Marvin Miller for HOF ???

The latest CBA, to me, is a byproduct of the '94-'95 strike, which resulted in the owners finally understanding that the players weren't going to have a hard salary cap forced on them without a long, exhaustive fight. The next contract was done with little or no discussion of a salary cap and resulted in a fairly innovative revenue-sharing/luxury tax system. This latest CBA just refined the last one, fixing some of the minor flaws.

As for Fehr going into the HOF, I kind of doubt it, although I would vote in his favor if I had a vote. Fehr wasn't a pioneer like Miller but the work has become a lot more difficult and complicated in the past 25 years and he's done a great job of sticking with free market principles and building upon Miller's foundation. Fehr's a brilliant guy, though.

 

Fenian -the words hall of fame uses is "contribution to the game". If you were a voter how would you define "contribution to the game" ?

As follow up how would you consider postive or negative impact?

 

I don't understand how anyone could construe anything about Marvin Miller's impact as negative.

 

No intelligent person could, cran.

 

they say... "all this free agency ruined the game, leading to astronomical salaries, players changing teams too frequently and skyrocketing ticket prices."

i think that's a myopic viewpoint, but that's the way the dinosaurus purists see it.

 

I'd argue that the labor pendulum has swung back so far toward the players and that movement through free agency has gone up so much that there is an entire generation that no longer connects with the game and, thus, its future is somewhat cloudy. Under the old system, A-Rod would be a Seattle icon. Instead, he's a Yankees carpetbagger. Not saying I take this position, but I think it's an intelligent argument for Miller's scorched-earth labor policy perhaps being bad for the game.

 

a) It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that an entire generation "no longer connects with the game" considering baseball's attendance and revenues had been relatively flat for decades prior to free agency,
b) under the old system, A-Rod might have decided on a career in which he could earn money rather than baseball, and
c) Marvin Miller didn't have a "scorched-earth" policy about anything; he sought basics that most people, regardless of whether they're in a collective bargaining environment, take for granted -- like freedom to choose one's employer in a free market.

 

So, does Curt Flood belong in the HOF? After all, Marvin Miller didn't put his livelihood on the line taking on the reserve clause. He also had a lot more support in his battle than Curt Flood ever had in his.

 

under "contributions to the game," absolutely, flood gets my non-existent vote.

 

Well, Marvin was the person who lobbied the PA's executive board to finance Curt Flood's case for him and spent countless hours working on his case, which I would consider pretty good support. But I think a spot in the Hall of Fame should be found for Flood, too.

 

Keep in mind, I am debating from a devil's advocate point and agree with you, BUT ...

A. If you think today's kids care as much about baseball as they did when we were kids, you're high. The NBA and NFL own that demographic.

B. The salaries were still higher than any real alternative outside of, dunno, maybe rock music. ARod would have played ball.

C. The scorched-earth policy to which I refer is less about Miller than his legacy. There should be a salary cap in place, as there is in every other major sport, but it will never happen as long as Miller is alive. If not, baseball's salary controls will only be as effective as its dumbest owner. And yeah, things are fine now, but the 1994 strike had a great deal to do with the players not giving ground.

 

No, but Flood does deserve the Buck O'Neil Ambassador's Award that I have been lobbying for.