Bud Selig to retire

pfiggy · 11-30-2006, 08:13 PM

per Rotoworld:

Commissioner Bud Selig said Saturday that he plans to retire after his contract expires in three years.
Selig originally indicated he'd retire at the end of his previous contract. Now it seems like he's moving closer to stepping down for good. "My contract runs for the next three-plus years. I’ll be 75 years of age and ... I want to teach and write a book and do some other things," he said.

Too bad he's not retiring immediately.

Goose · 11-30-2006, 08:42 PM

I don't know. I'm not a big Selig fan by no means, but he hasn't been all bad. He's done some good.

sthiele · 11-30-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig says he will be stepping down in three years when his contract ends, content that the sport is in good health.

"I plan to retire," Selig, the former Milwaukee Brewers owner, said Thursday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2681764

Selig may be hated by most, but he has done SOME good. Wild card, interleague play, revenue sharing, better drug testing...

pfiggy · 12-01-2006, 07:36 AM

Actually Selig was forced into better drug testing, he was content to leave it at status quo until the Feds got on his case. Interleague play is getting old for me, especially when not all teams in your division play the same opponents. Determining home field advantage in the World Series with the result of an exhibition game is just pfarkin' assinine. Wild card sucks, why should a team, that can't even win their division, be able to win the WS? I could go on but ah'm a luver not a pfighter.

DiamondDave · 12-01-2006, 12:42 PM

All I would have to say to Selig would be....

"Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you."

Nimajneb · 12-01-2006, 01:19 PM

Is a new commissioner likely to be much different? It's something of an institution more than a person... baseball will act towards its own preservation and prosperity. Perhaps the next man will have a better idea of how to go about it.

MuffinMcFluffin · 12-01-2006, 03:47 PM

I like Selig in the sense that he is a true baseball fan. He loves the game, and doesn't just do it for money or whatever other reasons there are. Unlike Rachel Phelps in Major League, he wants baseball to succeed at all costs. Sometimes he seems to be a pushover, and sometimes his decisions are questionable... but I don't mind him as the owner one bit. I just don't want anything to happen for the worst.

GerryInCS · 12-02-2006, 01:45 AM

2009 can't come fast enough, IMO. While Selig hasn't been bad for baseball, he hasn't been good for it, either

unreal654 · 12-02-2006, 02:21 AM

Baseball is in a sad state right now if you ask me. Steroids and cheating have created many problems for Bud.

Zen653 · 12-02-2006, 03:34 AM

I think baseball is experiencing a golden age. Record attendance figures, record revenues, an influx of international talent, revenue sharing, improved competitive balance, exciting division and wild card races, and some really good playoff games in recent years. In addition, the drug situation is finally being dealt with, the wild card has created new rivalries, allowing more teams to play in meaningful games down the stretch, and interleague play gives fans a chance to see different teams in their home ballparks. I love all of these changes - particularly the wild card (which is necessary because not all divisions are equally as competitive. Sometimes you have a division with three great teams and another division where everyone is mediocre. A second place team with 97 wins shouldn't miss the playoffs while a "first place" team in the NL West gets in with a .500 record. Including the best second place team as a fourth seed helps even out the geographical power disparity.)

I think Bud Selig has done a terrific job. People hate him for whatever reason but they're often unable to articulate anything significantly wrong with him. And when they do come up with something (too slow to change the drug policy), they ignore the bevy of good things. He's just a popular punching bag. He looks and sounds kind of dweeby, so we presume the worst about him. Yet when you look at his actual list of accomplishments, it's lengthy. I would go as far to say that he's been one of the top three commissioners in the history of the game.

unreal654 · 12-05-2006, 01:11 AM

I couldn't disagree more. Cancelling the 1994 World Series is enough for me to stike him from contention as one of the top commishs ever.

Many of his decisions were made to benefit the Brewers. For example, proposing to contract the Twins? I think we may need to look at the Brewers instead, who are consistant losers year in and year out. Two midwest teams competing in the same area, getting rid of the Twins would provide Selig with a better market share. Oh yeah, and not to mention the proposal to contract the Expos. Maybe they'd have a shot at gaining momentum if Selig hadn't CANCELLED their best season in years. Selig acted out of his own interest. Contracting a couple teams would gain the owners more money while still missing the real issue, the Yankees still having twenty times the amount of money to spend than all of the lower market teams. I really hope baseball does not choose another owner to run the show.

Zen653 · 12-05-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

For example, proposing to contract the Twins? I think we may need to look at the Brewers instead, who are consistant losers year in and year out.

The proposed contraction of the Twins had nothing to do with on-field competitiveness. Montreal was a drain to the league and in order to get rid of one team, you needed to contract a second one. Carl Pohlad, owner of the Twins, was willing to get bought out, especially after a new stadium proposal fell through.

Only teams without new facilities were on the chopping block. Milwaukee was safe because of its new publicly-funded stadium and modest profits. Any city with a new stadium was safe.

It would be very short-sighted for the league to contract teams on the basis of on-field performance. Selig was looking at long-term financial projections on the basis of ownership stability (Montreal didn't even have an owner), ballpark revenues, and media demographics.

As for supporing policies that would help Milwaukee, I don't see why that's necessarily a problem. Milwaukee is the second smallest market in MLB. Helping one small market team (through increased revenue sharing) helps them all. Isn't one of your complaints about payroll disparity?

People act as though the Yankees won all 26 of their championships in the last 10 years. Fact is, there have always been haves and have-nots. Combine the number of championships between the Yankees and Cardinals, and you cover almost one-third of the seasons ever played in MLB history. Add in the Athletics and Red Sox (who won a decent share of championships in their early years) and you have almost half of the World Series Championships going to just four franchises.

Today, there's a lot more variety. In the last seven years alone, we've had seven different World Series champions: New York in 2000, Arizona in 2001, Anaheim in 2002, Florida in 2003, Boston in 2004, Chicago in 2005, St. Louis in 2006, etc. I'm not sure that's ever happened before in baseball. We might go a full decade with no repeat champion.

Small market teams can finally compete. Oakland advanced to the ALCS last year. Minnesota won the AL Central. Florida won a World Series in 2003. Cleveland came within a couple of games of winning the AL Central in 2005. The entire NL West was still in the playoff hunt as late as September 15th. The NL Central race came down to the final day of the season. There's been a ton of excitement. In the so-called good old days, you knew who the playoff teams were going to be by the end of July.

You mention the strike of 1994 - which the Montreal owner supported, by the way - yet you ignore the almost-strike of 2002. We came right down to the wire until Selig struck an owner-friendly deal, thereby securing labor peace without a work stoppage. I think 2002 cancels out 1994. There's no way the game would have survived a second strike.

I know the perception is always going to exist that Selig is a bad commissioner. But the empirical evidence simply doesn't support that contention. Not even close. Now it's possible that the game has improved in spite of him, not because of him. And I'm willing to accept that possibility. I just think we're in denial if we think the game is in decline. The record attendance figures, record revenues, and record broadcasting rights would beg to differ.

11-30-2006, 08:13 PM	#1 (permalink)
pfiggy Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 3,637	Bud Selig to retire per Rotoworld: Commissioner Bud Selig said Saturday that he plans to retire after his contract expires in three years. Selig originally indicated he'd retire at the end of his previous contract. Now it seems like he's moving closer to stepping down for good. "My contract runs for the next three-plus years. I’ll be 75 years of age and ... I want to teach and write a book and do some other things," he said. Too bad he's not retiring immediately.

11-30-2006, 08:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
Goose Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Aberdeen,Wa Posts: 1,190	I don't know. I'm not a big Selig fan by no means, but he hasn't been all bad. He's done some good. __________________

12-01-2006, 03:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
MuffinMcFluffin Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 584	I like Selig in the sense that he is a true baseball fan. He loves the game, and doesn't just do it for money or whatever other reasons there are. Unlike Rachel Phelps in Major League, he wants baseball to succeed at all costs. Sometimes he seems to be a pushover, and sometimes his decisions are questionable... but I don't mind him as the owner one bit. I just don't want anything to happen for the worst. __________________

12-02-2006, 03:34 AM	#10 (permalink)
Zen653 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,744	I think baseball is experiencing a golden age. Record attendance figures, record revenues, an influx of international talent, revenue sharing, improved competitive balance, exciting division and wild card races, and some really good playoff games in recent years. In addition, the drug situation is finally being dealt with, the wild card has created new rivalries, allowing more teams to play in meaningful games down the stretch, and interleague play gives fans a chance to see different teams in their home ballparks. I love all of these changes - particularly the wild card (which is necessary because not all divisions are equally as competitive. Sometimes you have a division with three great teams and another division where everyone is mediocre. A second place team with 97 wins shouldn't miss the playoffs while a "first place" team in the NL West gets in with a .500 record. Including the best second place team as a fourth seed helps even out the geographical power disparity.) I think Bud Selig has done a terrific job. People hate him for whatever reason but they're often unable to articulate anything significantly wrong with him. And when they do come up with something (too slow to change the drug policy), they ignore the bevy of good things. He's just a popular punching bag. He looks and sounds kind of dweeby, so we presume the worst about him. Yet when you look at his actual list of accomplishments, it's lengthy. I would go as far to say that he's been one of the top three commissioners in the history of the game. Last edited by Zen653; 12-02-2006 at 03:43 AM.

12-01-2006, 07:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
pfiggy Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 3,637	Actually Selig was forced into better drug testing, he was content to leave it at status quo until the Feds got on his case. Interleague play is getting old for me, especially when not all teams in your division play the same opponents. Determining home field advantage in the World Series with the result of an exhibition game is just pfarkin' assinine. Wild card sucks, why should a team, that can't even win their division, be able to win the WS? I could go on but ah'm a luver not a pfighter.

12-01-2006, 12:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
DiamondDave Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: MD, on the Potomac River Posts: 5,390	All I would have to say to Selig would be.... "Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you."

12-01-2006, 01:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
Nimajneb Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 760	Is a new commissioner likely to be much different? It's something of an institution more than a person... baseball will act towards its own preservation and prosperity. Perhaps the next man will have a better idea of how to go about it.

12-02-2006, 01:45 AM	#8 (permalink)
GerryInCS Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 627	2009 can't come fast enough, IMO. While Selig hasn't been bad for baseball, he hasn't been good for it, either

12-02-2006, 02:21 AM	#9 (permalink)
unreal654 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 327	Baseball is in a sad state right now if you ask me. Steroids and cheating have created many problems for Bud.

12-05-2006, 01:11 AM	#11 (permalink)
unreal654 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 327	I couldn't disagree more. Cancelling the 1994 World Series is enough for me to stike him from contention as one of the top commishs ever. Many of his decisions were made to benefit the Brewers. For example, proposing to contract the Twins? I think we may need to look at the Brewers instead, who are consistant losers year in and year out. Two midwest teams competing in the same area, getting rid of the Twins would provide Selig with a better market share. Oh yeah, and not to mention the proposal to contract the Expos. Maybe they'd have a shot at gaining momentum if Selig hadn't CANCELLED their best season in years. Selig acted out of his own interest. Contracting a couple teams would gain the owners more money while still missing the real issue, the Yankees still having twenty times the amount of money to spend than all of the lower market teams. I really hope baseball does not choose another owner to run the show.