The Contraction Conundrums

Bud Selig, the proprietor of the Milwaukee Brewers before his fellow owners anointed him commissioner, is fond of telling the story: In 1970, a major league team arrived in spring training as the Seattle Pilots and left as the Brewers.

By the first of the year, the Montreal Expos and Minnesota Twins could join the Brooklyn Dodgers and Cleveland Spiders in baseball’s history bin, and Disney could rid itself of an Angel team that could feature a young and potentially dominant starting rotation.

Selig has said he would like to resolve details surrounding the so-called contraction plan by month’s end, and if so, owners could grant final approval during the winter meetings Dec. 9-14 in Boston. Questions and answers on the issues that should dominate the coming weeks:

Didn’t the owners already vote to kill two teams?

They did, but implementing that decision cannot be done unilaterally. Owners voted to authorize Selig and his staff to settle surrounding issues with affected parties, including owners whose teams would be eliminated, employees of those teams, minor league affiliates, and the players’ union.

What’s the biggest hurdle?

Union approval, particularly given baseball’s labor history, in which union lawyers routinely defeat management lawyers.

The union already has filed a grievance, contending owners violated the collective bargaining agreement by unilaterally deciding to eliminate teams. Owners contend they can buy out their partners without union approval, arguing that players need only be consulted on issues directly affecting them, such as what happens to players on teams to be eliminated. The grievance could be decided in arbitration.

How does contraction affect labor negotiations?

Selig emphatically denies widespread speculation that contraction is a negotiating ploy--that, threatened with the loss of two teams and 50 major league jobs, the union would more readily accept some form of salary restraints. Donald Fehr, the union’s executive director, has told players that contraction would be opposed, but he might not fight to the end if players can get a good deal otherwise. If owners agree to add two roster spots on each surviving team, creating 56 jobs after losing 50, many players might agree.

Is that the major issue keeping owners and players from signing a collective bargaining agreement?

Hardly. The major issue is the same as it was in 1994-95, when players went on strike and owners canceled the World Series: Owners believe players should help control costs by accepting some form of salary restraint, while players believe owners make more than enough money so that all teams could thrive so long as owners increased revenue sharing.

Owners want to resolve the contraction issue and reach a new labor agreement at the same time, limiting ugly off-the-field stuff to one winter. Labor agreements are seldom reached quickly; historically, they are not reached before a strike or lockout. In the absence of an agreement, owners have pledged not to lock players out of spring training. Players have not responded with a no-strike pledge; in 1995, players ended their strike after a judge found owners guilty of unfair labor practices.

What happens to next season’s schedule?

A computer can spit out a revised schedule for 28 teams instead of 30 in no time, although the expired labor agreement grants the union the right to approve it.

If Selig insisted owners had not identified teams for contraction, how do we know the Expos and Twins are the targeted teams?

Carl Pohlad of Minnesota and Jeffrey Loria of Montreal were the only owners voting against contraction, presumably so they could say they did. Loria refuses to be bought out, but owners want out of Montreal, because the Expos generate by far the lowest revenue of any major league team. Conveniently, their stadium lease expires Nov. 30. Disney wants to sell the Angels, so Selig’s lawyers are trying to broker a deal in which Loria would buy the Florida Marlins from John Henry, who in turn would buy the Angels from Disney.

If Disney valued the Angels at $300 million two years ago, why would the company consider selling for $250 million now?

Fox paid $311 million for the Dodgers, a team that generated an estimated $37 million more than the Angels last year, and for ownership of their stadium. Edison Field is owned by the city of Anaheim, not by Disney. By selling at $250 million, a nice cash injection into a company struggling financially in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Disney would fail to recover some operating losses but still would recover the money it spent to buy the team ($140 million) and renovate Edison Field ($98 million).

As an existing owner, Henry would not require an exhaustive background check before his purchase could be approved.

Is this a done deal?

The deal is far from certain. Loria, who has parlayed roughly $50 million into control of the Expos, must get enough in his buyout--for a franchise valued at $92 million--to be able to afford to buy the Marlins. If Henry cannot sell the Marlins to Loria, he might keep the team, with the prospect of possibly moving it to the Washington, D.C., area next year. If Henry cannot secure a deal to buy the Angels, he would keep the Marlins, which could send Loria scurrying to buy the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and could leave Disney without a buyer for the Angels.

Selig says many owners want to eliminate four teams. Which ones?

The Marlins and Devil Rays top the hit list, with the Oakland Athletics and Kansas City Royals also endangered; all lack commitments for a new ballpark. Selig says two teams are the target this year and wouldn’t say when others might be considered for elimination.

What happens to the players if their teams are eliminated?

Owners propose a dispersal draft, with the surviving teams with the worst records getting first crack at the Montreal and Minnesota players. The union would like those players to have the option to enter the draft or file for free agency, an unlikely prospect for the many players who have not played the six years required to become eligible for free agency otherwise.

Players traded in the middle of multiyear contracts can demand their new team trade them; the union would want such players to retain that right if they don’t care for the team that drafts them. Owners would have to pay off contracts of players not drafted.

If all of the Expos and Twins were thrown into the dispersal draft, Montreal outfielder Vladimir Guerrero and Montreal pitcher Javier Vazquez would likely be the first two picks. Other top picks would figure to include Montreal second baseman Jose Vidro, Minnesota shortstop Cristian Guzman and Minnesota pitchers Brad Radke, Joe Mays and Eric Milton.

Which Marlins might Henry bring to Anaheim?

Pitchers, and good young ones, including Josh Beckett, 21, perhaps the best pitching prospect in the game; A.J. Burnett, 24, who threw a no-hitter against the San Diego Padres in May; and Ryan Dempster, 24, an all-star last year and a 15-game winner this year. Those three could join Ramon Ortiz, 25, and Jarrod Washburn, 27, in the Angel rotation.

If the Angels pick up some players from Florida, wouldn’t it make sense for the Angels to have to contribute some players to the dispersal draft?

It sure would, and the first two players the Angels would throw into the pool would be Mo Vaughn and Tim Salmon, gambling that no team would pick up the $50 million guaranteed to Vaughn through 2004 or the $40 million guaranteed to Salmon through 2005.

What other details must owners resolve?

The most heart-wrenching ones, the ones that do not generate headlines but affect lives--severance pay for a Twins’ receptionist making $30,000 a year or a scout spending nine months each year on the road, racking up the miles and surviving on fast food; settlements with vendors who employ kids and senior citizens in part-time jobs selling popcorn and pennants; the accompanying reduction in minor league affiliates and the risk of small towns losing their cheap summer entertainment.