Dear MLB: a Letter From a Fan

Welcome to In The Clutch, where sports is all that matters! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a spectator. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. It's all that stands between you and participating in sports news discussion, live event discussion, and a variety of pick-the-winner and discussion competitions. And we promise not to hunt you down, stalk you, or sell your personal info for a whole tenth of a cent.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Dear MLB: a Letter From a Fan; I can no longer be a fan of MLB.
Topic Started: Saturday Feb 27 2010, 02:40 PM (214 Views)
WeatherManNX01	Saturday Feb 27 2010, 02:40 PM Post #1
The Yanks are coming! Posts: 14,777 Group: Commissioner Member #4 Joined: December 9, 2005 MLS Team New England Revolution MLB Team Boston Red Sox	Dear Commissioner Selig and authorities at Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players' Association, It is with some reluctance that I must inform you that I can no longer call myself a fan of your league. It is a feeling I have had for some time now; I no longer get excited for baseball, and more and more I find myself sighing, rolling my eyes, and changing the channel when a game is on TV. Simply stated, I am no longer interested in you or your product. However, I won't leave without telling you some of the ways I think you can rectify things (translation: win me back). Salaries Everyone knows that baseball pays their players great amounts of money. This is not unique to MLB. However, it is the lack of control over the salaries in the league that drives me batty. Sure, the Tom Bradys, LeBron Jameses, and Landon Donovans of the world get very large contracts, but there is some structure to the salary system. In MLB, owners cut a check with as many zeroes as they please as many times as they like. Sure, it's financial competition with everyone else, but when only a handful of teams can compete with each other in those terms, it kinda takes the excitement out of it. Compared to the NFL where just about any of the 32 teams could justifiably sign and pay a star free agent, MLB ruins that for me when I can guess the three or four teams in contention for a star (Boston, New York Yankees, Chicago Cubs, Anaheim Angels are all good bets; Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Rays, and Washington Nationals are not). And to the Union, must you really force every player to take the highest contract available? Shouldn't the player have a say in where he goes? The world will not end if Joe Schmoe takes a $15 million contract to play in his native state over a $20 million contract to play for the Yankees. Basically what I'm saying is this: free trade has resulted in limited trade, a wealth of available money has turned baseball players into baseball mercenaries, and both have sucked the life out of the excitement of player movement. Pirates The Pittsburgh Pirates. Or, perhaps more inclusively, the Pittsburgh Pirates Syndrome. That is, any team that does not have the money to compete with the big teams will give up come trade deadline, trade away all their good players for money and prospects, and suffer yet another terrible season. Lather, rinse, and repeat. I am not a Pirates fan, but it pains me very much to see a once proud organization sitting in bottom of a hole it cannot get out of. The team has made a profit of $11 million. Total. Over the last two years. They continually trade away all of their players that they won't be able to afford to pay much longer, then they add prospects with the idea that in the future the franchise will field a viable team. And once the prospects develop, then the team will trade them away again for more money-saving prospects. It's a vicious circle that will seemingly never end. And isn't it just sad that one of the league's premier ballparks is the home to such a storied team which no one supports anymore? PNC Park should not be fielding half-capacity-or-less crowds on a regular basis. And this isn't just for the Pirates. It's the Padres, Nationals, Blue Jays, Orioles, Reds, and Royals, too. Competition Or the lack thereof. Both of the above combine to create a lack of competition. Who wants to see the Pirates play the Reds? Not me. Or the Reds versus the Yankees? Blowout. There are two parts of MLB here: the elite teams (Yankees, Red Sox) and the basement teams (Reds, Blue Jays). When the elites play the basement, I don't want to watch the slaughter. When the basement plays the basement, I might as well just go to a Minor League game. And when the elite plays the elite, I cringe at the tired storyline that plays out between the same few teams season after season. I want the NFL, NHL, or MLS; I want to see a team rise from the ashes to crush the mighty overlord. I want to be able to root for a team that, albeit not my favorite, I find has a cause to cheer for: for Real Salt Lake to rise up against the almighty Los Angeles Galaxy to lay claim to MLS Cup; for the longtime paper-bag-over-the-head Saints to crush the powerhouse Indianapolis ~~Mannings~~ Colts; for the Pittsburgh Penguins to upend powerhouse Detroit Red Wings and give the Stanley-starved city a second team to believe in; for the Kansas City Royals to march out of the plains and to the east coast and stomp on the Philadelphia Phillies. Well, I guess three out of four isn't bad, right? I can just ignore the fourth one. These are the three biggest issues I have with MLB. There are smaller issues such as speed of the game (I can take a shower while a ballgame is on and not miss anything) and an unwillingness to change (instant replay, steroids testing, salary cap). However, making any positive changes are what will bring me back to the game that everyone once loved. I'll still support you indirectly: there's something endearing about the "little guys" playing at the local MiLB level who actually have to fight and earn their livings. But the Boston Red Sox and Major League Baseball can kiss this fan goodbye until such time where changes are made and the game excites me again. I hope I don't have to wait too long. Your former fan, WeatherManNX01



PSUSyr5	Sunday Feb 28 2010, 03:34 PM Post #2
The Board Idiot Posts: 12,654 Group: Referee Member #6 Joined: December 11, 2005	I agree with you on the money front, there should be some sort of salary cap/revenue sharing type of thing so the teams are at an even playing field money-wise. I especially agree with you that the players should have more of a choice in what team the play for than who is going to pay more. I'll dispute the competition point. I suppose you'll stop watching the NFL because the Lions and Browns haven't exactly been competitive in recent years? Or maybe it's because the Raiders and Rams have been so bad. You could make a few examples in any league if you really wanted to. I'm just curious as to where the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks, 2003 Florida Marlins, 2008 Tampa Bay Rays, 2007 Colorado Rockies, 2004 Boston Red Sox, and the 2002 Angels-Giants World Series (both were wild card teams) fit in your examples of teams rising up from nowhere.



WeatherManNX01	Monday Mar 1 2010, 11:04 AM Post #3
The Yanks are coming! Posts: 14,777 Group: Commissioner Member #4 Joined: December 9, 2005 MLS Team New England Revolution MLB Team Boston Red Sox	I know the competition argument has less of an impact. Let's face it, in any given season we can expect the Patriots, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Red Wings, Sharks, Lakers, and Celtics to be dominant teams. I just feel that in any given season, there are more of the lower-level teams with a chance to win in the NFL, NBA, and NHL. The disparity between the "lesser" teams and the "greater" teams is less. Sure, the Browns and Lions suck, and have done so for years, but the structure of the NFL gives them a chance to be great, and they don't rise to the task. The structure of baseball, I feel, generally does not allow this to happen. Sure it has happened - the Rockies and Rays are teams that are currently in the process (Marlins are an anomaly - they build, then sell it off after they accomplish their task). But when I hear of teams like the Pirates and Royals who are constantly selling off their good players for the money and prospects (who will likely be sold off in five years or so), it's a bit of a downer. It's a constant cycle that they're not getting out of in the near future. Let me put it this way: my brother is a die-hard Pittsburgh everything fan. He plans his days around the Pittsburgh sports events. Except last year, he gave up on the Pirates. He no longer has any interest in watching a team be a failure for the 17th time (likely 18th this year). Like I said, there are other reasons, but my post was becoming less coherent and disjointed as I went along. I really do find the games rather dull on TV.



PSUSyr5	Monday Mar 1 2010, 09:30 PM Post #4
The Board Idiot Posts: 12,654 Group: Referee Member #6 Joined: December 11, 2005	So how do you propose the "Pirates Syndrome" gets fixed then? The whole "build for the future" thing is bound to happen when teams aren't winning on a given year, and if they make the wrong moves, that cycle is going to continue. For example, the Knicks have been terrible and they are getting ready for next year's free agency. If they don't make the right moves, or get the players they want, of course they are going to still be lousy. Perhaps the Pirates and Royals need some new ownership, general managers, etc. I don't just mean changing people just to change people, but to change the team's philosophy and attitude. But that's on the franchise, I can't really put that on the league, except maybe for not having a salary cap. Seems like your big gripes with MLB all fall back on the salary structure. I feel like part of baseball's problem is there may be too many teams, and definitely too long of a season (same with the NBA and NHL). Football's season is basically 3 months. Whether each team plays once a week or a few times a week, it would still be quite a short season compared to the other 3 big pro leagues. As a result, each NFL game seems to have more importance than any of the other leagues' games do. Perhaps the long season makes the games harder to watch too: miss a bunch of games and it probably won't seem like you've missed much.



PSUSyr5	Tuesday Mar 9 2010, 03:13 PM Post #5
The Board Idiot Posts: 12,654 Group: Referee Member #6 Joined: December 11, 2005	What about something like this? Sports Illustrated When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows." The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not. The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season). As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons. One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston. Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs. Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding. Full article



WeatherManNX01	Wednesday Mar 10 2010, 03:50 PM Post #6
The Yanks are coming! Posts: 14,777 Group: Commissioner Member #4 Joined: December 9, 2005 MLS Team New England Revolution MLB Team Boston Red Sox	I heard about it this morning on Mike and Mike, and it's certainly interesting. My initial reaction is this: yes, a team can become more competitive by playing in a weaker division, but then they'll likely get smashed in the playoff while one of the big teams goes on a rampage. I don't think it helps create "competitive balance" as much as it creates the illusion of competitive balance. However, at the same time, it would certainly make the regular season more compelling for a lot of teams. It certainly would be different to see teams like the Orioles and Nationals leading a division, even if it is weaker than the others.



Cougar	Wednesday Mar 17 2010, 04:33 PM Post #7
Posts: 8,712 Group: Deputy Commissioner Member #9 Joined: February 4, 2006	Please don`t compare the Jays to the Pirates the Jays actually spend a good amount of money in comparison to a bunch of teams. The problem is the division they are in. the Jays (last year being an exception) have had some good 82+ win seasons, but that means nothing when the Yankees and Red Sox are in the division. When you have to face one powerhouse team, you still have a shot to probably win 90 games, but when you have the Yanks and Red Sox, even if you beat up all the other teams, you`re still gonna get an 85 win season and not win the division.



PSUSyr5	Saturday Aug 14 2010, 03:26 PM Post #8
The Board Idiot Posts: 12,654 Group: Referee Member #6 Joined: December 11, 2005	WeatherManNX01 Saturday Feb 27 2010, 02:40 PM Competition Or the lack thereof. Both of the above combine to create a lack of competition. Who wants to see the Pirates play the Reds? Not me. Or the Reds versus the Yankees? Blowout. There are two parts of MLB here: the elite teams (Yankees, Red Sox) and the basement teams (Reds, Blue Jays). Care to change that statement about the Reds now? Funny, the competition is so lopsided that a basement team can become a pretty decent team the following year. Hey wait a minute, isn't the NFL the only one that does that?



WeatherManNX01	Monday Aug 16 2010, 03:50 PM Post #9
The Yanks are coming! Posts: 14,777 Group: Commissioner Member #4 Joined: December 9, 2005 MLS Team New England Revolution MLB Team Boston Red Sox	Not gonna lie, while I'm still not hugely into baseball, this season has shaped up pretty nicely. Yes, we still have teams like the Jays, Os, Ms, Nats, Royals, Indians, and Pirates sitting in the basement. Yes, the Yankees and Red Sox are still top-notch teams. But everything in between has changed so much that you can't help but be compelled by the way the season is playing out. The Reds are currently a team to watch, and the Braves have started to make a comeback several years after falling off their NL East dominance. The Nats are showing flashes of brilliance, the Os have a manager that seems to have inspired some confidence and winning, the Jays actually aren't that terrible (they're only four games behind the Sox and above .500), the Twins have risen to prominence in the Central, the White Sox have followed behind, the Rangers are shrugging off years of mediocrity, and the Padres have risen out of what was thought to be a gimmie for Dodgers with the Rockies close behind. Add in the disappearance of the hitter and the rise of the pitcher, and baseball talk doesn't make me turn off the TV this year. Clearly, MLB got my letter and fixed things.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Major League Baseball · Next Topic »