Selig set to retire happy when contract ends in 3 years

[Knick9]

Originally Posted by Astro

WHO CARES????????????????? Honestly, its an All-Star game, the managers used all of the pitchers, are the pitchers supposed to risk injury in a meaningless game so their league can win a meaningless game?

I laugh when people bring this up, USE YOUR HEAD PEOPLE

Take a chill pill, why don't you? I've been noticing a trend here recently. When in doubt, get mad at Knick9. I'm not the village idiot here, you know. (kidding)

As for the All-Star game fiasco, my suggestion would be to use someone else to pitch. I wouldn't care if it were an outfielder or an infielder, or even the catcher, try to finish the game, then if it's clearly impossible to do so, then call it a tie.

EDIT: How did this post get to Page 1?

[Future:Greatest2BofAll-Time]

Yep in 2009 he is gonna retire

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

[Astro]

I can think of more reasons to like his tenure, than to not like it... so I went with I like him...

[W_Marone]

2009 marks the best year in baseball in a long long time.

[Astro]

Yes, because Selig has been such a bad commish...

I suppose you dont like the wildcard? Or you aren't for revenue sharing? You would prefer the players be on strike right now?

[Skin & Bones]

Originally Posted by Astro

Yes, because Selig has been such a bad commish...

I suppose you dont like the wildcard? Or you aren't for revenue sharing? You would prefer the players be on strike right now?

It's the steroid thing. Fay Vincent banned steroids in 1991, but had no testing policy, and a slipshod penalty. But it's all Selig's fault that steroids became rampant in baseball though.

I personally don't have a problem with him - Atleast he has a legitimate testing policy in place now for both Steroids and Greenies. The drug cheats still may find loopholes, but that's bound to happen no matter how tough your drug testing is.

[JamesWest]

Originally Posted by Astro

I suppose you dont like the wildcard?

HATE the wild card. The 21st century has not been kind to the baseball postseason. When a team with 83 wins (or a second place team) can win the Series, you know there is somthing seriously wrong with the postseason set-up.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

HATE the wild card. The 21st century has not been kind to the baseball postseason. When a team with 83 wins (or a second place team) can win the Series, you know there is somthing seriously wrong with the postseason set-up.

No, I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the teams losing to them...

[JamesWest]

Originally Posted by Astro

No, I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the teams losing to them...

I disagrre. The problem is letting these teams participate.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

I disagrre. The problem is letting these teams participate.

St. Louis wasnt the wildcard this season anyway... they won the division... the biggest division in baseball, and apparently the toughest in the NL (past 3 World Series reps hailing from the NL Central)

[JamesWest]

Originally Posted by Astro

St. Louis wasnt the wildcard this season anyway... they won the division... the biggest division in baseball, and apparently the toughest in the NL (past 3 World Series reps hailing from the NL Central)

With their ultra impressive 83 wins. The current divisonal set=up allows jokes like this to happen.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

With their ultra impressive 83 wins. The current divisonal set=up allows jokes like this to happen.

Is it really a joke if your in a very good division and everyone beats up on each other? Maybe the other divisions are jokes because 1 team can win so easily and lead almost the entire season (New York)

[JamesWest]

Originally Posted by Astro

Is it really a joke if your in a very good division and everyone beats up on each other? Maybe the other divisions are jokes because 1 team can win so easily and lead almost the entire season (New York)

83 wins as a division leader = joke.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

83 wins as a division leader = joke.

Ok, I pose the exact same question, maybe you will answer this time:

Is it really a joke if your in a very good division and everyone beats up on each other? Maybe the other divisions are jokes because 1 team can win so easily and lead almost the entire season (New York)

[JamesWest]

Originally Posted by Astro

Ok, I pose the exact same question, maybe you will answer this time:

Is it really a joke if your in a very good division and everyone beats up on each other? Maybe the other divisions are jokes because 1 team can win so easily and lead almost the entire season (New York)

How good can your division be if your best team barely breaks .500? That doesn't scream 'good division' to me.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

How good can your division be if your best team barely breaks .500? That doesn't scream 'good division' to me.

If every team in the division is good, they all will beat up on each other... how good can your division be if the winner barely breaks .500? Well since that division winner won the World Series, I'd say very good

[Zanthe]

We can only hope this is true!

[JamesWest]

Originally Posted by Astro

If every team in the division is good, they all will beat up on each other... how good can your division be if the winner barely breaks .500? Well since that division winner won the World Series, I'd say very good

Who were the best teams? The ones that lost all through September?

[ESPNFan]

Originally Posted by Skin & Bones

It's the steroid thing. Fay Vincent banned steroids in 1991, but had no testing policy, and a slipshod penalty. But it's all Selig's fault that steroids became rampant in baseball though.

I personally don't have a problem with him - Atleast he has a legitimate testing policy in place now for both Steroids and Greenies. The drug cheats still may find loopholes, but that's bound to happen no matter how tough your drug testing is.

The memo couldn't have had a testing policy nor a penalty that would have been administered to the players because it was not collectively bargained for.

And lets be honest here Bud was forced to implement testing, It wasn't because he blazed a trail for fair play. He was made to look foolish infront of congress, and if the real figures of the "informational" testing ever came out we would see just how widespread the problem became under his watch.

The strike of 1994, no world series, the decline of baseball representation in mainsteam media/networks, the all star game fiasco and subsequent home feild advantage error. Unless you were a team owner, Selig has quite simply been just short of a disaster for baseball.

[EvanAparra]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

Who were the best teams? The ones that lost all through September?

Best team is the one who wins in the end.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

Who were the best teams? The ones that lost all through September?

The teams in the Central that battled it out to the end, then won the World Series

[iPod]

Originally Posted by EvanAparra

Best team is the one who wins in the end.

Not trying to start a philosophical debate here, but doesn't this seem like circular logic? If the postseason is just a tool to measure which teams are genuinely, inherently the "best," shouldn't there be some sort of disjointment between the two, meaning "the best" team and the team that wins the World Series? Lesser teams beat greater teams all the time during the season; it seems really unlikely that the greater team won every single postseason series in baseball history, and even if this were the case, it would just be an accident of history. This sort of makes me wonder what the point of the postseason is, because if what we're really interested in is who is best, and we know the team that won the World Series isn't necessarily the best, why do we care about the World Series, or more specifically, why is the World Series the subject of interest in the greatness debate? If the goal of a team is not to be the best but to win the World Series, doesn't that seem like sort of an artificial, contrived goal without any real value?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Originally Posted by ESPNFan

Unless you were a team owner, Selig has quite simply been just short of a disaster for baseball.

Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by iPod

If the goal of a team is not to be the best but to win the World Series, doesn't that seem like sort of an artificial, contrived goal without any real value?

Getting hot at the right time and catching a few breaks here and there, goes a heck of a long way.

[redlegsfan21]

The NL Central had 3 teams within striking distance on September 30th. More than any other division. The only reason the Reds didn't win is because they can't win against the West. The Astros didn't win because they were behind almost the entire season until September. The Cards got out lucky because they had losing records against the Reds, Astros, and Cubs.

[cardsfanatic]

Originally Posted by JamesWest

HATE the wild card. The 21st century has not been kind to the baseball postseason. When a team with 83 wins (or a second place team) can win the Series, you know there is somthing seriously wrong with the postseason set-up.

Because that _never_ happened before the Wildcard. It's not like the 85 win Minnesota Twins beat the team with the best record in baseball, the best record in the AL and NL, to capture a WS in 1987.