Work Stoppage History

[Max Power]

I was just looking at some of the previous work stoppages - -

Year - Stoppage - Days - Games Lost

1972 Strike * 13 * 86
1973 Lockout * 12 * 0+
1976 Lockout * 17 * 0+
1980 Strike * 8 * 0+
1981 Strike * 50 * 712
1985 Strike * 2 * 0
1990 Lockout * 32 * 0+
1994-95 Strike * 232 * 921

+ occurred during spring training

I know everyone is quick to say there have been 8 - - but, 6 of the 8 were really harmless - - annoying, but, basically harmless.

1981 and 1994-95 were terrible.

Will 2002 be just like 1985? Could it be as quick as two days?

[qtlaw]

Two days? I wish but secretly doubt. There seems to be a lack of urgency and now the dreaded lack of trust/faith has been thrust into the bargaining. Plus back in the 80's I think Miller respected his opponent, I forgot his name. My hope was there when Beeston, who had Fehr's respect, was participating. Now, with DuPay, I am somewhat hopeful but disappointed.

[TimmyB]

The does seem to be a huge lack of resepct between the two parties that has caused as much damage as the real issues.

It seems like this one could go one of two ways:
1) The (minority, according to published reports) hardliners/hawks in both camps don't give an inch and manage to keep the rest of the troops in line through whatever pressure tactics they've been using so far that have been so darned effective. It's '81, '94-'95 all over again.

2) The majority come to their collective senses and decide not to be dragged by their noses into the abyss. This will have to be on the ownership side when a lot of the moderates, some of whom are in debt up to their eyeballs, decide they don't want to take the fall for Selig, Reinsdorf, et. al., and reach an agreement (at least according to what I've read, the players made an offer that opened the door for a counter-proposal/done-deal -- so far, still no counter). Again, according to published reports, philosophiscally, the sides are in the ballpark; dollar-wise, they're in the same section; respect-wise they're in different time-zones. Hopefully, the former outweighs the latter and this thing is over in a week.

Hoping for #2, dreading #1.

[VNV Nation]

I'm hoping for No. 1. Forget "leveling" the playing field, just level it. Make everyone lose tons of money. Go away for two years, and then no one will ever care again.

[SmedIndy]

If you hope that, why post? I can't, for the life of me, warrant the destruction of something I treasure so dearly, when its over pennies (to these guys) for the most part.

Especially since it's not really ABOUT competitve balance or leveling the playing field, it's about stuffing pockets and power plays. On both sides.

[thomasstearns]

I am really of the opinion that (A) only madmen would keep baseball from being played on September 11th, and (B) the owners and players are creeps, but they are not madmen. No games will be lost. Another November WS.

(At the risk of really offending those who do not relish irony as much as myself: I read an interesting take on this today; the writer suggested pretty much the same as I have above but noted that, in a roundabout way, Osama may have saved baseball. I find the irony of the notion rather appealing, but please pardon my insensitivity if you do not.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know what to believe anymore.

I don't want the destruction of MLB to come about because:

A---I care about it.

B---Many, many people other than players and owners depend on it for their livelihood.

C---The financial fallout from the collapse of MLB would send shock waves bigger than Enron, bigger than WorldCom, due to the degree that baseball is in debt, and stadia are heavily financed by taxpayers.

I believe that the public interest demands government intervention to prevent a destructive strike. The effects of a long strike will not be fully perceived until after the awful fact. It is in the public interest that a strike not happen, but the parties involved in this dispute have never considered the common weal.

Paging George W. Bush.

[Doc Pontoon]

Fuzzy, I suspect that you have overly romantic notions about the competence and integrity of George W. Bush. It's actually possible that he and his controllers would be as unable to accomplish anything as Clinton was, although I'm sure that he has plenty of time to try, now that he has soundly thrashed the evil of terrorism once and for all.

P.S. Baseball isn't in debt, if you believe that lefty rag Forbes Magazine. That's a lie that the owners made up.

[VNV Nation]

OK, I don't want baseball destroyed, but I want both sides to suffer enormously. I figure that a two-year strike, at this time, would effectively do that. After two years, even diehard fans would learn to get by, they would look at baseball not as an addiction to feed every day, but rather, like the wistul remembrances of an old lover.

Anyone who bothers to try to place blame or to sort through the "real" issues at hand is way too deep into the problem. The nonbaseball fan is more likely to be right: These guys all need a dose of reality.

There isn't anyone on either side that is concerned about the fans. If something made the fans turn away, then maybe the powers that be would remember us.

[sweaver]

Friday night while flipping channels, I happened on CNBC doing a segment on the baseball contract talks, and the host had on a Washington Post asst. sports editor, and the guy from Forbes who wrote the article. Both agreed that there would be a strike, but it would only last a week or two and the games would most likely resume by 9/11.

For what it's worth.

[Max Power]

I'm starting to think (or hope?) the same thing.

I also think that if there is a strike that it will be over by September 11th, I think that's the way the players planned the strike date, it just adds that much more urgency to the situation. Neither side wants to be on strike on September 11th, how petty would that look?

I thought that the players finally agreeing to some type of luxury tax was a big step and compared to the '94 strike, at least both sides know what they want and what's on the table.

If I were to guess, I would say the strike would last 5 days.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
OK, I don't want baseball destroyed, but I want both sides to suffer enormously. I figure that a two-year strike, at this time, would effectively do that. After two years, even diehard fans would learn to get by, they would look at baseball not as an addiction to feed every day, but rather, like the wistul remembrances of an old lover.

Anyone who bothers to try to place blame or to sort through the "real" issues at hand is way too deep into the problem. The nonbaseball fan is more likely to be right: These guys all need a dose of reality.

Here's a dose of reality: Secrataries, ticket sales people, groundskeepers, vendors, and all sorts of people will suffer far more than the owners and the players if there is a strike.

The owners, and most of the players, have reserves and other options to wait this out. The other folks who make their living on baseball aren't as fortunate; many are living paycheck to paycheck, with children, spouses, and, sometimes, parents that depend on that paycheck to get by.

No, I don't think George W. Bush walks on water. (I'm not confused about who did, by the way!) I DO think that the President of the United States, with the power of the "bully pulpit" has the ability to bring about a solution here. I believe that President Bush has the ability to intervene in such a way as to prevent a strike, and be a catalyst to a workable solution to this mess that will affect ordinary citizens and taxpayers more than is given credit for here. I hope he will intervene here; whatever anyone's opinion, Bush is actually in a position to foster something constructive in all of this.

Presidential intervention in this issue is in the interest of the taxpayers, the workers who will suffer the fastest and the most if a strike occurs, and the overall common weal. Mr. President; do your duty in this matter.

[JamesI]

The problem with Bush getting involved is he's a former owner. The players may not trust him. Of course he acts like a huge fan, so maybe he can do some good if he acts in baseball's best interest.

[TimmyB]

Besides "NO STRIKE!!!" my other big, huge, gargantuan hope is that once the dust settles on this whole thing (and hopefully both sets of rich so-and-so's are satisfied) MLB can get back to the business of POSITIVELY marketing the sport. So many things have been said that can't simply be unsaid.

It is not realistic for Bush to get involved (former owner, dicey political/labor remifications, etc.) other than using the bully-pulpit. Congress, on the other hand, if they strike, could hold the anti-trust exemption over their head. (They have bigger fish to fry and I doubt anything will come of it, but they can still exert more influence than a President in this case.)