As time passed through my teenage years, I was able to see the final years of Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, Willie Stargell, and Rusty Staub's careers. I also saw the beginnings of players who went on to be superstars, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Don Mattingly, and Maddux. Only two players are left whose careers I began to follow during my childhood, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz.

Baseball has not changed, so it must be me. I would mow yards all week for tickets and a drive to see a game. I would not attend a game today if it were free. Maybe it is a generation thing. Maybe I should not have ever looked outside the lines.

Baseball owners wanted a salary cap and ended up with revenue sharing. New York Yankee's owner George Steinbrenner stated, "This [revenue sharing] is socialism at work and baseball is still a free-enterprise sport." I was in agreement with the owners for many years. I now understand I was not looking outside the lines.

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the definition of socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Is it just me or does that seem reminiscent of the $700 billion bail-out and the auto-industry's current undertaking?

After the advent of free-agency, player's salaries rose, ticket prices rose and for a time everyone was happy. With still soaring ticket prices and a looming depression ratcheting the country, would it be the right time for owners to be next in line for a bail-out package? Isn't revenue sharing and a salary cap a form of socialism?

Do we take pity on a player who earned $75 million during his career and after ten years of retirement is filing for bankruptcy? Why should we feel anything similar for the owners? The Arena Football League cancelled play for a year to restructure itself. Maybe other organizations should consider the possibility.

Against popular belief, the owners nor the players dictate how the game is viewed. The driving force behind their economic success is the fans. The people who pay for tickets, buy team merchandise, pay for parking, and purchase concessions at the game. When four "mid-level" seats, souvenirs, concessions, and parking for a game mirror a monthly mortgage payment, something is flawed.

If fans pay too much for their home, do they ask their boss for a raise for that reason? Is that what happens when owners overpay players? Yes it is, by raising ticket prices. A reduction in attendance would serve notice to the owners and the players. This action would lead to lower team earnings; which will lead to lower salaries for players. The end result presents a decrease in ticket prices. That is not socialism; it is good old fashion capitalism.

On a positive note, election for the Hall of Fame's Class of 2009 is only a couple of weeks away. Being a first-ballot Haller should be a distinct honor. But it should not matter after that. Whether you are a second ballot or fifteenth ballot should not have any bearing (but strangely it does with the BBWAA). What was different about Bruce Sutter when elected compared to his third or fourth try?

Rickey Henderson should be a first ballot for his offensive output (hits, stolen bases, runs scored) and four players who are long overdue, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, and Tommy John, possibly will receive a call in early January.

.