2007-11-07 12:39:03 · 12 answers · asked by Eugeneius 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
No, and there's not even a plausible argument to build for it.
Free agency has been ongoing for 31 years, attendance is bigger than ever (even adjusting for expansion), more games are broadcast than at any other time, the Web has opened a huge new revenue stream (close to maxed out) and made the game available worldwide and in greater-than-ever depth, and fantasy baseball isn't about to go away, maintaining if not increasing demand for content (stats, opinions, health status, contract details).
Baseball is strong, financially and culturally.
2007-11-07 12:58:56 · answer #1 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Question should be worded, Did free agency destroy baseball. The answer is an overwhelming yes.
Teams like Kansas City, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh may have big hopes during the year (Milw 2007) but have no realistic chance of competing because of small market franchise values. The good players developed in the farm system leave when they become free agents. The Royals won a WS in 1985 and it will never, never happen again. It has been 100 years next year that the Cubs won the World Series. Come 2085, if the Royals exist, there will not have even been a playoff appearance in that time. Kansas City cannot afford to even make a bid on, for instance, ARod, even if he wanted to play for them.
Bring the reserve clause back. Baseball, football, basketball and hockey need it.
2007-11-07 13:56:03 · answer #2 · answered by gfcbarracker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it depends on who you ask. If you ask a fan of a big market team, they will probably say "no" and look at the list of available free agents on the market that their team can go sign and add excitement to the club. A fan of a small market team will say "yes" and look at their roster at players approaching arbitration/free-agency hoping that these players can make one big push towards the playoffs before they sign with a big market team.
I definitely do not believe that free agency is a bad thing, however with free agency comes the need for a salary cap to make owners responsible for their actions. With so many teams in MLB with absolutely no chance at winning the WS in any given year, it does detract from the overall game. Take for example the NFL. With a salary cap, players are free to play for whatever team they want but when owners are limited to how much money they spend, there is a lot more parity in the league to where if you are not good now, with the draft picks you will accumulate in your bad years should pay dived ends in the future. (example Tampa Bay, New England) The fact that teams are all treated the same way, makes for a more exciting game/attitude for the fans, hence the very high attendance in the NFL.
In the NHL, owners (besides the big market ones) saw themselves heading in the same direction as baseball and were willing to sacrifice an entire season for a salary cap. Now for the horrible teams in bad markets, it is possible for them to stockpile draft picks and hopefully become good a season down the stretch and bring the fans back.
So yes, free agency is probably destroying baseball however it can be greatly controlled with a salary cap and not this luxury tax that owners the owners who receive it can just put in their pockets. (although I can hardly blame them if they are losing money by having a team that can't compete)
2007-11-08 18:53:07 · answer #3 · answered by Mark Y 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before free agency baseball was a failing sport (mid-70s). It was behind football and it was falling behind basketball (gasp). The problem was teams basically owned players forever. Players were grossly underpaid and they were often unhappy. Free agency has opened the game up and made it interesting. Players switch teams and fans are more interested in the game cause they have more opportunities to see their favorite players. I mean, can you imagine how damn boring the game must have been to have lower ratings then pro basketball?!
2007-11-07 13:26:29 · answer #4 · answered by voluntarheel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why, do you think it is? It gives baseball players the chance to play for teams, that they want to play for. Sometimes, they might re-sign with the team that they were on before they filed for free agency, if it is a good deal, or they can sign with another team, with or without thier old team, goign to try to match the other teams' offer. Rather then just have 2 GMS decide where he will play for, he gets to shoose for himself. And sometimes they just might file a one year deal, so that they just have to do the samething over again, the following year.
2007-11-07 13:37:28 · answer #5 · answered by staggmovie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To predict game results you can use some reliable softwares that compare the stats for you to find those repeating patterns and trends. You can win with a high degree of probability (86.5%). A good site with a reliable method that you can test for free is http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=570
Good Bye
2014-09-13 17:48:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe it isn't, because if their were no free agents, then teams would have to rely on their farm-system (AAA, AA, A) which wouldn't be pretty. Free-agents allow other teams to get a fell of different players.
2007-11-07 12:41:38 · answer #7 · answered by Chris Stewart 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pretty much yes it is, but it does make sense, if your contract is up, you should be allowed to sign where ever you can get a offer, but it really is up to the owners to start showing some common sense in signing free agents.
2007-11-07 12:43:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
New times. New ways. Doesn't mean ya gotta like 'em.
Me? I think it is better than the designated hitter.
2007-11-07 12:47:42 · answer #9 · answered by imthepretty1 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Tight **** owners who wont buy talent suffer, teams that WANT to achieve, do achieve.
2007-11-07 13:04:21 · answer #10 · answered by rowdy rick 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋