Marvin Miller cards?

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Bill Lange? There are others certainly. That one off the top of my head.

Mike Donlin took three entire years off from playing for the Giants at the height of his career (1907, 1909, 1910) to perform in vaudeville and on Broadway with his wife Mabel Hite, because it paid more than baseball.

[packs]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Mike Donlin took three entire years off from playing for the Giants at the height of his career (1907, 1909, 1910) to perform in vaudeville and on Broadway with his wife Mabel Hite, because it paid more than baseball.

Donlin was always known to be a huge Broadway fan. Can you point to anything that supports it was purely for financial reasons? After his wife died he went right back to playing baseball.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by packs

Donlin was always known to be a huge Broadway fan. Can you point to anything that supports it was purely for financial reasons? After his wife died he went right back to playing baseball.

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/3b51e847

"In the spring of 1907 he demanded the same $3,300 he had been paid in 1906, plus a $600 bonus if he stayed sober all year. Owner John Brush declined. Mike held out and eventually went on the vaudeville circuit with his wife, missing the entire season. With characteristic confidence, he proclaimed: "I can act. I'll break the hearts of all the gals in the country." Critics generally disagreed. One said that Donlin "never was the actor he thought he was or wanted to be.""

"On October 26, 1908, Hite and Donlin's one-act play, Stealing Home, opened at the Hammerstein Theater in New York. Though the play was acclaimed, reviews for the ballplayer-turned-actor were mixed. Variety raved: "Mike Donlin as a polite comedian is quite the most delightful vaudeville surprise you ever enjoyed." But another critic wrote, "Hite was so good she could carry him." For the next three winters the pair performed Stealing Home in front of sold-out houses from Boston to San Francisco. Donlin vowed never to return to baseball because he was making more money in show business."

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Mike Donlin took three entire years off from playing for the Giants at the height of his career (1907, 1909, 1910) to perform in vaudeville and on Broadway with his wife Mabel Hite, because it paid more than baseball.

Considering the argument is that an overwhelming plethora of players have left baseball or pursued other careers due to a lack of compensation...

yet Turkey and Lange - players from a past century - are the only examples?

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the argument is that an overwhelming plethora of players have left baseball or pursued other careers due to a lack of compensation...

yet Turkey and Lange - players from a past century - are the only examples?

Who said anything about an "overwhelming plethora"?

And I don't think anybody is arguing that lots of players who were already competing at the major league level have left the sport because they weren't paid enough. The argument (as I understand it) is that the more MLB salaries increase, the more they will attract talented athletes who might have otherwise chosen a different career than playing professional baseball. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with that argument in this context either, because now there are several other very well-paying professional sports competing for many of the same athletes, whereas in the early 1900s there was basically just baseball and boxing (and hockey for Canadians, like George Gibson). Of course, there are plenty of other differences as well (such as the lack of black MLB players in the early 1900s), so it's hard to make comparisons.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Who said anything about an "overwhelming plethora"?

Tom.

"throughout the history of the game are examples of people leaving to get a real job" So with 150 years encompassing the "professional" game, a single player leaving the sport every couple years seems plausible I would surmise, as we're referencing "throughout the history" of the paid game. That would leave us at least 75 men that have said bye bye to the chosen sport they love.... all to take some menial, thankless "job" that pays more?? IN WHAT WORLD GOOD SIR?!?
Let's see how many you can find....

As you can tell... this is all light-hearted.

....but I think your argument only has merit over a century ago, but not by today's current context. In good fun, tell me the jobs that a pro baseball player would abandon the diamond for - an average player mind you - and what he would even be qualified to do making over the equivalent of $150,000.00 in pre-Miller 1967??

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Who said anything about an "overwhelming plethora"?

And I don't think anybody is arguing that lots of players who were already competing at the major league level have left the sport because they weren't paid enough. The argument (as I understand it) is that the more MLB salaries increase, the more they will attract talented athletes who might have otherwise chosen a different career than playing professional baseball. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with that argument in this context either, because now there are several other very well-paying professional sports competing for many of the same athletes, whereas in the early 1900s there was basically just baseball and boxing (and hockey for Canadians, like George Gibson). Of course, there are plenty of other differences as well (such as the lack of black MLB players in the early 1900s), so it's hard to make comparisons.

Problem with this argument is that those other sports can thank Marvin Miller as well. No sport would be as it is if not for him.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

There are also stories of players through the 1920's playing out west or in the minors because the pay could be better than in the majors.

But that wasn't the crux of my point and I think you know that.

If this kind of money went to doctors it would likely funnel some people to it that end up being really really good. People who would have, maybe, chosen something like baseball had it paid more.

If you enjoy great baseball, thank Marvin Miller. He helped that happen.

Tom C

[Misunderestimated]

There are not any career-contemporary cards of Miller based on my research...I did a lot of it at some point when I thought his HOF election was imminent. Its not anymore unless they decide to ignore his wishes. I'm still kind of shocked that the players involved in the HOF did not "go to bat for him" more.

Based on the Hall of Fame's definitions he clearly belongs. Also you can compare his accomplishments (like them or not) with the other HOFers who were not on-field contributors (or GMs) and he tops almost all of them. I mean the various commissioners and owners for the most part.

If you don't like his contributions that's another thing. In the history of MLB he is a giant like Judge Landis and few others. Incidentally, I don't particularly like a lot of what Judge Landis did but he indisputably belongs in the HOF.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

There are not any career-contemporary cards of Miller based on my research...I did a lot of it at some point when I thought his HOF election was imminent. Its not anymore unless they decide to ignore his wishes. I'm still kind of shocked that the players involved in the HOF did not "go to bat for him" more.

Based on the Hall of Fame's definitions he clearly belongs. Also you can compare his accomplishments (like them or not) with the other HOFers who were not on-field contributors (or GMs) and he tops almost all of them. I mean the various commissioners and owners for the most part.

If you don't like his contributions that's another thing. In the history of MLB he is a giant like Judge Landis and few others. Incidentally, I don't particularly like a lot of what Judge Landis did but he indisputably belongs in the HOF.

Brian,

LOL, I actually HATE much (most?) of what Landis did and I definitely hate all of who he was as a person in terms of his racism, bigotry and whatnot. I also don't buy the different times excuse for him or anyone else too much. But that's a different discussion. In any event, it is hard to disagree with your assessment of Landis as belonging in the HOF, although I would very much like to.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

There are not any career-contemporary cards of Miller based on my research...I did a lot of it at some point when I thought his HOF election was imminent. Its not anymore unless they decide to ignore his wishes. I'm still kind of shocked that the players involved in the HOF did not "go to bat for him" more.

Based on the Hall of Fame's definitions he clearly belongs. Also you can compare his accomplishments (like them or not) with the other HOFers who were not on-field contributors (or GMs) and he tops almost all of them. I mean the various commissioners and owners for the most part.

If you don't like his contributions that's another thing. In the history of MLB he is a giant like Judge Landis and few others. Incidentally, I don't particularly like a lot of what Judge Landis did but he indisputably belongs in the HOF.

Thank you for the "contemporary card research" response. While I appreciate the lively discussion about Miller's HOF merit (and by all means, let it continue), I truly was curious as to his earliest appearance on cardboard - which seems to be 1994 (commercially distributed). As a HOF collector, my goal is to acquire a card of ALL MEMBERS, whether I agree with their selection or not. And contemporary with their active career, if possible. That's my "set."

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

There are also stories of players through the 1920's playing out west or in the minors because the pay could be better than in the majors.

But that wasn't the crux of my point and I think you know that.

If this kind of money went to doctors it would likely funnel some people to it that end up being really really good. People who would have, maybe, chosen something like baseball had it paid more.

If you enjoy great baseball, thank Marvin Miller. He helped that happen.

Tom C

No thanks. He ruined the game for me. 1 small market team has won a championship in the last 25 years. So, for the fans of that bottom third of teams, he is the devil along with his disciple Donald Fehr. I would like for the team I root for to have a chance, but I doubt I will see another championship in my lifetime. Baseball's popularity peaked in the 70s and has been declining ever since. In my opinion this is why. It is hard to invest much in the game when your team has no chance to win.

Donald Fehr is responsible for steroids. He blocked the testing. The problem with Miller/Fehr isn't that they fought for the players. The problem was their tactic of "burnt earth" to destroy the owners and in turn fans and the game. We were their enemies, don't expect me to support someone who has shown nothing but hatred for the fans. Baseball used to be the #1 sport. Now it is #3 behind NFL and NBA. Destroying the national pastime is not a reason for induction to the HOF. Bud Selig was the worst selection for the HoF. Marvin Miller would be even worse.

[packs]

I think it would better for players if they didn't make so much money. Look at Stanton. He's entombed in Florida because of how much money he's making. And even if his team is able to trade him, it'll never get anything back, thus having a negative effect on the quality of baseball being played.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by rats60

Baseball's popularity peaked in the 70s and has been declining ever since.

Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support your claim. Below are the attendance figures for the NL and AL each year from 1970 through 2017, from Baseball-reference.com. Total MLB attendance this year was 67% more than in 1979, and per-game attendance was 44% more. Per-game attendance this year was more than twice as much as in 1970. By any objective measure, baseball is a lot more popular now than it was in the 1970s, which was itself a decade of tremendous growth for the sport. It has been that growth, especially the exponential growth of TV money flooding into the owners' coffers over the past 40 years, that has been the primary driver of the huge increases in players' salaries. Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr merely helped the players get a larger share of that flood of cash than they would have otherwise received.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

No thanks. He ruined the game for me. 1 small market team has won a championship in the last 25 years. So, for the fans of that bottom third of teams, he is the devil along with his disciple Donald Fehr. I would like for the team I root for to have a chance, but I doubt I will see another championship in my lifetime. Baseball's popularity peaked in the 70s and has been declining ever since. In my opinion this is why. It is hard to invest much in the game when your team has no chance to win.

Donald Fehr is responsible for steroids. He blocked the testing. The problem with Miller/Fehr isn't that they fought for the players. The problem was their tactic of "burnt earth" to destroy the owners and in turn fans and the game. We were their enemies, don't expect me to support someone who has shown nothing but hatred for the fans. Baseball used to be the #1 sport. Now it is #3 behind NFL and NBA. Destroying the national pastime is not a reason for induction to the HOF. Bud Selig was the worst selection for the HoF. Marvin Miller would be even worse.

And how many championships did the St Louis Browns win back in the good old days?

Again I must ask how he or Fehr destroyed the game? Changed it? Sure. But there is more money in the game for everyone than there ever has been. Attendance is stronger than ever. The talent level has never been better. By no objective metric has the game been "destroyed".

Speaking as a fan of the Pirates, I will tell you that postseason appearances has far more to do with decision making within a front office than it does money. Money guarantees merely the opportunity to make expensive mistakes and thus take larger risks.

Tom C

[byrone]

The fans are the most important part of baseball

And I don’t think Miller gave a rats ass about us fans

Labour Union Hall of Famer-yes

BB HOF- I’d skip checking out that plaque in Cooperstown

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the argument is that an overwhelming plethora of players have left baseball or pursued other careers due to a lack of compensation...

yet Turkey and Lange - players from a past century - are the only examples?

Strawman argument. Never said a plethora.

Tom C