The owners' lawyer seems to think that a deal can be worked out before a strike, which would be great. But it looks like George Steinbrenner may get fined for remarks he made about how the new CBA (Created for Bud's Allies) may not really be in the large market clubs' best interests. He said, essentially, that El Bud's interests lie with the small market teams much moreso than with the large market owners, though he did not go as far as to say that Bud was colluding with said small market owners to screw people like Steinbrenner and Rupert Murdoch. People like Royals' owner David Glass have criticized him back, indicating that his perspective is kind of warped, and that "If the rest of us had as much revenue as he has, we might take that kind of selfish approach as well."

Selfish? Of course he's selfish, you dolt! He's a Capitalist! He likes to make money! Almost everybody does, and why shouldn't he? In fact, what Glass' comments don't address/admit is that David Glass is also selfish. If he were not, he wouldn't be own a baseball team. And he wouldn't be whining, along with the owners of teams like the Pirates, Brewers, Tigers and Expos that they're losing money fist-over-hand. If he were really unselfish, he would simply run the franchise by spending all of his own money to make the best team he could, regardless of how little or much money the team made (or lost), in an entirely altruistic effort to make sure that his players and fans were completely happy. But he's not doing that, is he?

Steinbrenner is in an interesting position. He's an owner, but he's one of a few owners who have a pretty large revenue stream, though there are not as few of these as Selig would have you think. The presumption on the part of the mainstream media has largely been that the owners have a pretty united front, or that they have as united a front as they ever have, at least since the salad days of collusion. But the reality may simply be that the $1million gag order imposed on the owners by the Commish has prevented anyone from really seeing the dissention that's there. This seems especially true in light of the fact that every time the order is lifted, Ol' George runs to the nearest group of reporters, adjusts his turtleneck, and begins to explain how this whole process is going to screw him, and consequently, the Yankees. This is invariably followed by someone like David Glass or Cleveland owner (the team, not the town) Larry Dolan saying that George is a Big Fat Idiot, at which point George starts describing how he could wallpaper his house with all the AL pennants the Yankees have won, and it just goes downhill from there.

But really, how can the owners be totally unified? People who own teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can't possibly be happy about the proposal to have half of their revenue shared amongst the clubs, though this idea makes a lot of sense. This way, big market clubs still have an advantage, just not an enormous one. And they really can't be happy about the proposed 50% luxury tax on salaries over $98 million. That would have meant that this year, George would have had to spend something like $21 million more on his roster than he did, which was already a ridiculous $140 million! I think Steinbrenner sees this as funding the incompetence of these other owners, who have not had the creativity and ingenuity to make a winner with a low payroll/low revenue, such as Minnesota and Oakland, and I don't blame him. Why should Steinbrenner have to pay for the Pirates to spent $9 million each on Terry Mulholland and Derek Bell? Why should he have to help a team like the D-rays to sign Jose Canseco, Vinny Castilla and Wilson Alvarez to long-term contracts? Why should he have to subsidize the man who let Tony Loser, um..Muser be a "manager" the Royals for not one, not two, not three, not four, but almost 5 years! With absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he knew how to

A) develop a young pitching staff
2) develop young hitters
iii) manage a bench, or
IV) organize a lineup.

What else is there to do as a manager? And what more evidence do you need as an owner than his record to indicate that he's not any good at it. As far as I'm concerned, if you won't take responsibility for your own team and admit to having made poor decisions and work on changing that pattern, then you have no business being in the conversation about what to do to help alleviate baseball's problems, because incompetent, irresponsible ownership is one of the top problems in the first place!

I'm getting off my soap box now.

Enos Slaughter died today. He was memorialized in an article posted on ESPN that indicated that his delay in election to the Hall of Fame might have been due to his plotting a player strike if the Major Leagues became integrated in 1947. He denied ever having done this, as well as being a racist, and I do not know the evidence against him in this area, so I cannot speak to it.

However, I do know that
A) some of the writers, probably quite a few, were likely at least somewhat racist themselves, and
2) they never seemed to have any trouble electing racists to the hall before (see: Ty Cobb).

More likely, Slaughter simply wasn't elected for 20 years after he was eligible because he wasn't a clear-cut Hall of Famer. His supporters would say that he hit .300 for his career (so did John Kruk) and that he was on five World Series teams (winning it four times. I imagine that if he had produced similar stats for the St. Louis Browns instead of the Cardinals, there would be a lot less support for him. Frankly, a .300 lifetime average is not that difficult to come by, and Stan the Man was always a better player than Slaughter was. Enos only led the league in RBI once, and never led in any of the percentage stats or power numbers. In an era when many players hit 25-40 homers routinely, Slaughter never smacked 20 in a season. He didn't amass 2400 hits, or 1400 runs or RBI, or have even one truly great season, despite playing in an era when Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio, Musial, Mays, Mantle, Duke Snyder, Ralph Kiner, Ted Kluszewski, Hank Aaron and others were doing just that. Don't get me wrong: Lots of players would love to have had the career he did. "Country" was a very good player for a long time, but his contemporary writers saw him as just that, and no more, not a HoFer. It was only the Veterans' Committee, with the benefit of 25 years of perspective, that seemed to think he belonged, but then they also thought that Jim Bunning and Phil Rizutto and Larry Doby belonged, so it's tough to take their word for it. I think he was better than that group, but certainly not a lock for the Hall. Enos Slaughter was, in some ways, the Paul O'Neill of his day. They both finished their career with a batting average about 20 points higher than the average, with moderate power (this is a generous assesment in Slaughter's case) and the good fortune to have played on Center Stage five or six times. Comparable career numbers, and average seasons, based on the leagues they played in, though Slaughter spent more seasons on the various statistical leaderboards. But otherwise, very similar. And I doubt that Old Pauly Girl will get much support when it comes his time.

Actually, current players like Fred McGriff and Rafael Palmiero may face similar scrutiny when they come up for election in 6 or 8 years. What do you do if Crime Dog hangs on for a couple more years and finishes his career with 522 dingers? How do you keep a guy out who has more homers than Ted Williams? He's had 9 or 10 seasons with 30+ homers, but never 40. Seven or 8 seasons w/ 100+ RBI, but never 110! Only 2 seasons with 100+ runs! Hit .300+ four times, but never topped .320! We, his contemporaries, know that he was always pretty good, but never great, and therefore should probably not be in the hall of fame, especially as a firstbaseman, even if he ends up with 540 homers, because it's all about perspective. McGriff shouldn't be compared to Jimmy Foxx and Duke Snider and Mickey Mantle. He should be compared to Palmiero, Todd Helton, Frank Thomas, Mo Vaughn (when they were good), Jason Giambi and Jeff Bagwell, his contemporaries. And when you do that, it's hard to justify electing him.

I just read Sean McAdam's piece on AL MVP hopefuls, and I have to admit that I'm a little frustrated with his logic, or at least his lack of consistency in it:

He contends that Alfonso Soriano is not the best candidate because of his lack of plate discipline, which I agree is a significant factor, but he ignores that his favorite, Torii Hunter, is not much better in this department. He says that Soriano and Giambi probably won't/shouldn't win because they play on such a good team, which diminishes their relative value, but he also says that A-Rod is not a good candidate because he plays for a lousy team! Well, which is it?

He says that Ichiro is not a good candidate because of his lack of power, but last year he only hit 8 dingers and he never walked, so he's actually having a better year, but is somehow less of a candidate because he doesn't do what he never did. How'd he win it last year?

Miguel Tejada is evidently not the best candidate because the A's are only in the hunt due to their starting pitching. Excuse me? Last time I checked, Tejada wasn't exactly thrust into the middle of Murderer's Row Revisited, and yet Oakland is holding it's own, 7th in the AL in OPS, 9th in runs, and 3rd in homers. No one on the team besides Eric Chavez is even having a good year at the plate, so someone's got to be responsible for those runs, right?

Pedro and Derek Lowe aren't likely candidates because they're not having "historic" years or great years in a vacuum, meaning a great pitching season in which no one is having a great hitting season. But shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't a guy on a pace to go 22-3, leading the league in ERA (2.25) and Strikeouts (pace for 278) be considered more valuable in a year in which 30 different guys hit 30 gomers and drive in a hundred runs than in a year when lots of pitchers do very well?

So, according to McAdam, and maybe a lot of BBWAA members, a player has to have a great (or at least surprisingly good) offensive season, on a decent club, but not one with a lot of other offensive talent, but not a lot of pitching talent either. Boy, this really narrows it down, doesn't it?

Personally, I'd like to see A-Rod get it. He's widely acknowledged as the best player in the AL, maybe in baseball, and has been for a few years now. And if they don't want to give it to a player on a last place team, they should give it to Giambi, who's second only to A-Rod in RARP, and RAP, according to Baseball Prospectus.

An anonymous baseball source yesterday announced that MLB's total operating losses would total over $450 million, which has got to be one of the most preposterous lies ever told, right up there with "What Holocaust?" OK, maybe not quite that bad, but still ridiculous. ESPN's stats page has attendance figures indicating that over 48 million people have gone to some ballpark, somewhere this year. This pace would lead to a total of about 70 million people going to games this year, all told, probably more. That means that if those people only spent an average of $35 each, including tickets, concessions, parking, etc, which must be an extremely conservative figure, then revenues from people going to games would exceed $2.4 billion! And that doesn't include broadcasting contracts, advertising revenues, merchandise sales or anything of that nature, which could easily total another billion dollars in revenues, all told. This would indicate that it must cost about $4 billion to run the 30 franchises, or an average of $133 million per franchise. For teams like Montreal and Kansas City and Minnesota, whose players' salaries only total about $30-60 million, where is the rest of this money going? Are we supposed to believe that the stadium lease and salaries for the accountants, travelling secretaries and janitors cost an average of $70 million? Preposterous.

BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how to use this Blogger thing. If you want to contact me, I can be reached at tmutchell@hotmail.com.

Pennsylvania has got to be one of the worst places to be a Yankee fan, at least if you're not rich. I'm close enough to NYC to get the YES Network, if I get DirecTV, which costs a fortune. However, because of blackout restrictions, I can't actually watch Yankee games on the Network. I have to get the MLB Extra Innings package, which also costs a fortune. I suppose it's just as well. If I had Yankee games on my TV all the time, I'd probably never get any work done on my house.

Ah, look at this. Yet another person who thinks he has an opinion about which anyone other than himself really cares. Well, maybe you don't but if you're reading this, then you probably have some interest in baseball, so I like you already.

A friend asked me if I'll still watch/follow baseball after a strike, if there is one, and it elicited this response:

I'm a baseball fan. Also, the sky is blue. But seriously, as a baseball fan, I can't help but like baseball, and I can't help but desire to see it played the best it's played anywhere, which is in MLB. Yes, I like the Yankees. Also, I like ice cream, if it tastes good. If they suddenly started to make my favorite ice cream taste terrible, I'd switch to something else. Similarly, if the Yankees suddenly started to make lots of really stupid decisions, I'd hafta look for another team to follow. I like that Oakland and Minnesota and Cincinatti have found ways to win without having the deep revenues of Atlanta, LA or Chicago. I dislike teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City and Milwaukee for using their stature as an excuse, when clearly there are ways to find some success without high revenues, and I resent even more teams like Philadelphia and the Cubs who pretend to be small market clubs, even though they're not, and use their cheapness as an excuse for why they never win.

It sucks that the players and owners can't be a little more self-interested by being a little less selfish, because if they were really that interested in their own well-being, they'd realize that it's ultimately in BOTH parties' best interests to have a non-partial, binding arbitrator sit down with the numbers and figure out a way for everyone to make money almost all the time. Mostly, they both seem to be predominantly interested in sticking it to the other side.

There's really plenty of money out there. They bring in over $3.5 billion in revenues anually, with 55% of it going to the players, which allows for an average of over $2.5 million/player, and an average of $52.5 million in revenue per team. That's after players' salaries are paid. Seems to me that there's no reason one can't reasonably expect men who were smart enough to become multi-millionaires and billionaires to figure out a way to make a baseball franchise that rakes in over $50 million annually (again, after players' salaries) profitable. Because if they can't, or more accurately, if they won't, they're going to lose a lot of fans, and a lot of revenue, for a long time.

The owners don't want to have to give up the privelige of keeping their actual bookkeeping secret while showing the world how much money they're "losing" every year. (This phenomenon is very similar to how I "lose" money when I take change out of my pocket and put it in a jar in my basement.) And the players' association is too damn proud to concede anything, since they've never even lost an argument about whether to get pizza or Chinese for lunch during negotiations for the last 30 years.

For the players and the owners, they know what baseball is "really about": Money. These are people who are blessed with a talent that makes them orders of magnitude richer than almost anyone else, which only whets their appetite for more. This statement applies to both sides. It's only the fans for whom it isn't about money, though it should be. There are other ways to spend your entertainment dollar here in the 21st century, and people have already found that some of them are cheaper and more satisfying than being a major league baseball fan. More of them will discover this soon, if there's a strike. It's not me they have to worry about, I'm a die-hard, dyed in the wool (whatever that means), hard-core baseball fan. And I'll go to a game or two a year for as long as I can afford it, which may not be long. Otherwise, I'll continue to follow it on TV and the internet. It's the marginal fan they have to worry about. The kid who's growing up playing soccer and football and baseball and basketball, trying to decide where he most wants to spend his energy and time. Those other sports, plus hockey, NASCAR, college sports, all sell themselves well. Heck, curling sells itself better than Bud Selig sells baseball. For a former used car salesman, he sure doesn't seem to know how to make a pitch anymore:

"Yes sir, this is a nice car, but you know, it gets lousy gas mileage, and the seats aren't very comfortable. This one here? Well, it's OK, I guess, but there's not much head-room. That one has some nice features, but it'll cost you a fortune...you should really go down the block, to my competitor's dealerships. Yeah, Stern & Tagliabue's Jeep/Chrysler seems to have some much better products. Boy, I wish I wasn't stuck with all these lemons...Bye!"

So they're in for a rude awakening if they do strike. People will come back, but it'll be a long, arduous process, and they'll have to can Selig. I don't see how they can justify keeping the guy in power after two Strikes, one or both of which cancelling part of the season and/or playoffs. People like me, junkies, will come back right away. Others will take a while, which will lower attendance, lower revenues, and hopefully lower ticket prices to compensate for lowered demand. This will bring more people back to the sport, allowing them to raise prices again, and I will be back to affording only one game per year.

Y'know, when the simple question of "Will you still watch baseball if there's a strike?" elicits a response like this, maybe I should look into becoming a baseball columnist...