's a look at Langerans' 2006 numbers:
Batting Average: .241 in 315 at-bats
On-Base Percentage: .350
Slugging Percentage: .378
Against Lefties: .308
Against Righties: .232
My personal preference would be to platoon Langerhans and Diaz in left field. If one is really shining, give him more time out there. Let Wilson serve as a backup for Thorman and let him have some time in the outfield now and then. If Andruw were to leave after this year and Francoeur were to move to center, Wilson could play right (something he's done more in the past than left field). That's pretty much how I'd like to see things play out (except for the part where Jones leaves Atlanta).
Thursday, February 8, 2007
First Base Situation
I seem to be one of the only people who isn’t that upset about the LaRoche trade. Not only do I think Gonzalez is going to add phenomenal depth to the bullpen, but I think he’ll be a good back-up to Wickman and ready to take over for him when he retires. All that aside, I also think that Thorman is going to be a good replacement for LaRoche. My dad and I sat at several games at the beginning of last year complaining about how timid LaRoche was at times to “get down and dirty” so-to-speak over at 1st base. He did get better as the season wore on, but he always seemed reluctant to make a dive for the close ones. I guess I just always assumed he was afraid of getting hurt. Chipper was like this for awhile early on in his career, but amazingly enough he’s better about it now (amazing because you’d think he’d be more afraid of getting hurt now after all his time on the disabled list).
In an AJC article today (which prompted this post because I agree whole-heartedly), Thorman was noted for his “anything-for-the-team” attitude and aggressiveness. This is what I want to see in any player. I always liked LaRoche as a person, and I think he was a good guy and was developing into a good ballplayer, but I think he was missing that “special something” that great players have. I’d like to see how Thorman progresses over the next season or two because I think he has the potential for that “special something.”
I’ll let you all know if I still feel the same after seeing him at spring training in a few weeks.
In an AJC article today (which prompted this post because I agree whole-heartedly), Thorman was noted for his “anything-for-the-team” attitude and aggressiveness. This is what I want to see in any player. I always liked LaRoche as a person, and I think he was a good guy and was developing into a good ballplayer, but I think he was missing that “special something” that great players have. I’d like to see how Thorman progresses over the next season or two because I think he has the potential for that “special something.”
I’ll let you all know if I still feel the same after seeing him at spring training in a few weeks.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Singing the Braves Broadcast Team Blues
I've heard people complain about losing Giles. I've heard people complain about losing LaRoche. But where are the people complaining about the loss of Don Sutton? And why aren't more people up in arms about TBS carrying fewer games and Skip Caray and Pete Van Wieren being mostly delegated to radio (or in Van Wieren's case, only delegated to radio)? Announcers and broadcasters become the voice of a team. When I turn on my radio on a Sunday afternoon, I expect to hear Pete Van Wieren. Thank goodness that's not changing, as he'll be calling all of the games on the radio. Poor Skip Caray has been relegated to only a few television broadcasts, although he'll be calling 120 games or so on the radio. Joe Simpson will remain on television broadcasts, joined by newcomer Jon Sciambi for games on SportSouth and FSN. I do hear that Sciambi is good, but I'm not one for change. Chip Caray will be TBS's main man this season, with Simpson joining him for most games. And Don Sutton? He'll be with the Nationals this year. Apparently he was let go with a 2-minute phone conversation. Whose bright idea was it to let him go? And doesn't he deserve more respect than to be let go for no good reason by way of a 2-minute phone call?
Vin Scully has been the "Voice of the Dodgers" for 57 years. Harry Caray is immortalized in a statute just outside Wrigley Field. The Ford C. Frick award was created to honor one baseball broadcaster each year who has made "major contributions to baseball." Obviously, baseball broadcasters are an important part of the fabric that makes baseball the game it is. That's why I'm saddened to see the Braves broadcast team crumbling. I'm pretty sure moves are being made to bring in younger voices (i.e., Skip Caray and Jon Sciambi) in an effort to reduce payroll and appeal to a younger crowd. Well, no offense, but I can't stand to hear Skip Caray's voice and I'm in no mood to give Sciambi a chance. Baseball broadcasting is one arena where "Out with the old, in with the new" should never be the mantra.
And what about TBS phasing out after decades of broadcasting the Braves nationally? There was always something comforting about being in another city and still being able to see my Braves play. And no matter where I went, there were always at least a few Braves fans - people who had never been to Atlanta to see the Braves play, but who had watched them on TBS for years. I know there are all these other options now like the Dish, DirectTV, MLB.com, etc. (and I'll have a post on that whole debacle soon), but for the average Joe who's not enough of a fanatic to get one of those packages, the Braves will fade from their consciousness.
In the end, it makes sense that TBS is dropping its allegiance to the Braves and going national now that the two will no longer be affiliated through common ownership. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it though. So, this season as I listen to the familiar voices that have brought the Braves to me my whole life, I'll treasure every moment knowing that it won't last forever.
Vin Scully has been the "Voice of the Dodgers" for 57 years. Harry Caray is immortalized in a statute just outside Wrigley Field. The Ford C. Frick award was created to honor one baseball broadcaster each year who has made "major contributions to baseball." Obviously, baseball broadcasters are an important part of the fabric that makes baseball the game it is. That's why I'm saddened to see the Braves broadcast team crumbling. I'm pretty sure moves are being made to bring in younger voices (i.e., Skip Caray and Jon Sciambi) in an effort to reduce payroll and appeal to a younger crowd. Well, no offense, but I can't stand to hear Skip Caray's voice and I'm in no mood to give Sciambi a chance. Baseball broadcasting is one arena where "Out with the old, in with the new" should never be the mantra.
And what about TBS phasing out after decades of broadcasting the Braves nationally? There was always something comforting about being in another city and still being able to see my Braves play. And no matter where I went, there were always at least a few Braves fans - people who had never been to Atlanta to see the Braves play, but who had watched them on TBS for years. I know there are all these other options now like the Dish, DirectTV, MLB.com, etc. (and I'll have a post on that whole debacle soon), but for the average Joe who's not enough of a fanatic to get one of those packages, the Braves will fade from their consciousness.
In the end, it makes sense that TBS is dropping its allegiance to the Braves and going national now that the two will no longer be affiliated through common ownership. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it though. So, this season as I listen to the familiar voices that have brought the Braves to me my whole life, I'll treasure every moment knowing that it won't last forever.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Baseball's Antitrust Exemption
Since the early 1900s, baseball has enjoyed an exemption from the federal antitrust laws. These laws prevent monopolies, but require that the product or service be within interstate commerce in order for the federal laws to apply. Early cases stated baseball was not interstate commerce and thus defined baseball out of the antitrust laws. Later cases did acknowledge that baseball was engaged in interstate commerce, but refused to overturn the previous decisions that had allowed baseball to enjoy the exemption from antitrust laws.
Although I'm sure you're not all familiar with the legal history (or possibly even the exemption), I bet most baseball fans have heard about Curt Flood's case. After being traded from the Cardinals to the Phillies in 1970 and refused to report to his new club. For those who don't know, the reserve clause allowed club owners the exclusive right to the men on its 40-man roster. In recent years, free agency has been allowed after 6 years of Major League service, but this wasn't always the case. Flood's refusal to report to the Phillies meant that he couldn't play in MLB at all. Accordingly, he brought a case against MLB asserting that the reserve clause violated the antitrust laws because it allowed clubs to have a monopoly over individual player's. At this point in time, players were starting to resent the reserve clause and their lack of control over their own careers. Although the Supreme Court once again refused to overturn their previous decisions defining baseball out of the reach of federal antitrust laws, Flood's name would later be used for the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which partially repealed the exemption.
The Curt Flood Act of 1998 is often heralded as a major movement towards the end of baseball's exemption. However, a closer look reveals something else. First, the Act only clarifies the applicability of antitrust laws to players on the Major League level. This means that minor league players and clubs, broadcasting rights, etc. are all still under the antitrust exemption. The most interesting thing about the passage of the Act are the circumstances surrounding the passage. For decades prior to 1998, many had lobbied to have the exemption repealed and MLB has always lobbied for it to remain. It is important to note that the passage of the Act was not really a victory won by those who have opposed the exemption, but an effort spear-headed by MLB. After the 1994 strike, the 1996 Collective Bargaining Agreement included an agreement by MLB to pursue legislative action in the form eventually accomplished by the Curt Flood Act. What's important to understand is that MLB is a very powerful lobbying machine. Not only are they the only professional sport with a Political Action Commitee, but club owners are among some of the biggest contributors to political campaigns. It is my personal opinion that the Curt Flood Act would have never been passed without MLB's support.
That being said, I also have an opinion on why Congress continues to allow MLB to keep the exemption (with the exception of those things covered by the Curt Flood Act). I think holding the threat of repealing the exemption over baseball's head allows Congress to assert power over MLB that it wouldn't otherwise have. A great example of this is using the threat of repeal to force MLB to compel player testimony in the hearings on steroid use. By allowing most of the exemption to remain, Congress is able to keep a hand on the reigns of MLB. For this reason, I don't think there will ever be a full repeal of baseball's antitrust exemption.
I may do another post later about how the exemption that remains affects baseball if there's enough reader interest. If you have any questions about the legal side of things, feel free to leave a comment or shoot me an email.
Although I'm sure you're not all familiar with the legal history (or possibly even the exemption), I bet most baseball fans have heard about Curt Flood's case. After being traded from the Cardinals to the Phillies in 1970 and refused to report to his new club. For those who don't know, the reserve clause allowed club owners the exclusive right to the men on its 40-man roster. In recent years, free agency has been allowed after 6 years of Major League service, but this wasn't always the case. Flood's refusal to report to the Phillies meant that he couldn't play in MLB at all. Accordingly, he brought a case against MLB asserting that the reserve clause violated the antitrust laws because it allowed clubs to have a monopoly over individual player's. At this point in time, players were starting to resent the reserve clause and their lack of control over their own careers. Although the Supreme Court once again refused to overturn their previous decisions defining baseball out of the reach of federal antitrust laws, Flood's name would later be used for the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which partially repealed the exemption.
The Curt Flood Act of 1998 is often heralded as a major movement towards the end of baseball's exemption. However, a closer look reveals something else. First, the Act only clarifies the applicability of antitrust laws to players on the Major League level. This means that minor league players and clubs, broadcasting rights, etc. are all still under the antitrust exemption. The most interesting thing about the passage of the Act are the circumstances surrounding the passage. For decades prior to 1998, many had lobbied to have the exemption repealed and MLB has always lobbied for it to remain. It is important to note that the passage of the Act was not really a victory won by those who have opposed the exemption, but an effort spear-headed by MLB. After the 1994 strike, the 1996 Collective Bargaining Agreement included an agreement by MLB to pursue legislative action in the form eventually accomplished by the Curt Flood Act. What's important to understand is that MLB is a very powerful lobbying machine. Not only are they the only professional sport with a Political Action Commitee, but club owners are among some of the biggest contributors to political campaigns. It is my personal opinion that the Curt Flood Act would have never been passed without MLB's support.
That being said, I also have an opinion on why Congress continues to allow MLB to keep the exemption (with the exception of those things covered by the Curt Flood Act). I think holding the threat of repealing the exemption over baseball's head allows Congress to assert power over MLB that it wouldn't otherwise have. A great example of this is using the threat of repeal to force MLB to compel player testimony in the hearings on steroid use. By allowing most of the exemption to remain, Congress is able to keep a hand on the reigns of MLB. For this reason, I don't think there will ever be a full repeal of baseball's antitrust exemption.
I may do another post later about how the exemption that remains affects baseball if there's enough reader interest. If you have any questions about the legal side of things, feel free to leave a comment or shoot me an email.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Braves Ownership
Chop Chick, who blogs over on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's website, had a recent post where she seemed to question whether Arthur Blank would have been a good owner for the Braves: http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bravesfans/entries/2007/01/24/hindsight.html. I responded there, but I want to expound on it a little further:
I think Arthur Blank would have made a fabulous owner for the Braves. I grew up in the Turner era and much preferred the way things ran back then. A corporate entity is without emotion, passion, excitement, etc. An individual (not several individuals, see the Hawks disaster for that one) brings so much more to the table as an owner. Arthur isn’t perfect, who is…but he’s passionate about baseball and a smart businessman. The Braves would have been lucky to have him. Instead, I'm afraid an entity interested only in the bottomline will come in and continue the current trend of cost-cutting and indifference. I also fear a corporate owner will only hold the Braves for a few to five years and then they'll be for sale again. I want the stability that I think only an individual can bring to the club.
In the end, I feel ok as long as Schuerholz and Cox are at the reigns. I know that won't last forever, but I'll worry about that another day.
I think Arthur Blank would have made a fabulous owner for the Braves. I grew up in the Turner era and much preferred the way things ran back then. A corporate entity is without emotion, passion, excitement, etc. An individual (not several individuals, see the Hawks disaster for that one) brings so much more to the table as an owner. Arthur isn’t perfect, who is…but he’s passionate about baseball and a smart businessman. The Braves would have been lucky to have him. Instead, I'm afraid an entity interested only in the bottomline will come in and continue the current trend of cost-cutting and indifference. I also fear a corporate owner will only hold the Braves for a few to five years and then they'll be for sale again. I want the stability that I think only an individual can bring to the club.
In the end, I feel ok as long as Schuerholz and Cox are at the reigns. I know that won't last forever, but I'll worry about that another day.
Major League Ballparks
I wrote a seminar paper in law school about efforts to preserve some of the more infamous Major League ballparks. My focus was on Fenway and Wrigley as great examples of preservation and Tiger Stadium and Yankee Stadium as failed efforts. Along the way, I found a fabulous quote that I'd like to share as we all prepare to join together at ballparks across the country for another season of baseball:
"We are very possessive of our ballparks. Our own homes are just four walls with a mortgage, a shell we'll gladly sell to move to a place with extra storage and a better school district. But a ballpark? That's sacred land. Not only because of a stadium's place in our personal memories but also because of its importance to our collective memory. Ballparks are one of the last remaining places -- and perhaps the only place -- where we truly come together as a community for a shared experience. We won't exchange words with the passengers next to us during an entire cross-country flight other than to ask if they're going to eat all their pretzels. But put us in a stadium and soon we'll be hugging, slapping high-fives and orchestrating the wave with everyone in the section as if they were fraternity brothers." – Jim Caple
There is nowhere in the world I feel more at home than a ballpark. It doesn't even matter which one or who's playing. I've been to MLB spring training games, regular season games and post-season games. I've been to college games, high school games and little league games. There's nowhere I feel safer, happier or more alive. As a matter of fact, I've always dreamed that I'd get engaged at a ballgame (preferably a Braves game, of course). Now I've learned that you can get married on home plate at The Ted and have your reception at the 755 Club. Having had a prom at the 755 Club about a decade ago, I can say it's a really unique experience.
But I digress...my point is that for those of us who believe ballparks are the cathedrals of a religion called baseball, the time to worship is nearly upon us again. Our spring/summer/fall homes will once again open their gates and invite us in. So as you sit at the ballpark this season, drink it all in, slap a high five with your neighbor and root, root, root for the home team (unless of course you're at an away game)!
"We are very possessive of our ballparks. Our own homes are just four walls with a mortgage, a shell we'll gladly sell to move to a place with extra storage and a better school district. But a ballpark? That's sacred land. Not only because of a stadium's place in our personal memories but also because of its importance to our collective memory. Ballparks are one of the last remaining places -- and perhaps the only place -- where we truly come together as a community for a shared experience. We won't exchange words with the passengers next to us during an entire cross-country flight other than to ask if they're going to eat all their pretzels. But put us in a stadium and soon we'll be hugging, slapping high-fives and orchestrating the wave with everyone in the section as if they were fraternity brothers." – Jim Caple
There is nowhere in the world I feel more at home than a ballpark. It doesn't even matter which one or who's playing. I've been to MLB spring training games, regular season games and post-season games. I've been to college games, high school games and little league games. There's nowhere I feel safer, happier or more alive. As a matter of fact, I've always dreamed that I'd get engaged at a ballgame (preferably a Braves game, of course). Now I've learned that you can get married on home plate at The Ted and have your reception at the 755 Club. Having had a prom at the 755 Club about a decade ago, I can say it's a really unique experience.
But I digress...my point is that for those of us who believe ballparks are the cathedrals of a religion called baseball, the time to worship is nearly upon us again. Our spring/summer/fall homes will once again open their gates and invite us in. So as you sit at the ballpark this season, drink it all in, slap a high five with your neighbor and root, root, root for the home team (unless of course you're at an away game)!
The Problem of the Designated Hitter
While listening to MLB Home Plate on XM this weekend, I heard a man make an argument that two different games are being played during the World Series each year because of the existence of the designated hitter. The current rules hold that the designated hitter is used when at the home of the American League club and not used when at the home of the National League club. Before the advent of inter-league play, American League pitchers didn’t have their first at-bat until the World Series. A pitcher might go years or even his whole career without an at-bat. Even with the advent of inter-league play, American League pitchers get very few at-bats.
Why then does it make sense that one league has the designated hitter and one does not? Proponents of the DH say that it gives pitchers more healthy years. Those who oppose the use of the DH say it ruins the purity of the game. They contend that it eliminates the thrill of the traditional “double switch” and other strategic managerial maneuvers late in the game. I certainly remember playing softball as a young kid and thinking that only hitting was fun. I dreaded going out on the field and couldn’t wait for my chance to hit again. Many youth leagues allow every child on the team to hit, regardless of whether they’ve played in the field or not. But I would imagine that most every child grows out of this. By the end of my softball career, I thrived on defense (but perhaps that’s because I became a pitcher). I still enjoyed swinging the bat, making contact with the ball, running my heart out to make it to first and the thrill of stealing a base, but it was no longer the only “fun” part of the game. Maybe because I had this mentality, I’ve never liked the DH. Then again, maybe it’s because I was brought up going to National League games. I once read that the only thing more obnoxious than an SEC football fan is a National League baseball fan who opposes the DH. I must be a real pain in the neck then because I’m both.
The man I heard on the radio was a proponent of switching off each year during the World Series and either using the DH or not using the DH for the whole series. He wanted both teams to be playing the same game for all 4-7 games. My research found that this was actually the way things were done from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. Of course, I don’t remember this because I was just a child then. I do wonder though why this practice was changed to the one we have today. I haven’t really found a good argument for the change, but am interested to hear one. Until then, I’ll continue to be one of those obnoxious National League fans.
Why then does it make sense that one league has the designated hitter and one does not? Proponents of the DH say that it gives pitchers more healthy years. Those who oppose the use of the DH say it ruins the purity of the game. They contend that it eliminates the thrill of the traditional “double switch” and other strategic managerial maneuvers late in the game. I certainly remember playing softball as a young kid and thinking that only hitting was fun. I dreaded going out on the field and couldn’t wait for my chance to hit again. Many youth leagues allow every child on the team to hit, regardless of whether they’ve played in the field or not. But I would imagine that most every child grows out of this. By the end of my softball career, I thrived on defense (but perhaps that’s because I became a pitcher). I still enjoyed swinging the bat, making contact with the ball, running my heart out to make it to first and the thrill of stealing a base, but it was no longer the only “fun” part of the game. Maybe because I had this mentality, I’ve never liked the DH. Then again, maybe it’s because I was brought up going to National League games. I once read that the only thing more obnoxious than an SEC football fan is a National League baseball fan who opposes the DH. I must be a real pain in the neck then because I’m both.
The man I heard on the radio was a proponent of switching off each year during the World Series and either using the DH or not using the DH for the whole series. He wanted both teams to be playing the same game for all 4-7 games. My research found that this was actually the way things were done from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. Of course, I don’t remember this because I was just a child then. I do wonder though why this practice was changed to the one we have today. I haven’t really found a good argument for the change, but am interested to hear one. Until then, I’ll continue to be one of those obnoxious National League fans.
Braves Outlook - Pitching
First things first, let’s talk about the Braves, the real love of my life. After 14 years at the top, my boys finally suffered the blows of a losing season. There are ways in which I think this is a good thing for the City of Atlanta and Braves fans. During the Braves postseason play in recent years, Turner Field has failed to sell out. I find that unimaginable in this day and age. The city was no longer excited when the Braves made it to postseason, but postseason play was merely expected after more than a decade of unprecedented postseason appearances. Why is it that the Yankees can still pack the house after years of a winning tradition and the Braves could not? I honestly don’t know. What I do know, however, is that 2006 was a wake-up call for Braves fans. For those who didn’t receive that call, it said postseason play is not a given and that we should treasure it when it does come around.
That being said, I think Braves fans will get their chance to pack “The Ted” this October after an off-season full of exciting trades. I think every Braves fan will agree that the Achilles heal of the 2006 squad was the bullpen. If even half of the blown saves last season were erased (the total number is something like 29 out of 67 save opportunities blown - 17 out of 37 pre-Wickman), the Braves easily would have been playing on into October. A new wind is blowing, however, and it’s name is Bob Wickman. After converting 30 of 34 save opportunities in late July, August and September, when he joined the Braves from the Indians, Wickman proved to be the solid closer the Braves needed. While last season it was too little too late, 2007 is a different story.
Along with signing a one-year deal with Wickman, the Braves have acquired Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzales as relievers to join McBride, Yates and Villareal in the bullpen. I’m still unsure about Yates, but I think the new blood in the bullpen will give it the strength and stability McBride and Villarreal need to make them shine. Based on all this, I’m prepared to say that the Braves will have the best bullpen in the National League. And while it’s another post for another day, I think the Smoltz-Hudson-Hampton starting three will rival the Smoltz-Glavine-Maddox trio of the Braves golden era.
I’ve heard others complain about all of the off-season trades made for pitchers, while there were no real acquisitions of power hitters. To that my response would be that hitting wasn’t our problem last year, pitching was. It’s as simple as that. With Renteria, the Jones duo, Francouer and McCann in the lineup, I feel completely confident that the runs will be scored. And now with the starting trio and strong bullpen, I’m even more confident that the same cannot be said of our opponents.
That being said, I think Braves fans will get their chance to pack “The Ted” this October after an off-season full of exciting trades. I think every Braves fan will agree that the Achilles heal of the 2006 squad was the bullpen. If even half of the blown saves last season were erased (the total number is something like 29 out of 67 save opportunities blown - 17 out of 37 pre-Wickman), the Braves easily would have been playing on into October. A new wind is blowing, however, and it’s name is Bob Wickman. After converting 30 of 34 save opportunities in late July, August and September, when he joined the Braves from the Indians, Wickman proved to be the solid closer the Braves needed. While last season it was too little too late, 2007 is a different story.
Along with signing a one-year deal with Wickman, the Braves have acquired Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzales as relievers to join McBride, Yates and Villareal in the bullpen. I’m still unsure about Yates, but I think the new blood in the bullpen will give it the strength and stability McBride and Villarreal need to make them shine. Based on all this, I’m prepared to say that the Braves will have the best bullpen in the National League. And while it’s another post for another day, I think the Smoltz-Hudson-Hampton starting three will rival the Smoltz-Glavine-Maddox trio of the Braves golden era.
I’ve heard others complain about all of the off-season trades made for pitchers, while there were no real acquisitions of power hitters. To that my response would be that hitting wasn’t our problem last year, pitching was. It’s as simple as that. With Renteria, the Jones duo, Francouer and McCann in the lineup, I feel completely confident that the runs will be scored. And now with the starting trio and strong bullpen, I’m even more confident that the same cannot be said of our opponents.
Welcome to BabeOnBaseball
Each year I start counting down the days until baseball reenters the landscape a little earlier than the year before. This year, thanks to my MLB Home Plate on XM, I have daily reminders of just how many days are left until pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training. By the way, it’s only 10 days away now.
I think I’m about as passionate as any female who has never actually played the game could possibly be about baseball. As a lifelong Braves fan (yes, even before they won 14 division titles in a row), baseball has always consumed my attention for at least 8 months of the year. As I got older, I decided the Red Sox were my American League team and I began to visit a different ballpark each year with my father. In recent years, I’ve signed up for things like XM so I can listen to something baseball related anytime I want. My Palm Treo phone allows me to check scores anytime, anywhere. I challenge the knowledge of those around me constantly with trivia and stats. I managed to write four papers in law school about legal issues in baseball, which included everything from the luxury tax and revenue sharing to historic preservation of Major League ballparks. I’ve always said I would be the first female GM in baseball, but I’m beginning to wonder if I’d just be happier having season tickets and enjoying the game for what it is. This blog is my newest outlet for my obsession with baseball. I invite you to agree with me, disagree with me, correct me, engage me, etc. There’s nothing I love to talk about more than baseball.
I don’t have much that’s substantive to say in this post, just wanted to introduce myself. I've got several more posts prepared that I'll post in the near future. I hope that you’ll join me for spirited conversation and a shared love of the game.
I think I’m about as passionate as any female who has never actually played the game could possibly be about baseball. As a lifelong Braves fan (yes, even before they won 14 division titles in a row), baseball has always consumed my attention for at least 8 months of the year. As I got older, I decided the Red Sox were my American League team and I began to visit a different ballpark each year with my father. In recent years, I’ve signed up for things like XM so I can listen to something baseball related anytime I want. My Palm Treo phone allows me to check scores anytime, anywhere. I challenge the knowledge of those around me constantly with trivia and stats. I managed to write four papers in law school about legal issues in baseball, which included everything from the luxury tax and revenue sharing to historic preservation of Major League ballparks. I’ve always said I would be the first female GM in baseball, but I’m beginning to wonder if I’d just be happier having season tickets and enjoying the game for what it is. This blog is my newest outlet for my obsession with baseball. I invite you to agree with me, disagree with me, correct me, engage me, etc. There’s nothing I love to talk about more than baseball.
I don’t have much that’s substantive to say in this post, just wanted to introduce myself. I've got several more posts prepared that I'll post in the near future. I hope that you’ll join me for spirited conversation and a shared love of the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)