Boras proving he's an idiot

[The Wedge]

Boras isn't an idiot, he's just got a Vince McMahon business mentality.

[Frobby]

The awards show idea is an interesting one. It doesn't affect anything that goes on between the white lines, and it would be kind of suspenseful as opposed to simply having these awards trickle out in the press over a couple of weeks.

[longflyball]

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this, which is all the better because it makes for good talk over a beer at a sports bar. But a couple of thoughts...

- Different strokes for different folks, of course, but I have no patience for folks who get angered by bands 'selling out.' Most musicians (admittedly unlike baseball owners) are trying to pay the bills and make a living. I can't begrudge anyone for trying to get as far in their profession as they can, and to turn a talent they have into financial security.

- But back to baseball, this is entertainment and not art. I don't think it is a good idea for any entertainment business to turn its back on the mainstream. Put another way, if Boras is correct that such a scheme would create more interest and more fans, I think MLB should weigh that pretty heavily against tradition. Don't overlook the wisdom of crowds.

I don't buy the idea of the good old days, and I don't buy into the idea that change is bad. Interesting to note that many of the disruptive changes of baseball past that traditionalists worried would ruin baseball forever, things like the DH (personally I am still not a big fan, but hard to say it has been a disaster) and the wild card, have seemingly succeeded in generating interest and growing the sport. Who is to say that Boras' ideas won't turn out the same way.

I don't oppose all change. I have no problem with the wildcard or the All-Star game determining home field advantage in the World Series. I realize that baseball can't be completely chained to its past.

What I don't like are changes that alter the fundamental character of the game soley for the pursuit of a buck. I realize that the people who run baseball are in it to make money, and it would be unrealistic of me to expect them to not want to make more money.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to gag when they try to put advertisements on the bases, or overlook steroids so more fans pay to watch more home runs, or play games in Mexcio, or play the World Series in London, or put gaudy digital ads on the backstop, or pack 15 commercials in between every half inning of playoff games, or nationally televise only the MFY and MFRS, or stretch out the playoffs to maximize ratings.

You'll not find a bigger defender of the free market than myself. But even I won't deny that the profit motive can have unintended and undesirable side effects.

[Flip217]

Regarding baseball as entertainment...

...it's certainly entertaining (even the product they've been peddling to us O's fans!) but I don't see it as entertainment in the same sense as the music industry, or Hollywood, or sitcoms. They probably have more in common than they have differences, but I think an awards show, with players on the "red carpet", and more marketing to corporate influence, etc., won't add anything of substance to the game. I don't think it needs anything added.

That being said, Frobby does point out that the awards "trickle out" -- maybe there's a happy medium.

[GeorgiaBird]

I don't oppose all change. I have no problem with the wildcard or the All-Star game determining home field advantage in the World Series. I realize that baseball can't be completely chained to its past.

What I don't like are changes that alter the fundamental character of the game soley for the pursuit of a buck. I realize that the people who run baseball are in it to make money, and it would be unrealistic of me to expect them to not want to make more money.

I think we can agree to disagree, but I think the DH, interleague play and especially the wild card were all fundamental changes to the character of the sport driven primarily if not entirely by a desire to make more money. Adding two neutral site games to the WS, to me, would be less of a fundamental change to the character of the game than the wild card or DH.

At the end of the day I believe that without the pursuit of money by everyone involved, I am going to lose out on the baseball I enjoy. I am a big soccer fan who can not get nearly as much soccer here in Atlanta and on my TV as I can baseball. The reason is simple. Money = relevance. I personally would rather see things change and evolve to stay relevant with the times, even if I personally don't like all of the changes, than to see something I enjoy fade to the background because it was unwilling to adapt.

[Avsfan]

Baseball, and Selig both know that they're also playing 2nd fiddle to the NFL.

Baseball is no longer "America's Pastime" the days of the Brooklyn Dodgers where everyone knew every player and so on and so forth are done and by the wayside.

I love baseball....I love every aspect of it, always have...always will, but I will say it's alot easier to focus all my attention on something for 4 hours, once a week, than something every day for 6 months. Those games in the middle of June and July, sometimes slip through the cracks, unless something extra special happens.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think we can agree to disagree, but I think the DH, interleague play and especially the wild card were all fundamental changes to the character of the sport driven primarily if not entirely by a desire to make more money. Adding two neutral site games to the WS, to me, would be less of a fundamental change to the character of the game than the wild card or DH.

I go further and say almost every major change in the sport has been driven by a profit motive. The NL was founded because the owners didn't think the old National Association had enough central authority and was too disorganized to be a successful commercial venture. The annual tinkering with the basic playing rules in the 1800s was almost solely because the owners were trying to find the optimal balance between hitting, pitching and fielding that would draw the most spectators. They contracted four teams after 1899 because they weren't making enough money. They let Ruth radically transform the game because immense crowds came out to see him. The game has been changed in many ways by TV (and before that radio) because of the revenues media brings in. Same for the DH, and the wildcard.

There are really only two reasons baseball willingly changes - profit and fear. And even those are often one and the same.

[DrungoHazewood]

Baseball, and Selig both know that they're also playing 2nd fiddle to the NFL.

Baseball is no longer "America's Pastime" the days of the Brooklyn Dodgers where everyone knew every player and so on and so forth are done and by the wayside.

I love baseball....I love every aspect of it, always have...always will, but I will say it's alot easier to focus all my attention on something for 4 hours, once a week, than something every day for 6 months. Those games in the middle of June and July, sometimes slip through the cracks, unless something extra special happens.

The NFL has an enormous advantage. Because it's physically impossible to play more than a certain number of games they have to limit the supply of their product to <20 games per team per season. The demand for the product far outstrips the limited supply, so they can charge an arm and a leg and still sell 80,000 tickets a game.

I wonder what baseball would look like if they'd stumbled upon today's baseball environment in 1900, and starting pitchers were only pitching once a week. They might have settled on a setup where the season only had 40 or 50 games, and today we'd have baseball stadiums that seat 100k and sell out almost every game.

[Sports Guy]

I like the idea of an awards "gala".

Think about it...All year long, everyone debates who will be the MVP or win the Cy or whatever....And then how do we find out?

On some wire report over the internet.

Pretty uninspiring way to announce something that is debated so much during the year.

Hockey has a banquet type thing, don't they?...They have the Heisman show that lasts approximately 12 hours as well.

The awards in football aren't really talked about all that much.

Baseball is the sport where the awards are talked about the most.

[Goop]

Wow, I guess I'm in the minority here. I think the idea sucks all the way around.

I love football, but all the hype around the Super Bowl is absolutley absurd, IMO. And to actually seek to add more "corporate hospitality" makes me want to retch. The game is enough; why do we need gala affairs, games being played in a third city, more more more? Oh well, I guess I'm old and cranky.

Agreed. I think it sucks too.