Sports Illustrated: Why Bud Selig Should Not Be in the HOF

[eddie83]

I don't think Bud ever understood that the job description of the commissioner is to "act in the best interest of baseball" and that is not necessarily synonymis with making as much money as possible for the owners.

To me his legacy will always be:

Killing half the regular season and entire post season in 1994

Steroids (it was congress, not Bud that implemented testing)

A complete competitive imbalance (but because some shrewd GMs (see Dan Duquette) can make small market teams competitive in a limited window time frame this is often swept under the rug)

Interleague play.

Over expansion of the post season (devaluing the regular season)

3 divisions with unbalanced schedules

He can enter the HOF if he buys a ticket, just like anyone else.

Selig's job like every other commissioner is to work for the owners. No commissioner is some independent party.

Really disagree on a lot of what you said. The NFL dominates the sports world in the fall and even more so if wild cards didn't exist. I think it is nice to be able go see players you normally never saw play.

Selig has his faults and 1994 and steroids are on his plate. MLB screwed up not pushing for testing in the mid 90's, but until the CBA was negotiated again in 2002 he was in no position to do much. Even by 2002 the union was still fighting it. I think he deserves to be in the Hall but so does Marvin Miller. I think Selig was a good commissioner.

[eddie83]

This is my beef with him. Oakland, rays, Os type teams will always be around but it's for a limited window of 2-3 years at most and those teams never have the high priced talent to push them over the top.

It's just Red Sox, Yankees, giants and other high payroll teams over and over.

In the nfl, any team can win the Super Bowl. Wouldn't surprise anyone. Same in nhl or nba. In mlb, that's not the case.

Revenue sharing closes the gap a little bit but cap is the way to go in today's sports if you want to maintain fan interest in your markets.

Small to mid markets fans will stop showing up or watching if the champs are always the usual aforementioned teams

And how exactly do you think a salary cap is possible? The union is way too powerful, do you think if someone else was in office the union would allow a cap?

The whole cap thing and the NFL is overrated. The NFL media kisses up to the league. Until this year a lot of the leagues issues were ignored. There are plenty of teams that stink year in and year out. Then you have a NE team going to it's 6th Super Bowl in 14 seasons. A big reason that everyone has a chance is that the season only has 16 games. With 4 divisions and 2 wild cards it creates a chance for a lot of teams to still be in contention late in the year. With only 16 games it doesn't allow for as much separation.

[Machado13]

And how exactly do you think a salary cap is possible? The union is way too powerful, do you think if someone else was in office the union would allow a cap?

The whole cap thing and the NFL is overrated. The NFL media kisses up to the league. Until this year a lot of the leagues issues were ignored. There are plenty of teams that stink year in and year out. Then you have a NE team going to it's 6th Super Bowl in 14 seasons. A big reason that everyone has a chance is that the season only has 16 games. With 4 divisions and 2 wild cards it creates a chance for a lot of teams to still be in contention late in the year. With only 16 games it doesn't allow for as much separation.

Again I agree union is powerful...I don't know maybe some sort of floor and ceiling like NHL?

Just MO but in the nfl, nba and nhl I feel like any team could win with right cap management and operations etc.

In baseball I don't feel that. I see teams like the Indians, pirates, Os or As maxing out with just playoff appearance and that's only when the big spenders make mistakes and need to reload.

It's no coincidence that teams like As and reds haven't won since the early 90s.

I know it's tough but mlb needs to figure out or risk losing even more relevance

[spiritof66]

I think you are wrong here. The Rays have been very competitive in recent years. So have the Orioles. So have the A's. They've shown that it's entirely possible to win through player development and trades rather than through free agency. And the structure has changed. You just don't see young players in their prime entering free agency anymore. It's always veterans who end up getting overpaid by the teams with big wallets. I think it has gotten to the point where it is a bad idea to build through free agency.

I think that by the standards of his predecessors, Bud Selig was a good commissioner. Again, two decades of labor peace, huge growth for baseball internationally, and decent competitive balance without a salary cap. Those all seem like significant accomplishments to me. And I think some of his other tweaks have been good as well. I like, for instance, that the ASG decides home field in the World Series. It kept the All Star Game relevant. I like that he resisted instant replay for as long as he did, because I think instant replay in most cases is bad for the game. I'm very worried what's going to happen now that Manfred is in charge.

I guess we just see the competitive situation differently. Imbalance is not a major problem within three of the divisions, because the demographics are not too out of whack in the Centrals (as long as the Cubs and WS don't get smart and spending more of the revenues they generate) and the Mets and Phillies have so badly squandered their natural advantages. I think the playing field is badly tilted in the other three divisions. Selig doesn't seem to care, and he hasn't done a thing to help the A's or Rays out of the morasses they are in. Not that the D-backs, Rockies, Pads, Orioles, Rays, 'Stros, Mariners, or A's can't break through once in a while. They can and do, if they're smarter, or luckier than the richer teams (or both). Or I guess if they have owners willing to spend more than the teams take in.

I agree with you that, right now, reliance on free agents is not the best way to build a winning team. But I would qualify that generalization. First, IMO the biggest advantage that the big-market teams have is not in signing free agents but in being able to retain young talent that they obtained early in their careers. If they do develop of obtain that talent, they can afford to keep it as it reaches its prime and beyond. Imagine how much more formidable the NYY would have been last year if they had retained Cano, instead of letting him go for what I believe were primarily public relations rather than financial reasons. Second, if a small-market team doesn't develop talent (or if that talent gets injured or otherwise stops performing), it's pretty much screwed, while a big-market team can be competitive by signing free agents and trading for veterans with big contracts. Third, while I agree that a lot of ML free agents are coming to the market later and with fewer future years when they are likely to provide value, I think you understate the value of signing free agents in that (a) your comments don't apply to lots of international free agents, and (b) the result is that many of these players are very productive up front and then tail off, and higher-revenue teams are much better situated to sign guys who can help you win for a few years but will still be paid lots of money when they're no longer providing much more than replacement value.

One of my problems with Selig is that he has spent the last few years patting himself and MLB on the back, without acknowledging that the game faces some serious challenges. I suppose I agree that Selig was a good Commissioner compared to the likes of Bowie Kuhn, Spike Eckert and Ueberroth (who didn't even pretend to care much about the game). I thought Vincent was better, and Giamatti might have been (even though in his brief tenure he came across as more of an unconditional celebrant of the game than a problem-solver).

[birdcrazy]

If everyone is on steroids, did anyone really have an advantage because of it?

[Number5]

If everyone is on steroids, did anyone really have an advantage because of it?

Anthony Bosch

[DrungoHazewood]

Again I agree union is powerful...I don't know maybe some sort of floor and ceiling like NHL?

Just MO but in the nfl, nba and nhl I feel like any team could win with right cap management and operations etc.

In baseball I don't feel that. I see teams like the Indians, pirates, Os or As maxing out with just playoff appearance and that's only when the big spenders make mistakes and need to reload.

It's no coincidence that teams like As and reds haven't won since the early 90s.

I know it's tough but mlb needs to figure out or risk losing even more relevance

Then why are there teams in all of the other major North American sports with championship droughts comparable to even small market teams in baseball? With all of the supposed parity in the other sports why have the Clippers, Lions, Hawks, Chargers, Maple Leafs and the football Cardinals gone roughly a half-century with no titles between them?

[DrungoHazewood]

And how exactly do you think a salary cap is possible? The union is way too powerful, do you think if someone else was in office the union would allow a cap?

The whole cap thing and the NFL is overrated. The NFL media kisses up to the league. Until this year a lot of the leagues issues were ignored. There are plenty of teams that stink year in and year out. Then you have a NE team going to it's 6th Super Bowl in 14 seasons. A big reason that everyone has a chance is that the season only has 16 games. With 4 divisions and 2 wild cards it creates a chance for a lot of teams to still be in contention late in the year. With only 16 games it doesn't allow for as much separation.

The cap and floor aren't nearly as important as revenue parity. If the NFL let/made each of its franchises negotiate their own TV deals the resulting flood of money into teams like the Cowboys would surely leak onto the field. They might cap salaries at some level, but every Dallas player would be driven to a the game in a Bugatti Veyron driven by a supermodel.

[spiritof66]

Then why are there teams in all of the other major North American sports with championship droughts comparable to even small market teams in baseball? With all of the supposed parity in the other sports why have the Clippers, Lions, Hawks, Chargers, Maple Leafs and the football Cardinals gone roughly a half-century with no titles between them?

Because they have been poorly run off and/or on the field (and, in some cases, have been just a little been short, maybe as a matter of bad luck, when they got close).

To me, the objective of increasing competitive balance isn't to ensure that championships are evenly or even widely distributed. That will depend on which teams are best put together and play most successfully. The goal should be to give competing teams roughly equal financial resources with which to compete. How they deploy those resources, and how many championships they win or come close to, will depend on what strategies they use to build their teams and how successful (and with how much luck) they implement those strategies. I would like to see baseball have more of that sort of balance.

[Machado13]

Because they have been poorly run off and/or on the field (and, in some cases, have been just a little been short, maybe as a matter of bad luck, when they got close).

To me, the objective of increasing competitive balance isn't to ensure that championships are evenly or even widely distributed. That will depend on which teams are best put together and play most successfully. The goal should be to give competing teams roughly equal financial resources with which to compete. How they deploy those resources, and how many championships they win or come close to, will depend on what strategies they use to build their teams and how successful (and with how much luck) they implement those strategies. I would like to see baseball have more of that sort of balance.

Just to piggy back on this...let's say the Oakland As and billy beane worked in a cap environment, anyone doubt they would not have won by now especially those gross payroll mismatches against Yankees?

I just don't think it's a coincidence that teams like twins, As and reds have not won since late 80s/early 90s.

I would be willing to bet if these teams had the same resources/salary cap as rest of mlb they would have won a WS no doubt. Think of all those As teams that had to win before the big 3 pitchers cashed in or Giambi leaving. Or the gardenhire twins teams. I guarantee with a cap some of those teams would have won WS.

That's the issue I see. There is no New Orleans saints, Indianapolis colts, Carolina hurricanes, Tampa bay lightning, Tampa bay buccaneers type champion teams in mlb because odds are greatly stacked against them.

[eddie83]

The cap and floor aren't nearly as important as revenue parity. If the NFL let/made each of its franchises negotiate their own TV deals the resulting flood of money into teams like the Cowboys would surely leak onto the field. They might cap salaries at some level, but every Dallas player would be driven to a the game in a Bugatti Veyron driven by a supermodel.

If the revenue parity is so great then why are teams like the Rams threatening move back to LA? We have had one franchise relocate in the last 45 years in MLB, a lot have in the NFL. The Bills and Jags didn't benefit from the Cowboys new stadium, Jerry Jones did.

The reason the revenue is shared is because the season is only 16 games long. One game a week equals all games on National TV. I think the fact that football is the perfect TV sport is something that just happened naturally over time. I don't give the NFL all the credit for it myself.

[Machado13]

If the revenue parity is so great then why are teams like the Rams threatening move back to LA? We have had one franchise relocate in the last 45 years in MLB, a lot have in the NFL. The Bills and Jags didn't benefit from the Cowboys new stadium, Jerry Jones did.

The reason the revenue is shared is because the season is only 16 games long. One game a week equals all games on National TV. I think the fact that football is the perfect TV sport is something that just happened naturally over time. I don't give the NFL all the credit for it myself.

I'll answer the rams question...nfl wants to move to la with 2 teams likely. Who wouldn't want to move to the 2nd biggest market!

[Tx Oriole]

He shouldnt...he was a detriment to small market teams and it's still only the big market teams that win in the end. You don't see St. Louis rams or San Antonio spurs type markets win in baseball.

In fact, padres fans were furious after hearing the padres were going to call plaza at petco park "bud selig plaza" just to kiss his you know what for the all star game.

Good riddance. All he did was oversee big market dominance to point where people just stopped tuning in to the Red Sox/Yankees/giants crap

No he shouldn't be in the hall of fame. But since when are the Giants a large

market team?

[DrungoHazewood]

Just to piggy back on this...let's say the Oakland As and billy beane worked in a cap environment, anyone doubt they would not have won by now especially those gross payroll mismatches against Yankees?

You mean won the World Series, right? In a cap environment, but with the same multi-tiered playoff system? Of course there's substantial doubt they would have won the Series under those conditions. A 100-win team has maybe a 20% chance of winning the Series on day one of the playoffs, a 88-win team maybe 8-10%. The A's would have to have made the playoffs six or eight times to have a very good chance of winning one World Series. And even then they may have been the Braves, who made the playoffs, what... 14? straight years with one title to show for it.

[DrungoHazewood]

If the revenue parity is so great then why are teams like the Rams threatening move back to LA?

Probably because the NFL has much looser restrictions on franchise movement and a revenue setup that allows teams in almost any market to thrive, so they ended up with zero teams in the 2nd-largest market in the USA. That market should be very lucrative and very inviting to many teams.