Baseballhead:
Induced Labor

Michael Cox

Yep, there's no escaping the Baseballhead even on a holiday, and it's a good thing that the Sci-Fi channel went head-to-head with Sunday Night Baseball with the inferior Godzilla vs. Megalon instead of a classic like Godzilla vs. Mothra, or I might've missed Mike Mussina's 99.9% perfect game.

Now, after that game might all of America finally realize that if the Moose had Roger Clemens' run support and vice versa, they'd be calling for Mussina's unanimous AL Cy Young? He pretty much had to pitch perfectly to win, with the Yanks' offense again turning as punchless as a posse of grandmothers when it comes to his turn in the rotation.

More on those Yanks later. But first, with September here, our thoughts naturally turn to the fact that there may very well not be any baseball next season. Or there very well might. Depends who you listen to, and on what day.

With both owners and union officials actually carrying through on their promise not to negotiate in public, no one really knows what will happen this offseason. Sure, there are plenty of folks who would like you to believe they know, but they don't know either. Even Peter Gammons, after spending much of a recent column reminding us that he has "team sources" on his speed dial, admitted that he has to guess just like the rest of us.

So, you ask, do I mail in that 2002 season ticket deposit or just blow it on booze? Good question. While our "insider" network of batboys and clubhouse janitors hasn't come up with any solid dirt to date (and you'd think a janitor could at least spare some of that), there are a few points to take into consideration:

-- Nobody's raving in public...yet. The fact that both sides are keeping their cat-stays-in-the-bag pledge is a good sign in itself. Why? Remember that Commissioner Bud Selig is a muttonhead. If he gets frustrated you'll hear about it in not-so-subtle ways, like refusing to hand over the World Championship trophy until after he uses the FOX airwaves to filibuster on the salary cap. (On the other hand, this may actually be a better use of FOX airwaves than Love Cruise.)

Similarly, the union has a hothead of its own, namely second-in-command Gene "Spreewell's Pal" Orza. I have yet to find one positive thing Orza has ever said about player-owner relations. The more often you even see his name in print, the worse negotiations are going.

-- History is on our side. Every single time the owners have tried to stick it to the union, the owners have lost. Lost real bad. Since the players love their current contract more than chocolate macaroons (and you know that's a lot), they have no incentive to strike; to cause a labor stoppage the owners would have to lock the players out. If a majority of owners have learned anything from history, they'll know that a stoppage actually favors the players.

In fact, the only indication of a particular nature is a subtle hinting that owners might be willing to extend the current agreement through 2002.

-- "Contraction" could be a bargaining chip. Layoffs are always a strong incentive for bargaining, and losing seven percent of the workforce could be a powerful argument for compromise. Much more powerful than franchise relocation, which the union actually likes because it could mean more money in a better market.

However, there's the question of whom one would shut down. Everyone can come up with the Expos off the top of their heads, but the problem is that there must be two to maintain symmetry. One of the Florida teams? They might just want a refund of those hefty franchise fees, which have likely already been spent on reupholstering the mascots' golf carts. Oakland? During this upswing in their cycle, not bloody likely. Minnesota? Not without a legal fight (and if you remember, they aren't afeared o' no lawsuits up there).

In fact, there are enough plucky young teams in "failed" markets this year to drive home this next point:

-- They have seen the enemy, and it is them. This is admittedly the most iffy of my conclusions, but signs indicate that the owners finally realize that the problem isn't those damned players (although they'd still sure like to figure out a way to have baseball teams without 'em). It's the perceived dramatic disparity in revenue, which really has to be ironed out before a salary cap would even work.

Today, a reasonable salary cap would be too expensive for the Expos, yet would allow George Steinbrenner to keep an extra couple of mattresses stuffed with cash each year. The trick is to convince Steinbrenner to give a bunch of his cash to the Expos. I'm not sure how the other owners would do this, short of locking Steinbrenner out. You know, legal ramifications aside, that would be funny.

So, knowing that the problem lies within, it may be possible that the players would get on board with a program that promises them greater gains if there's some real revenue-sharing in the future. However, on the other hand:

-- Players win in a "Rich Man, Poor Man" scenario. Revenue sharing works against the current "free market" model because big salary gains depend on one or two owners with money burning the proverbial hole in their proverbial pockets overbidding on a top superstar and setting the new structure for everyone else.

Ironically, these new peaks are usually not set by the Yankees, but by a mid-to-big-market club experiencing a surge both in wins and in revenues, giving it both the desire to get one superstar to give the team that push over the cliff, and the money with which to push the salary structure over the same cliff. The White Sox' signing of Albert Belle and the Rangers' self-competition for Alex Rodriguez are two classic examples.

Of course, these are also examples of teams who went into a nosedive immediately after signing said superstars. Maybe "push over the cliff" isn't the best terminology after all.

Getting back to the point, players have a good reason for maintaining the status quo, so owners will have to offer something new, different and intriguing before the union will listen. And if Selig has a new idea, he's sure been doing a good job of keeping it a secret.

All things considered, I'd probably set odds on a strike at something like 3-2. Or in those confusing baseball gambling terms, -150. That's just the morning line, however.

From the Clichés Make Us Hurl desk: If one more media pundit spouts the line, "the road to the World Series runs through Yankee Stadium," I'm going to seriously consider stamping my right foot disapprovingly. For all the talk about how the Yankees supposedly "step it up for the playoffs," these people seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Yankees have been the best team in the AL over the past five years, for cryin' out loud. They'd better have won something.

No, in plain and easy-to-read terms, the Yankees haven't required the magic playoff pixie-dust fairies (meaning more pixie dust for the Padres and Mets) because the Yankees have almost always been the better team to begin with. In fact, in 1996, 1998 and 1999, every one of the Yankees' AL playoff opponents had an inferior record during the regular season.

The Yanks' worst relative full-season record of their run came last year (.540, fifth in the AL), and likewise they had the toughest postseason of any of their '90s championship reigns (if you count 2000 as part of the '90s, which we do when it's convenient), first returning from the brink of elimination against the A's, then making a 4-2 ALCS against Seattle look like the Rocky Balboa-Apollo Creed rematch of their 1995 tilt.

If history is any indication, New York should be braced for another increase in the degree of difficulty -- if the M's don't succumb to a short-series loss to Cleveland, for the first time in recent history the Yanks will have to take on an AL club with a regular-season record over five wins better than themselves.

Not that I'd want to jinx anyone or anything...

about the author

Don't make Michael Cox stamp his foot. You wouldn't like him when he stamps his foot. Don't even chance his withering glare. It's nasty. Ask him to chill at mc@strikethree.com.