Happy Opening Day! (even though MLB hates it's fans)
 

I'm happy for the start of the regular season today in Tokyo, or late night / early morning in LA & Chicago.

MLB, in it's infinite wisdom, has the game starting at 3 am LA time / 5 am Chicago time.

If the game had started at 1 pm Tokyo time (which happens frequently during the Japanese season) it would have been 9 pm in LA and 11 pm in Chicago, which would have been pretty good times for sports bars, and even potentially viewing parties at Dodger Stadium or Wrigley Field.

But no, why try to let the home town fans enjoy?

Doug

MLB, or any major sport for that matter, doesn't give a damn about fans. It's all and only about money. It's been that way for decades now. I collect "the good old days". I don't watch or even care about watching millionaires (some many, many times over). They can't relate to or even comprehend fans.

Jim, love your posts, but you realize that news papers were full of editorials in the 1920s about how much Babe Ruth made and how outlandish and outrageous it all was, right?

The public turned on Gehrig when he held out for a raise and it was for way less that Ruth made. Way less.

Things change, times evolve, I am just glad baseball is back.

James- We are in the minority but I agree with you. I quit watching after the half of season, 1994.

"The 1994-95 Major League Baseball strike, which began on August 12, 1994, and lasted until April 2, 1995, resulted in the cancellation of the 1994 postseason, including the World Series, and a shortened 1995 season"


That, and your reasoning, is why I could probably never collect/resell modern cards. I saw the new MLB HOF list of candidates. I literally didn't know 1 name out of about 25-30? Never heard of any of them, not an iota. I could not care less of MLB today, if I tried.
I think it's a small percentage of this forum but there are a few of us that feel this way, for one reason or another.

And a card.

One of the few times where having a career that involves being at work around 6-630am was a positive.

I'll take it even though the Cubs lost.

Also, we live in an era where I can watch almost every Cubs game, and up to 14 other games a day if I choose, for $100 a year (MLBAA $25 + half-off MLB.tv). Best deal in entertainment. I would have killed for this as a kid and it's easily obtainable as an adult.

You guys who hate current MLB should really give it another chance - some of the players are really quite good! There’s this one guy from Japan who can hit *and* pitch!

Some interesting points of view.

However, if MLB had vanished - let's say in the steroid's era - because no one attended or watched a baseball game. The baseball cards that everyone cherishes would be absolutely worthless and would be exactly what they are - pieces of old cardboard.

The old saying "Throwing baby out with the bath water" is applicable in this case.

I for one support and love a good baseball game.

Hmmmm. Now you're tempting me to actually buy a TV! I have to keep telling myself though that watching a lot of TV kills too many brain cells.

;)

The entire point of professional baseball since 1869 has been for club owners to make more money... The only thing that's changed is the amount of money and ways to acquire it. The idea that guys like Comiskey, Frazee, Navin would end TV blackouts, refuse to slap advertising on batting helmets, or chose not to tank if it was financially beneficial should they be owners now and not a century ago is pretty funny. Professional baseball has always and will always be about money.

The problem I have with criticizing players for money is that its short sighted in favor of the owners. The money is there - period. I'd much rather see every god damned nickel go to the players than the owners. Ive never been to any event with the interest of seeing the owners. Unless you have a plan to suck money out of the game (good luck!), its a complete non-starter in my book. The notion that these freak athletes should be able to relate to my fat ass accounting professional is laughable and arrogance of the highest order.

It is peak Rob Manfred to start the Japan games at the worst possible time of day for US audiences. (3 am start for the Dodgers' home market, lol)

I can understand not watching today's game because of the pace, rule changes, the emphasis on analytics, etc. The one thing I don't understand is not watching because of how much money the players make.

They make what they make for the same reason baseball cards cost what they do...supply and demand. The players provide a skill that is in short supply and the owners acquire that skill to help them make money through attendance, concessions, sale of merchandise, viewership, etc. They bid in a free market system for the players services. Maybe they are not always smart about what they are paying so some contracts seem silly. But they are the ones offering to pay the players the money (the same way we are the ones bidding on/buying baseball cards and thus setting a price for them).

I also don't understand why, when we consume other forms of entertainment like movies, TV, music, etc. we don't say "I won't watch that movie, they paid the star too much." We just decide whether we think it will entertain us and then watch or not watch based on that. Not to mention drive cars, use computers and phones, and buy things online from companies owned by billionaires.

I would never tell anyone what to watch or not watch, and I am certainly not as invested in the current game as I was when I was twelve (I am much more likely to know who won the World Series 60 years ago as opposed to six years ago). But when I do see a game, I see some amazing athletes competing at a high level in a sport I enjoy watching.

And a card...

I suspect that the growth market for the Dodgers and the Cubs may be Asia these days. Opening Day revenues for an Ohtani - Imanaga - Yamamoto start is probably better in Japan than in LA or in Chicago.

Generally speaking, I think the game today is as good as it was "back in the day". I was an 86 Mets era fan, and the only thing I wish is that there is more focus on defense and small ball in the modern game (noting that the Yankees dropped trou in the World Series because they can't play defense). I wouldn't mind seeing some more bench clearing brawls also.

But the athleticism, speed, power pitching, faster pace, MLB TV -- so I can watch the White Sox play the Rockies if I'm looking for the occasional minor league game. I think it's a better product overall now.

If you don't watch baseball because of how much the players make, I assume you don't go to the movies either. Or buy much music. Jack Nicholson used to make like $6m for a few HOURS of set time. Elon Musk probably makes $800M in a DAY. Ditto Bill Gates. We have more billionaires in this country than any nation in the history of the world.

Leon is entitled to his view of course. But penalizing an entire sport because of what players did a generation ago? Men who are now in their 60s? You have soured on the sport because of that. I just don't get it.

Oakland As run into the ground by ownership . . . with an assist from the city. I read today that this poverty franchise was valued at 3 BILLION. And people are sour that a player is making 100 Million?

Happy Opening Day!

Spot on, Doug.

Go Cubs Go!

And Fisher's reward for running the team into the ground is $380 million from the Nevada taxpayers. At least the players earn their money...

This is only good for the game. If you were to compile the top 50 players in the league, I think you would find that a large portion of that pool is made up of international players.

Japan seems like a more than appropriate venue for an opening day series that baseball is capitalizing on the Dodgers for, who in turn employ the biggest name in the game and the most talked about free agent signing this year, both of whom are from Japan.

I've never understood why it always seems like 90% of the country is more obsessed with what actual workers make than what owners of the means of production, to quote Marx, make. Putting aside politics, which I am not referencing, not a single person said to me a year ago, "isn't it an abomination that Elon Musk makes $4 million dollars an hour." But I have hear people rant about overpaid teachers making $80,000 a year, greedy cops and firefighters pulling down $30,000 a year in overtime, etc. etc.

In sports its always the greedy players, not the greedy billionaires who run things and watch their assets appreciate every year even if they fail miserably.

Have always wondered if this is an American phenomenon or something more universal.

Interesting question. I don't know if any country worships obscene wealth better than we do.

Your comparing apples to oranges IMO. Musk is a private businessman. Teachers and firefighters are paid by tax dollars - our dollars. That's much easier to complain about! And I think, overall, you're wrong. Just as many people complain about rich guys as they do teachers and firefighters - class envy has been around forever.

We never give credit to the owners who started professional baseball back in the day, but look at all the franchises that went out of business before baseball became the national pastime. In Detroit, we had the National League Wolverines who folded in 1888 after winning a championship in 1887. The Federal League that went belly up after two seasons, I think. No one laments the fate of the owners who put up the money for those defunct franchises and leagues, but it’s ok to hate the owners who managed to hang on through two world wars, a depression, and the general ups and downs of the economy.

I don’t pay to see the owners play baseball, and I’m certainly not saying the owners are all great guys, but this class envy stuff strikes me as childish and naive. Today’s owners have to care about the fans despite what some might think. If they didn’t, they wouldn't be the greedy capitalists some claim they are, would they? And a business that doesn’t make money isn’t a business, it’s a charity.

I actually love watching baseball again since the pitch clock and other measures were taken to shorten the game times. It was getting to be 3 and half hours a game. Now it’s back to 2 and a half. It’s really made the game fun to watch again. Go Tigers!

Yes, players make what they do because their abilities bring in more revenue than they're paid.
The downside is that tickets are now way too expensive for an average fan to show up and buy a ticket to a game. The cheap seats at Fenway are about $100 each this year. The standing room in left field are almost 300. "loge Box" which used to be lower grandstand are about 200, depending on how far away you are.

A far stretch from when a HS kid with a job paying 3-4 an hour could go to something like 11 straight games trying to see Yaz 3000th hit.
Yes, it was years ago and everything had gotten more expensive. But even with our much better family income I couldn't manage much more than 1 or 2 games in the worst seats.


The reality for many musicians is not what you think. My friend that died recently was getting somewhere in trop rock, good following in the genre, couple songs doing well. He posted about his "earnings" a bout 2 years after his first song..... $3.... and they wanted $6 to send him a check.
Do it because you really like it.

Keep in mind that Babe Ruth's reply when asked why he believed he should earn more than the President was "I had a lot better year than he did." Well then let's compare the ratio of Ruths salary to the President's back then and the ratio of Juan Soto's salary to the President's in 2025. The ratio is exponentially higher these days. That's what has caused many fans to shake their heads in disgust.

:(

I disagree. After all, the collectors of old baseball cards are not doing so because they're enamoured of the present day game. They collect old cards for other reasons of their own. See the other currently active thread for precisely those reasons.

;)

Yes, everything changes. I am not that far gone. Yet. But there was a time in my youth when the ballplayers lived in the same neighborhoods as the fans. Even just a couple of years ago I bought bleacher seats at both Petco Park in San Diego and Yankee Stadium in New York for something like $15. I enjoyed both. But that's it. I can't and won't watch on TV. My wife does, and I go hide in my man cave bedroom. It's just obscene to me what ballplayers make. I don't care what the owners make; they either have the wherewithal to put a team on field, like the Dodgers Steinbrenner-like approach, or they don't, like the Pirates, who haven't won anything in decades. One wonders how teams like that survive. But I just can't rationalize watching multi-millionaires prance around in cricket pants, going through the motions of what was once a fantastic national pastime. And of course, with all the money comes the worry over getting a hangnail and having to miss the season. Read about Lou Gehrig and what he put up with before ALS finally stopped him. Sure, pitchers throw 100+ mph. Big effing deal. Even now I could time my swing to that. But if it breaks at that speed, well... But throwing that fast inevitably leads to breakdown, sooner rather than later. But like Leon, I have washed my hands of all the idiotic rule changes that had to be put into place.

Welcome back Baseball.. I missed it.. Redsox# 1

This kinda sidesteps the economic issues being raised by the people in this thread being made about going to live games, but I'm much happier staying home these days than seeing a game live.

HD broadcasts, the amount of cameras/angles, and various other broadcast perks have me staying home more than trying to get out to the ballpark when the situation arises. I've caught myself in hotel rooms in other cities choosing to catch the broadcast rather than buying a ticket and spending a few hours at the ballpark.

I don't even go to as many minor league games as I used to and they're still extremely affordable. Part of me would wonder if the carnival-like MLB parks is the turn-off, but it doesn't seem to be.

I'm really thankful for the sheer amount of broadcast baseball you can easily obtain these days. I watched the Cubs in Japan at 6am today and I'm on my 2nd spring training game since I got home in the early afternoon today.

Except when the owners decided not to, it was classified as collusion. Just shutting the whole enterprise down and walking away became their only alternative to anteing up again in bidding wars. They chose the latter.

:(

Indeed. Maybe it's also a function of age, but it's almost impossible for me to really root for the hired mercenaries on the field these days. It's also partially a function of free agency turning baseball into a game of musical chairs. I could more readily empathize with players when a Pirate or a Cardinal or a Tiger or an Indian (where are those Indians anyway?) stayed that way for some time.

I agree. I'd rather see knuckleball pitchers any time!

:(

I am more disgusted with the Fans than the players/owners in regards to player salaries. The fan have never said "enough is enough". They keep buying tickets and licensed merchendise no matter how rediculous the price is.

They accept increased commercial breaks on telecasts. Increased streaming services Bla Bla Bla. The owners know they have the fans hooked.


Our young people are now putting more money in their gambling accounts than 401k. They have a "You Only Live Once" mindset. Aslong as today they're happy, they don't care with tomorrow, since tomorrow is tomorrow, it's still not happened yet.

I remember when opening day was always in Cincinnati to start the season.

When the players lived in your neighborhood they were being screwed by the owners under the reserve clause. I assume you’d rather go back to the days when Al Kaline had to work for a car dealership in the off season?

How old are you, anyway? Did you stop watching in 1979 when Nolar Ryan got a million bucks per year for four years? Were you watching in 1966 when Sandy Koufax got $125,000 - equivalent to over a million dollars today.

Were you watching in 1941 when Hank Greenberg got 55,000 - also over a million bucks in today’s money?

I’m generally interested in when baseball was such a fantastic pastime compared to today? Take any era in baseball history and your exact complaints could be cut and paste into articles written back then - you just have to adjust for inflation.

Right now I can get two Tiger tickets for $12 each on stub hub. That’s pretty much the same price I would have paid in 1984, adjusted for inflation, for my $4 bleacher seats at Tiger Stadium. By comparison, it cost me $100 for a Red Wing ticket this Winter - same evil owner too.

Baseball today is just as good as it ever was. If you liked the game in 1970 I don't get why you wouldn't like it today.

Seems like most stadiums now, at least in big cities, have stupid $900 seats to sporting events. But like someone said, you can by $10-$20 tix to many games if you make an effort to look.

And the beers are $12 and the waters at $8. Stupid prices that you see in a lot of places now, not just the baseball stadium.

Why then should your fat-assed accountant or other fans relate to these freak athletes? You're forgetting that professional baseball is for the fans and it's ultimately the fans on whom the game and the players' inflated salaries depend. The fans are after all the customers.

:(

Actually I see NOTHING wrong with that situation at all. What's wrong with these seasonal workers actually preparing for the day when their skills have faded? What's wrong with them getting a start on building their careers outside of professional sports? That's how it was done until 40-50 years ago. CFL teams still encourage players to prepare for their post playing careers by becoming involved in the local community.

:confused:

I don't either. I see them as WAY overpaid and I am not changing my stance on that. And I don't think they were being screwed. Total baloney.

As an employee, I don't believe in the existence or concept of "overpaid".

One of my current employers would tell you in private that he believes I am overpaid, but he agreed to pay me, so he can't really complain. Oh, and I believe that I am underpaid, although I agreed to my salary, so I don't get to complain either.

What other industry prevented its employees from leaving and going to work for a competitor? That's basically what the reserve clause did.

I have long struggled to reconcile my love of baseball with my disgust for the greedy knuckleheads who run it. I'm happy opening day is here, but I have little interest in feeding the money machine. Whenever I think of guys like Selig and Manfred, I am reminded of a quote by Roy Hobbs in "The Natural" — "Max, did you ever play the game?"

Well, as stated near the top, I'm done with baseball, and all other major sports. I prefer the old game, the old rules, the old less money game. That's what I collect, and there are enough old radio and TV broadcasts saved off to my various hard drives, that I haven't heard or seen, to keep me happy until I croak. You guys have fun with the game as it is today.

I love baseball ⚾️ Always have, Always will ⚾️

Sure, you could still collect. But you wouldn't have many people to sell your cards to.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

They're not "competitors" though in the full proper sense of the word. Their teams compete on the playing field but that's it. There's a good reason why they're called "franchises" because that's precisely what they are, franchises in the single business enterprise of MLB.

So they don't compete off the field when teams are scouting and signing players? The teams may all be franchises under MLB, but that doesn't mean they aren't competitors both on and off the field.

The teams are actually partners in most ways.

;)

The very idea of being an employee not trying to extract everything they can from an employer is mindblowing to me.

If I'm making someone else money with my talents or labor I want as much as I can get from whoever wants to legally employ me. If I'm giving up financial compensation, I want other perks (more days off, other flexibility, etc).

I think sports salaries are crazy, but "the market" is supporting them. Every new revenue stream coming in is breaking toward the players getting a cut rather than fans getting cheaper tickets/concessions, but this is benefiting owners, too.

The Boston Celtics didn't just sell 6.1 billion dollars because player salaries are a money pit of despair for ownership.

That's always been my thought process, if somebody is willing to pay you that much then you are a fool to not take that money. Especially since you aren't going to play forever so you might as well get what you can while you can.

They're partners when it comes to marketing the league. When they've tried to be partners in signing and paying players, they've been found guilty of collusion and paid big fines to the players.

That decision was a bloody travesty! If MLB isn't a single business enterprise, why is there one big boss, i.e. the commissioner? If MLB isn't a single business enterprise, why then must new franchises be approved by the existing franchise owners who then collect very generous expansion fees? (Did Chevrolet need to pay Ford to enter the auto business? Did Pepsi need to pay Coke to enter the soft drink business?) If MLB isn't a single business enterprise, why then does the MLB Players' Association negotiate with MLB as an entity instead of with each individual team? The reason of course is that the teams are individual franchises in a single business enterprise.

And what's been the net effect? The players have gotten rich beyond the dreams of avarice. But has this enabled the fans to empathize with their player "idols" to a greater extent? No, far from it.

And has MLB competitiveness improved over all? No, the smaller market teams have really been suffering on the field for over a couple of decades. This isn't good for the game.

Has it been to the benefit of the fans? No, it has not. See the points above. Moreover do fans like musical chairs when it comes to roster signings? No they do not. And like I say, the fans are the customers.

:mad:

It's laughable to me that anybody could think that the commissioner is "in charge" he's not doing anything that the owners don't tell him to do.

Yes, the teams are all part of one league, but if they are all about being partners, why do they allow there to be small market and large market teams with vastly different resources to draw from instead of sharing all revenues evenly? As you said, smaller market team have been suffering for a long time. It's because they are also competitors. Their goal is to win the World Series. The individual teams will work together when they have to for the overall league to work, but otherwise, they will do what is in their own best interest to put together the best team they can to try to win games and championships.

The sports industry is not like other industries. Coke doesn't need Pepsi to survive and Ford doesn't need Chevrolet. In fact, they would prefer less competitors not more because then they would control their markets and be able to better set prices to their benefit. Sports teams need other teams to play against so they actually have a product to sell so they form a league to have a common set of rules for them to operate under. Other than that, they are competitors.

Yes, as there has been more money made in the sport, the players have benefited from it and been paid higher salaries. Why shouldn't they be since they are the product? CEOs used to make 3 or 4 times what their average employee made, but now they make 300 times. Actors and actresses make $20 million for a movie and no one says I'm not going to see a movie because the star is paid too much. It seems like it's only in sports where the players (which are who people are paying to see) are not supposed to make any money because long ago, they didn't and were just like the fans.

Youve never heard on non compete clauses? Even the ones that limit the time it's in effect are essentially the reserve clause.

Not before the movie, but I've thought that after a couple movies.
Same with some sporting events.

Do people honestly believe there are a slew of held-down benevolent owners who yearn to charge fans less money and the big bad players are keeping them from doing so?

As a Cubs fan watching the Ricketts family exponentially whore out revenue streams out of Wrigley Field while snapping up the neighborhood properties to build even more revenue while their goal is to "break even" with the team...I have no words. They've already turned a 845m purchase into a 4+ billion valuation. The fans aren't getting a cut, the owners aren't trying to give the fans a cut. The owners are buying up Wrigleyville and building more high-end suites, not passing on additional revenue for the fan's benefit.

People out there actually carrying water for billionaire owners and blaming players for going and getting their cut...as if it wasn't for the players we'd have $10 tickets and $1 hotdogs.

These owners don't care about your $10 if someone else is out there willing to give them $100.

Yes, I've heard of non-compete clauses. I don't think they usually apply forever like the reserve clause did in baseball, and they also usually don't apply to every employee of a business. They are usually only for executives of companies.

The players making too much money is clearly a gut reaction...arguments about free market, capitalism, supply and demand, why should the owners keep all the money, etc. are not going to sway people.

If players made 1/10th of what they are making now but the game itself was exactly the same as it is now, would that make a difference? Or is it more about the pitch clock, ghost runner, bullpen games, launch angle, exit velo, analytics over gut, etc.?

I do get collecting vintage cards and not caring about the current game. Many people collect vintage comic books but have no interest in the current state of comics or graphic novels. Or collect coins but don't care about state quarters.

Oh absolutely! I agree.

:)

Heaven forbid that the players actually have to work after the age of 35 or so like the rest of us! Incidentally, the minimum MLB salary in 2024 was $740,000. So no my heart doesn't bleed for the poor oppressed players.

I fully agree! Everybody is entitled to whatever they can get! Nor should envy be part of the equation. Although of course as taxpayers we absolutely do have a say in what government employees should get.

Truthfully I don't actually care what the players or owners actually earn (although my heart doesn't bleed for any of them). What galls me is that I liked the reserve clause. I liked it better when a Tiger was a Tiger was a Tiger and a Yankee was a Yankee was a Yankee (until team management saw otherwise). Things were much better when the fans could identify with the players that way and the game is after all for the fans. That plus the fact that the elimination of the reserve clause has slowly but steadily made small market teams much less competitive. That's not good for MLB.

But that's so unfair to the players you say? "Tough!" I say. "Stop your whining. Didn't your parents tell you that life didn't have to be fair? If not, they should have." With the MLB minimum salary at $740,000 for seasonal work, they'll get no sympathy from me. Heaven forbid they have to supplement their meager earnings by working as stockbrokers or in a furniture and appliance store in the off-season.

;)