Wherever I go, to the ballpark or the cigar store, the question is the same: Will this otherwise wonderful season be destroyed or, at the least, be diminished by a strike?
My answer is always the same: I don’t know.
Almost all of the well-educated guessers, and this includes many baseball writers in the know, are convinced a stoppage is inevitable. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I continue to believe it’s too early to make a call.
It has been pointed out there have been seven shutdowns in the last quarter of a century-player strikes, owner lockouts and even a one-week player boycott. But I haven’t seen any mention that all of these disputes eventually were resolved.
Because of this, I remain convinced a settlement is possible, that a crisis can be avoided. It will go down to the wire, of course. It always does. Agreement always has been reached in the 12th hour.
The players don’t want a salary cap. Down the line, they are convinced it will limit compensation. The owners, in their proposal, have guaranteed the players 50 percent of all revenues and insist the current salary levels will not be disturbed and could increase commensurate with earnings.
So what’s the argument?
Don Fehr, executive director of the Players Association, says the union should not be expected to be a party in controlling salaries of its membership. To do so would be against basic labor principles, that a free market is essential, the American way.
I understand Mr. Fehr’s position. His assignment is to increase player salaries. But I am also sympathetic with the owners and their desire for a limit. Some of them insist they are heading for the poorhouse and cannot continue to operate under existing conditions.
Maybe, maybe not.
There is a simple solution. The cap, which the owners have set, is at $7 million with the Barry Bonds and Ryne Sandberg signings. All that is necessary would be for them to hold the line at $7 million, or any sum within their budget.
The problem is they are competing with each other for a pennant. And if a pennant can be won with the addition of an $8 million or $10 million player, or players, some of them would inflate their payrolls accordingly.
Essentially, only the financially capable ownerships would engage in this competition. The smaller market and less affluent franchises would be at an obvious disadvantage. But there is also this to remember: Teams with a collection of high-salaried players do not always finish first.
More Top Picks Best Action Cameras
Attendance and revenues, for both sides, are at an all-time high. The average player salary has soared to $1.2 million. Approximately one-fifth of the players are earning in excess of $3 million.
If there is a strike, the players, collectively, would suffer a daily salary loss of $4.5 million. Some of the high-salaried players seem to be ready to take what would be an enormous economic hit and are vowing a fight to the finish. Neither their wives nor their fans are likely to be sympathetic.
Already, I can hear the lady of the house: “You big lug, get back to work. We’re losing $10,000 a day.”
Initially, because of the cancellation of the post-season playoffs and World Series, the loss to the owners may even be greater.
But eventually the economics would equalize, particularly if the owners held firm. If they don’t collapse, they would have the option of putting all kinds of new restrictions in place for the 1995 season.
Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox, who is among baseball’s most influential owners, on Monday indicated the 1995 season could be in jeopardy. “At the moment, I am a dove,” Reinsdorf said. “But if the players strike, I become a hawk.”
The players may not believe this, but Reinsdorf wasn’t speaking for himself. This appears to be the common ownership view. And if the stoppage continues in 1995, there is little doubt that the players would be eager to settle, at almost any cost.
Fehr has been insisting that management is pushing the players into a stoppage. But I am convinced the owners are as fearful of a strike as the players.
With annual revenues at a record high of $2 billion, there is ample room for a compromise. The owners can very easily modify their proposal, eliminate the words “salary cap” and achieve most of their objectives under a different heading.
Whatever, everything on the table is negotiable. And there is still plenty of time for a settlement.