Questions and answers on the 1994 baseball strike, which could wipe out the last 52 days of the regular season, plus the playoffs and the World Series, the latter an annual fixture since 1905:
Q-When is the strike likely to end?
A-It’s up to the owners. They could end it this week or next week-as soon as they take their salary cap proposal off the table.
Q-Is this likely?
A-It’s possible. They insist they need the cap because some of the franchises are in financial distress. A cap would put a ceiling on their player payrolls and fix their costs.
Q-Is a cap crucial to fiscal sanity?
A-I don’t think so. Bud Selig, the acting commissioner, had been saying that as many as 19 clubs were headed for the poorhouse. Last week he revised this estimate to 12 or 14.
Q-Are the owners crying wolf?
A-I’m not an accountant, and even if I were I wouldn’t know because accountants can be creative with numbers. For instance, the clubs, with the presumed approval of the number crunchers, have not included in their total revenues the recent $190 million received for the Denver and Florida expansion franchises. Anyway, I can’t recall an owner, in any business, claiming he was making enough money. I suspect some of the clubs in economic woe are breaking even or suffering comparatively small losses.
Q-What about the Pittsburgh Pirates. They are on the block. The owners insist they can’t continue and must dump the club.
A-According to a recently published survey, they lost $1.98 million last year. This doesn’t strike me as a financial disaster. All they had to do was trade one or two of their high-priced players and replace them with rookies who play for the minimum $109,000.
Q-Wouldn’t this weaken the club?
A-Of course it would. But I’m certain the fans in Pittsburgh would rather have a second-division team than lose their team. It’s simply a matter of each team operating within its budget. The budget, in effect, should be the team cap, but there is a risk.
Q-What is the risk?
A-If all or many of the teams have identical or similar budgets, the players’ union could accuse them of collusion and haul them into court.
Q-Could you explain further?
A-Several years ago, the owners, with Commissioner Peter Ueberroth calling the signals, refused to outbid each other for free agents. The Players Association hollered foul. An arbitrator found the owners guilty of collusion and fined them $280 million.
Q-So the owners, in effect, have been forced into paying those million-dollar salaries. Is this a correct assumption?
A-Not completely. So far as I know nobody ever has put a gun to an owners’ head to make him pay a player $4 million. But there is a certain amount of pressure. If an owner says the price is too high, many fans and some sportswriters will be on his case, calling him cheap. Not always, but more often than not, the team with the highest payroll has the best chance to win a flag.
There is also the ego factor. Most moguls, in their first years of ownership, come in as fans. Often, there is no limit to their spending in pursuit of a pennant. And every time they-or any of the big-market owners, such as the Yankees-ascend to a new salary plateau, the price goes up across the board.
Q-And this is where salary arbitration comes into play?
A-Exactly. When a player opts for mediation, he can’t lose because arbitrators must base their judgment on comparative salaries.
More Top Picks Best Wireless Earbuds
Bruce Sutter, when he was the Cubs’ star reliever, was earning about $150,000. A month or so before Sutter asked for arbitration, Atlanta Braves owner Ted Turner signed Al Hrabosky for $1 million a year. Sutter was, by far, the more effective reliever. But the arbitrator approved Sutter’s demand for $700,000. At that time, Goose Gossage and other premier relievers were at approximately $400,000. When they subsequently went to arbitration, their salaries soared-all because of the Hrabosky signing. This scenario has since been re-enacted hundreds of times. As several owners have said, why should we pay for someone else’s mistakes?
Q-In your judgment should salary arbitration be eliminated?
A-If not entirely eliminated, it should be modified. The owners should withdraw their salary-cap proposal, and in exchange the effects of arbitration should be diminished. It would be a fair compromise.
Q-How do you explain the success of the Montreal Expos? They have the second-lowest payroll in the National League, but have won the most games.
A-This is true. But corralling the best players is never a guarantee of victory. Often the signing of the highest-priced talent can result in fiscal disaster. The acumen of the general manager is of great consequence. But even when he does put together a winning team, at modest cost, this changes because the next year his player payroll soars. The triumphant troops want more money.
Q-So success on the field results in increased compensation. Is that right?
A-Definitely. Some owners contend the ideal situation is to finish second. The players would be awarded modest increases, and at the same time, the fans aren’t terribly disappointed and will return in large numbers, with great enthusiasm and high expectations the following season.
Q-Are the owners likely to break ranks? Haven’t they always collapsed in the past? According to reports, Peter Angelos of the Baltimore Orioles is ready to concede. Who is this guy?
A-He put together a group that paid $173 million, an excessive price, for the Baltimore Orioles. Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox has said Angelos doesn’t know what it’s all about and should keep his mouth shut. I agree. During all league meetings, new owners should be forced to wear a dunce cap and be put in a corner.