I'm close to finishing Robert Burk's book about Miller and that's the phrase that comes to me: with friends like these who needs enemies?
http://www.amazon.com/Marvin-Miller-Baseball-Revolutionary-Society-ebook/dp/B00JMOLQLC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431268483&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+burk+marvin+miller+baseball+revolutionary
Burk's book is bit of a curiosity. There are basically 3 sections:
1. Miller's early life prior to him heading the Major League Baseball Player's Association (MLBPA) from his early life through his years with the steelworker's union.
2. His time leading the MLBPA from 1966 to 1983 where he turned a toothless company union into perhaps the most effective in the country, certainly among the big 4 team sports-baseball, football, basketball, hockey. He got players salary arbitration and free agency in the 70s-meanwhile NFL players to this day don't have anything like real free agency to this day with a salary cap-the NBA players were also bullied into a salary cap.
As for the NHL, hockey players are the worst paid, though, the sport is the least popular so that's perhaps not entirely unjustified.
In 1967, the average baseball salary was $19,000-ok, that's about $134,000 in real terms
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=19%2C000.00&year1=1967&year2=2015
today it's $3 million. However, since 2002, player salaries have been rolled back and now baseball players actually make less as a percentage of revenues than the NFL and NBA, salary cap notwithstanding.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-mlbpa-has-a-problem/
I don't buy for one second this would be the case if Miller was still at the helm.
3. His last 28 years of life in his post baseball years where he was frustrated by some of the union's moves-notably how much ground they conceded in the right for baseball to test for steroids with neither probable cause or due process-but as noted above, salaries have actually slipped staring in 2002. He had warned against accepting revenue sharing and a luxury tax.
When looked at as a whole, Burke's book is worth reading. However, mainly for sections 1 and 3 as the history of Miller's time at the union basically neither contradicted anything Miller related about his baseball years nor added anything meaningful he had omitted.
http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Different-Ball-Game-Revolution-ebook/dp/B004BKJQE6/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431269644&sr=1-3&keywords=marvin+miller
So based on those years there's really not much to be gained by reading Burk. What did make it worth reading were sections 1 and 3. Miller wrote comparatively little about his pre MLBPA years, according to Burk this was at his editor's suggestion while section 3 was certainly worth reading-Miller's book only took us to 1992 initially though he did later add a little after forward in 2004. Burk gives us a much more in depth recounting of Miller's later years right through until 2012.
Still, I'm not sure how good a friend Burk actually is. I find it curious that he paints miller as basically a Communist-and mentions this on the first page of the book. We repeatedly hear ominously about a 'radical past' which make Miller sound like something of a fellow traveller.
In assessing his legacy, this isn't very relevant but if anything it will likely serve to further tarnish Miller's legacy. Indeed, this piece by the WSJ took and ran with the 'He was a Communist' charges.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/wall-street-journal-slanders-marvin.html
So MCcarthyite tactics lives on. If nothing else these 'revelations' will only serve as another excuse not to vote for him by some pretty ungrateful players-friends like these, indeed, Reggie Jackson of all people failed to vote for him after everything Miller had done for Mr. October personally-without Miller he would never have become a millionaire.
But what is the basis for this claim? Burk's case seems to be based on anecdotes that I haven't been able to verify independently of his own claims that Miller and his wife continues to be pro Stalin after the pact with Hitler. Now if this is true, it was Miller's opinion. This doesn't prove he was an active member of the Communist party or spied on Americans or anything like that.
I don't find it a terribly well considered opinion, perhaps, but again, it's an anecdote that I've gotten no independent verification of.
The only other item that supposedly proves he was a Communist was he allegedly supported Henry Wallace in 1948. Now, had I been alive in 1948 I'm pretty sure I would have supported Truman-as I believe in voting party.
But in any case this doesn't prove he was a Communist. A number of liberals did vote for Wallace that year. His domestic agenda in retrospect hardly looks radical-he came out strongly for civil rights: at the time the national Democratic party largely agreed with him but worried about losing the Southern Democrats-who of course had bolted with Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat party that year.
However, when you view his actual career heading the baseball union, his position was always the most resolutely free market of anyone's in baseball-while the owners, especially the 'small market' owners were ironically socialist.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-funny-thing-about-baseball-why.html
As for section 3 he chides Miller for not joining the steroids witch hunt. For me this is welcome. Usually people forget as they get older but not Miller. While Burk mocks his stance as 'tilting at windmills'-as if one is not entitled to an opinion if it's a minority, to me this shows what's really admirable in Miller-he didn't get conservative as he got older.
It seems that Burk feels he ought to have just enjoyed his retirement and let it go. That Miller couldn't I see to be in his favor.
As for steroids, Burk seems to think that Miller should have 'adjusted to new realities' but what is the new reality he's on about? What it amounts to is that public opinion was on the side of the steroids witch hunt.
He also seems unhappy with Miller's skepticism about steroids enhancement capabilities citing as evidence that they do, that players think so.
That's hardly scientific, Burk seems not to notice that Miller's whole philosophy is that one proceeds on a legally sound basis with actually scientific and medical facts behind what you're saying.
His whole point is that the owners can't just unilaterally go off half cocked and do what they want-they have to get the union on board and go through due process. To just test everyone in baseball without probable cause and hand down arbitrary sentences is totally at odds with what Miller's legacy is about.
In truth, there is still a lot more that we don't know about 'steroids'-which is used in such a broad catchall way-than what we do know.
I see also late in the book Burk talks of Miller's 'impact on baseball for better or worse' and I've got to beg the question: what is aspect of Miller's legacy that you can say is 'worse?'
I mean if Miller's time as leader of the player's union is also a 'cautionary tale' in what way is that so? Everything that he documents of Miller's actual time leading the union is positive. I don't see what the negatives are. How was he wrong and Bowie Kuhn right-who of course, got voted by baseball writers, baseball executives, and alas, baseball Hall of Famers into the Hall while Miller remains out.
Again, with friends like these... You often hear it said of love 'Love means never having to say you're sorry', but based on Miller's legacy, it also means 'Never having to say you're grateful.'
If there is a cautionary aspect of Miller's legacy, actually I'd say it's that success has its own risks. By exponentially raising players salaries, they mostly honored his legacy by forgetting what enabled their riches and 'voting Republican' as it were.
P.S. But I take issue with Burk's dismissal of Miller as tilting at windmills, as I believe their is virtue in being at variance with public opinion sometimes, of fighting a Quixotic fight where one is not appreciated or recognized.
Mr. Miller, you deserve better. However, I won't say Rest in Peace but rather continue to give em hell even in death. You may have 'flunked retirement' but that's what I find admirable about you. Maybe you can also 'flunk death.'
Interesting: so maybe the point is to not rest in peace...
UPDATE: Bob Locker is one former player who wants to remember Marvin Miller
http://www.thanksmarvin.com/index-main.html
http://www.amazon.com/Marvin-Miller-Baseball-Revolutionary-Society-ebook/dp/B00JMOLQLC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431268483&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+burk+marvin+miller+baseball+revolutionary
Burk's book is bit of a curiosity. There are basically 3 sections:
1. Miller's early life prior to him heading the Major League Baseball Player's Association (MLBPA) from his early life through his years with the steelworker's union.
2. His time leading the MLBPA from 1966 to 1983 where he turned a toothless company union into perhaps the most effective in the country, certainly among the big 4 team sports-baseball, football, basketball, hockey. He got players salary arbitration and free agency in the 70s-meanwhile NFL players to this day don't have anything like real free agency to this day with a salary cap-the NBA players were also bullied into a salary cap.
As for the NHL, hockey players are the worst paid, though, the sport is the least popular so that's perhaps not entirely unjustified.
In 1967, the average baseball salary was $19,000-ok, that's about $134,000 in real terms
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=19%2C000.00&year1=1967&year2=2015
today it's $3 million. However, since 2002, player salaries have been rolled back and now baseball players actually make less as a percentage of revenues than the NFL and NBA, salary cap notwithstanding.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-mlbpa-has-a-problem/
I don't buy for one second this would be the case if Miller was still at the helm.
3. His last 28 years of life in his post baseball years where he was frustrated by some of the union's moves-notably how much ground they conceded in the right for baseball to test for steroids with neither probable cause or due process-but as noted above, salaries have actually slipped staring in 2002. He had warned against accepting revenue sharing and a luxury tax.
When looked at as a whole, Burke's book is worth reading. However, mainly for sections 1 and 3 as the history of Miller's time at the union basically neither contradicted anything Miller related about his baseball years nor added anything meaningful he had omitted.
http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Different-Ball-Game-Revolution-ebook/dp/B004BKJQE6/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431269644&sr=1-3&keywords=marvin+miller
So based on those years there's really not much to be gained by reading Burk. What did make it worth reading were sections 1 and 3. Miller wrote comparatively little about his pre MLBPA years, according to Burk this was at his editor's suggestion while section 3 was certainly worth reading-Miller's book only took us to 1992 initially though he did later add a little after forward in 2004. Burk gives us a much more in depth recounting of Miller's later years right through until 2012.
Still, I'm not sure how good a friend Burk actually is. I find it curious that he paints miller as basically a Communist-and mentions this on the first page of the book. We repeatedly hear ominously about a 'radical past' which make Miller sound like something of a fellow traveller.
In assessing his legacy, this isn't very relevant but if anything it will likely serve to further tarnish Miller's legacy. Indeed, this piece by the WSJ took and ran with the 'He was a Communist' charges.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/wall-street-journal-slanders-marvin.html
So MCcarthyite tactics lives on. If nothing else these 'revelations' will only serve as another excuse not to vote for him by some pretty ungrateful players-friends like these, indeed, Reggie Jackson of all people failed to vote for him after everything Miller had done for Mr. October personally-without Miller he would never have become a millionaire.
But what is the basis for this claim? Burk's case seems to be based on anecdotes that I haven't been able to verify independently of his own claims that Miller and his wife continues to be pro Stalin after the pact with Hitler. Now if this is true, it was Miller's opinion. This doesn't prove he was an active member of the Communist party or spied on Americans or anything like that.
I don't find it a terribly well considered opinion, perhaps, but again, it's an anecdote that I've gotten no independent verification of.
The only other item that supposedly proves he was a Communist was he allegedly supported Henry Wallace in 1948. Now, had I been alive in 1948 I'm pretty sure I would have supported Truman-as I believe in voting party.
But in any case this doesn't prove he was a Communist. A number of liberals did vote for Wallace that year. His domestic agenda in retrospect hardly looks radical-he came out strongly for civil rights: at the time the national Democratic party largely agreed with him but worried about losing the Southern Democrats-who of course had bolted with Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat party that year.
However, when you view his actual career heading the baseball union, his position was always the most resolutely free market of anyone's in baseball-while the owners, especially the 'small market' owners were ironically socialist.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-funny-thing-about-baseball-why.html
As for section 3 he chides Miller for not joining the steroids witch hunt. For me this is welcome. Usually people forget as they get older but not Miller. While Burk mocks his stance as 'tilting at windmills'-as if one is not entitled to an opinion if it's a minority, to me this shows what's really admirable in Miller-he didn't get conservative as he got older.
It seems that Burk feels he ought to have just enjoyed his retirement and let it go. That Miller couldn't I see to be in his favor.
As for steroids, Burk seems to think that Miller should have 'adjusted to new realities' but what is the new reality he's on about? What it amounts to is that public opinion was on the side of the steroids witch hunt.
He also seems unhappy with Miller's skepticism about steroids enhancement capabilities citing as evidence that they do, that players think so.
That's hardly scientific, Burk seems not to notice that Miller's whole philosophy is that one proceeds on a legally sound basis with actually scientific and medical facts behind what you're saying.
His whole point is that the owners can't just unilaterally go off half cocked and do what they want-they have to get the union on board and go through due process. To just test everyone in baseball without probable cause and hand down arbitrary sentences is totally at odds with what Miller's legacy is about.
In truth, there is still a lot more that we don't know about 'steroids'-which is used in such a broad catchall way-than what we do know.
I see also late in the book Burk talks of Miller's 'impact on baseball for better or worse' and I've got to beg the question: what is aspect of Miller's legacy that you can say is 'worse?'
I mean if Miller's time as leader of the player's union is also a 'cautionary tale' in what way is that so? Everything that he documents of Miller's actual time leading the union is positive. I don't see what the negatives are. How was he wrong and Bowie Kuhn right-who of course, got voted by baseball writers, baseball executives, and alas, baseball Hall of Famers into the Hall while Miller remains out.
Again, with friends like these... You often hear it said of love 'Love means never having to say you're sorry', but based on Miller's legacy, it also means 'Never having to say you're grateful.'
If there is a cautionary aspect of Miller's legacy, actually I'd say it's that success has its own risks. By exponentially raising players salaries, they mostly honored his legacy by forgetting what enabled their riches and 'voting Republican' as it were.
P.S. But I take issue with Burk's dismissal of Miller as tilting at windmills, as I believe their is virtue in being at variance with public opinion sometimes, of fighting a Quixotic fight where one is not appreciated or recognized.
Mr. Miller, you deserve better. However, I won't say Rest in Peace but rather continue to give em hell even in death. You may have 'flunked retirement' but that's what I find admirable about you. Maybe you can also 'flunk death.'
Interesting: so maybe the point is to not rest in peace...
UPDATE: Bob Locker is one former player who wants to remember Marvin Miller
http://www.thanksmarvin.com/index-main.html
No comments:
Post a Comment