Vincent Turns Out to Be Quite a Battler

From courtrooms to boardrooms, from labor to “The Boss,” baseball commissioner Fay Vincent isn’t afraid of a little heat. Vincent is fighting battles on a dozen fronts, protecting himself and the best interests of the game.

Seated behind a deceptively uncluttered desk last week, Vincent spoke at length about the game, some of its problems and stars and his personal past and future. Here are excerpts of the conversation.

Question: We should begin with the news of the day (the court decision granting the Chicago Cubs’ request for a preliminary injunction, blocking realignment). You’re startled.

Answer: Yeah, I’m startled. Although you know any time you’re in court you have to worry about the consequences, which is why I think lawsuits and baseball are not good things generally. ... This isn’t all that disturbing because it will actually get straightened out. We’ve been through this before. There are series of rulings and things that we’ve had to deal with over the last three years that might have gone differently, (might) have been better. They go back to Bart (Giamatti, Vincent’s predecessor) and the ruling in Cincinnati early on in the (Pete) Rose case. And there were rulings in some of the Steinbrenner cases which might have gone the other way and made things a lot easier for us. Eventually, it got straightened out.

Q: Do you wish there wasn’t so much attention paid to matters off the field?

A: No, because I think without the press attention there wouldn’t be the support for baseball. I’m amazed, as I go back and read baseball history, how little is new. Almost every (issue) that I’ve dealt with in one form or another has been dealt with previously. Political issues are the same, problems with ownership and commissioners go back decades. A friend of mine told me he was a 10-year-old kid in Bronxville. (Former commissioner) Ford Frick was a friend of his parents. He remembers Frick coming over to the house for dinner and saying, ‘Gee, half the owners are after me and half of them are supportive. I don’t know which half.’ Sounds to me like it’s the same.

Q: Are there too many issues now for you -- for anyone -- to gauge accurately the support you have (among owners) and the opposition? For instance, the Mets support you, but they’re involved with a superstation. The Braves are supportive and they have a superstation. How do those elements mesh? Is there conditional support based on issues?

A: The Mets are supportive, yes. Superstations are an issue we’ve got to get rationalized in baseball. I think the support for the realignment is very high, with the exception of the Dodgers and the Cubs. The support varies depending on issues. Generally, it’s very good.

Q: In readings and in your conversations, have you ever come across anyone like (George) Steinbrenner?

A: Yeah, I guess, there are lots of analogies. I’m not going to make them, but I don’t think anything is really new.

Q: What have you accomplished by reinstating Steinbrenner? What’s out of the way? It may look like your agenda is clearer, but with him back, aren’t there more questions for you?

A: People forget that he has always been the 55 percent owner. He was not eliminated from baseball. He worked out an agreement that’s complicated and difficult but satisfying both of our needs at the time. He basically said he wanted to change it, and I said it’s not really fair to change it. It was a two-year suspension, which was my measurement of the seriousness of the issue, that it was not an issue that warranted that he be eliminated from baseball or more dire sanctions. I think I made my point.

Many people in New York wanted George out of baseball for life. But that wasn’t the case. There was no basis for doing that. Now people are grappling with the fact that they thought he was out of baseball for life. He wasn’t. He was always the owner and as usual the details and the subtleties got lost.

Q: Can you believe how relentless he is? With all the things he tried?

A: As far as I’m concerned he took some hard shots, but none of them really hit. No, I don’t think any of it, any of the controversy with George, was terribly personal. I never disliked him.

The fact is that I’m giving him a remarkable break in that I am letting him resume control of the Yankees next year if he behaves. And there is absolutely no reason why I have to do that. ... If I were vindictive or really wanted to be difficult, I’d tell him, “Forget it.”

Q: After you ordered realignment, critics accused you of exceeding your authority. Others said while you were at it, you should have realigned all of baseball. Presumably that meant inter-league play. Do you favor it?

A: That’s more of a business than a baseball judgment. I think inter-league play, if it were significantly attractive to the networks and there was a major revenue dimension, would be pursued.

The baseball reason to be concerned about it is that it might affect the World Series. We don’t want to do anything that undercuts the ultimate inter-league combat.

I think baseball at the moment is going through a down cycle in its television relationships, as are the other major sports. I don’t think it is a downfall, (but) experimentation and additional product inventory if you would. I think the first thing we’ve got to do is rationalize the television universe by dealing with the superstations and getting more control over the product before you start making major structural changes.

At the moment there doesn’t seem to be real interest (in inter-league play). Basically, it’s the same with the wild card. The networks are not interested in the wild-card playoff series. I don’t think we’re comfortable looking at cable to televise (wild-card) playoff games. It’s relevant, but I don’t think we’re close to moving in that direction.

The best idea I’ve heard was to take a week right around the All-Star Game and have every team play inter-league for a week and let the games count, sort of make it into a special event.

You have to think carefully about what you do. I mean if you go to inter-league play and expand it, you’re really undercutting the viability of the leagues. I don’t think we want to do that. I think the leagues still play an important role and I think there’s a lot to be said for things like the All-Star Game, which really work. Once you start down the road of meshing the leagues, you head toward one league, which may be inevitable, but I don’t think it’s something I’m really very supportive of at the moment.

Q: Expansion and the effect of it. Are you concerned about having .184 hitters playing regularly? Isn’t the talent base too thin?

A: I think for years, we’ve let slide our aggressiveness in some of the communities. I don’t think we were trying to get as many of the good, young athletes. I think basketball has made terrific inroads, particularly in the inner city, and I think we’ve got to reverse a lot of that. And because it was neglected for so long, it’s going to take a long while to reverse it, but I think we’ve made some important steps. Indeed, I think one of the things that I’ve done that I am proudest of is get that issue back in focus and begin to deal with it. We’re doing a lot, but we’re late. We sort of took a long hiatus and we’re paying a price.

Q: It looks like there are very few complete players. We have a lot of guys doing one phase of their jobs well and nothing else. How many guys are complete ballplayers? About 20?

A: Not as many as I’d like, of course. First of all it’s an incredibly difficult game and secondly, again, I wonder if we look back how different things were. Of course, back when I was a kid there were only 16 teams, and the competition from other sports wasn’t as great. More kids were playing baseball. There wasn’t much choice. Baseball’s so difficult that if you don’t succeed at it right away, you can play soccer or a bunch of other things, but they’re just easier. Basketball, I think, with all due respect, is still easier. It’s easier to practice. You can eventually become a heck of a good shooter if you practice. Bill Bradley is a classic case.

Q: There are too many bad games. (The Mets’ 7-5 victory Wednesday against the Dodgers) was a meaningful game for them because they fell behind, came back, almost fell behind and then won. But it wasn’t a well-played game. If you’re a Mets fan, you might go back (to the ballpark). But if you’re a fan of good baseball, would you?

A: I wonder. I think I go to a lot of games and some of them aren’t great and I don’t think it diminishes the game. I might catch a bad game, but even at its worst, baseball’s still the best game ever. And I think we’re seeing some of the greatest players who ever played. Michael Jordan is the best basketball player, but you and I are seeing Ozzie Smith, and he’s the best shortstop I guess we’ll ever see.

You’re seeing Nolan Ryan and you’ve seen some people who can do some wonderful things. Watching (Cal) Ripken and (Mark) McGwire in those workout days (at the All-Star Game) was really fascinating. I like players who are enjoying themselves. Will Clark loves the game.

You know, in some ways you could say we may have more terrific first basemen now than I can remember. Look at the National League: You’ve got (John) Kruk, (Mark) Grace, Clark, (Fred) McGriff. Look at the American League: McGwire, (Cecil) Fielder, (Frank) Thomas, (Wally) Joyner, (Don) Mattingly. I really saw an awful lot of the best players who ever played. If you think about my time of baseball, I have seen a significant number of the best players that have ever played. Mike Schmidt and Brooks Robinson, the greatest third basemen. Ozzie (Smith). (Ryan) Sandberg at second base. It’s a little harder at first because of (Lou) Gehrig and (James) Foxx and some of those from years back. But I saw the greatest first baseman in fielding in Keith Hernandez.

Q: Recently, you told ESPN you may have over-estimated how great a job you have and that you’ve lost your optimism. Do you feel that way?

A: That was a bad day, I must say. People have really focused on that. It came at a tough time and I may have overstated it. I’m certainly less optimistic. I think the situation with the Players Association is really grim and I don’t see any sign that they have recognized what’s really going on here. I think the market and owners are going to teach them over the next year. But I still think those guys are Marvin Miller types (with) the moral view of labor -- “We’re the good guys, (versus) the guys with money.” It’s good against evil. I don’t think that is true, and I think the reason that labor unions have declined in this country has been that they haven’t recognized they have to become partners with businesses and create markets and work together. ...

Baseball is at a crossroads. I don’t think the union recognizes how serious the problems are and doesn’t want to work together and join up as partners. Don Fehr is Marvin Miller’s disciple. He keeps saying television is not going to be a problem. Television going to be a problem. CBS has lost $400 million on baseball. Don keeps saying the 1985 contract wasn’t going to be as valuable and look what happened. But there are no signs it’s going to happen again.

Q: Doesn’t it appear that each side -- the clubs and union -- still are looking for victories rather than settlements?

A: Once again, it’s the “good guys” against the “bad guys.” That sort of attitude worked once. It worked once for the steel workers, but is anybody proud of the steel workers’ situation in this country today? What happened to the business? The autoworkers, they made great progress, like the printers’ union. They were adamant and look what’s happened to them since. Is that smart? I don’t think that’s smart.

This game has problems. There are more clubs losing big money than ever before. Two clubs say they’re losing $8 million.

Q: In December, you can tell the clubs whether you want a second term. What will you say?

A: I don’t know yet. I’ve got a friend who tells me, “Get out. This is going to be a train wreck in 1994.” And sometimes I wonder why work like this in a business with people who act as these people act? I could go live in Europe. Go to Oxford. There are many things I could do.

Q: If you could change one thing in the game, itself, what would it be?

A: The length of the games. Games are taking too long. I was in Seattle last Thursday -- a nine-inning game that lasted 3 hours and 30 minutes. Seattle versus Toronto. Then I was at Oakland Friday. It was over 3 hours. Saturday, it was 3 1/2 hours. I think there is dead time and people get antsy. Lots of people are leaving after a few innings. If you come to the game at 7:30, and at 10 o’clock, it’s in the sixth inning. That’s wrong -- 2 1/2 hours to get to the sixth inning is a pain.

Q: What can you do to make the game faster?

A: I think the players have to recognize that we are in the entertainment business, that we are marketing entertainment, They have a role in terms of generating revenue, and the fans are their customers, and that wasting time walking around the batter’s box, delaying, is not good for the game.

The minor-league games are also three hours. And there’s not television (between-inning commercial breaks extend major-league games). The reasons were all the delays built into the (major-league) game dwindle down to the minor leagues. Changing pitchers -- it takes a long time. Some managers change pitchers three, four times a game every game. We have to get people to cooperate. And how many times does the catcher go out to see the pitcher? How many times does the pitching coach come out to see the pitcher.