If the BBWAA could have gotten anything from MLB Network, don't you think they would have?

Like you indicated with the logo comment, the BBWAA hasn't demonstrated much in the way of marketing savvy.

To answer your question, the BBWAA will sit back as nearly every sportswriter boycotts MLB games, and writes horrible things about the MLB, for less than a week the MLB begs for forgiveness and fires the idiot who endangered millions of dollers in free daily press coverage of their events over a rinky dinky payment for a rinky dink show.

Nearly every sportswriter? BBWAA members are a small percentage of baseball sportswriters, even among big media (I just counted on my ESPN distro list and I get 92% of full-timers as non-BBWAA members). And those BBWAA members would be fighting for something that gives them zero direct benefit.

To a BBWAA member, the dress code rules were a *far* bigger deal and the BBWAA had zero clout. Geez, do you guys think I don't talk with other sportswriters on these issues? This is literally an issue that nobody besides Chass cared about.

The MVP as an award event is is a new-fangled event. The DAC had done a fancy awards presentation for decades prior to 1977.

No, DAC had a rather basic awards dinner held annually in which part of the festivity was the announcement of the Heisman winner. TV has made the awards show fancier. Secondly, have you seen the announcement for the Heisman trophy? It is not exciting and hasn't changed much. I remember watching Testaverde winning the Heisman in 1986 or so. There is basically 5 or so college kids sitting in a chair and then some guy announces who won. Media companies for decades were paying for that.

If the BBWAA could have gotten anything from MLB Network, don't you think they would have? I'm sure O'Connell would prefer not to have to scramble on a nothing budget.

So you believe that BBWAA did ask and MLB told them to go fish and furthermore you think that was the right call on MLB's part, is that correct?

I don't believe that. I don't know if they asked for money. In fact I kind of doubt they did ask for money. It is my impression that BBWAA is like that. I also don't think MLB would tell them to bugger off if BBWAA asked for something in return.

It's not the media, it's a small subset of the media. And MLB has already gone to war with the BBWAA over issue, most recently over open-toed shoes - the wars don't ever last long because MLB has all the leverage. They're going to be even *more* protective of the programming of their big expensive startup network. The BBWAA's kind of shot themselves in the foot by not functioning as an association for baseball media professionals on a general level.

So MLB was going to go nuclear about shoes?

MLB wishes to set a dress code for people entering their business I'm not sure how that is a great example for a discussion about MLB profiting off of what BBWAA does.

LOL, just LOL.The MLB isn't going to cut off their nose to avoid some rinky dink payment for a rinky dink show.

Of course they aren't. They don't need to, because the BBWAA is thoroughly cowed (as they should be, given the balance of power in the relationship).

And yet you think MLB would go nuclear to prove a point that doesn't need to be made and all over what is peanuts to them.

So MLB was going to go nuclear about shoes?

They did. Disobey the dress code, lose your access. Not only did the BBWAA conform, the first thing the new BBWAA president did was write a press release essentially telling BBWAA members to stop complaining.

MLB doesn't need to go nuclear - the BBWAA has zero leverage and both parties know it. As I said, maybe things would be different if the BBWAA was a large baseball media organization, but it's not, so it's a moot issue.

And yet you think MLB would go nuclear to prove a point that doesn't need to be made and all over what is peanuts to them.

Well, yeah. Because it's not about these particular peanuts. It's about making sure the BBWAA knows its place, like the mob breaking a gambler's knees because he's a hundred short on his payment for the week. The bookie could live without the hundred bucks for a couple of days, but it's the principle of the thing. If they start thinking they can get away with the little things, they'll start trying to get away with the big ones.

My favorite part of the future BBWAA produced award show? The puke green background.

I almost want them to produce the show to see what a great TV show looks like to a bunch of 50-65 year olds wearing bad suits.

The next Spink Award announcement is still very acquirable. Networks, prepare your bids.

MLB can create those awards now, but it won't be THE MVP, and thus won't have the same cachet

In the same way that the AP has a monopoly on college football polls?

In the same way that the AP has a monopoly on college football polls?

I'm not sure AP ever had a monopoly on college football polls to begin with.*

But so what? There are other MVP type awards already. MLB has its terribly defined Hank Aaron Award. The IBA is out there. The Sporting News awards one. I'm sure there's an ESPY, though I've never paid any attention so I can't say for sure. The only one that people actually care about is the BBWAA's MVP, and it likely will stay that way because it's the only one they've ever cared about. Now, that's not to say that it couldn't someday be usurped by some other award, but like the Heisman Trophy, it's got a hell of a lot more weight behind it than any of the others.

Hell, how many threads at this place were devoted to the AL MVP race, despite the fact that we knew before the votes were counted that we were going to hate the result? And compare that to how much digital ink was spilled here over the other awards.

If Primates, many of whom have little respect for the BBWAA, can spend so much time arguing over the BBWAA awards and only the BBWAA awards, what would make one think their pre-eminence in the overall baseball world is in the least bit threatened?

* And for the record, the AP Poll's diminished stature relates to two things: the creation of the BCS, which incorporated the two major polls and a computer formula to create a single champion, and the AP's voluntary removal from inclusion in the BCS formula. Until then, it remained one of the two primary polls for CFB.

They did.

Um, that isn't going nuclear.

MLB doesn't need to go nuclear - the BBWAA has zero leverage and both parties know it.

BBWAA does have leverage when it comes to MVP awards. BBWAA has very little leverage when it comes to shoes. If MLB tells BBWAA that all members must wear bikinis upon entering the stadium you'll see just how much leverage MLB has on that front as well.


Well, yeah. Because it's not about these particular peanuts. It's about making sure the BBWAA knows its place, like the mob breaking a gambler's knees because he's a hundred short on his payment for the week. The bookie could live without the hundred bucks for a couple of days, but it's the principle of the thing. If they start thinking they can get away with the little things, they'll start trying to get away with the big ones.

You still haven't answered the why. Why would MLB act like a mobster and why would they act like one on this issue? MLB is going to crack heads because they are afraid that at some BBWAA is going to demand what? A spot in the batting order? Ownership stakes? Your reasoning on this is illogical and extreme.

Disobey the dress code, lose your access. Not only did the BBWAA conform, the first thing the new BBWAA president did was write a press release essentially telling BBWAA members to stop complaining.

Good to see there are still some standards. Perhaps MLB could also require sportswriters to wear hats. It was a good look for Max Mercy.

Nearly every sportswriter? BBWAA members are a small percentage of baseball sportswriters, even among big media (I just counted on my ESPN distro list and I get 92% of full-timers as non-BBWAA members). And those BBWAA members would be fighting for something that gives them zero direct benefit.

Journalists, which sportswriters believe themselves to be, are highly protective of their bretheren when it comes to access because entities that threaten their access threaten their ability to both do, and have, their jobs. This isn't a triviality like dress codes. Most non-BBWAA members are going to support them, along with their editors. If the MLB cuts off the BBWAA, what's next? Barring individual writers when they write something negative about the MLB? Writers aren't going to wait to find out, theyll likely respond en masses in support.

The MLB's best case scenario is that non- BBWAA members ignore their ban on BBWAA members. OK, in that case they have banned 700+ writers whose publications will likely take significant action in response, such as no longer write any stories or columns about baseball teams, beyond printing daily box scores. Just imagine the impact in the 27 cities where MLB teams are located, and how much attendance could be affected. If each team wanted to maintain similar coverage in its home paper's sports section, it would be forced to hire its wn writers and purchase at least $5k-$10k per day of additional advertising space to run its own writer's coverage of the team. From the beginning of March until the end of September, each team would have to spend a minimum of $1M per season to get less effective coverage in ther local paper than they get now for free. Even if the local editors still cover the team, but minimize the number of stories, it's going to hurt badly, and likely cost each team tens of thousands per game in lost gate receipts (just 400 tickets per game is probably over $1.2M in gross annual revenues and close to $1M a year in profit, per team).

Anyone who proposes the MLB retaliate in any way against the BBWAA doesn't have the business sense needed to run a lemonade stand. BBWAA members stories and columns probably provide teams with close to $100M per year in free publicity. Any MLB exec who threatens them in a manner that causes teams to have an even temporary loss of that valuable resource will have made a career ending decision.

So no, its extremely likely that we will never find out whether other sportswriters will take advantage of the situation, or support their brethren. And even if it happens we probably won't, because the execs responsible at the MLB will certainly be fired within 2 days (one day for individual team presidents/marketing VPs to scream to their owners, and 1 day for Selig to field 30 angry phone calls from his bosses) and an effusive apology made by Selig to BBWAA writers before other sportswriters even have time to even make a decision.

BBWAA does have leverage when it comes to MVP awards.

How? If MLB decided to take voting and recognition away from the BBWAA and give it to someone else, how many people would know, or care?

You still haven't answered the why. Why would MLB act like a mobster and why would they act like one on this issue?...Your reasoning on this is illogical and extreme.

I already answered it twice, including one time in the bit you're quoting: They'd do it to show the BBWAA (and anyone else who's watching) that they can't push MLB around and take dollars out of MLB's pocket. Why is Disney such an ####### about people using its intellectual property? Why does Mossad go to ridiculous lengths to punish ex-Nazis years after WWII ended? Why doesn't the schoolyard bully let you keep your lunch money once in a while, even if you ask nicely? Sending a message keeps all the smaller fish in line, and prevents problems down the road.

OK, in that case they have banned 700+ writers whose publications will likely take significant action in response, such as no longer write any stories or columns about baseball teams, beyond printing daily box scores.

Heh, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. You may not have noticed, but the newspaper industry as a whole ain't doing so hot. They don't have enough money to stand on principle like that these days - if fans aren't getting their game recap from the paper, they'll just go somewhere else to get it instead. Maybe even MLB.com. Whereas MLB has more than enough money to hold the ban until the writers cave.

Remember when the Royals pulled media credentials from two radio hosts over the tone of their coverage? Did the rest of the industry boycott the Royals in solidarity? Not so much...

How? If MLB decided to take voting and recognition away from the BBWAA and give it to someone else, how many people would know, or care?

They can't take MVP voting away from the BBWAA.* It's the BBWAA's award. They can go out and create a similar type of award (which they kind of did with the Hank Aaron). But they can't do anything about the fact there's a good chance no one will care about the award they create, such as the case with the ignored Hank awards (quick, who won this year's?).

The NCAA can create a new best player award to go head-to-head with the Heisman. It won't mean dick, but they can do it.

* They may be able to take the Cy Young and Rookie votes, since those were created by MLB which they turned over to the BBWAA to vote on. I don't know how that would work.

But they can't do anything about the fact there's a good chance no one will care about the award they create, such as the case with the ignored Hank awards (quick, who won this year's?).

People would care a lot less about the BBWAA's MVP award if MLB decided to stop recognizing it, in favor of a different MLB-supported award. The BBWAA's MVP award has popular legitimacy in large part because MLB recognizes it as legitimate.

Who cares that MLB recognizes the MVP? If MLB ignored the award would anyone actually care?

If MLB ignored the award would anyone actually care?

That was exactly my point. If MLB ignored the award, no one would care about it.

I already answered it twice, including one time in the bit you're quoting: They'd do it to show the BBWAA (and anyone else who's watching) that they can't push MLB around and take dollars out of MLB's pocket. Why is Disney such an ####### about people using its intellectual property? Why does Mossad go to ridiculous lengths to punish ex-Nazis years after WWII ended? Why doesn't the schoolyard bully let you keep your lunch money once in a while, even if you ask nicely? Sending a message keeps all the smaller fish in line, and prevents problems down the road.

So your position is that BBWAA and MLB are enemies and MLB must punish and destroy the BBWAA as if they were Mossad and BBWAA were Nazis. Got it. Totally rational and very much commonplace in the business world.

Secondly how is copyright infringement similar to MLB monetizing the MVP voting and award?

What problems down the road? Again, are the BBWAA guys going to ask for a spot in the lineup or something? MLB wishes to use something BBWAA does to generate money. Stepping on BBWAA's neck and screaming "take it biatch!" isn't really going to work in this situation and gains MLB virtually nothing while actually risking a good deal. MLB gains absolutely by taking your approach and I don't think MLB would ever take your approach in a million years on this issue or anything similar to it.

That was exactly my point. If MLB ignored the award, no one would care about it.

Your point was that if MLB ignored the award no one would care that MLB ignored the award? Glad to see we are on the same page at the end.

Your point was that if MLB ignored the award no one would care that MLB ignored the award?

No, it was that if MLB ignored the award, no one would care about the award.

The Sporting News Rookie of the Year award used to be a big deal. Who gives a #### about it today?

If the MLB cuts off the BBWAA, what's next?

MLB isn't going to cut off the BBWAA - it's a mutually beneficial relationship. But that doesn't mean they are going to pay the BBWAA for something it, and everyone else, has been getting for free. However, if MLB ever wanted to sock it to the BBWAA, it wouldn't cut off access, it'd just stop making special arrangements for food in the press box.

The Sporting News Rookie of the Year award used to be a big deal. Who gives a #### about it today?

Who gives a #### about the Sporting News? The RoY award was established before the SN RoY award and was setup by the BBWAA. The SN RoY was somewhat of a big deal as long as SN was relevant to the discussion. When they faded they lost their media presence and so they lost the ability to trumpet their awards. BBWAA is still going and they still do a good job getting their voice heard in the media. Thus their awards are still relevant.

Remember when the Royals pulled media credentials from two radio hosts over the tone of their coverage? Did the rest of the industry boycott the Royals in solidarity? Not so much...

I see you have a problem with degrees. There is a difference between pulling credentials for two reporters (1 of whom got her credentials back while the other it appears to be a rather obnoxious and unprofessional sports talk guy) and pulling credentials off all BBWAA members.

People would care a lot less about the BBWAA's MVP award if MLB decided to stop recognizing it, in favor of a different MLB-supported award. The BBWAA's MVP award has popular legitimacy in large part because MLB recognizes it as legitimate.

Yeah, that's nonsense. As long as the guys voting on the BBWAA are the guys writing about the MVP race, people will still care whether it has MLB's backing. To suggest otherwise strikes me as substituting your wishes for reality.

All of this is kind of silly anyway. MLB has no desire to go to war with the BBWAA over anything, for obvious reasons. The BBWAA has no desire to go to war with MLB, also for obvious reasons. If the BBWAA had been a little savvier, it likely could have gotten a little something when it turned over announcement of the MVP and other awards to the MLB Network, such as a contribution to a charitable effort or foundation. Having already given it away, it's not reasonable to think the organization could go back and ask for something now (nor is it clear that it would want to). Then again, if ESPN came calling wanting to broadcast the official announcement of the MVP award (unlikely as hell, as it might interfere with a show featuring guys yelling at each other), then perhaps BBWAA could extract a little from MLB, if it desired.

MLB isn't going to cut off the BBWAA - it's a mutually beneficial relationship. But that doesn't mean they are going to pay the BBWAA for something it, and everyone else, has been getting for free.

And on the flipside it also doesn't mean that BBWAA won't change their stance when people start profiting off of product the BBWAA produces.

Having already given it away, it's not reasonable to think the organization could go back and ask for something now (nor is it clear that it would want to). Then again, if ESPN came calling wanting to broadcast the official announcement of the MVP award (unlikely as hell, as it might interfere with a show featuring guys yelling at each other), then perhaps MLB could extract a little from MLB, if it desired.

Did BBWAA sign a waiver or a contract with MLB? If they hadn't I'm not sure why it is unreasonable for the BBWAA to ask for something for next year's awards. If you're saying that BBWAA can't ask for something for this years presentation then I agree with you in that they missed the boat for this year but this year alone.

So your position is that BBWAA and MLB are enemies and MLB must punish and destroy the BBWAA as if they were Mossad and BBWAA were Nazis.

No, it's that MLB, like all big-time businesses, doesn't like people stepping on its turf, and will react harshly when that happens. The BBWAA is smart enough to understand that, so they won't challenge MLB on it, out of respect for the potential consequences.

Totally rational and very much commonplace in the business world.

Yes, exactly. People in the business world understand how leverage works. You think Wal-Mart pays a nickel more for its products than it has to? They squeeze out every penny they can get, even if it ##### their suppliers. That's what made them successful in the first place.

Secondly how is copyright infringement similar to MLB monetizing the MVP voting and award?

Copyright infringement takes money out of Disney's pocket. Paying a fee to broadcast the award would take money out of MLB's pocket. Seems like a pretty straightforward analogy to me.

What problems down the road?

Other people trying to take money out of MLB's pocket. Media members demanding more access. Networks offering less for TV deals. The MLBPA pushing harder in CBA negotiations. Local governments getting shirty about stadia or taxation or zoning issues. Basically anyone who would feel emboldened to act due to a perception that MLB was soft.

Stepping on BBWAA's neck and screaming "take it biatch!" isn't really going to work in this situation...

Only because the BBWAA will never let it get to that point. They're too afraid of the consequences, with good reason.

As long as the guys voting on the BBWAA are the guys writing about the MVP race, people will still care whether it has MLB's backing.

As Dan already noted, only a small fraction of the guys writing about the MVP race are BBWAA members.

MLB has no desire to go to war with the BBWAA over anything, for obvious reasons.

Oh, of course not. But if the BBWAA tried to squeeze money out of them (which they won't), they wouldn't just roll over and show their bellies.

No, it's that MLB, like all big-time businesses, doesn't like people stepping on its turf, and will react harshly when that happens. The BBWAA is smart enough to understand that, so they won't challenge MLB on it, out of respect for the potential consequences.

The BBWAA's awards are MLB's "turf"?


Yes, exactly. People in the business world understand how leverage works. You think Wal-Mart pays a nickel more for its products than it has to? They squeeze out every penny they can get, even if it ##### their suppliers. That's what made them successful in the first place.

So you understand that despite having leverage businesses still pay for goods and yet you can't understand why MLB would have to pay BBWAA for BBWAA's awards should BBWAA decide that is what it wants and MLB wishes to monetize those awards?

Also;

They squeeze out every penny they can get, even if it ##### their suppliers.

Um, no.


Copyright infringement takes money out of Disney's pocket. Paying a fee to broadcast the award would take money out of MLB's pocket. Seems like a pretty straightforward analogy to me.

I'm beginning to see a trend here concerning your business acumen.

Other people trying to take money out of MLB's pocket. Media members demanding more access. Networks offering less for TV deals. The MLBPA pushing harder in CBA negotiations. Local governments getting shirty about stadia or taxation or zoning issues. Basically anyone who would feel emboldened to act due to a perception that MLB was soft.

You know this isn't 1938 Europe, right? This isn't some Machiavellian game the world is playing. MLB wishes to use a product that they do not own or control. Everybody on the plant except maybe you would understand why MLB would purchase that product and virtually no one would think MLB had gone "soft" and go for MLB's juggular because of that. Do networks go in for the kill when some team over pays for Neifi Perez?

Only because the BBWAA will never let it get to that point. They're too afraid of the consequences, with good reason.

So the BBWAA are a bunch of slaves and they do the awards because they fear their master's whip?

As Dan already noted, only a small fraction of the guys writing about the MVP race are BBWAA members.

Yeah that is nice to believe but I don't really buy it. A ton of BBWAA writers write about the awards and because they do a bunch of other people then also write about it and talk about it.

BBWAA writers don't really write about the Hank Aaron award or the Silver Slugger award and consequently no one else does either. If you had a core group of writers the size of the BBWAA fretting about who did and didn't get a Silver Slugger award those awards would be a lot bigger deal and consequently more people would talk about them. Since they don't do that nobody cares about them.

Gold Glove awards get barely a blip of notice when they get announced and usually only get noticed when something screwy goes on.

As Dan already noted, only a small fraction of the guys writing about the MVP race are BBWAA members.

And an even smaller fraction of the guys writing about the MVP race are affiliated with MLB. Very few of us here are members of the BBWAA, yet we talk about the BBWAA MVP races (and only them) all the time. Why do you think that would change just because MLB said it was no longer going to do the almost nothing it did in the past in regards to the MVP?

The organization's award may have needed MLB's seal in getting started. Now? No. It's the one with the history, the one with the built-in audience, and would survive on its own just fine.

The BBWAA's awards are MLB's "turf"?

MLB's money is MLB's turf. If the BBWAA tries to exploit the awards to take money away from MLB, they're stepping on MLB's turf.

So you understand that despite having leverage businesses still pay for goods and yet you can't understand why MLB would have to pay BBWAA for BBWAA's awards should BBWAA decide that is what it wants and MLB wishes to monetize those awards?

I don't understand why MLB would pay for the BBWAA's awards when they can use their leverage in other areas of the business relationship between the two entities to get them for free.

Um, no.

No? You sure about that?

MLB wishes to use a product that they do not own or control. Everybody on the plant except maybe you would understand why MLB would purchase that product...

If MLB willingly paid for something they could get for free, people would see them as suckers. And rightly so.

So the BBWAA are a bunch of slaves and they do the awards because they fear their master's whip?

They do the awards because their members like being able to act like kingmakers and get popular attention for doing their jobs. But they're wholly dependent on MLB for the access that they need in order to do their jobs, which is why there's a limit on how hard they'll push MLB on business-related matters. Guys who rock the boat get pushed over the side, and no one will mourn their passing.

How? If MLB decided to take voting and recognition away from the BBWAA and give it to someone else, how many people would know, or care?

I'm pretty sure if you ask the average baseball fan who votes on:

Gold Glove Awards
Silver Slugger Awards
MVP Awards
Cy Young Award
Rookie of the Year
Manager of the Year
Hank Aaron Award
Rolaids Relief Man Award

they wouldn't have a clue, and would probably just assume it's a bunch of "baseball people" (GMs, coaches, players).

The BBWAA is about as important and powerful in baseball to the average fan as the accounting firm for the Oscars is to movie fans.

Yeah that is nice to believe but I don't really buy it.

You don't believe that the guy who writes for ESPN has an accurate idea of how many of his colleagues are in the BBWAA?

BBWAA writers don't really write about the Hank Aaron award or the Silver Slugger award and consequently no one else does either.

Part of the reason that nobody writes about those awards is that they're for smaller subgroups of players, and therefore less interesting.

Very few of us here are members of the BBWAA, yet we talk about the BBWAA MVP races (and only them) all the time.

Sure, because the BBWAA MVP is the only game in town. If MLB started their own MVP award, that would change. Particularly if MLB threw voting for that new award over to a different group of writers...

I don't understand why MLB would pay for the BBWAA's awards when they can use their leverage in other areas of the business relationship between the two entities to get them for free.

Because it isn't worth it.

No? You sure about that?

Yes.

If MLB willingly paid for something they could get for free, people would see them as suckers. And rightly so.

They get it for free because the BBWAA currently gives it away for free. People, besides you, understand that.

They do the awards because their members like being able to act like kingmakers and get popular attention for doing their jobs. But they're wholly dependent on MLB for the access that they need in order to do their jobs, which is why there's a limit on how hard they'll push MLB on business-related matters.

I agree there is a limit to what they can ask for and it isn't a high limit but MLB wishes to make money off of BBWAA property and virtually nobody would think it would be absurd and out of bounds for BBWAA to ask for something in return.

Part of the reason that nobody writes about those awards is that they're for smaller subgroups of players, and therefore less interesting.

Huh? The best players in the game are a smaller subgroup than the best players in the game? The biggest and most giantest reason nobody talks about these awards is because the journalists don't talk about these awards. Plain and simple.


Sure, because the BBWAA MVP is the only game in town. If MLB started their own MVP award, that would change. Particularly if MLB threw voting for that new award over to a different group of writers...

Which group would that be? Bloggers? Maybe in another decade that'll mean more but why would MLB spend the time and energy to organize and legitimize a new award when they have a bunch of awards that already have value to them and can be had really cheaply? Are you telling me that if BBWAA simply wants MLB to pay for the award ceremony that is being televised and to kick in 50 grand you'd tell the BBWAA to go pound sand and if they didn't like it that you'd crush their throat with your iron-soled boots?

Heh, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. You may not have noticed, but the newspaper industry as a whole ain't doing so hot. They don't have enough money to stand on principle like that these days - if fans aren't getting their game recap from the paper, they'll just go somewhere else to get it instead. Maybe even MLB.com. Whereas MLB has more than enough money to hold the ban until the writers cave.

Again, you understand so little about business that you couldn't run a Popsicle stand. You don't alienate your most cost effective marketing resource to try to screw them out of an amount of money that is less than one thousandth of the value they give you for free every year.

The BBWAA provides the MLB with a massive amount of free coverage that significantly contributes to attendance. You mistakenly believe the MLB is a large monolithic organization with massive powers, when it's a weak central organization that is controlled by and run for the benefit of team Owners. Any exec who works for the MLB would commit career suicide picking a fight with the BBWAA that would hurt team's local attendance even slightly, because it would cost each owner millions a year, and for what, to "teach a lesson" to their most prized and important free PR medium so MLB.com can avoid paying the BBWAA a minor honorarium that is a fraction of what this moronic "war" costs each owner?

Sure newspapers are a declining business, but covering the MLB is one of many reasons people read the papers. As I pointed out, even if the Sports Editor merely decides to downplay coverage of the local team, which they obviously will do given their best reporter or columnists have been banned from games, it can cost teams millions a year even if the team loses less than a thousand people per game (or a tiny fraction of the TV/Radio audiences).

It wont' be the newspapers cutting off their own nose, it will be the MLB cutting both of their noses off. The MLB has zero staying power because every teams president and marketing directors are suddenly going to fear missing their ticket sales targets, bonuses, and possibly getting canned, and those MLB execs who made the decision will become marked men with the clock ticking quickly down to zero on the high water mark of their careers. You really believe the MLB execs are going to risk their jobs and damaging a relationship worth a hundred million dollars a year to the MLB just to try to avoid paying a few hundred thousand to the BBWAA to help them increase the appeal, ratings and value of one of their shows?

Remember when the Royals pulled media credentials from two radio hosts over the tone of their coverage? Did the rest of the industry boycott the Royals in solidarity? Not so much...

It was one backwater team, 2 journalists, and the Society of Professional Journalists actually wrote a protest letter. But more importantly, the Royals started a blog to spur coverage of the team after the incident, why do you think they did that? It was a clear reflection of their realization that their idiotic move was costing the team coverage and their dumb blog was the easiest thing they could think of to try to fix the bleeding.

But again, this was a misguided owner shooting himself in the foot, who will defend his idiocy until his dying day out of personal pride, but do you really think if someone else shoots him in his foot he'd forgive them?

Even as dumb as David Glass is, if the MLB starts randomly banning the most important local journalists covering his team, and he starts losing ticket sales directly because of it, or fears he will, he will burn up the line to Selig along with every other owner, and Bud won't hesitate to can every MLB exec responsible to ensure that his reign as the highest paid commissioner in sports continues as long as possible.

Obviously the light has to have been going off for you, you are way above your head here in understanding business decisions and even how the MLB is structured. You had a choice of pulling back, saying nevermind, or just calling it a night and realize everyone would forget about it in a day. But instead, you chose to go full retard...

Because it isn't worth it.

It isn't worth it to get them without paying, when they don't even need to fight to do so? You're awfully free with MLB's money, McCoy.

Yes.

None so blind as them that refuse to see, I guess.

They get it for free because the BBWAA currently gives it away for free.

Yes, and the BBWAA gives it away for free because if they tried to screw with MLB over money, MLB could crush them like a grape.

Huh? The best players in the game are a smaller subgroup than the best players in the game?

The "best hitter in the game" is a smaller subgroup than the "best player in the game", and the "best-hitting catcher" or "best-hitting third baseman" is an even smaller subgroup than that.

Which group would that be?

The vast majority of sportswriters who aren't in the BBWAA.

Are you telling me that if BBWAA simply wants MLB to pay for the award ceremony that is being televised and to kick in 50 grand you'd tell the BBWAA to go pound sand and if they didn't like it that you'd crush their throat with your iron-soled boots?

That's like asking what would happen if a rabbit attacked a tiger.

A lot of speculation and very little actual fact -- so what else is new from a BBTF thread?

Something is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. What is wrong with the BBWAA finding out if MLB or ESPN or FoxSports is willing to pay something to be the first announcer of the awards, and to build a show around it, or around a show where all the awards are announced at once? If somebody is willing to pay, then BBWAA can collect some money. If not, then not.

The "threat" of MLB getting mad and creating their own awards is pretty minimal (especially if BBWAA owns TMs on Cy Young Award, etc.) The worst that would probably happen is that BBWAA would end up back where they started, announcing their own awards.

Sure, because the BBWAA MVP is the only game in town. If MLB started their own MVP award, that would change. Particularly if MLB threw voting for that new award over to a different group of writers...

It's not the only game in town, as I noted earlier. It's the only game in town that matters. There's a difference.

MLB started the Aaron award. No one cares, including you.

MLB's seal has not driven interest in the MVP award (at least it hasn't for a very long time). Hell, until the move to put the announcement on MLB Network, MLB had almost nothing to do with the award. It exists entirely on its own, and as the "real MVP," the one with the lineage to the greats, it will exist independent of any MLB backing.

The BBWAA is about as important and powerful in baseball to the average fan as the accounting firm for the Oscars is to movie fans.

Presumably, the Oscar people can take the vote-counting responsibilities away from the accounting firm. They can't do that to the BBWAA with baseball's most important award, which is kind of an important distinction.

That's like asking what would happen if a rabbit attacked a tiger.

So that is a yes then? You would tell BBWAA to bugger off if they asked MLB to pay for the ceremony and give 50 grand and in return MLB gets to announce the winners when they want to announce the winners?

A few of you guys keep making the same mistake. BBWAA is a subset of baseball media. It's not baseball media as a whole. And MLB doesn't need a nuclear war - the BBWAA has historically been very compliants to what MLB tells them.

In addition, the free publicity isn't something that writers they do out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because that's what they are paid by their newspapers/publications to do because there's a market for it. The "withholding of publicity" threat is absolutely punchless - there aren't enough BBWAA members to execute such a threat, only a minority of *that* minority subset would risk losing their livelihood over something they would receive little advantage from, and most of them have employers who want to cover baseball.

The "withholding of publicity" threat is absolutely punchless

Um, that isn't the threat being discussed, that is a strawman argument.

As Dan already noted, only a small fraction of the guys writing about the MVP race are BBWAA members.


Yeah, while I hate appeal to authority arguments, I don't think it unreasonable to consider me an expert at counting names on a contact list in my possession!

One surprising thing I've learned in the least couple of years is that Chass is detested as widely by a *lot* of non-sabermetric guys to the degree that he is in the sabermetric community. That Stan Musial smear blog entry last year did not go unnoticed.

The BBWAA provides the MLB with a massive amount of free coverage that significantly contributes to attendance.

How long are newspapers going to pay baseball writers to not write about baseball? If MLB and the BBWAA went to war (which they won't, because the BBWAA knows their place), the BBWAA would go right back to writing about baseball after MLB got done slapping them down, because that's their business, and like Dan said, none of these guys other than Chass actually want to fight over this kind of stuff. They know that it's a lot easier for a paper to hire new writers than it is to steal meat from a tiger.

It wont' be the newspapers cutting off their own nose, it will be the MLB cutting both of their noses off.

Yes, but MLB is starting out with a much larger nose than the writers will be, so they'll have plenty left after the point has been made.

You really believe the MLB execs are going to risk their jobs and damaging a relationship worth a hundred million dollars a year to the MLB just to try to avoid paying a few hundred thousand to the BBWAA to help them increase the appeal, ratings and value of one of their shows?

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.

It was one backwater team, 2 journalists, and the Society of Professional Journalists actually wrote a protest letter.

Ooh, a protest letter! I bet the Royals were shaking in their boots!

The suspended reporters' own stations were trashing them on the air the next day. The Royals kept the ban in place for the rest of the year. And two years later, both reporters were gone from the market.

But more importantly, the Royals started a blog to spur coverage of the team after the incident, why do you think they did that? It was a clear reflection of their realization that their idiotic move was costing the team coverage and their dumb blog was the easiest thing they could think of to try to fix the bleeding.

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.

Even as dumb as David Glass is, if the MLB starts randomly banning the most important local journalists covering his team, and he starts losing ticket sales directly because of it, or fears he will, he will burn up the line to Selig along with every other owner, and Bud won't hesitate to can every MLB exec responsible to ensure that his reign as the highest paid commissioner in sports continues as long as possible.

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.

Obviously the light has to have been going off for you...

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.

Yeah, while I hate appeal to authority arguments, I don't think it unreasonable to consider me an expert at counting names on a contact list in my possession!

And how many views does that "small fraction" get for their pieces and how many pieces are written because of their decisions? It's like arguing that Congress is but a small fraction of the American population so what they say and doesn't really matter. The BBWAA when it comes to their awards are the driving force and they are the ones that made those awards relevant and do a great deal to keep them relevant to this day.

Dan, is it your position as well that should BBWAA ask for something in return for an arrangement concerning the awards that MLB should say no?

MLB started the Aaron award. No one cares, including you.

The Aaron award isn't a MVP award, and MLB doesn't promote it as such. That's why nobody cares about it.

So that is a yes then?

It's a, "God, what a pointless question. I can't believe someone actually asked me that."

Um, that isn't the threat being discussed, that is a strawman argument.

You may want to re-read the thread. Post #90 is a good example.