RIP Marvin Miller

Heck, too bad he couldn't have organized big-time D-I college athletes.

 

What complete bs. Please explain why they are overblown

 

Marvin Miller was vitally important. Blowing up the reserve clause is monumentally important and for that alone he should be in the HOF.

I think the problem some Miller detractors have isn't necessarily with Miller himself, but what he created once it was in the hands of his less-talented lieutenants and successors.

I can't place when the line was crossed, but at some point (mid 90s?), the MLBPA went a bit over the line from union advocacy to union intransigence to the point where it was beginning to hurt the game.

I understand how it happened -- the MLBPA had been in a pitched battle against a jerk-off cabal of baseball owners and enmity between the two sides began to color everything out of proportion to the good of the game, the industry and its players. That wasn't good for either side and it took 30 years of labor strife for them to finally figure it out before some semblance of peace and cooperation began to emerge in the 2000s.

I primarily blame Donald Fehr for this. His stands against drug-testing, etc., was union protectionism run amok and ultimately damaged the players more so than protected them. He was as unsympathetic a figure as any in baseball's labor troubles.

Often interviewed as a sage, Miller would naturally come out in support of the union he created. I think Miller is criticized because the endgame of his legacy in the hands of less-talented people was labor strife, stoppages and a lot of black-eyes for a sport that, at the end of the day, people just want to watch and love.

 

HOF post

 

RIP. He revolutionized the game.

 

What do owners have to do with HOF voting? They are selfish jerks but they don't vote

 

Abbott, as a non player, Miller was never subject to a vote by BBWAA members. He had to be through the other processes, which MLB controls. When they had the new Veterans Committee, I thought Miller might have a shot, but of course its old ballplayer members, many of whom he made rich, are of the old ballplayer theory that except for them, nobody should ever get in.

 

Disagree.

Collective bargaining is just that, bargaining on both sides. Don't blame lack of RANDOM drug testing on the players only. The owners willingly gave that up; they reaped the financial benefits all the way to the bank; the owners have never given any of that $$ back.

Even then, the owners could have tested someone if they suspected illegal use, but the owners never made PEDs against the rules, that's on Selig/Owners.

If the owners really wanted RANDOM drug testing, they could have given up something for it, they chose not to.

 

I find it amusing that people love Marvin Miller and hate Scott Boras.

To me, they are both people who saw a class of people treated unfairly and who sought to get the most in terms of rights and dollars for the people they represent.

Personally, I think Miller absolutely changed the game of baseball. If that's the standard for the HOF, then he belongs.

If, however, you say "Who did those changes benefit?" it gets a little more murky. Certainly he helped everyone who has ever played major league baseball. But what about everyone else?

You can make an argument that player movement is good for baseball because teams get a chance to reinvent themselves. You can also make an argument that it's bad for baseball because fans in some markets have to watch their best players go elsewhere.

Honestly, I can see both sides of the debate. I don't think it's a slam dunk either way.

No question he was a brilliant man who did his job very very well.

 

BB, don't forget that free agency has contributed to baseball's explosive growth in revenue and franchise market cap since the mid-'70s. The owners ought to want Miller in the Hall as much or more than the players. As has been shown time and again, teams whose "best players go elsewhere" on a regular basis are run by owners who're either cheap, stupid or both.

 

It's not so much that people hate Boras for what he does, it's how he does it. By acting like an arrogant ass.

Miller always seemed pretty humble. He just would, as Bouton wrote in Ball Four, have such a level of preparation that he would just destroy the owners with facts piled on top of facts.

Compare that to Boras, who pulls off his smarmy BS about how the owners should just bow down to his clients instead of negotiating.

Exhibit A: A-Rod opting out during the World Series. He did more damage to his image with that because he managed to piss off everyone, and ended up hurting his brand, then Boras threw a fit because he overpriced the demand for A-Rod's services and none of the owners wanted to bid for him. Luckily for him, the Yankees bid themselves up foolishly.

 

How so?

That's certainly true in some cases, but there are other cases where the size of the market simply can't generate the kind of revenue you need to keep players.

Maybe that's how it should be. In the real world, you'd certainly like to have a system where the best players get every penny they can and have a choice of where they want to work. However, you can certainly make the argument that's not necessarily the best thing in a competitive business like baseball where you'd like to have 30 teams competing equally, regardless of their market size.