Everyone knows baseball is struggling. Its "National Pastime" crown has been passed on to football-and even some say basketball is king. Spiraling ticket prices have eliminated the blue-collar family from going to a baseball game on a consistent basis. In other words, the corporate check swings more weight than the fans check. Players are making more, especially marginal ones, and their critics hate them for it. There are too many teams, too few good talents and too much bad play.
There's no simple answer to all of baseball's problems. But, for the problem of too little talent and too much bad play, the answer is simple and solvable: get rid of at least four current teams. The howl is going to be, "No, not my team." But for the good of the game, financially and playing wise, it must be done. It's just like trimming the dead limbs off a tree to make the rest of the tree vital. Or, dropping non-performing donut stores so the company can use the saved money to make the rest of the company stronger. Baseball is a business and must approach solving its problems like any other business would.
Cutting four teams would get the attention of the Baseball Players' Association. It would make them realize they have to work with the owners and not always against them to make the game vital and financially viable. Only through financial success for both the owners and players can baseball flourish and succeed. There's no doubt or question the players have succeeded, through free agency and arbitration, to reach a level of financial power and comfort. It's now time for them to realize that all owners have to reach an equal level. The owners and players need each other. If there are no owners, then there are no teams. If there are no teams, then there are no games. And, if there are no games, then there's no need for players. Unless they're really stupid, losing 100 jobs from axing four teams should change the Player's Association's attitude and approach about working with the owners for the overall good of the game.
Fewer teams and fewer jobs mean more players for the jobs available. Thus, the "supply and demand" theory brings a more financially equitable equation to team's payrolls. Owners will be able to say, "This is how much I have to pay you. Take it or leave it or I'll find someone who will play for that much." If, I'm a baseball player, the choice between taking $500,000 instead of the millions I could have made before there were four fewer teams is a no brainer. If I don't take the $500,000, there are 99 other players looking for work who will. Major League Baseball doesn't need a salary cap when controlling the size of their work force will do the same thing. And, the stars needn't worry about not making the big bucks. They always will because every team needs stars to draw, free agency will always create a bidding war for them and the owners will always be willing to pay them the big bucks for business reasons. Again, the stars will be paid multi millions and the mediocre and bottom roster players will be paid nicely and accordingly. The bottom line is large and small market team payrolls will become more stable and equitable.
From a competitive standpoint, small market teams will be able to compete with the large market teams season in and season out. With 100 more players competing for fewer jobs, only the best players will secure roster spots on the remaining teams, thus elevating the overall talent of the other teams. It's a fallacy that big market, deep-pocketed teams will get all the talent. There are only 25 roster spots on each team. While the Yankees have prevailed, the Oakland A's and Chicago White Sox showed that talented, sub $40 million payrolls can also compete and make the playoffs. And, so far this season, the Twins have shown they can play with the big boys as well. With fewer teams and more quality talent available, more teams will be able to field competitive teams. An added advantage will be young players, who are now in the major leagues, won't be able to make rosters because more talented players are now available. So, they'll be forced to the minors where they can work on their skills and come to the majors only when they show they deserve to be there.
Fans have always been willing to support success and competitiveness. They fully understand not every team is going to win, but certainly expect that every team to try their hardest. Inferior talent leads to an inferior effort, which leads to an unacceptable product for the fans. If there are fewer, but better teams playing, then more fans will support those teams, thus leading to more revenue. That better revenue will come from better ticket sales because the games are more competitive. More stadium concessions. More corporate support. Better television ratings for the more competitive games, which would lead to higher rights fees for the owners and players to split. With fewer teams, there's more money for the other teams to share and thus spend on getting better players to make them better. It's not brain surgery. And the ego, stupidity, and greed of the owners and players have kept them from understanding and accepting these new ideas.
The hardest part of any franchise elimination discussion is which teams go away. There is no easy answer to this question. Nor is there an easy way to tell an owner, a city, and their fans they no longer have a franchise to support. First and foremost, it must be a business decision. I'd suggest the following: 1) a ten-year analysis of a team's revenues and expenses, 2) a current and projected analysis of a market's business and economic capability and future potential, and 3) a survey of the market's interest, support and passion for baseball, especially from the market population. Local and state support for the team should be taken into account. With all this information, a ranking of baseball markets should be compiled. Kansas City can be compared to New York by pro-rating the markets. Once a financial analysis of all the baseball teams and markets are compiled, then a discussion about the subjective aspects of a market should be factored in-history of the franchise, past fan support, what it means to the community, etc.
From this analysis will come a pretty clear picture of the four teams that Major League Baseball can put on permanent waivers. My suggestion: Montreal, Tampa Bay, Miami and Oakland. Why? I go back to my original premise. You have to rid yourself of the weakest limbs/franchises in order to make the rest of the tree/business strong. Not to do otherwise will only cause the tree/business to wither away and ultimately die. And, nothing would be sadder than to see "America's Pastime" buried by greed and stupidity.
I feel better now.
I'm Ron Barr.
Agree or Disagree with this Column
Go to Ron's General Bulletin Board
Read Ron's Archived Commentaries