Clipping:Opposition to the reserve system 3
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, August 5, 1883 |
|---|---|
| Text | Last week the editor of this department had a very interesting talk with Manager Butler, of the Allegheny club, concerning the Reserve Rule. “There are many hardships in it,” said Mr. Butler, “but I can’t see how the game will be improved by doing away with it. The competition for players will be so great that it will be impossible to get a decent nine together short of $25,000, and a really first-class nine will be run up to $40,000. Of course, Philadelphia and one or two other cities would be able to make money at the latter figures, but it would sweep away Pittsburg, Columbus, Louisville, Baltimore, Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland and other small cities that now run professional clubs. These cities could not afford to pay such salaries. I am therefore of the opinion that the Reserve Rule had better not be touched.” The argument advanced by Mr. Butler is the argument of small cities. They want big nines but do not want to pay for them. Under this rule, no player can receive more than $1,000 a year [N.B. This was not true.] and must remain with the club that reserves him until that club is ready to let him go. In this way the small cities of the League can retain all the best players, while the big cities like Cincinnati, St. Louis, New York and Philadelphia, where thousands visit every game, must be content with what they have. The argument is a bad one, and we shall be greatly surprised and disappointed if it is not proven so before many weeks elapse. |
| Source | Philadelphia Sunday Item |
| 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" />