Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinHobbes
I'd rather see another 'professional' hitter up there taking swings than watch another pitcher who doesn't even want to be in the batters box being overmatched.
|
I'd rather see an athlete shouldering the same burden as every other athlete on the field (having to play both defense and offense and have his strengths at one exceed his possible deficiencies at the other) than have some geriatric fat-ass haul his overpriced butt out of the dugout for a few sporadic swings while sucking up a roster spot that could go to a more versatile player. Removing the DH would force the David Ortizs out of the game? Adios, Big Papi. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
And the idea that MLBPA would never agree to allow the DH to be removed is silly. Yes, the utility infielder who would replace the over-priced DH would make less money…initially. But what would happen is that market economics would correct itself, that the amount of $$ the owner is willing to spend on actually-useful players would end up flowing to those players, just as it does now. If the Sawx aren't paying Ortiz his $16,000,000 to make his four lousy cameos per game, then that money would go to keeping a Lester, a Peavy, or an Ellsbury in town, or it would be more money for the internationl acquisitions fund. The budget is the budget. Just because a certain portion of it would no longer go to has-beens who can't tie their shoes without assistance doesn't mean it wouldn't be spent elsewhere. So what's bad for the current crop of DHs would good for the next crop of catchers, infielders, outfielders and, oh, yes, pitchers.
You know, the players who actually
play the game.
(And for those thinking it's only a matter of time until the NL adopts the rule…the NL hasn't even held a vote on the issue since 1980. So, don't hold your breath.)