I’m basically a free-market kinda guy when it comes to simple economic problems. So if Tom Hicks wants to pay Alex Rodriguez $25 million per season, that’s fine by me. Especially since A-Rod is practically the only star player for my beloved Texas Rangers who’s actually earning his salary this year.
But on the other hand, there are a lot of really good players out there who don’t have the major league service time necesary for free agency. Just because I know his stats, Texas CF Gabe Kapler currently has a .950 OPS (on-base% + slugging%), which is damn good even by major star standards. Yet I’d be surprised if he was making much more than $500,000 this year, despite an obvious transformation into a solid player last season. The Rangers are able to pay him this relative pittance, and lock him into the organization for the next few years, because MLB’s contract with the player’s union gives the teams a monopoly on a player’s sevices for the first six or so years of his career. That’s about as anti-competitive as it gets.
Then there’s the whole issue of the draft, the tradition of trading players, unequal revenue streams, relocation, public financing, and the ridiculous inability to buy a Shiner Bock anywhere in the Ballpark at Arlington except for the itty-bitty cart behind center field. All of these issues demand resolution!
Next season presents the distinct possibility of another lockout or a strike. So how the heck can we solve this stuff, once and for all?
Pah. That’s nothing. You shoulda seen how bad it was back before the 1970s, when all the players had to sign to a “reserve clause” year after year which, essentially, gave the owning team a monopoly on a player’s services for his entire career.
Not that either party is wholly in the right about this issue, but I tend to side with the players more than the owners. If the owners are truly losing money, they need to open the books and allow an independent audit to get the players’ union to make concessions. If the owners are really losing money, the players SHOULD make concessions or risk killing the golden goose.
During one of the previous lockouts, I know there were senate hearings on the whole labor issue. One of the owners was quoted as boasting (I’m making the dollar figures up here, but I’ll try to look up what they were and who said it and repost later): “I can take a five million dollar profit and turn it into a ten million dollar loss using generally accepted accounting principles and get every major accounting firm in the nation to agree with me.”
:rolleyes: Wonderful.
I really don’t blame A-Rod for his contract. For one, it wasn’t as overpriced as others (Darren Dreifort being one…Dreifort’s good, but he’s being paid more on potential). Secondly, while A-Rod did take the most money offered to him, is that really so wrong? How many of you would leave your company for a significantly better salary, no matter how much you like your parking space or co-workers? I agree that some of the “I want to play for a winner” posturing was annoying, but is it really so wrong to take the money?
NONE of the owners ever “boasted” that he could create paper profits or losses.
Paul Beeston, currently Bud Selig’s right-hand man, used to be an executive with the Toronto Blue Jays, and HE stated several years back that, as an accountant, he knew how easy it could be to make a profitable team look like a money-loser, or vice versa… and he was NOT bragging, simply making an acknowledgement of a real problem: namely, that even if a team opened up its books to the players’ union and PROVED that money was being lost, players would remain skeptical.
In any event, NOBODY has ever claimed that George Steinbrenner is losing money. What HAS been claimed is that numerous teams are unable to remain competitive under the present economic system. For those teams, the answer is simple: FOLD! NOBODY will miss the Montreal Expos or the Minnesota Twins, or the Marlins or the Devil Rays.
Contraction presents some pretty formidable problems, astorian. The owners are certainly not going to declare bankruptcy, since MLB teams are such great investments–demand for team ownership far exceeds supply, so there’s always some rich fan who will come along in a few years and pay you way, way more than you paid for the team. That’s probably true even for teams as crummy as the Expos and Royals.
And unless you just get the team to declare bankruptcy, you’re talking about having to get the owners and the players to agree to a buyout. Fat chance. Although sentiment among the owners seems to be moving towards contraction, I doubt Steinbrenner and his ilk are going to be all that happy about writing big checks to their less successful comrades. And the player’s union would never, ever, ever accept the loss of 52 major league jobs. Shoot, we’re probably locked into the designated hitter forever just because the union likes having one more highly paid starting player on each American League roster. Eliminating 52 major league players altogether? Ain’t gonna happen.
Relocating those teams, however, is an outstanding idea, IMHO. Pack up the Expos and Devil Rays and move them to wherever there are fans who actually want to support a team. Peter Angelos will fight like hell if somebody tries to move into northern Virginia, but Angelos is a negotiator by profession. Put some money on the table and he’ll cave in a heartbeat. North Carolina, Tennessee, and northern California also present some pretty good options for relocation. Heck, I bet San Antonio would kill for a major league team.
GM’s need to grow some cajones and not let themselves be bullied by egomaniacal agents! There is a lot of talent out there, with young guys coming up every day. It should be a buyers market. GM’s are running around acting as if they can’t win without big money free agents. There are lots of teams who can’t win after signing the free-agents.
The origanizations need to get better at scouting and developing young talent.
I am against folding teams. Its called “blaming the customer”. Fans don’t go to games in Montreal or Tampa Bay because the team stinks, has no apparent plan or hope for improving, because they play in unattractive facilities, and charge too much for the tickets and beer. And someone all this gets translated into the team not being supported by the local fans, as if the fans are obligated to support the local team - and more precisely, the team’s owner - no matter how rotten the product is. Talk of folding teams is just empty sabre-rattling by the owners.
The solution is that real revenue sharing and salary caps must be implemented. The Kansas Citys, Minnesotas, Detroits and Montreals must be put on an equal competitive footing with the Yankees. Then, a hard salary cap can be put in place. The union’s argument that no one ever accepted a limit on his wages is a specious argument. Everyone accepts a limit on their wages the minute they agree to work for someone else; the question always is not whether or not there is a limit on wages, but how high or low the limit is going to be.
He can fight, but if the team were to move to northern Virginia, he’d have no “legal” leg to stand on. He has geographic rights within a certain radius of Baltimore (75 miles?), and the proposed VA location is beyond that. This, of course, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t pitch a fit with the other owners, but no one would have to pay him diddly for the right to put a team there. Also - again, not positive, and someone please correct me - I think his geographic rights thing is only for teams in his own league; if the National League moved a team to the northern VA area, he’d have nothing to say about it, anyway; same would occur if they put it in D.C. itself (which is within that 75-mile radius). But the thing that gets me is this: Why fight it, anyway? Having a second team in the general area could potentially create a huge rivalry and therefore create more interest in the game among people from both specific metro areas (D.C. and Baltimore). After all, San Francisco and Oakland aren’t terribly far from each other, and neither is drawing poorly (although I know Oakland’s slowed down a little bit, but I’m not sure that’s because of the city or because the team’s slumping). Admittedly, those teams are in different leagues, but having an NL team in the D.C./Northern VA area would be fine with me. So IMO, he’s just being incredibly greedy.
When Montreal was successful (1981, 1994, for example), they still didn’t draw many fans. It’s not the fault of the fans exactly; they just aren’t interested in baseball enough to support the team. Tampa Bay is a little different, because the team overspent and then stunk; therefore the fans rightly don’t go to the games, by and large. But they do have a good chance of pulling themselves out of the mire.
I totally disagree with you about a salary cap, PatrickM. There’s a giant difference between two parties freely agreeing to a salary through negotiations and having a maximum salary imposed by some “benevolent” third party. The only beneficiaries of a salary cap are the owners, who artificially reduce their labor costs, thereby increasing their profit margins.
The prices that owners charge the fans for tickets, concessions, and parking are essentially unaffected by player salaries, since those prices are determined by the demand of the fans and are presumably already set at revenue-maximizing levels.
Besides, the player’s union would sooner die than accept a salary cap.
dan: Oakland’s attendance is fairly low, and has been for the last decade or so. They’ve been talking about relocating somewhere else in northern California, although I can’t remember exactly where.
The Texas Rangers have an obligation to pay A-Rod $252 million. Normally, in Baseball, these long-term contracts must be paid, even if the player is cut from the squad or injured. IANAA but would assume that the Rangers don’t book a liability for the $252 millon. This accounting treatment invites baseball teams to spend money now that will have to be paid in the future. If future income declines, they could be in big trouble.
I am aware that these long-term contracts are often insured, to some extent, but presume that considerable risk remains with the baseball team.
Can’t disagree with you, but do you know where I could find those attendence figures? I did a quick Google search, but no luck. Does MLB have it on its site, maybe?
Major-league baseball teams don’t just sign free agents for the purpose of winning ballgames. They also sign them because of their star power, i.e. their ability to draw more fans to their stadiums and increase their TV ratings. How many more people do you think are watching Texas Rangers games this year just because Alex Rodrigues is now their shortstop?
A whole horkin’ lot more, probably. But it’s a two-sided coin. GMs sign them partly to boost ticket sales, and the agents, knowing this, drive up the price accordingly. In a perfect world, we could hope the GM would say, “Ok, Player A will possibly yield this much in added revenue, so… hmmm, we’ll offer him no more than X dollars.” But they become more fearful that another team will grab him (free market, which is okay), and what the agent does is play one team off the other. The poor GM wants the player so he can boost sales, but doesn’t want to pay so much that the potential added revenue is negated by the salary itself.
december: The Rangers were only able to acquire insurance for the first five years of A-Rod’s contract, december. So yes, they took on considerable, uninsured risk. However, only the first seven years of the contract are guaranteed, so it’s not quite as gigantic a commitment as the doomsayers claim.
tracer is absolutely right about the star value of some players, including A-Rod. The Rangers made it to 1 million in attendance more quickly this year than they ever have before, despite a terrible team and a hefty increase in ticket prices. Moreover, the splashiness of signing the most attractive free agent in baseball history certainly put the Rangers on the map for consideration by future free agents, who have all but ignored Texas in the past.
dan: No luck on a quick search for MLB attendance figures, although they’ve got to be out there somewhere.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by minty green * tracer is absolutely right about the star value of some players, including A-Rod. The Rangers made it to 1 million in attendance more quickly this year than they ever have before, despite a terrible team and a hefty increase in ticket prices. Moreover, the splashiness of signing the most attractive free agent in baseball history certainly put the Rangers on the map for consideration by future free agents, who have all but ignored Texas in the past.*
They’re on that map as long as they do well. The problem with a huge free-agent signing is that all the pressure in the world is then on that team to succeed now, not down the road. The Rangers aren’t doing well this season, and that’s partially because they spent so much money on one guy instead of spreading it around to other areas, like pitching. So if the Rangers are bad this year - maybe a last-place finish - free agents won’t look as favorably on them as they did immediately after the signing. Therefore the pressure on them to succeed is not only to recoup the money spent on the player but also to justify themselves to potential free agents in the years to come, to tell them, “See, we spent money and won. We’ll spend money on you and win, too.” (Also remember that he’s only the most attractive free agent in baseball history now. This can change at any time.)
I disagree with you, Minty. There is no third party involved, benevolent or otherwise in the baseball labor wars. The parties involved are MLB and its 30 member ballclubs, and the MLBPA (ie, the union) with its member players, just like auto union negotiations are between GM (or Ford or Diemler-Chrysler) and the UAW.
And why is “artificially” reducing labor costs a bad thing? There is no free market for baseball players. The very work of a strong players union as a collective bargaining agent for the players skews the process away from a free market. In a true free market every player would be available as a free agent every year, and baseball labor costs would come to equilibrium and stablize at some point. The MLBPA in fact “artificially” creates scarity and constantly drives up salaries by limiting the number of free agents each year, and by having salary disputes arbitrated so that the market is set by the dumbest, highest salary awarded to thw worst player at that particular position. The union, through clever planning and argument, has sucessfully skewed the labor market so that player salaries constantly rachet up. I’m not quibbling with the union for doing so - their job is to get the most bucks for their member players and they have certainly done so. But by the same token, baseball management has a right to be able to determine what their labor costs are going to be so that they can plan and set their prices and earn a profit, just as the Ford Motor Company does.
You couldn’t be more wrong in claiming the Rangers were unable to spend money on pitching last year, dan. Texas did everything it could to sign Mike Hampton and Mike Mussina, the only two top-line pitchers on the market Neither one wanted to come to Texas. Hampton passed primarily because he wanted to remain in the N.L., where he gets to hit. Mussina wanted to stay on the East Coast, close to his home. By the time A-Rod signed on with Texas, all the good free agent pitchers had already been signed to other teams. The next free agent signing season (assuming it doesn’t get blown to pieces by a labor dispute) may be a very different story.
I didn’t say they didn’t try to do it, but the fact is they simply have zero pitching. If the team tanks this year (as it probably will), the number-one reason people will give for their demise will be the lack of pitching. Yes, it’s not their fault that the high-caliber pitchers chose to go elsewhere, but when the team craps out, the next crop of free agent pitchers will still shy away from a team that wasn’t as successful as predicted, no matter whose fault it primarily is. To be honest, if they couldn’t have signed either of the two biggest names, they might have had a fighting chance this season if they had signed, say, two or three second- or third-tier pitchers. Because they, by and large, neglected pitching, their team’s going into the toilet very quickly.
If I were a free agent, I would probably sign with a team that could pay me more than the average for my position AND field a competent team. I wouldn’t (in an ideal world, mind you, since I’m not a player!) want a team to throw $300 million at me if no one else on the team could win games. Baseball remains a team sport; even the greatest offensive hitter isn’t going to win games for you. But many players do seem content simply to get whatever they can; this is okay as long as they accept that the more money they take, the more pressure they place on themselves for the TEAM to win, not just for themselves to have great stats. If the team sucks, they’re getting the blame.
