Marvin Miller for HOF ???

I'm glad that you really agree with me but you're really stretching on this stuff. The '94 strike was all about the owners trying to crush the MLBPA. If you'll recall the owners first fired Fay Vincent to get him out of the way and then voted to require a three-quarters for CBA passage. Then they tried to bargain to impasse, use permanent scabs and impose work rules. I dare say they weren't looking for common ground.

Also, you can certainly argue that the NBA and NFL have done better in terms of market share with younger folks but that has nothing to do with Marvin Miller and salary structure.

 

Here is the problem that I have with Chass and many of you who want to argue that free agency and increased salaries were good for the game - You are the same people who now claim that big market teams are ruining the game by paying too much for free agents.

In one out of every three columns that Chass writes, he rails about the Yankees being bad for baseball yet he now wants to tell us how great free agency is.

I just do not see how you can have it both ways. Personally I preferred the game when there was more balance between the teams financially. I also preferred the game when players pretty much stayed with same team for their career.

We are now hitting a generation of players that will be going into HOF having played for 3- 4 teams. I just don't see how that's good for the game.

 

Please, Boom, cite the instances when Murray ever has written that the Yankees are bad for baseball.
And while you're at it, find all the posts where guys like Cran, Bruh, MichaelGee and me have ever said that.

NONE OF THE ABOVE EXIST!

 

Without Marvin Miller forcing free agency upon the owners, George Steinbrenner can't sign Jason Giambi to a $121 million contract.

 

The four most important figures in 20th century baseball, in chronological order, were Babe Ruth, Branch Rickey, Jackie Robinson, and Marvin Miller. If there's room for Phil Rizzuto and Rabbit Maranville in there, there's room for Miller.
Ranting about the need for a salary cap is not relevant to this discussion. Miller changed baseball as few have. He IS famous. So he belongs in the Hall of Fame. One's opinion on the effects of his changes means nothing. The fact that opinion is also silly is irrelevant, too, I only mention it because I've been hearing the rant for 30 years and it's been bullshit the whole time.

 

This would be a great 'true/false' question on its own thread.

 

And the answer is: absolutely true!

 

Without taking a side on Miller, this means of argument is weak, and would let in 200 more players. Make a case for throwing Scooter out, but don't open the floodgates to meet the biggest mistakes they made. Making an error once doesn't impose a duty to repeat it over & over out of some warped sense of consistency.

 

Here are a few typical Chass snide comments:

Let's just suppose the Yankees don't win the World Series next October. What would George Steinbrenner do then? Would there be any superstars left for him to add to his roster, which is already loaded with them?

After trying for nearly half a year, the Yankees finally secured the services of Randy Johnson yesterday, and they are very likely an offer away from making Carlos Beltran his teammate.

The payroll is bulging; it threatens to rival the cost of the proposed West Side stadium for the Jets and the 2012 Olympics.

This is what happens when the Yankees don't win the World Series for four consecutive years. Losing breeds big eyes and bigger paychecks for other players. Steinbrenner's soldiers are ordered to find superstars who will enhance the team's chances of getting to and winning the World Series. Damn the dollars, full speed ahead.

 

another example of Murray's work:

"The Yankees' willingness to spend money on winning players should surprise no one. Steinbrenner signaled these last few years of obscene spending 30 years ago tonight"

 

What do Murray Chass' words about the Yankees' spending have to do with the discussion of Marvin Miller's Hall-of-Fame credentials?

 

And where in any of those citations does Chass say that the Yankees" spending is bad for baseball?