Long-awaited action: Alex Rodriguez signs biggest contract in history.
Absurd reaction: Baseball work stoppage seen as inevitable.
It's just about a month now since The Great A-Rod fitted his new Texas
Rangers cap onto his noggin for the first time. And we'd love to have 100
bucks for every prediction we've heard or read since that thanks to this
insane contract, a lockout is coming to a cable-TV box near you on Opening
Day, 2002.
|
Triviality
|
|
Two players on this year's Hall of Fame ballot -- Don Mattingly and Dave
Winfield -- finished 1-2 in the 1984 AL batting race while they both played
for the Yankees. Only once since -- in 1993 -- has any other set of teammates
finished finished first and second in the batting race in either league. Can
you name them?
(Answer at bottom.)
|
Sheez, if we'd only written that 100-buck clause into our own contract,
we might be in the same tax bracket as Tom Hicks by now.
Well, there's only one pertinent question we'd like to ask all those
doom-and-gloomers who now think that lockout is a surer bet than the Yankees:
Why?
Why should this humongous contract -- which we all knew was coming, by the
way -- shock anybody?
And why does it mean our sport obviously has to be headed for another long,
disastrous nuclear episode?
The fact is, it shouldn't. It doesn't. And we'll now appoint ourselves as
the official voice of media optimism by predicting, right here, that we will
not have a work stoppage that causes the cancellation of a single
regular-season game in 2002.
"I don't believe there is any chance of a work stoppage -- none at all,"
one baseball-management source told us this week. "For one, I don't believe
the union would strike, unless the clubs try to implement something very
harsh, like a salary cap. And I don't think, ultimately, that the clubs will
do that.
"And two, I think there is no taste -- zero -- for another work stoppage. I
think everyone understands that if we have one, that would be the end of
baseball, once and for all."
Oh, there may be a few hard-liners out there in Owners Land who haven't
grasped that once-and-for-all scenario quite yet. But sooner or later, that
reality needs to set in.
And when it does -- ideally, in the next 15 minutes -- we would like to see
everyone in baseball calm down and get to work on The Labor Deal That Can
Rescue Baseball.
|
“ |
I
don't believe there is any chance of a work
stoppage -- none at all. For one, I don't believe
the union would strike, unless the clubs try to
implement something very harsh, like a salary
cap. And I don't think, ultimately, that the clubs
will do that. And two, I think there is no taste --
zero -- for another work stoppage. I think
everyone understands that if we have one, that
would be the end of baseball, once and for
all. ” |
|
|
— A baseball-management source |
Is that deal do-able? Sure, it is. We just need to start those labor
negotiations with the following two premises:
1) A salary cap doesn't work in baseball -- and this union will never
accept one, anyway.
And 2) another work stoppage would be suicide.
We ought to have no problem getting agreement on that second premise. Now
let's explain the first one.
First off, salary caps aren't all they're cracked up to be. Despite the
existence of the much-heralded NBA cap, the Portland Trail Blazers have an
$87-million payroll and the Los Angeles Clippers (who play in the
second-largest city in America, we might add) have a $29-million payroll. You
want to eliminate disparity with a cap? Well, explain away that one.
Second, the nature of baseball is vastly different than those other
sports. There is far more player movement, and many more trades, in baseball
than in all the other sports combined. You can't make it impossible for the
Houston Astros to trade for a Randy Johnson, or the Yankees to deal for a
David Justice, in midseason, not without changing the very essence of the
sport.
Third, it's too late for a cap now, anyway.
"Where would you put it?" wonders one prominent baseball man. "At 100
million? A lot of clubs are already over that. You can't grandfather the
teams that are over, or the teams that are under will say those clubs have an
unfair advantage. And some of these teams can't possibly get under 100
million. For the Dodgers to get under, they'd have to give up 15
arbitration-eligible players -- or Kevin Brown."
Finally, let's all remember that this union would rather bankroll a
glowing Bowie Kuhn documentary than agree to any kind of cap. So drop the
whole subject. Please.
OK, now if everyone can just agree on our two basic assumptions, the
blueprint for a new deal is already in place. And here it is:
1. More revenue sharing
You've already got a system under which the Yankees paid $23 million in
revenue-sharing money last year and the Twins took in around $22 million.
That's a great start. So tinker with the current system to make it work.
Currently, all teams pay a 20-percent revenue tax into a central fund.
Then all teams draw out money on a scale that pays the eight lowest-revenue
clubs the most money.
We say: Increase that tax rate to 25 to 30 percent, then adjust the
paybacks so that only the poorest clubs draw money out of the pool.
It makes no sense whatsoever for a team like Texas to get
revenue-sharing money as a middle-market club, then turn around and give $252
million to A-Rod. But that actually happens under the current system.
2. Set a minimum payroll
Any revenue-sharing plan has to be based on this fundamental principle:
The big-revenue clubs would never agree to kick in more revenue-sharing
money unless they're convinced the teams getting that money will spend it on
players.
Try explaining to Boss Steinbrenner why the Twins had a $15-million
payroll last year, even though they received about $22 million in
revenue-sharing money. That's not revenue sharing. That's welfare -- $7
million a year worth of welfare, for that matter.
Obviously, that's a joke. And it can't continue. If the biggest problem
in baseball is payroll disparity, a minimum payroll, set at $45-50 million,
addresses that instantly. How complicated a concept is that to sell?
3. Fix the luxury-tax system
While the union would never agree to a salary cap, it's already agreed
to a luxury-tax system. And that's the ticket to an ultimate labor solution.
There's no reason why, with proper adjustments, the system baseball
tried out in its last labor deal couldn't work the way it was supposed to
next time around.
Last time, remember, there was no "threshold" that kicked in tax payments.
Just the clubs with the five highest payrolls had to pay. Didn't make a dent.
For this to work, every team over an agreed-upon threshold -- $90
million, $100 million, whatever -- should have to pay a luxury tax on every
dollar spent beyond that threshold.
The powers that be can negotiate the rate -- 35 percent, 40 percent, 50
percent. But there have been indications that the union would agree to this
type of system if a new revenue-sharing system and minimum-payroll proviso
were also put into effect.
4. Approve the worldwide draft
We understand all the complications involved in a worldwide draft. But
it's still an idea that would minimize the ability of teams like the Yankees
to corner the market on entire islands worth of talent. And talent-sharing is
as important as revenue-sharing. Figure it out.
5. Approve a draft-pick salary cap
If there's one variety of cap major-league players would agree to, it's
a cap on the cash being paid to the J.D. Drews and El Duquecito Hernandezes
of the world.
"Players don't want the money that's out there going to amateurs," says
one agent. "It's that simple. So I'd like to see the union say: 'You want
your salary cap? There's your salary cap.' "
6. Put the Twins out of their misery
Baseball in places like Minnesota and Montreal isn't just sick. It's
dead.
So at the very least, baseball needs to let these teams move to
someplace, anyplace where they have a chance to survive. And at most, it just
about has to consider the idea of pulling the plug on two franchises
completely.
"I've come to believe there has to be contraction," said an executive of
one large-market club. "Management in Minnesota has shown no desire to do
anything. They can't get a stadium. So close them down. To be honest, I think
Carl Pohlad wants to be bought out."
That's not the case with Jeff Loria in Montreal, though. So that's where
contraction gets complicated. The alternative, then, is to force the Orioles
to give up their territorial claims to Northern Virginia and let the Expos
move there.
Ditto with the Giants and San Jose -- a place where the Athletics could
evolve into a major power again.
And if the Twins can find some city that will take them, pull away the
road blocks ASAP.
Oh, there are other items that can and will be included in that next
labor deal. But what we've outlined represents the framework of a deal that
addresses the problems, builds on the best of what's already in place and can
be reasonably agreed upon by both sides -- without a war.
To quote a great non-American (John Lennon), all we are saying is give
peace a chance. And take our word for it: It has a far better chance than the
doom-and-gloom squad has been letting on.
The all-unemployed team
Six shopping weeks until spring training, and all of these guys are still
looking for work:
1B: Ron Coomer, Mike Stanley
2B: Luis Alicea, Miguel Cairo
SS: Tim Bogar, Kevin Stocker
3B: Mark Lewis, Sean Berry
C: Kelly Stinnett, Jeff Reed
LF: Rickey Henderson, Henry Rodriguez
CF: Rich Becker, Brian Hunter
RF: Juan Gonzalez, Butch Huskey
DH: Jose Canseco, Harold Baines
Starting rotation: David Cone, Bobby Jones, Willie Blair, Ken Hill, Steve
Avery
Bullpen: John Wetteland, Jeff Brantley, Rick Aguilera, Scott
Kamieniecki, Jason Grimsley
Mr. October: Jim Leyritz
Dan Duquette fan club: Izzy Alcantara
More rumblings
Manny Ramirez thought last month that when he turned down that final offer
from his old team, the Indians, he was doing so to take a more valuable
package from the Red Sox. But now that the union has devalued his deal with
Boston to just over $141 million, one baseball official says it turns out
that in the end, Cleveland's offer would actually have been worth more in
current value.
The Indians would have deferred $75.5 million, compared to Boston's $31
million. But the Indians would have deferred that money at a higher interest
rate than the microscopic 0.5 percent the Red Sox money-market account will
be paying.
People in baseball continue to buzz about the Twins' mysterious decision to
nontender Ron Coomer. Coomer's 16 homers and 82 RBI might not look too
glamorous if he played in Denver. But in Minnesota, where they've now gone 13
consecutive seasons without a 30-homer man, those numbers were practically
McGwire-esque. One AL source says his club inquired after the season about
trading for Coomer and was told he wasn't available. Then he was nontendered.
Bizarre.
Jesse Orosco may turn 44 in April, but he's still left-handed. So he's
holding a Jan. 30 workout in San Diego, and all you need to know about the
state of left-handed relievers in baseball is that 10 teams will attend: the
Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Diamondbacks, Giants, A's, Mariners, Rockies,
Rangers and Indians.
And all those Jesse Orosco suitors might want to know this: Last pitcher to
appear in 50 games at age 44 or older: Hoyt Wilhelm, 53 games in 1970, in a
season in which he turned 47. Last non-knuckleballer: Satchel Paige, 57 games
in 1953, at 47.
Speaking of veteran relievers, John Wetteland has told friends his
trunk-stabilization rehab program is going so well, he now definitely plans
to come back and pitch at some point this upcoming season. There was talk at the
winter meetings of Wetteland possibly returning to the Yankees in midseason
as a set-up man for his former set-up man, Mariano Rivera.
Rivera's contract talks with the Yankees remain on hold. But Derek Jeter's
discussions are expected to heat up in the next week. The Yankees reportedly
have made it clear they won't cross the $20-million-a-year plateau. But it's
a good bet Jeter will wind up taking home more than the $17 million a year
Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado got to re-sign with their current teams.
After a brief fling of depression following the A-Rod signing, the A's are
now optimistic again they can get something done with Jason Giambi, at a
figure comparable to Bagwell's deal.
One NL executive on Ismael Valdes, who signed a one-year, $2.5-million deal
with Anaheim this week: "He was the most talented pitcher out there once the
big guys signed. But he's a guy with a lot to prove this year. Don Baylor
really intimidated him last year, and I don't think he recovered the whole
year."
A sampling of available free agents and their possible destinations: Jose
Canseco (Anaheim, Detroit or Cleveland), Ron Coomer (Cleveland), Brian Hunter
(Philadelphia), Rickey Henderson (Detroit), Hector Carrasco (Toronto), Matt
Franco (Braves, Reds, Mets, Phillies, Expos).
Useless information dept.
There may be those who think Charles Johnson is overrated. But you can't
deny he'll be an upgrade for the Marlins. In between the day they traded him,
on May 15, 1998, and the time they got him back last month, they used 10
different catchers (including Mike Piazza, for 18 at-bats).
Home runs by the 10 of them combined: 16 (in almost three full seasons).
Home runs by Johnson in the same span: 65.
As the snowflakes fall, we've been contemplating once again the greatness
of Pedro Martinez. Others can look at that 1.74 ERA. But the Pedro stat that
blows us away is this:
6.64 baserunners per nine innings.
That's four fewer baserunners per nine innings than the next-closest
starting pitcher in his league (Mike Mussina, at 10.68). And that, friends,
is unheard of.
We went through the entire DH era in the American League. No one else
had a margin of four. No one else had a margin of three (although Pedro was
close in '99, at 2.73). No one else had a margin of two. No one else even had
a margin of 1.5.
The largest gap between any league leader not named Pedro and the AL
runner-up was 1.13 baserunners per nine innings. (Bret Saberhagen won in
1989, at 8.65. Nolan Ryan was second, at 9.78.)
And the great Pedro's margin was 4.04. Incredible.
Meanwhile, let's think about the miracle of allowing only 6.64 baserunners
per nine innings.
Nolan Ryan's career low was 9.05 (1991). Randy Johnson's career low is
9.18 (1992). Roger Clemens' career low is 8.72. Greg Maddux is the only
pitcher in the last eight decades who was even close (at 7.30, in 1995).
The five lowest figures since 1900:
1. Pedro Martinez, 2000, 6.64
2. Walter Johnson, 1913, 7.02
3. Addie Joss, 1908, 7.26
4. Greg Maddux, 1995, 7.30
5. Christy Mathewson, 1909, 7.45
Lowest in the last half-century, besides Pedro and Maddux: Bob Gibson in
1968, 7.68, and Sandy Koufax in 1965, 7.69.
Even in this age of offensive inflation, only three players in the big
leagues have hit 40 home runs or more three seasons in a row: Sammy Sosa (66,
63, 50), Junior Griffey (56, 48, 40) and Alex Rodriguez (42, 42, 41).
Who has hit 35 or more three years in a row? Add this group: Manny Ramirez
(45, 44, 38), Rafael Palmeiro (43, 47, 39), Vladimir Guerrero (38, 42, 44)
and Carlos Delgado (38, 44, 41).
Then there is the 120-120-120 Club -- the three guys who have driven in at
least 120 runs three years in a row: Sosa (158, 141, 138), Ramirez (145, 165,
122) and Palmeiro (121, 148, 120).
So if you do the math, what do you find? The only player in baseball who
has hit 40 homers and knocked in 120 in every one of the last three years:
Mr. Sammy Sosa, ladies and gentlemen.
This week's note from the gridiron: If that 13-2 score Wednesday in the
Oklahoma-Florida State game looked more like a baseball score than a football
score, we offer this historical perspective:
Only one World Series game in history was decided by a 13-2 score: Game
6 of the 1911 Series, Philadelphia Athletics over New York Giants, Chief
Bender over Red Ames.
Trivia answer
John Olerud (.363) and Paul Molitor (.332), for the '93 Blue Jays, whose
biggest claim to fame is that another Blue Jay, Robbie Alomar, finished third
in that race (.326).
Jayson Stark is a Senior Writer at ESPN.com. | |
ALSO SEE
Jayson Stark archive
|
