This Bud’s Not for View

It is no wonder that baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, in notifying the clubs by fax of a Tuesday owners meeting in Chicago, asked that it be kept “extremely confidential.”

After all, one of the agenda items deals with the contract status of one Bud Selig.

Unbelievable.

At a time when baseball has been taken to court over its plan to contract two teams, when owners face an arbitration hearing on a grievance by the players’ union charging that they violated the collective bargaining agreement and other major league rules by voting to contract, when Congress may strip their cherished antitrust exemption, when they have yet to begin serious discussions with the union on a new collective bargaining agreement, Selig is apparently asking for a vote of confidence in the form of a multiyear contract extension, hopeful of sending a message to the union and possibly heading off some growing concern among owners regarding the absence of a clear strategy and his leadership this winter.

The usually accessible Selig did not return messages left at his Milwaukee office Wednesday.

Members of his staff insisted they knew nothing about a possible extension vote.

However, several major league executives confirmed the agenda item, and one club chairman may have been speaking for colleagues when he said he was shocked.

“Rome is burning and this is what we’re going to be talking about?” he said.

Well, Selig may also review the ugly status of contraction Tuesday, but that suddenly seems almost secondary to the possibility of a vote to extend a contract that doesn’t expire until July 9, 2003.

After serving six years as interim commissioner following the forced resignation of the independent-minded Fay Vincent, Selig officially became baseball’s ninth commissioner when he received a five-year contract on July 9,1998, putting his interest as owner of the Milwaukee Brewers in a blind trust. He has subsequently been characterized as a consensus builder who seldom brings an issue to a vote unless he knows the outcome, but several owners and club officials said Wednesday that they have not been canvassed regarding a possible extension.

“But I don’t think this is going to surface just to be batted around,” an American League owner said, meaning he expected a vote that would require 75% approval, or 23 of the 30 clubs. He added: “I really don’t know where this comes from, but there’s a small group that’s very close to Bud, and I expect that they think this is the right time to express our confidence.”

That small, more militant group is comprised of Kansas City’s David Glass, San Diego’s John Moores, Houston’s Drayton McLane, Minnesota’s Carl Pohlad and, on some issues, Jerry Reinsdorf of the Chicago White Sox.

Why would they feel Thanksgiving is the right time?

Well, some owners and club officials are beginning to question the turkey that is contraction--and Selig has been roasted in the national media.

Although reluctant to discuss labor-related issues for attribution because of Selig’s threat of a $1-million fine, several owners and club presidents interviewed this week voiced similar thoughts.

Each expressed frustration with the lack of contraction communication from Selig and said the emphasis in the narrow time frame of the off-season should be on a new labor agreement rather than the court-challenged complexities of contraction.

“There is growing sentiment that Bud needs to articulate a plan and strategy, that he needs to give us something to chew on,” a club chairman said.

“I would like to be able to tell you where this is going, but I have no idea, and I’m not alone. There are so many questions and so few answers.”

In addition, the clock is ticking.

Neither the union grievance nor baseball’s appeal of a district court ruling in Minneapolis that would force the Twins to play in the Metrodome in 2002 will be heard until early to mid-December, let alone decided, which means that the plan to hold a dispersal draft of contracted players on Dec. 15 has been jeopardized.

The draft, of course, also must be approved by the union unless the owners risk total alienation by declaring an impasse in contraction negotiations and hold the draft without union approval. Then again, even that scenario has been jeopardized. The draft proposal, including elements objectionable to the union, was not delivered to the union until Monday. It would be a stretch to think the owners could declare an impasse by Dec. 15.

Does anyone remember that wonderful World Series?

It seemed like yesterday that Selig was canceling a week of play, saying with solemnity that baseball has to be cognizant of its role as a social institution.

Has anything changed that much? Would owners throw away the glow of the World Series, the good will of Selig’s words and gesture, by agreeing to a seemingly doomed contraction scenario in a schedule-shortened winter, ensuring another confrontation with the union? The owners and union still have to negotiate a new labor agreement after spending six years trying to repair relations since their eighth and most costly work stoppage.

“I don’t get it,” an American League owner said.

“It was obvious that we’d face legal hurdles with contraction and there was a chance we wouldn’t prevail. It was obvious the time frame was difficult. Now we’re in a situation where we look like fools if we pull back from it.

“I talk to other owners and there seems to more confusion right now than communication. Why are we fighting [Minnesota Gov.] Jesse Ventura when we should be at the table with the union? Why are we wasting all this energy on contraction when a new labor agreement is the real issue? If we’re intent on solving our economic problems, contraction gets us an inch. A new labor agreement gets us a mile.”

Selig, of course, contends that baseball’s economic problems are so pervasive that there isn’t one solution. He believes that contraction would eliminate two teams whose revenue is below subsistence level and who have been unable to get public funding for new stadiums.

He also disputes the contention that it is a negotiating ploy designed to wring economic concessions from the union by threatening the loss of 50 major league jobs or a blatant bit of pressure to provide Minnesota with a last chance to provide ballpark funding.

What contraction may or may not be has been chronicled, but the fact that some club owners and officials are not sure themselves, not sure of what the plan and strategy is, suggests a degree of concern with Selig’s leadership, possibly sparking his desire for a vote of confidence, a show of support.

He is no different, of course, than his eight predecessors. It is difficult to satisfy the interests of every owner, to retain unanimity amid crises. Selig has been more successful than most. He is a veteran power broker who doesn’t tolerate owners disrupting his meeting agendas and, as one club chairman said, has “little chits on just about everybody,” making it difficult for any owner to risk raising his ire or opposing his views.

Would Moores, for example, leave Selig’s corner when baseball is providing the final $48 million of funding for the new San Diego ballpark?

Would Montreal owner Jeff Loria oppose contraction when he hopes to take some of the $200 million or more he would receive and buy the Marlins?

Would Florida owner John Henry oppose contraction when he hopes to take some of the money he would receive from Loria and buy the Angels?

Would Disney oppose Selig and contraction when it wants out so badly?

Would Jerry Colangelo, Arizona’s managing general partner, risk Selig’s wrath on any issue when he hopes to avoid being realigned to the American League if contraction goes through?

Would there be enough votes to oppose a Selig extension if it comes to a vote? Those chits may prove more important than any chads.