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.
In 2011, probably Whitey Herzog and Andy MaxPhail.
the players are rich and more free than baseball players.
Is it supposed to be obvious that Miller should be in the HoF? From what I know he was admirable and excellent in his role. He certainly helped change the way the game is today, and I think it is a good thing that players have a chance to be fairly paid. Not that achieving fairness against stout resistance is anything to scoff at, but is that the argument? Or has he made the game better, or contributed to its excellence such that he should be a member of the HoF?
Is it supposed to be obvious that Miller should be in the HoF?
his factionalism (his job) arguably acted to the sport's detriment
The things you bring Marvin Miller in to do were done by the late 80s.
I'd put top-grade producers in first and the producers of baseball are the owners.
The Hall of Fame has scads of owners already and a bunch of commissioners. In most of their cases, you could ask the same questions - what exactly did they contribute?
The dissenting remarks made by certain players had given new strength to the owners' resolve. The result was that a settlement had already been delayed, and the settlement they were going to get out of the negotiations would not be as good as it could have been. But, I said, whatever happens you'll get a better deal if you stay together. I told them what I had told the players from the beginning: Stay solid, because you are irreplaceable. Stay solid, and you can have anything that's reasonable and fair.
Which means he left right after the silly strike of 1981 and wasn't responsible for taking away the power of the owners to discipline drug users. That worsens his case.
Not that this makes Kuhn HOF-worthy, but it does offer us a better commissioner model than today's, wherein the Commissioner is merely the owners' flunky.
Kuhn was at least an independent commissioner.
'Roids for one. His primary concern wasn't the competition on the field (again, his job), and that's what's most important.
The things you bring Marvin Miller in to do were done by the late 80s. After that, his legacy is decidedly mixed.
4/25/2008, AP, "Fehr said changes in the format of the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee made it a "foregone conclusion that Marvin Miller would never be elected." Miller, the former union leader whose strategies helped create free agency and multimillion-dollar salaries, received 51 of 81 (63 percent) in early 2007, falling 10 votes shy of the needed 75%. Miller got just three of 12 votes in December. "It makes me sort of very sad," Fehr said." This item at the end of the column."Selig may not fine brass implicated in Mitchell Report"
The Hall of Fame is rapidly losing its ability to honor, owing in part to its abdication of a leadership role in the PED mess, which is allowing the BBWAA to destroy the credibility of the institution. We'll soon have a Hall with Jim Rice and Bruce Sutter and Kirby Puckett and Jack Morris, but one without Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.
I know, I know...you can't stop progress. But...this is progress? Really?
Meaning the average baseball player's salary went from four times the average workingman's salary to twenty-two times. Now it's $3.4 million, or about eighty times what the ticket-buying public is earning. Eighty. Freakin'. Times. Is this really a good thing?
I don't find that very persuasive. People rightly don't use Bruce Sutter and Tommy McCarthy as precedents for inducting their pet players. Tom Yawkey and Bowie Kuhn were mistakes; we shouldn't use them as an excuse to induct Marvin Miller.
Look, I know you can't put the genie back in the bottle; if tomorrow they slashed salaries to a bare-bones (ha!) average of just one million dollars a year, the owners would proceed to keep the extra money; they wouldn't be giving it back to the fans.
It isn't what the HOF is for. What's next, the guy who first brought microbrews to the concession stands?
the average workingman's salary ... the ticket-buying public
I wouldn't say that it's losing it's credibility. I think the stance on PED users is much, much softer here than in the general public. Most fans, if not out right agreeing with the permanent exclusion of such players, at least prefer to keep them in limbo for the time being (either as a punishment, or because they're not really sure how to evaluate them). TBH, I myself can't see why there's a militant demand to include them post haste. The effects of PEDs are still poorly understood, and (unless they're way more dangerous than even the crazies believe) these players aren't at any particular risk of dying before their election.
i also accept that if it's a good thing to be interested when it's discovered that a person or a group is being exploited by virtue of finding out the wage scale then the flip side is also going to happen. that folks are going to resent those who earn a lot of money.
i am ok with the former. i find the latter pathetic
If you accept that the HOF should include those types, and I absolutely think it should, Miller is a slam dunk candidate. He's a towering figure in the history of the game.
I think the stance on PED users is much, much softer here than in the general public.
Huh? The drug wars - and certainly the steroids wars - basically came after Miller left the MLBPA.
Anyone have a source estimating what the percentages were at earlier points in the game?
Franchise values have gone up more than 180 times since the mid 60s, most likely. The $2B sale of the Dodgers implies an $11.11M price tag, mid-60s. The Yankees sold for $8.8M in 1973.
Which further implies that owners weren't getting any richer, in relative terms, because of the reserve clause.
Bowie Kuhn was actually a far better commissioner than the used car salesman currently occupying the office -- if for no more than the ability to make a decision without farming it out to a committee for a year of study. He was simply a more professionally accomplished man than Bud Selig in virtually every way.
No, it's more that Miller had a profound and lasting impact on MLB.
What impact did Canseco have on MLB? Lots of players would have taken steroids with or without him.
(And, of course, I think Miller's impact has been mostly positive.)
Sure, but back in the 70's you didn't have to sit in the nosebleed sections to get a good price, and you didn't have to shell out months in advance or pay even more inflated prices to see a "premium" game. StubHub has mitigated this somewhat, but good seats for high demand games still cost a ton more now than they did in the not so distant past.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 2.9439 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed