Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
And MLB doesn't need a nuclear war - the BBWAA has historically been very compliants to what MLB tells them.
How about you just say yes or no?
And if there is no MVP award at the end of the season backed by the BBWAA and instead is merely some award handed out by MLB how long will articles be written about the MVP awards?
How long are newspapers going to pay baseball writers to not write about baseball?
When was the last time MLB willingly left money on the table, even if getting it involved long-term damage to the brand? Look at the recent changes to the draft (which drives talent into other sports), or the sale of TV rights to the highest bidder regardless of the manner of presentation or priority within the network lineup.
And it worked. The ban held, other outlets continued to cover the Royals, and the team successfully pushed the reporters in question out of the market. So in exchange for a little bit of short term pain, they got everything they wanted.
If an owner is dumb enough to complain, Selig will explain to the slow learner why it's in MLB's interest to hold the line, and if the owner is dumb enough to keep complaining, Selig will put him on the #### list henceforth and forever, and the rest of the owners will back his play. MLB cancelled a World Series and a big chunk of a season under Selig. That's a hell of a lot more money than a handful of newspaper articles, and Selig came out of it as strong as ever.
I picked up on the fact that you're not the brightest bulb in the drawer, and that arguing with you on this is probably a waste of time. Lesson learned, I guess.
They'll pay them to write about other sports, which is what most do most of the year.
No, they lost fans, ticket sales, media coverage, all to massage a wealthy owners ego.
If he had ever gone against the wishes of the majority, Bud would long ago would have been quickly retired.
I applaud your decision to discontinue digging this hole now that you realize how far below ground you are.
And the people who normally write about those other sports? What will they be doing? Why would the newspaper continue to pay two people to do one person's job, in order to protect the BBWAA's right to try and shake down MLB for some piddly license fee?
Not to mention the fact that for most of the MLB season, there aren't any other pro sports to write about. Maybe casual fans will be thrilled to see their MLB coverage phased out of the paper in favor of stories about bull riding and bowling and the local girls' high school volleyball team. I kind of doubt that, though.
If it was so damaging, why was their attendance higher in 2006 than it had been in 2005, and higher in 2007 than it had been in 2006?
Bud wouldn't be acting against the wishes of the majority. The owners aren't going to want to cough up part of their personal portion of MLB's shared revenue to the BBWAA for no good reason. Though again, it'd never even get to that point because the BBWAA is smart enough to not start a fight that they can't win.
No one is arguing that the BBWAA could pick a fight with the MLB and win. We are all arguing that teams would lose far, far, more in local ticket sales if MLB.com picked a fight with the BBWAA, than the BBWAA could ever want in a participation fee.
Reading comprehension problems? Those writers already write about "those other sports', very few writers specialize only in baseball.
What choice do they have?
You are arguing that sportswriters are the only factors driving attendance now?
Yes, the owners want Bud to pick a fight with the BBWAA so they can each pocket another $3k or $6K a year, while their team president and marketing VPs are screaming bloody murder over the problems it's causing with local ticket sales.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.7950 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed