Should players be guaranteed a career in baseball?

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

The biggest obstacle I see for a new league would be TV revenue.  Fifty plus years ago TV revenue made up a much smaller percentage of overall revenues.

MLB gets 1.5B a year in National TV money and that doesn't include local deals.

Again, how would this impede the creation of a new league by the players in ANY way?

If the entire MLBPA decided to walk away from MLB today, and start a new league, what would prohibit it?

And what relvancy does the fact that it hasn't happened for some time have?

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, owknows said:

You make the one relevant point that makes things difficult...

(the fact that many pro sports franchises enjoy municipal support in violation of the the Constitution, and of free market principles)

Certainly violates a free market.  Not sure it violates the Constitution.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Certainly violates a free market.  Not sure it violates the Constitution.  

I don't remember much in the Constitution about State or local government, but it's been a few decades.

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I must be rusty on my Constitutional theory.  What part of the Constitution bans State or local municipalities from acting in such a fashion?

You're rusty on a lot of things.

But that doesn't mean they aren't so. Just that you don't recognize them as so.

The 14th Amendment requires that states govern impartially, offering no benefit to one citizen at the expense of another.

Yet most of what State, Local, and Federal government does today violates the 14th amendment.

This used to be understood and respected by Federal, State, and Local Governments.

It's violation by all levels of government is a relatively recent phenomenon...

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

You're rusty on a lot of things.

But that doesn't mean they aren't so. Just that you don't recognize them as so.

The 14th Amendment requires that states govern impartially, offering no benefit to one citizen at the expense of another.

Yet most of what State, Local, and Federal government does today violates the 14th amendment.

This used to be understood and respected by Federal, State, and Local Governments.

It's violation by all levels of government is a relatively recent phenomenon...

But...if the courts decide it's not a violation than it's not a violation.  Despite what someone on an internet message board might say.

 

I think your interpretation of the XIV amendment has never been that of the courts.

 

 

[owknows]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

But...if the courts decide it's not a violation than it's not a violation.  Despite what someone on an internet message board might say.

 

I think your interpretation of the XIV amendment has never been that of the courts.

 

 

The courts decide many things that are clearly and patently intentional distortions of the law. That doesn't make the law wrong. It makes the courts wrong.

Government reaching into the pocket of one citizen to benefit another used to be universally recognized as wrongful. By all levels of government. And by the courts. If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.  It is only in the last 80 years or so that government has presumed the power to rob one man, to directly benefit another. It did so incrementally, and the courts have slowly shifted in opinion, as they do with all usurpations of legitimate governmental constraint.

 

That said, I think this conversation is coming dangerously close to violating a prohibition on political discussion which our host has asked that we respect... so I think I'll end it here.

[DrungoHazewood]

51 minutes ago, owknows said:

The AFL (now the AFC) begs to differ.

There is no impediment to the start of another league now... nor has there been.

They players simply find it in their best interests not to do so.

Of course there are huge impediments.  TV revenues and stadiums foremost.  Football has probably hundreds of stadiums appropriate for a pro team once you consider colleges and even unused old pro stadiums.  Baseball parks are usually specifically constructed for the purpose, and modern ones cost at least $hundreds of millions.  All of the bigger cities in the US and Canada have leases for their baseball parks with existing MLB teams, almost certainly exclusive leases.  The Baltimore Players' League Team isn't going to quickly negotiate a deal to share OPACY with the Orioles.  They're going to have to build their own (taking five years and $1B) or figure out how to convince people that playing at Towson State's 1000-seat park is befitting a major league team.  Maybe they could work something out at FedEx Field, pay Dan Snyder to play there and deal with a 220-foot LF fence.

[Frobby]

24 minutes ago, owknows said:

The courts decide many things that are clearly and patently intentional distortions of the law. That doesn't make the law wrong. It makes the courts wrong.

Government reaching into the pocket of one citizen to benefit another used to be universally recognized as wrongful. By all levels of government. And by the courts. If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.  It is only in the last 80 years or so that government has presumed the power to rob one man, to directly benefit another. It did so incrementally, and the courts have slowly shifted in opinion, as they do with all usurpations of legitimate governmental constraint.

 

That said, I think this conversation is coming dangerously close to violating a prohibition on political discussion which our host has asked that we respect... so I think I'll end it here.

Get your point of view in, then end it.  Clever!  But I agree this discussion is political and should not be pursued.

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

41 minutes ago, owknows said:

Again, how would this impede the creation of a new league by the players in ANY way?

If the entire MLBPA decided to walk away from MLB today, and start a new league, what would prohibit it?

And what relvancy does the fact that it hasn't happened for some time have?

There's a big difference between "prohibit" and "financially ruinous to try". 

[owknows]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There's a big difference between "prohibit" and "financially ruinous to try". 

That would seem a little defeatist.

As we both know, these decisions come with high risk... and also high reward

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

That would seem a little defeatist.

As we both know, these decisions come with high risk... and also high reward

 

It's been 108 years since a rival baseball league started up, and about 120 since one succeeded.  Back then you could throw up a stadium worthy of a MLB team with two months and few thousand dollars worth of lumber.  High risk doesn't even begin to describe trying to beat out an established league with $hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies, an anti-trust exemption and an established $10B revenue stream based mostly on guaranteed subscriber fees from hundreds of millions of people.

It would be like starting up Tesla, but with the government building Ford's and GM's factories, and the Supreme Court saying that the established automakers can do whatever they please because selling cars isn't interstate commerce.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's been 108 years since a rival baseball league started up, and about 120 since one succeeded.  Back then you could throw up a stadium worthy of a MLB team with two months and few thousand dollars worth of lumber.  High risk doesn't even begin to describe trying to beat out an established league with $hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies, an anti-trust exemption and an established $10B revenue stream based mostly on guaranteed subscriber fees from hundreds of millions of people.

It would be like starting up Tesla, but with the government building Ford's and GM's factories, and the Supreme Court saying that the established automakers can do whatever they please because selling cars isn't interstate commerce.

Don't forget the law banning the importing of cars.

[owknows]

20 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

It would be like starting up Tesla, but with the government building Ford's and GM's factories, and the Supreme Court saying that the established automakers can do whatever they please because selling cars isn't interstate commerce.

Good thing Elon Musk saw things your way... otherwise we'd have Tesla and stuff.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

Good thing Elon Musk saw things your way... otherwise we'd have Tesla and stuff.

Elon Musk didn't create Tesla.

[owknows]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Elon Musk didn't create Tesla.

No. He bought controlling interest, and turned it into an actual car company