Quote:
Originally Posted by George
I actually think my metaphor comparing Marvin Miller's potential Hall of Fame plaque to a statue of John Wilkes Booth is quite reasonable, although we do understand that Marvin Miller has not actually killed anyone. And (to paraphrase Casey Stengel) I'll tell you why. Marvin Miller was a very capable union leader, and his efforts provided a huge financial windfall for his employers, which were the players. However, as is often the case with a strong union, comparable benefits did not accrue to the management (the owners) or the customers (the fans). Marvin Miller's legacy has given us, among other things, players with enormous salaries, directly resulting in higher costs to the fans. Another fallout from the powerful player's union has been their powerful opposition to drug testing, which led to the debacle of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds. And now, in the aftermath of this painful kick in the shins, you expect us to go to the Hall of Fame and fawn over the plaque of the person who caused this? I think this would be an affront to those of us who enjoyed baseball when it was truly our national pastime.
It is true that the activities of Marvin Miller have had a significant impact on the game of baseball........but not a helpful impact, from the point of view of the fans. If Marvin Miller deserves a plaque, it should be in the Labor Union Hall of Fame (if there is one), along with those of Jimmy Hoffa, Mike Quill and John L. Lewis.
If I ever get a Marvin Miller baseball card, I will be sure to attach it to the spokes of my grandson's bicycle, so that it will be put to good use.
|
What complete horsesh-t. Before Marvin Miller, players were essentially slaves to the owners' whims due to the reserve clause. He led them in their quest for freedom, which was a quest that had been ongoing since at least the 1890's. I have no problem with that quest, because I think that in this nation you should have the right to negotiate the value of your services instead of receiving only whatever your employer thinks you are worth without even having the ability to go elsewhere and try to do better. In almost any other industry that has ever existed in this country, if you disagreed with your employers's assessment of your value, you were free to leave and go somewhere where you thought your services would be valued more highly. Not so with the robber barons who ruled baseball for a century due to the reserve clause. Their greed caused their own demise insofar as player salaries are concerned. That was the owners' fault, not the fault of those who they were repeatedly trying to screw.
Did Marvin Miller's efforts raise players' salaries? Absolutely. As they were intended to and should have. Did the owners pass that on to the fans? Yep, owners have never, and probably will never, eat any expense they think they can make the fans eat. Did they have to do that? Probably not, at least not now, since most of them are making a complete killing on collateral stuff like TV contracts, advertising, parking concessions, food concessions, etc. Would the ticket price increases have happened anyway? Almost certainly so, although perhaps not so quickly. The fact that you have to pay highly for highly talented people in any profession or occupation is just a given. Doctors, lawyers, actors, musicians, etc. If it were not that way, why would anyone ever try to strive at excelling at whatever they do?
I get it that the players are now rich too. At least some of them have now become exactly what I hate, albeit on a somewhat lesser level. In any event, suffice it to say that while my heart does not go out to the players' complaints anymore, I am still far more tone deaf to the owners' pleas for sympathy for their allegedly sad plight. Having a billionaire explain why he has to raise ticket prices again in order to maintain his standard of living is, IMO, the epitome of bullsh-t.
Along with Jackie Robinson, Marvin Miller was, IMO, probably one of THE TWO most influential people in baseball since at least the beginning of the 20th century. He will probably never be elected to the HOF because the owners all hate him (and because he asked for that not to happen posthumously), but that certainly doesn't change his impact on the game.