Some questions and answers on why the 28 major-league baseball owners are meeting here Thursday at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare:
Q-What’s on the menu?
A-Revenue sharing.
Q-Could you explain further?
A-Not really. There are several formulas on the table, all complex. Even with the help of their accountants, many owners don’t understand the specifics. But this much they know: It’s a welfare system. The big-market clubs, the ones that have the largest profits, will subsidize the small-market clubs.
Q-The rich give to the poor, is that it?
A-Exactly. But as Haywood Sullivan of the Boston Red Sox, a big-market franchise, asked: “How much? For how long?”
Q-Is this being discussed to prevent some of the clubs from going bankrupt?
A-Sorry, there’s more to it than charity. Dick Ravitch insists he must have a revenue-sharing plan in place before he can begin negotiations with the players’ union.
Q-Who’s Dick Ravitch?
A-Tough-talking guy, from the sidewalks of New York. He’s the owners’ labor negotiator, baseball’s highest-paid employee at $750,000 per. Not counting players, of course.
Q-Does he have a winning record?
A-Overall, yes. But when he ran for mayor of New York a few years back, he finished fourth in a five-man race.
Q-How many clubs agree with Ravitch on revenue sharing?
A-Last time, the count was 18 in favor, 10 opposed. Some of the middle-market clubs have joined their little brothers. But a 21-7 vote is needed for approval.
Q-Can they swing three more votes?
A-I think so. Texas, Florida and St. Louis, all among the dissidents previously, may switch sides.
Q-Great, so that’s settled. There will be revenue sharing.
A-No, you’re going too fast. Revenue sharing will kick in only if the players agree to a salary cap.
More Top Picks Best Electric Griddles For Pancakes
Q-Will the players agree?
A-Of course not. The union doesn’t want to limit the salaries of its members. Down the line there could be cap. But I’m talking two, three years from now-after a prolonged strike.
Q-I don’t understand. Why must revenue sharing be linked to a cap?
A-I don’t understand, either. But the players say an agreement on revenue sharing will prove that the owners are bargaining in good faith.
Q-What do you mean by good faith?
A-Good-faith bargaining is when the owners make a proposal acceptable to the players. Anything unacceptable, to either side, is bargaining in bad faith. That’s how the game is played.
Q-What about a commissioner? Is it true that Arnold Weber, who is retiring as president of Northwestern University, is a leading candidate?
A-Apparently so. But he won’t make it. He would have to resign from the board of Tribune Co., which owns the Cubs; it would be a conflict of interest. That part is easy. Even so, a lot of clubs wouldn’t vote for him.
Q-From what I’ve been told, he’s a gifted and persuasive orator. Isn’t that a plus?
A-I’m not sure. Many owners are street smart and have an instinctive aversion to slick talkers. Still, there’s more to it than that.
Q-You’re holding out on me. What’s the objection?
A-OK, I’ll level with you. Bill Bartholomay, the Chicago insurance tycoon, is the chairman of the commissioner search committee. He has scoured the country in a yearlong quest, and at the end he finds a guy 10 miles from his home. Anyway, university presidents are as plentiful as .220 hitters.
Q-But he wears a white shirt and a tie. Doesn’t that count for something?
A-Not really, If Bartholomay pushes for him, almost every owner would oppose. Doug Danforth of Pittsburgh, for example, would jump to his feet and say, “Wait, a second. I’ve got a guy from Slippery Rock University.” The Seattle owner would nominate a so-called distinguished educator from Puget Sound. And Fred Wilpon of the Mets would make a pitch for his high school principal.
Q-OK, I’ll scratch Arnie Weber. What about Harvey Schiller, the executive director of the U.S. Olympic Committee? His name has been bandied about.
A-Scratch him, too. Absolutely no chance.
Q-What would you do?
A-I would ask Bud Selig, the interim commissioner, to stay on for another year. A large majority of the owners want him to continue. If a vote were taken today, he probably would win 24-4. And if he agreed to divest himself of his Milwaukee club and take the job full time, it could be 27-1.
Q-Then baseball doesn’t need a new commissioner?
A-A commissioner would help baseball’s image. But I’m not an image guy. If a new commissioner is appointed, the fans would be deluded into thinking he would solve all problems, and when he doesn’t succeed they’ll say he’s a bum. Finding a miracle man is a fantasy. Not even Clark Kent, wearing his cape, is capable of the assignment. Selig should stay until all labor negotiations are completed.
Q-Great Oracle, I have one final question. What’s this about Michael Jordan playing right field for the White Sox?
A-Forget it. It’s another fantasy.
Q-But what about Michael’s competitive urges?
A-If they’re that bad, he should go to Pago Pago and play Ping-Pong.