Baseball in the post-1900s needs to become more of a partnership between ownership and players. Tribune Baseball Writer Phil Rogers spent much of spring training looking into the future of the game. The following is a collection of thoughts on common issues from the perspectives of four men who could emerge as central figures in the upcoming labor negotiations and policy decisions that will set the tone for the third century of professional baseball. St. Louis Cardinals first baseman
The home run king never has been a leader in the players union but now has the sport’s tallest platform. McGwire is not afraid to offer his views on any subject, including the continuing enrichment of players.
He believes there is such a thing as enough money, which he proved when he agreed to an $11 million contract option for the 2001 season with St. Louis but deferred much of that salary to help the Cardinals pay other players. It was a generous act by a man who could have been eligible for free agency and raises questions about what role he will play in the next round of labor negotiations.
On the statement he and Ken Griffey Jr. made by signing for less than their maximum value and deferring salary:
“To me it doesn’t matter when I get my money. I’d rather get less money now and get it later so you can do more with the other guys, have some for signing guys. It was smart for Ken to do the same thing with Cincinnati. I think a lot of players should do that. They’re making (buckets of money) anyway.”
How he remembers the strike that wiped out the 1994 World Series:
“What a waste of time. What a disgraceful thing to have happen, and it really accomplished nothing. I don’t think anything happened with us missing the World Series. It severely damaged the game but the game now is probably the best it has been in so many years. To do this again would be totally sad.”
How he would handle a work stoppage after 2001, when the current contract expires:
“I will be embarrassed to be a baseball player. I will walk away from the game. I’ve talked to a few people, and some of them would do the same thing. It would be total destruction for the game You’d have to be crazy. I hope to God nothing happens.”
On the lack of competitive balance:
“I wish there would be more, but what can you do?”
On the likelihood of more labor problems:
“We are here to play and we are making good money. (Owners) are making a lot of money. If things could stay status quo, it would be perfect. But not everybody likes the way it is. Whatever’s going right in the game of baseball, there’s a lot of money being thrown around. I don’t think (either) side should be unhappy about it. I don’t think (owners) have anything to be ashamed of. I wish there were a new deal (before the current one expires). I would hope that management would come to us with something. You have players saying, I hope it doesn’t happen.’ A lot of ballclubs have opened new stadiums and they certainly don’t want a work stoppage. I think there are a lot of reasons why it will not happen, but you never know.”
LARRY LUCCHINO
San Diego Padres president and CEO
Lucchino helped build Baltimore’s Camden Yards, which fueled a resurgence of the game in the last decade. He currently finds himself facing an even bigger challenge as president of the San Diego Padres. He couldn’t enjoy the Padres’ trip to the 1998 World Series for long because free agents Kevin Brown, Steve Finley and Ken Caminiti were lured away by higher-revenue teams in other markets.
Lucchino believes a new stadium will allow the Padres to remain viable in their market at the absolute southwest corner of the United States. But he is not as confident about the fate of other struggling franchises such as Minnesota and Montreal. Lucchino is the behind-the-scenes architect of a concept he calls contraction, in which 26 to 28 franchises purchase two to four existing franchises and fold them, spreading their players among the lower-revenue teams that survive.
On what has changed since the strike:
“I don’t want to make any reference to 1994-95. I’d like that to be a distant nightmare. But there are serious issues now that are crying out for reform, and certainly the issue of competitive balance has changed significantly from the early ’90s to the late ’90s, the turn of the century. There is a very significant competitive-balance issue in baseball that needs to be addressed. We also have the problem of skyrocketing player salaries that contributes to the competitive-balance problem and also to the growing costs of baseball for the average fan. Make no mistake, there is a correlation between the costs of salary and the costs of a ticket and a hot dog.
“Another issue is revenue sharing. We made a dent in that issue in the last bargaining agreement with what has been called a luxury tax, but that was only the first step. Now we need a plan for a bigger second step.”
What’s the answer:
“I don’t want to discuss specific solutions, not at this point in the process. But there are certain things baseball can do. With his new authority, a strong commissioner can do things to improve the competitive balance, but ultimately we need a better relationship between the clubs and the players association. The commissioner has more substantial powers these days. I hope he will utilize them.”
On whether players share his concerns:
“Competitive balance is something players care about, too. Nobody wants to be locked onto a team that can’t win. These are competitive athletes.”
On eliminating some franchises:
“Contraction? I think it’s one of the areas that should be examined. Certainly before we consider expanding again, we have to make sure we are taking care of the markets we have. We may need to consolidate in some places. I think that alternative should be studied. Right now a lot of teams are having trouble staying on solid financial footing. Because they’re paying players such high prices, they’re losing money annually. When you lose millions and millions every year, you’re ready to try something different.”
On a salary cap as part of the solution:
“What other sports have done is obvious. The mechanism of tying revenues to player salaries has worked in the NFL and the NBA. Perhaps there are other ways to deal with the problems, but that one is tried and true. Certainly baseball needs some plan that will slow the escalation of salaries and put into place a system that brings about competitive balance, because it’s way out of whack right now.”
On the players’ opposition to a tax on the biggest payrolls:
“Their position was that it would have a substantial effect on moderating salaries. I think they should be held to that position. It hasn’t seemed to be the case and it does seem to make sense to tie salaries to revenues.”
On the sharing of Internet revenue between clubs:
“It’s the first bold step into a brave new world. It involves the collectivization of revenues that were to be held by clubs individually. Instead it centralized them, which ultimately will help with revenue disparity. Potentially it was a very large move.”
TOM GLAVINE
Atlanta Braves pitcher
Glavine has been as much of a leader in the players union as he has been a consistent winner on the mound. His role could increase in future negotiations with owners because one prominent union leader, Paul Molitor, has retired and another, David Cone, is nearing retirement.
Glavine’s viewpoint seldom varies from the ones espoused by union leaders Don Fehr and Gene Orza. He sees packed stadiums, increased television ratings and the appearance that the business of baseball is booming.
On any change since the last strike:
“Probably not, other than everybody’s making more money. I don’t know if that much has changed.”
On the existence of a competitive-balance problem:
“I think there’s more than a handful of teams that have a chance. Everyone else does, too. Look at Cincinnati last year. Regardless of what your economic situation is, if you have a salary cap like you do in basketball and football, you probably start every year with half the teams that have a chance to win and half the teams that don’t. Baseball, in my opinion, is no different. Every year there are teams that come from nowhere and are contenders. If you look back, teams run through cycles. You’re at the top, but then you have to rebuild. That cycle constantly repeats itself. It will repeat itself here (in Atlanta) sooner or later.”
On waging war to avoid a salary cap:
“From our standpoint you fight the battle of the salary cap. We’re always going to fight that battle. I don’t think you’d get me to say it should be considered. You would get us to say we hope we don’t have to go through it again. The competitive-balance issue is always going to be an issue. There’s always going to be disparity. Don’t be fooled by thinking a salary cap will eliminate that because it hasn’t done it in the other sports. What’s so great about the competitive balance in basketball? I haven’t seen it.”
On the players’ willingness to strike:
“I think there will be more give and take on both sides. We understand the significance of what we did. We all question whether the game will survive that again. I hope we don’t have to test that.”
On the level of concern about labor peace:
“Moderate. I’m probably more hopeful at this time than I have been in other years. But we can’t let it get to that point again. We have to get something done before we get to that point. I’m hopeful from my past experience that will be the case. Hopefully some of the new owners who have come into game will not just be put under the others’ thumbs.”
ANDY MACPHAIL
Chicago Cubs president
A third-generation baseball man, the Cubs’ president watched his father, former American League President Lee MacPhail, joust with the union during early labor disputes. He was beginning his own career as a major-league executive when Lee MacPhail helped then-Commissioner Peter Ueberroth mediate a quick solution to a players strike in August 1985.
MacPhail is close to Commissioner Bud Selig, and many see him as a voice of reason among ownership. Count him among baseball’s current optimists.
On the historical context of competitive balance:
“Baseball’s a very cyclical business. A lot of clubs had to dive for the bottom in payroll, and after spending four, five or six years doing that and reaping the advantages that are given to those teams, have started moving back toward the top. Oakland and Kansas City have good, young talent. You stay down long enough and you start to have access to talent that top clubs can’t get, because it’s through the draft. Those clubs are starting to put together better teams. Now how long they can keep it together is another question. At some time the cycle will catch up to the Yankees and Braves. You wouldn’t think that now, but it will happen. The advantage of their position is they might not stay down there long.”
On differences in baseball’s climate since the 1994 strike:
“I believe when the commissioner named Paul Beeston as president of Major League Baseball, and the subsequent appointments that have been made in Major League Baseball, and the fact that we are sort of acting on our common interests–for instance, our trip to Japan–those things are good signs. I think it would be foolish to suggest it’s all blissful. I think we’re gradually moving toward that direction. There has been incremental improvement.”
On the likelihood of another labor war:
“I have every confidence in the people representing both sides, that we’ll be able to reach a resolution.”