baseball settlement = socialism?

**

I’ve tried for a day now not to reply, but I just can’t help myself. I fail to understand the essential difference between the schmoe who’s a ballplayer and the schmoe who’s an owner – are you suggesting that owners are somehow a higher order of being, and therefore inherently worthy of their millions or billions? The evidence against this hypothesis is substantial. And in any case, the owners came by their fortunes in the same diverse ways as any other group of the wealthy – some inherited it, some earned it by their own efforts, some earned it by wise investments, etc. Anyway, you might just as easily say that without shipbuilding, car dealerships, pizza delivery, TV stations, trash hauling, etc., Steinbrenner, Selig, Illitch, Turner, Huizenga, et al. would just be schmoes like the rest of us.

As for the players, well, whatever they make, they’re making it through their own efforts. I’d have thought that would make the rest of the schmoes out there respect them more, rather than less. The problem, I think, is that nearly every American male played a fair amount of baseball as a boy, and while we know intellectually that the game at the major league level is light years ahead of sandlot or Little League ball, it looks and feels the same. We all want to think that with a little effort we could be out there playing the game professionally as well. One look at an NFL or NBA player would disabuse most of us of any such ideas in those sports, but baseball players look a lot more like us – you’ve got fat guys like David Wells and Mo Vaughn, short guys like Rafael Furcal and the Giles brothers, mild-looking guys like Greg Maddux, etc.

In reality, however, making the major leagues in baseball is much less of a crap shoot, a lottery, than in other sports. Think about it: the ranks of the NFL are peppered with guys who have ample native athleticism and a whole lot of talent, who signed baseball contracts out of high school, washed out in the minors, and went back to college to play football, and then into the NFL. There are instances of this in basketball as well. In almost every case where an athlete has managed to play baseball and another professional sport, they’ve been a bigger asset to their team in the other sport than in baseball. One could argue that that’s even true of Bo Jackson, who would be the closest thing to an exception I can think of. Brian Jordan might be another, though he was only a Pro Bowl defensive back once in his brief NFL career, and has been an MLB All-Star only once – had he stayed with football, he likely would have become one of the premier DBs in the game. Vince Coleman is the only guy I know of to be cut from an NFL team and then succeed in baseball. Danny Ainge, Henry Bibby, Dave DeBusschere, and Michael Jordan were all more successful at basketball than baseball; I don’t know enough about Dick Groat’s NBA career to make that call.

Every year, the teams in major league baseball draft hundreds of players – many times more than the NFL, NBA, and NHL combined. Most of the players drafted are outstanding athletes; all are among the most talented players in the country. Only about ten percent actually make it to the majors, however briefly. The fraction who do are the ones who work their butts off in the minors and learn how to play the game. NFL and NBA players are expected to be able to play as soon as they’re signed, and many are able to remain employed simply on the basis of athleticism and native talent while they learn to play the game on a professional level. That happens very rarely in baseball. Usually, even the most talented players need a couple of years of playing the game every single day for months at a time to have developed the skills and instincts required to even make a major league roster as a fifth outfielder or utility infielder. Hundreds of extremely talented players are released every year without ever having set foot in a major league clubhouse – they didn’t work hard enough. For the ones that do make it, the process then begins of having to work just as hard or harder to remain in the majors (unless you’re an aging no-hit, used-to-be-able-to-field middle infielder, in which case you can always catch on with the Braves if Bobby Cox is still managing).

Playing baseball well enough to compete for a job at the major league level is so incredibly difficult that comparing it to winning a lottery seems ludicrous to me. Some of the owners have earned their positions, some have been handed them; all of the players have earned theirs.

As for their “general tone”, the players were in an untenable public relations position. They knew that the fans don’t give a hoot about the lies and distortions that Selig’s minions were mouthing, or about the real issues involved in the negotiations – they’re complicated and boring, even to many of the players. They knew that the owners would be able to depict them as greedy, ungrateful brats, and that the public would buy it. I followed the negotiations fairly carefully, and I didn’t hear much from the players’ side at all, except “we hope we’re able to reach an agreement without a work stoppage”. On the other hand, signalling that they were unwilling to strike would have resulted in the owners either locking them out over the offseason, or unilaterally imposing new terms. The only leverage the players had was to strike during the season.

Right. My point was to counter your assertion that the owners had no control over the business before this CBA, not to argue that they shouldn’t have it.

Well, the players agreed to a luxury tax (which was in place under the expired agreement, albeit in different form), but held the line against a salary cap. They agreed to greater revenue sharing, which needed to happen, even if the MLBPA would rather not have done it. They agreed to steroid testing as an investigative tool to determine to what extent steroid use is a problem in the game, but there are no penalties for testing positive during the first couple of years, or for a first offense after that – the players had agreed in principle to this quite a while ago. The owners gave up on contraction at least until 2006; the players agreed not to file a grievance to force collective bargaining on the issue at that time if the owners do elect to contract two teams. The owners gave in on arbitration, suspension with pay, club contribution to benefits, minimum salaries (including salaries for minor league players with split contracts), formula for determining total club debt, the Commissioner’s personal slush fund ($10 million, instead of a huge chunk of the revenue sharing and luxury tax money), cost-of-living adjustments to expense allowances during spring training, paying for medical second opinions anywhere in the country, and a couple of other issues. There are others issues, like tradability of draft choices, number of rounds of the draft, etc., where the sides merely agreed on a mechanism to resolve remaining differences. In other words, things are mostly the same as before, or slightly better for the players, on every issue except the luxury tax and revenue sharing.

Don’t misunderstand me – the players would love to have killed the luxury tax and kept revenue sharing the same, but privately they’re bound to be thrilled with the result. Privately, because they also gave the owners what the owners really wanted most out of this: the perception that they finally won one over the players. I firmly believe that the reason it took so long to reach this settlement, and the reason MLB forced out Paul Beeston as president last winter when he was close to a deal with the players, was that certain owners refused to agree to any deal that didn’t at least look like they made the players back down.

Not exactly. The A’s did offer a no-trade clause near the end. Giambi refused. IMO, it was a ruse. Giambi going to the Yankees was a forgone conclusion. That was where he wanted to be all along.

We can’t really point at tha Twins and say ‘Here’s a great team with no money’ because they aren’t that good. The AL Central division is weaker than weak. The Twins have taken advantage of the unbalanced schedule, much as the Braves have. (Face it, none of the other teams in the AL Central or NL East were ever in contention).

Look at the A’s. Truly a well run team. Good farm system, good scouting, they brought these kids up through the ranks. They are great right now because of, mainly, their homegrown pitching. Without Hudson, Mulder and Zito, this team wouldn’t be in contention.

But how long will they get to keep them??? These guys are hot commodities, and better than half of the teams in the majors can afford to outbid them. And outbid them by millions. One cannot expect a man to resign out of team loyalty when another team will pay him double, or triple, or quadruple what the A’s can offer. In terms of MLB salaries, and according to what these guys bring to the table, they are paid peanuts.

The luxury tax WILL discourage a team from ‘buying’ a great team (like the Yanks and D-Backs). This is a good thing. However, it also helps teams that suck, and will continue to suck, because of stupid managment. That is a bad thing.

It is supposed to bring about parity. It may or may not. Probably not. But parity is needed for a lot of teams to survive in the long term. Several teams have new stadiums and can’t fill 'em. Granted, it’s management’s fault. But better competition improves everyones bottom line.

rackensack, excellent post, you have a lot of good points there, and I’m not about to try and refute any of them.

On the Oakland A’s, I have a major problem with feeling the slightest bit of sympathy for them, and here’s why.

September 2, 2002 - Labor Day - The A’s are going for their 19th straight win against the Royals. Their ace pitcher Barry Zito is on the mound. From ESPN.com:
Att: 26,325
Weather: 84 degrees, sunny

26,325??? That’s all you can draw on a sunny, holiday game? 18 straight wins, and the team gets half a crowd cheering them on. Come on, man! Thankfully, they managed to fill the house on wednesday’s game … another clip from ESPN.com:
More than 20,000 fans bought tickets before the game, selling it out 43 minutes before the first pitch

In order to sell out, it takes 20,000 walk up sales. The fans in that town do not support this team on a regular basis. They’ve had a very good team for years, but still do not seem to get fan support. I remember very clearly that in last years playoffs, one of the games in Oakland was not sold out, that is totally unacceptable. They have been too good for too long to not get fan support.

I could understand it if the team was a flash in the pan, or a surprise like the Nets last year, but they’ve been in the hunt for years, where are their fans?

Cheesesteak,

     Look at a Braves playoff game. They don't sell them out either.

Of course baseball teams are in competition with each other. They compete for pennants, they compete to hire the best players and they compete for entertainment dollars.

What kind of communistic balderdash has this country descended into when a bunch of billionaires want to take away the money of the few more successful billionaires in their business? Socialism for the super wealthy, that’s what kind of balderdash. Like the only welfare left in this country is for corporations that are supposed to be swimming or sinking.

If the super wealthy owners of the losing teams can’t stomach the throught of losing millions every year on salaries, than they should go out of business like every other red blooded American business person. Sell the team, cut the payroll, whatever. But don’t take George Steinbrenner’s rightfully earned money away from him. Just because he is a bastard doesn’t mean he doesn’t put out a quality product for his customers and he should be able to reap the rewards from that. What kind of commie billionaire wants to “tax” his profits? I thought these rich guys hated all sorts of taxes. Guess not, not when they directly suck at the teat of the taxing commissioner.

As for people who think baseball players make too much money and there should be a salary cap, how about less hypocrisy? Nobody is forcing the owners to offer the salaries, now are they? Can’t the ballplayer demand whatever the market will bear, just like any other journeyman? If the “owners” can’t afford it or compete, they have no business being in business.

Just once I’d like one of these Joe Six Pack living off the backs of unions he pretends to hate go in and tell the boss the following:

“Boss, I’m sick of sucking off the teat of this company. As a (fill in your job here) I’m not worth nearly the amount of money and benefits the company pays me, and if there weren’t labor laws that union members died face down in the mud for during the last 120 years, you could pay me a couple bucks a day like they do for (fill in your job here) in third world countries where there is no eight hour work day, no weekends, no safety laws, no minimum wages, no licensing, etc. etc. I think it is wrong that you don’t treat me like serf scum simply because I don’t play baseball. Baseball has not been very good to me. I desparately want to see companies in our industry that are not as competitive make more profits, at my expense. So damnit! Cap my salary already, and while you are at it, see if you can get Congress to tax our successful competitors and give us the money as a subsidy. We may or may not be in the entertainment business, but whatever our business, I, as the worker, realize that if I am not part of the solution, I am certainly the cause of the problem!”

The above was sarcasm gang. Parody. I was making fun of hypocrites, not necessarily those in the baseball business.

I wouldn’t mind seeing baseball teams have more freedom to change cities if they want to compete for the bigger markets, however.

Why do people keep bringing up this point? Who cares how long they will be able to keep them? Beane will just replace them. Everyone said the A’s were dead without Giambi. “Oh, woe are the small market teams, the A’s will surely perish without Giambi! Where oh where is the salary cap to make things equitable?” And you know what? It was all rubbish. The A’s are doing just as well this year as they ahve the last three years. Beane has pitchers in the farm system to replace the big three, and if he doesn’t now he will just trade for them or draft them using compensatory draft picks.

Oh wait. No he won’t. The owners took that away. The one tool that a small market team could use effectively to rebuild and stay competitive was taken away by the owners. And you know why? Because Beane was proving that smarts, not money, determines competitiveness. Because incompetent, “small market” GM’s could no longer complain it was because they didn’t have enough money that they were competitive…not with Beane kicking the crap out of the league with a fraction of their payroll. So they made it a guarantee that Beane can never be successful without limiting player salaries.

So when the A’s farm system collapses in a few years after being refused compensatory draft picks, the owners can jump up and shout, “SEE! SEE! We told you it was an ‘aberration’!” And then they will artificially cap salaries so that they can make EVEN HIGHER profits.

Beane proved that a small market team can succeed in the current (well, previous) CBA by being smart. They didn’t need to retain good players. They just drafted a replacement. And I believe they could keep it up indefinitely, had the owners not put a stop to it in order to achieve a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[quote]
The luxury tax WILL discourage a team from ‘buying’ a great team (like the Yanks and D-Backs)./quote]
Bullshit. The luxury tax will not keep those teams determined to spend from spending. The luxury tax WILL, however, prevent mid-market teams from keeping up. Look at the NBA, which has a harsher luxury tax system than the one now in MLB. It doesn’t keep Sacramento, Dallas, Portland or New York from spending as much as they want. But it does prevent teams with smaller pockets from gathering as much talent. The luxury tax system is a ridiculous perversion that should be stricken from the earth.

I guarantee what you will see is the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers amassing huge payrolls since they can afford to pay the tax, while teams like Arizona who are right on the brink, forced to sell off payroll to avoid the tax. And then the owners will scream that salaries must be capped, even though it was their own stupidity that led to the situation.

Salary caps and luxury taxes and revenue sharing don’t bring better competition. Isn’t it curious that the most competitive era in baseball (80s - early 90s) was brought to a screeching halt after the first revenue sharing deal in MLB history was instituted? And you know why? Because it’s determined on payroll, not actual revenues. So a team with large revenues could slash payroll and still grab a hefty sharing profit. While teams with smaller revenues who actually are making an attempt to be competitive and have an actual payroll don’t get squat. Revenue sharing is not done to increase competitiveness, it’s done to depress players’ salaries and increase the owner’s profits.

I already dealt with luxury taxes and why they don’t help competitiveness.

Then there’s salary caps. Everyone is always fond of pointing how the NFL is so competitive because of salary restrictions. Bullshit. The NFL is competitive because it plays a 16 game schedule with single elimination playoffs. And they give easier schedules to teams that didn’t do as well last year, making it easier to get into the playoffs, where, you just need a fluke game to keep going. Let them play a playoff series (totally unpractical in the NFL, I know) and let’s see who wins what.

In fact, let’s play a fun game. Let’s assign a 16 game schedule to MLB and a single elimination playoff schedule since 1995. In fact, let’s just apply it to the Yankees. Well, in 1996 they don’t make it past the Rangers. The 1998 playoff season stays at is, except the Red Sox play the Yankees in the ALCS, not Cleveland. In the 1999 post-season, things stay the same as well. In 2000, they don’t make it past Oakland. In 2001 they don’t make it past Oakland.

So we get a much more competitive schedule, just by making the post season single elimination.

Much more telling is the NBA. With a similar post-season format, the NBA has been less competitive since the 1995 season with 3 teams winning the championship as opposed to MLB’s 4. In fact, even with the salary cap and luxury tax, can you really say that the NBA is more competitive than MLB? No, you can’t. But no one complains there because management already gets to artificially suppress salaries and increas their profits accordingly, so no need to harp on the fact that one team keeps winning it all.

Huh, I just realized I made a coding error. Will one of the mods please fix it? Thanks.

First off, I said it was supposed to bring about better compitition, I didn’t say it would bring it about.

And we cannot say that it should be based on revenue, when no one can say with any certainty what those revenues are. Look at the disparity between Selig’s numbers and Forbes numbers as to what the revenues were last year. And a part owner of the METS threatens to sue the MLB for seriously undervaluing the team.

The Dodgers, for example, have a sweetheart cable TV deal with Fox Sports West, which is owned by the owner of the Dodgers. It’s a good way to hide revenue.

As to how good the A’s can be in the coming years, only time will tell. But remember, they haven’t been good for very long.

This certainly true. And no one can argue that a lot of teams are managed by people who appear to have never seen a baseball game, judging by the stupidity of their decisions.

I was half-hoping for a strike. I wanted to see baseball continue, but I didn’t want to see the business continue as was. I thought that maybe, just maybe, it would shake things up enough for real change to come about.

Mets got caught doing one of these a few years ago. They claimed they were getting about 20% of the revenue the Yanks were, despite roughly equivalent viewership.

Why?

The Yanks sold their games to MSG directly. The Mets sold their games to Doubleday Television, which resold them to Fox Sports. Anybody ever hear of Doubleday Television? Me neither. The Mets were owned by 2 guys. One was named Wilpon. Anyone care to guess the other owner’s name?