Q & A : PETER O’MALLEY : Dodger Owner Defends His Raines Policy : He Says Costs Are a Concern, Praises Center Field Prospects

You will see Tim Raines prowling center field in a Dodger uniform the day Peter O’Malley, the Dodger owner, changes a philosophy or policy he believes has worked for his baseball team.

O’Malley, who has guided what is generally regarded as one of baseball’s most successful and economically efficient organizations, reiterated here recently that it is not wise to sign Raines or any other expensive free agent, no matter how many outsiders consider it a good idea.

It is O’Malley’s belief that the Dodgers can be most successful by developing their own players or strategically trading for players who can help. Only once have the Dodgers seriously dabbled in the free-agent market, and it resulted in the 1980 signing of pitchers Dave Goltz and Don Stanhouse, both of whom flopped.

Still, changes were promised after last season’s dismal fifth-place finish in the National League West, and more than a few have been made.

Most have been related more to financial matters than player moves, not surprising since the Dodger player payroll jumped from $11 million in 1985 to $15 million in 1986. Going into this season, the player payroll figures to be reduced to about $13.8 million.

In addition, O’Malley has imposed cost-cutting measures throughout the organization. For instance, the Dodgers for the first time will fly five commercial, rather than charter, flights on the road this season. In addition, all front-office personnel will travel coach, not first-class on flights.

But O’Malley, entering his 18th season as club president, a job he inherited from his father, Walter, says the Dodgers still are a first-class organization and will prove it on the field this season.

During a half-hour interview in his office at Dodgertown, O’Malley discussed the reasons why the club has not pursued Raines, the philosophies behind the cost-cutting measures and his outlook for the 1987 season.

Question: There have been so many conflicting reports about whether the Dodgers had an interest in Tim Raines. At any point, was there ever an offer made to Raines? And how much interest is there?

Answer: Several months ago, I read an article in Sports Illustrated . . . and it showed how much money each of these players had turned down. I believe it said that Raines had turned down $4.8 million guaranteed for three years from Montreal.

And I said to myself, ‘Yes he’s a great ballplayer. But if he turned down almost $5 million for three years, how and why should we enter into an auction for his services?’

Yes, we have Kenny Landreaux, who has a guaranteed contract. We have several young players who we feel have great futures as center fielders. And, yes, there are opportunities for trades.

“We have not made an offer. Since the article in Sports Illustrated . . . I’ve read that one club offered him a couple of million, somebody else a couple of million. It doesn’t make any sense to us. Our player payroll is one of the highest in the major leagues. It went from $11 million to $15 million from 1985 to 1986. To add a couple more million dollars on that doesn’t make any sense.”

Q: There has been support for Raines from fans, columnists and even some players have talked about it. Do you take that into consideration?

A: We listen to the radio. We read the newspapers. We watch television. We’re aware of all the comments that are made, nationally, and all the pressure the agent and the players’ association has put on teams to sign Tim Raines. . . . I’ve read where the agent would go into one city and try to create a market and get sympathy for his ballplayer who has turned down almost $5 million for a guaranteed three-year contract.

Yes, we respect what we read, hear and see. We have great respect for that and for what the fans say. But in my judgment, this ballclub is better served by not signing Timmy Raines and either going with what we have, perhaps making a trade or giving a young player an opportunity to prove he can play center field.

Q: Donald Fehr came to Dodgertown a few weeks ago and said that obviously the Dodgers feel Raines can’t help them even at $62,500. What he was driving at is that, even at any price, Raines can’t help. Is that a fair statement?

A: My answer to that question is very similar to the answer to the last question. I understand what the union is doing. I understand their tactics. I understand what the agent is doing. I understand all of that. But we have to do what we think is best for this franchise, and I think we’re doing that.

Q: Is it a policy not to sign free agents? Did the Don Stanhouse, Dave Goltz signings affect you?

A: Our policy on free agents has been pretty much the same for the last 10 years. Whenever possible, we’d prefer to give the opportunity to play to a young player that we have signed, coached, instructed and developed. If we don’t have that talent in the organization, then, yes, we have to go outside, through a trade or the acquisition of a free agent.

We plunged deeply when we went for Stanhouse and Goltz. We have abstained from free agency in other years. It has been a mixed bag pretty much over the years.

Q: How important is it for you to reduce the player payroll? As you mentioned earlier, it rose to $15 million last year. Is that a priority?

A: Seeing that the player payroll doesn’t increase and go totally out of control is even more important than cutting it. I’m not out to cut salaries. But when your player payroll goes from $11 to $15 million, it can’t take another increase like that or ticket prices will go up by several dollars across the board.

Look at free agency and our team payroll since 1976--and you put beside that Dodger ticket prices from 1958 until free agency--you’ll see that Dodger ticket prices were flat until free agency. And when free agency came along, that’s when Dodger Stadium ticket prices went up. If you plot those two on a graph, you’d be amazed.

Q: You have been quoted as saying player salaries have gotten out of hand. The public might perceive that you’re not trying to do all you can to win. Is that a fair or accurate assumption?

A: I think someone who comes to the conclusion that we don’t care to win as much as a fan--myself or anyone in the front office, as hard as we work to do whatever we can to have the organization win as many games as possible--anyone who speaks to the contrary just doesn’t have the facts and hasn’t followed the organization for very long. We want to win as badly, and I think we want to win more than anyone else.

We’re doing everything possible to put the best team on the field. But we’re just not going to go out and buy a championship by buying players who have already turned down millions of dollars from other teams.

Ray Kroc tried to buy championships. Steinbrenner tried. Autry tried. We tried in Goltz and Stanhouse. Long haul, it doesn’t work.

Short haul, you can get lucky. You can catch lightning in a jar and you can buy a championship team through free agency, but it does a lot of damage to your program. . . . Use it occasionally but put your money in player development, and there it is well spent.

Q: Would you be worried that someone like Raines might upset the salary structure among players already under contract?

A: I think the players today understand. Ten years ago, when it first started, there were times then when one outfielder would resent what another outfielder was making or one pitcher might resent what another pitcher was making. . . . By and large, I think the players are so well-paid today and so happy with their pension and all their benefits, I don’t think they’d complain or be unhappy when someone else is fortunate enough to make a million dollars more.

Q: Aside from wanting to reduce the player payroll, there have been other cutbacks in the organization. Is that, in your opinion, an economic necessity?

A: Last fall, when we saw the player payroll go up by $4 million in one year, we came to the obvious conclusion that we better get a better handle on all costs. We have trimmed the fat. We have looked in areas where we can cut the cost. We have found that we were spending too much money in some places.

I think this exercise has been very beneficial to the organization. I think by the end of this year we’ll be trimmer, we’ll be leaner and healthier.

Q: Was there a worry that the profit margin would not be as healthy as in previous years?

A: The concern was that there was fat to be trimmed. In any organization, it’s a healthy exercise to go through to look at your cost and have all the people in the organization conscious of it.

Q: Is it possible to still have a first-class organization with the cutbacks that have been imposed?

A: I believe it is. Just because the executives are not flying first class and flying coach and cutting expenses, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t a first-class organization or an outstanding organization. To repeat for the third time, the exercise is healthy and we’ll be better afterward.

Q: There have been charges, both verbally and in filed grievances from the players’ association, that there is collusion among owners. Donald Fehr calls it a no-market market. As one owner, how do you respond?

A: I can respond speaking solely as president of this ballclub. We are not part of any conspiracy. I don’t feel any conspiracy exists. The action that we’re taking this year, the review of costs, has nothing to do with anything other than we feel it’s best for this particular franchise. . . . The charge is without foundation.

Q: How do you think your father would have handled the current free-agent climate? Would he have brazenly gone out and signed a free agent, or would he have done what you have done?

A: I think he would have acted similarly. I really do. He would have relied on our player development program, our farm system, our scouting department as much as possible. I don’t think he would have done anything differently.

I don’t think he would go out and, quote, buy a championship, like some of the other owners have done. He was a great one to think long haul. . . . He was in baseball for many years. He looked at things long haul. I think he would’ve come to the conclusion that, long haul, it doesn’t make any sense.

Q: With two weeks before the season starts, can you say you’re confident about the season, that 1986 was an aberration and that 1987 will be better?

A: There’s no doubt that in 1986 we experienced a tremendous amount of injuries, far more than normal. I believe that if our injuries last season had been at a normal rate--because you always have injuries--we would have been in contention. I don’t know whether we would have won or not. We certainly would have been in the race all along.

I also believe that this year, if we just have an average amount of injuries, we will certainly be in the race and have a chance to win. . . . Some of the young players have opened a lot of eyes. There still remain possibilities for trades. It’s coming together very nicely. I think we’ll be proud of the team’s performance.