Baseballhead:
Field of Incompetence

Michael Cox

We're back in the Baseballhead saddle again, my friend, and this time we can't blame the horse.

Remember that promise I made last week about attempting to talk about something other than Bud Selig's latest attempt to harm Major League Baseball? Well, I didn't exactly lie, but as there've been no new updates on the Red Sox sale and a big one on Selig, we're going to devote one more column to the continuing saga of "God Help Us, We're All Losing Gobs of Money."

The latest twist in the ongoing saga saw Mr. Selig go to Washington, where he made the usual presentation that "proves" MLB is hemorrhaging cash, and then every intelligent person in the building laughed at him. You see, offering up numbers virtually out of thin air might convince Joe Casual Fan (not to be confused with the now-outlawed Joe Camel) that the Grand Ole Game is really in trouble, but people in Congress are actually aware of how books can be fiddled while remaining completely within the law, seeing as most of Congress have likely fiddled with a book or two themselves.

In fact, Selig likely made more enemies than allies with tactics like responding to union head Don Fehr's assertion that MLB won't let the union discuss the real numbers by telling all in attendance, straight-faced, that "you have all the statements, all the numbers." (The response from California Rep. Maxine Waters: "Mr. Selig, let me remind you, you are under oath.")

Another almost surreal exchange went as follows:

REP. ROBERT WEXLER (D-Fla.): Would you say whether the Florida Marlins would survive for several more years?

SELIG: We're there now and let's hope it all works out.

Answers like this make it clear that Selig doesn't operate on the same logic that you and I use, instead relying on the same type of crazy inner voices that influence the career of Sinead O'Connor.

Hey Bud: Based on the testimony and facts of the past week, three questions come immediately to mind:

1. MLB as a whole (that is, all teams' profit and loss combined, plus the loss of MLB Inc.) allegedly lost a half-billion dollars last year. Selig says that to correct this, more revenue sharing is necessary. How does revenue sharing turn a cumulative loss into a cumulative profit?
    
2. The real crux of the matter, if you've been following along at home, is that Selig wants a salary cap. But in order to stem the alleged half-billion dollars in losses, each team's hypothetical 2001 salary cap would have had to be $17 million lower than the current average payroll. How does Selig believe he has a hope in Hades of getting an across-the board salary decrease past the strongest union in entertainment (sorry, Screen Actors Guild), especially one who knows what teams really make?
    
3. Exactly when in the last 75 years or so of MLB history have "small markets" been on a consistently equal footing with "big markets?"

The answers, of course, are 1) It doesn't; 2) He can't; and 3) Never.

Let's address Selig's dream -- an idyllic utopia where all teams are consistently competitive. First, since divisional play and the subsequent creation of the Wild Card, there's never been a better time for low-budget teams to succeed than right now.

MLB used to be a virtual large-market monopoly -- Prior to 1990, New York teams accounted for 59 World Series appearances in 86 years. The Washington Senators appeared in three Series. The St. Louis Browns appeared in one. The Kansas City A's appeared in none, and were commonly referred to as the Yankees' farm club.

And how about the new-ballpark-as-panacea? Sorry. Some of the teams with the largest alleged losses in 2001 played in parks with all the modern conveniences. According to the figures supplied by Selig, of the 15 teams with ballparks built or massively renovated (i.e., Anaheim, but not St. Louis) after 1989, only six made a profit, and only three of those six fielded competitive teams.

The reality is that in order to do any of the things he wants to do, Selig has to confuse the public and those who serve it into not only believing his voodoo numbers, but somehow rising up and petitioning Congress and laying siege to players' union headquarters. Short of buying national TV time for the purpose of performing mass hypnosis, his initiatives are doomed to failure.

Positive Affirmations: Next time you start actually believing that Major League Baseball's days are numbered, just remember the following facts and you'll be one step ahead:

• Whether their audited, juggled numbers say so or not, businesspeople with a shard of brain lodged in their head will not spend more money on employees than they can possibly earn, unless they wish to stop being businessmen and become homeless people.
   
• People are still forming long, long lines to purchase MLB teams -- any MLB teams. Even the Devil Rays and Twins.
   
• The players' union sees the real figures, and they're not terribly worried about the health of the game.

What to do, what to do: This is not to say that there's nothing wrong with MLB, besides the meddling owners, that is. But all they really need is a bit more profit sharing, actual intelligent marketing instead of the worse-than-The Michael Richards Show ad campaigns of the past few years, and an increased focus on scouting and player development.

One of the best playing-field-leveling ideas is that of removing the low minors from MLB clubs' farm systems, instead signing young players to generic MLB contracts and using A and AA-ball to develop talent that would be drafted when they're ready for AAA. There are two problems with this, however: the hottest prospects will continually be drafted before they're really ready to advance by teams with itchy trigger fingers; and the players' union would likely have to approve it, which they would never, ever do.

But it might be worth it to explore such a system, if only to give Scott Boras nightmares.

Baseball Prospectus' Gary Huckabay recently offered the idea that small-income teams have to get smart about the players they choose, and use the young players they have in their (and others') farm systems. Great concept. Mind you, he's forgetting the part where the team also has to spend considerable time and resources hiring really good scouts and front-office staff, but it is to quibble.

Also, despite the tagging of the A's as a shining example of cheap young talent parlayed into The Best Team In Baseball (tm), the hip new pundits forget that they thought Oakland was a shoo-in for the playoffs in '98 and '99, and that the A's still showed signs of being a streaky young team last year, imploding into a bright green-and-gold ball of flame in April.

The fact is that while there's a potential highly profitable upside to putting your best youngsters on the field, it's also a considerable risk compared to a known veteran quantity.

To sum up, I do believe that MLB can be much more competitive, but I also believe that it's up to the individual teams to make themselves so. When your ownership makes moves like overpaying for Jeffrey Hammonds or keeping Tony Muser in a job, they're not losing because of the Yankees or Don Fehr -- they're losing because of their own stupidity.

Look at the Mariners. Ten years ago there wasn't a soul alive who would predict that they would eventually allegedly earn more TV and radio revenue than the Dodgers or Cubs. In fact, if contraction had been discussed in the late '80s, Seattle would have been the most likely candidate. What turned the trick wasn't revenue-sharing or a salary cap or even the new ballpark (the Rangers have that and they allegedly bled red ink), it was a modicum of intelligence where building a team and marketing it were concerned.

Not a lot, mind you, just enough.

about the author

Michael Cox is allegedly losing money in his writing career. Let him know whether that depreciation deduction for his cat will float with the IRS at mc@strikethree.com.