Good for Alex, Bad for Baseball

If they call a bases-loaded home run a grand slam, what in the world of baseball can describe Alex Rodriguez’s new deal with the Texas Rangers? Cosmic? The 26-year-old shortstop will be paid $252 million over 10 years--good or bad--a heckuva lot more than the other two players in the news, Al Gore and George W. Bush.

The contract makes the very talented Rodriguez eventually worth more than the current estimated value of any one of 18 major league franchises, and what’s going on here is fully legal and utterly rapacious. Ranger owner Tom Hicks has bought himself a superstar, but what does this purchase mean for the game? Other owners are going to reach back for millions more to stay competitive, and that money is going to come out of the pockets of fans for seats, refreshments, TV rights and all else that comes with building a ballclub on the backs of the customers.

If baseball pauses to ponder what’s happening with the huge compensation packages for players at Rodriguez’s level, the owners must see that they are putting the game at risk. Hicks has the money to play in the stratosphere, but how about owners in smaller cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore and Oakland? How can they compete with the Rangers, Yankees and Dodgers?

There’s an answer, and major league baseball ought to examine it before the 2001 season begins. It’s called a cap, and a smart sports league would wear it proudly, giving all its teams a chance for fair competition. The National Basketball Assn. has a scale that limits initial salaries. The National Football League checks runaway costs with revenue sharing and salary caps. Baseball should look at those schemes to balance its own exposure. Fans want to see competitive games. Caps and salary scales can make that happen.