An interview with this author on the big baseball meltdown:
Question-Who started this thing? The players or the owners?
Answer-The players struck on Aug. 12. They selected that date for two reasons: It would provide enough time for a settlement and resumption of the regular season. They also insisted it was the best time to shut down because if the owners didn’t capitulate they would suffer maximum financial loss if they decided to cancel the pennant playoffs and World Series. That’s when the owners receive the giant portion of their broadcasting revenue.
Q-In other words, the players expected a short strike?
A-Definitely. Many of the players expressed confidence the owners would collapse in two weeks. It was a serious miscalculation. Obviously, the players didn’t believe the owners would remain firm. I am certain they are very surprised.
Q-And you, great Swami? Are you surprised?
A-No. In view of the severity of the situation, this may not be a good time to say I told you so, but Danny Evans, a White Sox vice president, told me to look up my column of Dec. 6, 1991. “You predicted it,” he said. I guess I did at that because this is what I wrote:
“The scenario is predictable. The owners will plead, `We’ve got to have a cap.’ `No you don’t,’ the union leaders will say.
“And so there will be another strike. An entire season, certainly a half-season, would be sacrificed. But this time I think the owners would win. They have hired a new and high-priced negotiator, Richard Ravitch, whom I believe will prevent them splintering and fighting among each other.”
Q-Have you made any other predictions lately?
More Top Picks Luxury
A-Yes, I mentioned to several White Sox players they should think it out before turning in their strike vote. Once a player approves a strike, everything moves forward without him. The union officials, along with the player reps, take over. And, more often than not, even if they start soft, they become very militant. And soon, the dispute heightens. It’s no longer just about money. They draw their swords and it becomes a duel to the death. Much macho, etc.
Q-What about the owners. Have they drawn their swords?
A-Definitely. They have lost so many of these battles in the past they are determined as never before. Acting Commissioner Bud Selig has them lined up on the field, ready to charge.
Q-When you cautioned some of the players before the strike vote was taken, what was their reaction?
A-They were courteous enough, but they dismissed me, as if I were some nut. After this initial exchange our relationship cooled. Some of them stopped saying hello.
Q-I suppose you were crushed?
A-Not crushed, just disappointed. I withheld my opinions thereafter.
Q-Have you talked to any of these players since?
A-I spoke to Scott Sanderson of the White Sox in New York after the last negotiation session, and he told me, among other things, the players were winning because they were on higher moral ground. I agreed a cap would be hard to swallow but told him it isn’t a morality play. It’s about money. Also about control. The owners have given away the store and now are fighting to regain control.
Q-What about the rank and file?
A-They’re hiding in the closet. Peer pressure comes into play. None of the players, so far as I know, has admitted he made a mistake. Look at it this way: If the players had finished out the season, as I suggested, they wouldn’t have lost 28 percent of their pay. They could then strike at the beginning of the 1995 season when the owners had the option of forcing the players to submit to a diminished Basic Agreement, which would include the dreaded salary cap.
Q-So, what you’re saying is that the players lost all that money but are no better off than before?
A-Yes, that’s the way I see it.
Q-Will some of the players eventually speak out?
A-I expect they will, perhaps during the week ahead when Don Fehr, the union chief, presides at four or five regional player meetings. I assume the players will shout unity, but down the line we can expect to hear from many who are disgruntled.