Once Again, the Owners Decide to Become Their Own Worst Enemy

By Ross Newhan

Nov. 7, 2001 12 AM PT

Let’s forget for a moment whether the elimination of two teams would be good for baseball in the long term.

Let’s consider for a moment that the owners still don’t get it--or simply don’t care.

Burdened by a history that includes eight work stoppages and a fractious relationship with players, they have again chosen to spit in the face of their uniformed partners.

Instead of constructing, they are contracting.

Instead of building on the good vibes of a terrific World Series, they are wiping out the memories five minutes after they were created.

Instead of building on what Commissioner Bud Selig has described as an improved relationship with the players union since their last disastrous labor negotiations, they have proven that was only lip service--as so much is with Selig, the former car dealer.

There he was again Tuesday, standing in front of a news conference in Chicago, insisting that the owners will not lock out the players and will not have a signing freeze as the collective bargaining agreement expires today and they prepare for another negotiating battle aimed at altering the salary structure.

Why should the players or anyone else believe him?

Up until the day before owners gathered in Chicago, Selig was still describing contraction as only a viable option. He was still saying no decision had been made, that it wasn’t even on the agenda, that a thousand pieces still had to come together.

Boy, do Selig and his constituents work fast.

They must have tied up those thousand pieces virtually overnight.

They must have figured out how the complex issues of contraction would fit into their bargaining negotiations with the union and how they would cope with a potential onslaught of lawsuits. Then they voted to eliminate two teams--presumably the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos.

Isn’t that swell?

They simply ignore their legal--and moral--obligations and take one of the most dramatic steps in baseball history without consulting the players union, which ultimately has the right of approval over much of the contraction fallout--such as the dispersal draft.

So much for an improved relationship.

So much for an easy negotiation.

So much for the possibility--with the nation at war and no one interested in seeing millionaire owners and players haggling over how to divide $3.6 billion in revenue--that the current bargaining agreement might be rolled over for a year or two.

In a statement in response to the contraction decision, it was clear in Don Fehr’s tone that baseball is probably headed for another stalemate. The union’s general counsel--while hardly surprised that the owners would act unilaterally (their illegal implementation of new work rules fomented the dispute of 1994-95)--called it imprudent and unfortunate and in apparent disregard of economic options possibly available through bargaining negotiation.

Now the owners have to go to the union seeking concessions in the salary system while asking the union to approve contraction and the elimination of 50 major league jobs.

As an agent with close ties to the union said, the whole subject of contraction still smells like an attempt at negotiating leverage.

“I guarantee they wouldn’t be doing this if it wasn’t a negotiating year and wasn’t part of their negotiating strategy,” the agent said.

“They’ve tried conspiracies and unfair labor practice and now this is just a new game plan. If they were serious about working with the union on contraction, wouldn’t they have sat down with Don before presenting it as a done deal?”

Now, however, the owners face significant hurdles getting it approved before April, and there is still no evidence as to how it fits into their overall labor strategy.

Yes, maybe they can get it approved and in place by next season, but maybe they will ultimately have to agree to a rollover, being in position now to put the blame on the players for the failure to reach a new agreement.

Maybe, in addition to negotiating leverage, it is really designed as a warning to cities objecting to the use of public funds in building new ballparks, a final chance for Minnesota legislators to come up with the funding or Selig pal, billionaire Carl Pohlad, to find a local buyer.

Maybe, in the long term, considering how often and imprudently baseball expanded, the elimination of two teams would be good for the quality of the game and the economic foundation, but wouldn’t relocation of the Expos be a less drastic first step?

Wouldn’t the $500 million that the owners might pay Pohlad and Montreal owner Jeff Loria--along with, perhaps, millions more in legal costs--better be used in the construction of new ballparks or territorial indemnification for the San Francisco Giants and Baltimore Orioles, allowing the Expos to move into Northern Virginia and the Oakland A’s into Santa Clara?

Make no mistake: Although baseball economics remain a mysterious proposition, the union is not without blame if two teams do indeed go down, with the resulting loss of jobs and economy in the respective cities and throughout the Minnesota and Montreal farm systems.

The union has consistently opposed any form of salary or market restrictions.

The average major league salary is more than $2 million, and while the NBA and NFL unions have accepted a form of cap, the baseball union never will.

Now 50 major league positions could be lost--at least in part--because of it.

Then again, the issue is much too broad and complex to blame on any one factor or group, and it is much too early to predict how contraction will play out--or whether it will happen at all.

The one certainty is that the owners, if truly interested in a better relationship, should have taken it to the union first.

Of course, if we believe the former car dealer, it simply came together overnight.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Revenue Highs, Lows

The top five and bottom five major league baseball teams in 2000 revenue:

TOP 5

N.Y. Yankees: $177.94 million

N.Y. Mets: $140.59 million

Cleveland: $136.78 million

Atlanta: $128.27 million

Baltimore: $123.61 million

BOTTOM 5

Montreal: $48.80 million

Minnesota: $52.64 million

Oakland: $62.58 million

Pittsburgh: $63.19 million

Kansas City: $63.55 million

THE DECISION

* Baseball owners voted to eliminate two of the 30 major league teams by the start of next season.

CANDIDATES FOR CONTRACTION

* Montreal is considered the leading contender, with Minnesota given prominent mention among owners. Florida, Tampa Bay, Oakland and Kansas City also have been discussed.

OTHER FALLOUT

* Contraction could lead to new ownership of the Angels. Disney is trying to sell the team, and John Henry, owner of the Florida Marlins, could be a potential buyer under a complex scenario of ownership maneuvers throughout baseball.

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING

* “It makes no sense for major league baseball to be in markets that generate insufficient local revenues to justify the investment in the franchise. The teams to be contracted have a long record of failing to generate enough revenues to operate a viable major league franchise.”

Bud Selig, Commissioner

* “We consider this action to be inconsistent with the law, our contract, and perhaps most important, the long-term welfare of the sport

Don Fehr, head of players union