For perspective's sake, $14,000 in 1970 would be $68,809 in 2005 dollars. (Source: "Inflation Calculator" at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/)

It's true. I just read "A Whole Different Ballgame" by Marvin Miller and he is very critical of the owners (surprise!), documenting every foolish attempt they made to keep their stranglehold over the players. To be fair, though, Miller is also critical of Don Fehr and the current player's association (at least as 1991, when the book was published), for abandoning the principles that won them free agency and fair-market salaries; instead, they simply bask in their multi-million dollar paydays (I espoused this grievance in my last series of posts, so I'll just trail off now...)

I would offer that things only would have been delayed. Maybe it's just me, but I think human nature would still have had the players eventually wanting more.

The pendulum swings both ways, and never seems to spend much time in the middle. The players will eventually regret being just as greedy as the owners were at one time (case in point - The NHL, stupid owners, stupid players).

I just don't understand why these guys can't see they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. They are so shortsighted.

Nothing to add to the discussion just yet, but "happy birthday" to noted grammarian Henry Fowler.

mmmarkiep: "I would offer that things only would have been delayed. Maybe it's just me, but I think human nature would still have had the players eventually wanting more."

So, is the significance of Miller/Bouton/Curt Flood etc. diminished because someone else could have done it later? Does the same apply to Martin Luther King Jr.? Or George Washington? I don't get it. Give credit where credit is due. Marvin Miller helped organize the players and encouraged them to stand strong, and Bouton's book publicly exposed the indentured servitude that were MLB contracts at the time.

Me: "The players will eventually regret being just as greedy as the owners were at one time"

What, you mean they'll strike, or get locked out, and they'll miss a season? The only players that would seriously affect are the rookies and the journeymen, neither of whom I suspect have much say in the current "me-first" style of the player's union. I suppose only time will tell.

The artist solely known as "Me" espoused my sentiments.

Basically, spycake offered in yesterday's thread that "Now the players have become the owners, in a sense." I think that statement is "dead-on-balls accurate." What you have is a sense of entitlement on both sides -- Owners saying "we own, therefore we control" with the players saying "without us, you own nothing, therefore we control."

However, ownership (see, e.g., Red Sox, Rangers, Orioles, Yankees) is too greedy to see that offering the Belles, A-Rods, Man-Rams and (yes, even) Jeters of the league so much money will enhance entitlement feelings and kill the league in the long run.

Comparatively, the players (see above; and see e.g., Roger Clemens) are too greedy to stop asking for outrageous amounts simply because they know they can get them. On one hand, everyone should be entitled to make every penny they can. On the other hand, sports used to have tradition, with one layer built on the next. Players made sacrifices for the good of the game, and the game kept improving. That's why the most humble athletes of today cite Jackie Robinson or Doctor J or Wayne Gretzky as reasons they can make the living they make today.

Who is the 2004-05 NHL draft class thanking? They should thank Joe Sakic, Alexei Yashin, Peter Forsberg, Pavel Bure, Jaromir Jagr...and don't forget the ownership of teams like Colorado, Detroit, NY Rangers, etc. Thanks all, for tearing the sport down layer by layer.

Maybe I am just getting old...seems to be consistent with the crotchety "in my day, things were better..." attitude of above. But maybe, just maybe, selfishness has gone through the roof and is getting to (or got to, in case of the NHL) a point where the major sports leagues will not be able to exist.

Wow, I am grumpy today.

Sorry all,
YankeeFan

YankeeFan,

You're grumpy today? Go out and buy your team another free agent. : )

Best, RD
Yankees 1978-81

>>I don't get it.

True.

My post was in response to this:

The irony is that if the owners hadn't abused the players so badly, we wouldn't have gone out and hired Marvin Miller and the players wouldn't be free agents today. If owners had just doubled the minimum salary, say to $14,000, and given us some extra meal money, we would have been more than content to let things ride.

And, really, comparing Marvin Miller to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? Or George Washington? That's a stretch. Certainly, it could be argued that all three fundamentaly changed things for a lot of people. But to argue that free agency, player pensions and such is on par with civil rights or forming a new country seems a stretch to me. But, that just might be me. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree.

After the release of 'Ball Four', a plethora of knock-off books were quickly rushed to publication in an attempt to cash-in on the 'insider/tell-all' craze. It's ironic, because the initial reaction to Bouton's book by baseball establishment figures, the Mantles, Fords, Houks, the Bowie 'I Had An Anvil Dropped On My Head' Kuhns, etc., etc. was overwhelmingly negative. But, when there's a chance to make a buck.....

Many of these books dealt with the the imbalance of power between owners and players. Some also dealt with the de-humanizing aspect of the game, as well. Two, I remember reading when I was a young lad at the time, were actually football books. One was Dave Meggyesy's 'Out of Their League', which gave a fairly honest first hand account of the NFL and the abuse of its players at the hands of the owners. The league denounced it, of course. But, many contemporary players came to the book's defense. A much poorer relative to Meggyesy's book, which I also read at the time, was Bernie Parrish's unfortunate 'They Call It a Game'. It typifies the kind of tell-all book being cranked out on the market during the early seventies. In it, Bernie reveals such startling and riveting insights as : His teammates played for 'money'! The lockerroom smelled 'bad' after games! The owners saw professional football as a 'business'! Gasp!!

What seperates Bouton's book from the those that followed over the next several years, is it's humor and over-all sense of fun. Bouton wasn't setting out to smear Major League Baseball. He balanced the good news with the bad. Part of the bad was the owners' over-the-top parsimony, which as we know, resulted in today's free agency and the incredible salaries it has generated. But, Bouton clearly loved the game and kept his tone balanced and honest. If you review other 'insider' books that were released at the time, 'Ball Four' is likely the only one that can be said of.

I'm a "blame the owners first" guy, like Bouton. First they were too greedy and conniving; then they were caught; now that they can't connive they can't control themselves.

They're the owners, they don't have to pay more than they can afford (unless they're hyper rich, well into their 80s, and they recently tried to kill their franchise).

And I know that takes us into the subjects of big markets v. small markets, and lock outs and all - it probably gets us right to where we are. And it does hurt to see one-dimensional moronic steroid freaks like Canseco and Giambi paid more money in a year than my dad did his whole life.

But I think the system was "more broke" when Bouton was a ballplayer. Bouton's book was a reminder of the bad old days. In my opinion the sport is holding its own pretty well.

mmmarkiep: "And, really, comparing Marvin Miller to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? Or George Washington? That's a stretch."

I didn't mean to say their actions or accomplishments were comparable, simply that they all took leadership positions and changed things. I should have used a more basic example.
To me, your post sounded like "What Miller did is no big deal, it would have happened later anyway." But now I understand you as saying, "Even if the owners hadn't been complete dummies, they would have lost total control later anyway." Which is probably true, but how much control? And wouldn't they have been better off negotiating in good faith and not getting dragged through the mud of various courtroom decisions and lockouts? If only they had compromised reasonably with the players, couldn't they have wound up more like the NFL or NBA, where the player's unions, although well-compensated, still don't have the same power as the MLBPA? (Salary caps, etc.)

The weird thing is, baseball owners alone have been afforded a marvelous gift: the antitrust exemption. Even with license to monopolize, they've single-handedly managed to bungle their sport into a position where they are no longer in charge of their own monopoly! (Unless, of course, we believe their continued cries of poverty while they have never actually disclosed their true financial status)