Selig the greatest commisioner in baseball history? Umm, no.

I think the two greatest baseball commissioners are Landis and Selig. Admittedly, it is a very weak field. I think it is almost impossible to decide who is better because the job description a of commissioner has changed.

When Adam Silver took over as NBA commissioner David Stern laughed about how he was officially sworn in as Commissioner. They never bothered when Silver took over. That was because the commissioner is not to provide governance but instead to make money for the owners.

Landis created the role as a commissioner as a quasi-judicial figure. Commissioners were were hired to provide governance. The owners really did not want a business man in charge because, dating back to when radio markets were divided up, they wanted to handle the business side locally and not centralize. Landis was very effective at providing credibility to the sport. I think that many of his detractors do not separate his performance as baseball commissioner from the fact that he was a repelling human being.

Selig has done a really good and underrated job of managing the business side. Selig was able to work to implement revenue sharing and to negotiate more favorable labor contracts that have brought financial stability and more competitive balance to the game. The reason he is underrated is that politically he had the difficult task of reconciling the interests of the big and small market teams.

 

I think we'd survive. I think we have survived such horrors.

 

Great for the players, maybe, but I just have a hard time getting excited about watching someone earn more in a day than I do in a year just for playing a game and acting entitled about it. And even if I didn't, I'm not able to pay the $300 it would cost to take a family of four to a game.

And I could have sworn I had heard that "no private funds" thing, or at least a "no 100% private funds" or something along those lines. Maybe I dreamed it.

 

Well when you are in the top.000001% of what you do in the world and thousands of people are paying to watch you play, you may have a point.

Do you really believe those socialist owners would lower ticket prices if Salaries were lower? It's simply supply and demand. It's either in the owners pocket or the players, why do you care?

 

1994 was a strike, not a lockout. Would you like his legacy better if the 1994 post-season was played with replacement players?

 

I like replacement players for two reasons. First, they give you an appreciation for how good the real pros are. Second, it's a major "up yours" to the pros, like what Reagan did to the PATCO air traffic controller strikers.

 

Oh, it ended up being the owners basically caving (or at least meeting a lot more to the players' side than in the middle) in the spring of 1995. They could have made that same deal in August of 1994, but Selig (or more accurately Jerry Reinsdorf) really really wanted to win.

That's a huge black mark against Bud without question.

 

The only alternative for players to striking in '94 was capitulating to a salary cap and other onerous work rules. That was never going to happen. The owners had hoped that they could get through the season and lock the players out in the spring but the players' knew their best chance for a relatively short work stoppage was to strike in August, giving the owners sufficient time to negotiate a settlement before the playoffs, when the owners had the most to lose. Bud and Jerry decided to cancel the series rather than reach a settlement short of their negotiating goals.

 

I'll never understand the bitterness towards players making money. Why did the players need an up yours?

 

Checks and balances. If the players can strike, the owners can continue the games without them.

I kind of liked Washington's Super Bowl wins.

 

Worked out well for them.

 

Of course, what bothers me the most is the fans getting the shaft, and workers, and I shouldn't forget the waitresses.