Clipping:Opposition to the reserve system 2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, October 6, 1880 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting on the NL special meeting in Rochester] The all-important subject, five men reserve agreement, was brought up. Mr. Smith, of Buffalo, at once showed his teeth, and gave others a little exhibition of the material he is made of. He denounced the reservation policy in a very forcible speech, and said that, while he represented Buffalo, he never would sign any such contract. The articles made at Buffalo last year were simply a business understanding between delegates, and it had expired. The plan had been tried, and it was a dismal failure. It had not realized the idea for which it was conceived, and he sincerely believed that the best thing that could be done with it was to let it remain what it was, a dead letter. He knew as well as any body else did that players' salaries were too high; that the Chicago was the only Club that could make money, and all of that, but he did not propose to run a team under the present circumstances at a dead loss for the purpose of allowing the Worcesters and Troys and others to retain men they could not fully remunerate. Boston, Chicago and other cities were the cause of the present enormity of the pay-rolls, and, as every body but Chicago, who had been the prime movers in advancing prices, had suffered, he did not understand why they wanted Buffalo to make a dunce of herself. They had said that $30,000 had annually been lost, attributed only to over-paid players, but if Buffalo felt that she could make a nine pay, even with such a record before, it was her loss and affected nobody else. It was certain that his city could not afford to put a team in the field with a reservation policy in vogue. They had got through playing second fiddle and wanted to try their hand with another deal. He felt confident that base-ball could be self-supporting in his city, and he and others were anxious to try their luck. The citizens demanded a change, and they desired to give it to them. If, as the delegates claimed, they were all working for the interest of the League, why did they want to advocate any policy whose direct result was to make one or two teams invulnerable and the rest mere demoralized bands? |
| Source | Cincinnati Enquirer |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />