December 6, 2000

Finding the Motive Behind the Rhetoric

WARNING: If you are sick and tired of hearing the debate about whether baseball's present economic system is unfair, please do yourself a favor and hit the "back" button now. I can't say I blame you.

Earlier this year, I wrote an article that outlined in detail my viewpoint that the present economic system in baseball is fair and just, and the claims made by Bud Selig, Bob Costas, Scot Zook and others are simply inaccurate. I provided stats and figures, tables and examples to prove my point.  I used the basic "scientific method" we all learned in high school. I examined a hypothesis, then attempted to disprove it through the facts I had at hand. And I thought I did a pretty good job of that. However, the rhetoric from the other side still continues to this day.

Instead of rehashing my earlier arguments (which clearly weren't digested by the Small Market Posse in the first place), I've decided to investigate the motivation of the people who are making these claims that the "disparity between the have's and have-not's" - a phrase that has become as familiar a part of our language as "dimpled chad" - is destroying the game of baseball.

First, let's examine the source of all this rhetoric: Major League Baseball owners. Why would certain owners in baseball (in particular, former Brewers owner Bud Selig and the present owners of the Minnesota, Kansas City and Montreal franchises) ignore the facts at hand and claim that their business is on the brink of destruction? What sane businessman would ever say such a thing about his own business? The answer is simple: these so-called "small market" owners want to make the same amount of money as the big boys. And who can blame them? These guys are all ruthless businessmen. That's how they earned their billions, and that's why they can afford to purchase a Major League Baseball team and I can't. If you could make the same amount of money as the top person in your field, by doing as much or less work than you do now, wouldn't you?

For more than 70 years, Major League baseball owners were able to control their costs (and pump up their profit) by controlling their payrolls. Players made only as much money as the owners would give them. If a player didn't like his paycheck, he had only one choice: retire from baseball and start doing real work for a living. Every team in baseball was able to turn a healthy profit simply by keeping costs low. Then came Curt Flood, Marvin Miller, Andy Messersmith and Catfish Hunter. All of a sudden, owners could no longer control their costs, and "enormous profits" suddenly shrunk to just plain "huge profits."

So, the owners waged a public relations campaign to convince people that free agency would destroy the game we all know and love. They fought free agency every step of the way and lost every battle. They tried to cut player pensions in '72, so the players went on strike. The owners locked the players out in '73 over salary arbitration, and they staged another lockout in '76 over free agency. Each time, the owners lost.

Baseball writers, who are generally too lazy to research the facts, who are always on the lookout for a good catastrophe story to gain more readers, and who must suck-up to owners if they want to keep getting those exclusive "anonymous" quotes from "unnamed sources", happily complied with the owners' wishes by writing story after story on how baseball was on the decline and would never survive this new plague called free agency.

The only problem was that baseball did not decline. It exploded. Nearly every year from 1974 to 2000, baseball attendance has increased. Television revenue has sky-rocketed out of control. Merchandising and advertising generates more revenue than attendance. The game of baseball, which is supposed to have been dead by now, is instead at its height of prosperity.

Of course, this was not enough for the owners. It is never enough. With revenue seemingly maxed out in the early '80's, owners tried to control costs through player salaries once again. But the players went on strike for eight days in 1980 and 50 days in '81 and the owners eventually caved in (as they always do.)

The owners failed through every legal avenue available to them, so in the mid-'80's they began pursuing illegal avenues - namely, collusion. Once they were caught (which didn't take long), player salaries spiraled out of control once again. So in 1985, the players went on strike once again (for only two days) when the owners tried to take away salary arbitration.

Then, in 1990, owners canceled spring training with another lockout. And in 1994, they performed their most heinous act of all: canceling the entire second half of the season, including the World Series. Jerry Reinsdorf, the loudest voice among those who decried the escalating cost of salaries, celebrated the end of the lockout by signing the despicable Albert Belle to a record-breaking contract.

Through it all, baseball not only survived - it flourished. Owners found new sources of revenue through publicly-funded "mallparks" and the addition of four new franchises. Unfortunately, the rate of salary increase has out-lapped the rate of revenue increase. And with nearly every franchise in baseball owning a shiny new mallpark (or building one, or planning to build one), and with baseball seemingly maxed-out at thirty franchises, revenue has seemingly capped-out once again. Despite that fact, salaries - as they have every year since the dawn of free agency - continue to increase at a mind-boggling rate.

So once again, owners are waging a public relations campaign, claiming that the game we all know and love is in grave danger of extinction. Once again, baseball writers have joined their campaign, shouting the owners' message from the rooftops like the dutiful drones they are. And once again, we are on the verge of yet another work stoppage that will threaten the integrity of the game.

What can we do as fans to stop this from happening? Absolutely nothing. What we can do, though, is stop buying into the owners' sales pitch that the game is in trouble. What we can do is stop letting other people think for us and start thinking for ourselves. What we can do is look at the facts instead of listening to the rhetoric.

Bud Selig stands before the United States Senate and spouts lie after lie, and the press (and most of the game's fans) believe every word he says. He is, after all, the unbiased commissioner of baseball, right? Wrong. Bud Selig is not a commissioner. He is one of "them." Baseball once had a real commissioner, but the owners didn't like being ruled by an impartial arbitrator, so they kicked him out and replaced him with a figurehead who is about as impartial as the Florida Supreme Court.

Unlike the owners' campaign against free agency, this campaign seems to have legs because it feeds a very human need to place blame on others. "My favorite team can't compete because the system is unfair." "My child can't do well in school because the teachers aren't doing their jobs." "My children are misbehaving because there's too much violence on television." "I keep getting arrested because The Man is keeping me down." "I have second-degree burns on my lap because McDonald's makes their coffee too hot." We've become a nation full of finger-pointers and apologists, and the owners' message fits right into this whole mentality.

Selig abuses statistics like Al Gore, picking and choosing which stats to use and which to ignore. Last year, Selig was quoted time and time again on his analysis that no team outside of the top ten in payroll made it to the playoffs in 1999. Therefore, he reasoned, only teams that rank among the top ten can compete. This year, we haven't heard that statistic used. I wonder why. Could it be because the payroll rankings of the eight teams in THIS year's playoffs were 1st, 4th, 6th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 25th and 26th? Seems like a pretty even distribution, doesn't it? Selig never lets the facts get in the way of a good speech.

This year, the press is quoting time and again Selig's analysis that only five playoff games have been won by teams in the top half of the salary ranking from 1995 to 2000. Yes, and only nine games have been won from 1995 to 2000 by teams wearing horizontal stripes on a Tuesday. What, exactly, is the cause and effect of this statistic??

He ignores the fact that every one of the 30 teams in baseball, with the exception of the three-year-old Tampa Bay Devil Rays, has made it to the playoffs within the past twenty years. He ignores the fact that in the past ten seasons, only five teams have failed to reach the playoffs. He ignores the fact that baseball has had more unique teams win the championship over the past ten years than any other major sport, including football, basketball and hockey. If "half the teams in baseball can't compete," as Selig claims, then it sure isn't being reflected by the facts.

We are supposed to believe that the Oakland A's play in a small market. Yet at one time - not very long ago at all - they owned a dynasty filled with high-priced players. The Minnesota Twins are also supposed to be a destitute franchise. Yet less than a decade ago, they were the crown jewel of baseball. We're supposed to believe that the New York Mets are unstoppable giants with unlimited resources who - as one well-known columnist asserted recently - are LOCKS to participate in the World Series every single year from now until eternity. Yet just FIVE years ago, the Mets were DEAD LAST in payroll. We're supposed to believe that the Cleveland Indians are the bullies of the AL Central, who always have and always will win their division without any competition. Yet just seven years ago, Cleveland ranked 26th in payroll.

I'm confused.  Which franchises are we supposed to feel sorry for?  And which are we supposed to despise because they're so rich?   Want some more examples?

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays went from 23rd in payroll in 1998 to 10th this year. The Kansas City Royals were 7th in payroll in 1994 and 28th this year. The San Diego Padres have been as high as 9th in payroll (in 1998), and as low as 28th (in 1994.) The Houston Astros have been 10th (1999) and 21st (1997) within a two-year span. The Chicago White Sox were 3rd in payroll in 1997, and 26th this year. The Florida Marlins were 7th in 1997 and dead last in 1999. The Cincinatti Reds were 3rd in 1995, 6th in 1996 and 26th in 1998. The Toronto Blue Jays were among the top-three in payroll from 1992 to 1994, and are now 21st. The list goes on and on.

Clearly, the franchises that we are to believe are "small markets" were actually "large markets" very recently, and vice-versa. If, as Bud Selig asserts, there are franchises in baseball that have "NO CHANCE" of competing in any given year, then where are these franchises?

The only franchises that have been consistent the past ten years are the Yankees (between 1st and 3rd since 1993), Braves (between 2nd and 5th since 1993), Rockies (between 11th and 14th since 1996), Brewers (between 19th and 28th since 1993), Expos (between 24th and 30th since 1992), Pirates (between 22nd and 29th since 1993) and Twins (between 22nd and 30th since 1993.)

With the exception of those seven teams - two at the top of the pay scale, one in the middle and four at the bottom - each one of the other 23 teams in baseball has experienced vast fluctuations in payroll over the past six years. What do the two teams at the top have in common? Three things: 1) enormous financial resources caused by television revenue, 2) an extremely strong farm system, and 3) brilliant baseball minds in the front office that have made very few bad decisions. What do the four teams at the bottom have in common? Two things: 1) bad location, and 2) disinterested fans.

Even when the Expos (in '94 and '00) and Pirates (from 1990-1993) have been successful, they haven't cracked the two million mark in attendance. When the Pirates battled the Braves in that exciting NLCS in '92, there were thousands of empty seats. Perhaps that will change when the Pirates move to their new park this season. Milwaukee will also be moving into a new park this season, and because it is a good baseball town, I predict the Brewers franchise will finally begin to turn around (if they can find someone - for the first time in franchise history - who knows how to scout amateur ballplayers.) One thing I do know for sure: the Expos never have, and never will, reach that milestone. Baseball doesn't belong in Montreal, and the Expos will never be an elite team as long as they remain in Montreal.

Then there are the Twins. Unlike folks in Pittsburgh and Montreal, Minnesotans actually LOVE the game of baseball. The Independent League St. Paul Saints have out-drawn the Twins each of the past two seasons. From 1987 to 1991, though, the Twins topped the AL in attendance each year. The Minneapolis/St. Paul region is the 14th-ranked television market in the country. Baltimore (23rd), Cleveland (15th), Phoenix (17th), Denver (18th) and St. Louis (21st) are all smaller markets than Minneapolis/St. Paul. So why, then, have the Twins become the poster children of the "small market" ballclub? In one word: Virginia.

Some time around the early '90's, when Twins ownership began to change hands, management decided that the team needed to bulk up their revenue. The two quickest ways to do that are: a) building a new ballpark, or b) moving the team to a new area with a new ballpark. They tried to blackmail the people of Minnesota to build them a new park by threatening to move to Virginia, but the move backfired. Ownership let the team deteriorate - I believe intentionally - in order to prove to the Minnesota fans that the team could not survive without a new ballpark.

Today, the Twins ownership seems to be completely apathetic. Minnesota has a prime opportunity this year to turn the franchise around by signing Mark Teixeira with the first overall pick in the draft. Teixeira, David Ortiz, Matt LeCroy, Mike Restovich, B.J. Garbe, Eric Milton, Bobby Kielty, Matt Kinney and Mike Cuddyer could form a core of young players similar to Kent Hrbek, Kirby Puckett, Frank Viola, Gary Gaetti and Rick Aguilera in the '80's. If that happens, the fans of Minnesota would return, and the franchise would be great again. But instead, I predict Minnesota will sign a no-name with that #1 pick and give Teixeira's bonus to Orlando Merced. It's a shame what has happened in Minnesota, but it has nothing to do whatsoever with baseball's economic system. Whether or not revenue-sharing or a salary cap were in place, the Twins would still be an atrocious organization.

So when Bud Selig says that "20-25 teams in baseball have no chance of competing", which teams is he talking about?  So far, I've found only four teams that haven't competed within the past six years.  Two of the those teams are moving into new ballparks, which would indicate that they'll be generating more revenue (and thus a higher payroll, and thus more wins according to Selig.)  And the other two teams seem to have no interest in competing.

Along with the consistency paradox, there is a geographical paradox at work here as well. If Kansas City is a small market, how can St. Louis be a large market? If Cincinatti is a small market, how can Cleveland be a large market? If the Yankees win only because they play in New York, then why haven't the Mets won in the past 13 years? If the Cubs play in the third-largest television market, and routinely lead the league in attendance, why are they consistently in the middle of the pack in payroll? If the Phillies play in the fourth-largest TV market, why were they 20th-ranked in payroll this season? If Oakland plays just down the road from the San Francisco Giants, why did they spend $21 million less in payroll this year?

People like to blame the Yankees for winning with such a high payroll. But they forget that of the eight teams in the playoffs this year, the Yankees were by far the worst team. They had the worst record and were coming off a miserable September. The Yankees won this year because of heart, desire and experience (and, I admit, some luck) - not because their players were paid more.

People love to say that certain teams "can't afford" to sign a free agent like Alex Rodriguez. First of all, I would dispute the notion that ANY major league team couldn't sign any player if they truly wanted to. Imagine, for example, if the Twins signed A-Rod. It would do for the franchise what Mark McGwire did for St. Louis. And don't tell me they can't afford it. Signing A-Rod would bring their 2001 payroll to around $36 million (assuming they don't get creative and just give him $20 mill per year over ten years.) Are you trying to tell me that the Twins wouldn't generate more than $36 million in revenue with A-Rod front-and-center??  The people of Minnesota would flock to the ballpark in record numbers.

Secondly, I dispute this notion that only a handful of teams can participate in the bidding for the highest-paid players in baseball. Since 1979, there have been eleven players who have held the title of "highest-paid player in baseball." Those eleven players have played for eight different teams, including "small market" teams like Minnesota (Kirby Puckett in 1989), Oakland (Jose Canseco in 1990), the Cubs (Ryne Sandberg, 1992), Seattle (Ken Griffey, Jr. in 1996) and the White Sox (Belle in 1996.) Boston (Pedro in 1997 and Clemens in 1991), Los Angeles (Kevin Brown in 1998), the Mets (Mike Piazza in 1998) and Houston (Nolan Ryan in 1979) are also represented. (Note: you'll notice the Yankees are not.)

Clearly, there have been different teams at different times in recent history that have been able to afford the top-paid player in the game. So even if the Royals, Reds or Twins cannot afford A-Rod today, there is no historical evidence to suggest that they will not be able to afford him in the future.

In fact, I wonder what Royals fans were saying in 1993 when David Cone signed as a free agent for a then-record sum. I wonder if there were great cries among the media and masses that the "rich are getting richer."  I wonder if Royals fans routinely decried the state of the game and worried about the game's future. How soon we forget that in 1993, the Royals were signing their "Mike Mussina", adding another Cy Young-winning ace to a rotation that already included Mark Gubicza, Tom Gordon and Kevin Appier, while the Yankees were getting by with Jimmy Key, Jim Abbott, Melido Perez and Terry Mulholland. The Royals were the seventh-ranked team in payroll in 1994, with 86% of the payroll of the top team (Baltimore.) That would make them the Arizona Diamondbacks of 1994. Certainly, they were not a "small market" by any stretch of the imagination. But they made some AWFUL decisions for the next six years (spending outrageous amounts of money on free agents like Jeff King, Wally Joyner, Vince Coleman, Jose Offerman and Bip Roberts), and all of a sudden they have become poverty-stricken. How soon we all forget.

Next, let's look at Paul Marazita's favorite "small market team", the Cincy Reds. Cincy ranked between 3rd and 8th in payroll between 1992 and 1997. But Marge Schott and company completely decimated their farm system, and the well of talent they had used to become so successful dried up. Today, Cincy has one of the game's marquee players and a sparkling new stadium on the way. Their brilliant GM has rebuilt their farm system into one of the best in baseball (if not THE best), and the Reds were able to sign every one of their top picks this spring - something that not many other teams in baseball can say. Yet we're supposed to feel sorry for the Cincinatti Reds because they spent just 48-percent of what the Yankees spent this year. Is it possible - just possible - that maybe their dry spell won't last much longer? Is it reasonable to assume that they will eventually revert to being a "big market" team once again in the near future? The Reds ranked 8th in payroll just THREE YEARS AGO, yet if you listen to Reds fans like Marazita, you'd think the Reds have always been the poor, humble franchise they appear to be today.

I've already proven earlier this year that this alleged "problem" with baseball's present economic system is a myth. I have now given you the motivation for the perpetuation of this myth. The rest, my friends, is up to you.