Sure-fire guide for a successful small-market baseball team

Thursday, November 20, 1997

Sure-fire guide for a successful small-market baseball team

COLUMN: Shelling out the big bucks requires deliberate
planning

The Florida Marlins disgust me.

When they made an obvious attempt to buy themselves a
championship by dropping $90 million on a handful of free agents
last season, I shook my fist at the TV. When they succeeded, I
repeated the gesture, but without the middle finger tucked in.

But, it really stuck in my craw (hey, baseball is an old-timers’
game, so why not use old-timers’ terms?) when they started dumping
those huge contracts over the past week.

These guys weren’t a team; they were just a bunch of mercenaries
hired for the year, then thrown overboard when they’d done what
they were hired for.

It’s sickening, it’s ruining baseball, it’s unfair.

And, now that I think about it, it just might save small-market
baseball.

Now, let me set the record straight right off the bat. I’m not a
big fan of short-term mercenaries. I’d much prefer to see a team
put together over time and watch them together year in and year
out. But that just isn’t working anymore for smaller-market
teams.

A small-market team hasn’t won the World Series since Minnesota
did it in 1991, and none look poised to do so again in the near
future.

The harsh reality is that teams from cities like San Diego and
Montreal simply can’t keep up with the spending habits of teams
from major media markets or those backed by
super-multi-gagillionaires. No matter what kind of temporary
revenue a new stadium might generate, the Brewers will never be
able to afford the Yankees’ $59 million payroll year in and year
out.

But for some reason, the majority of non-big-market teams
insists on trying.

Look at Boston last year. The Red Sox, a team in a medium-sized
market, spent $43.2 million last year on payroll, 11th highest in
the league. For that sizeable investment, they finished 20 games
out in the American League East and 18 games out for the wild card
spot. At 78-84 they were tied for 17th out of 28 in the majors.

Do you know what the 17th-place team gets? A big shiny cup of
jack-squat. The same jack-squat, in fact, that the 28th-place team
gets for its $21.9 million (Go A’s!) payroll.

It’s a hard fact in sports, but if you’re not in the play-offs,
the season was a failure. Some would say that’s true even if you
make the play-offs but don’t win it all. It really doesn’t matter
if a team finishes 17th or dead last at 28th; they’re still
standing in the losers’ corner at the end of the season.

In other words, the BoSox spent twice as much for the same
result (jack-squat, remember?). If they ran any other business that
way, they wouldn’t have a business anymore.

And now, two new teams are joining the league and jumping right
into the ranks of the moneyed elite. Arizona and Tampa Bay have
shown no hesitation to spend, spend, spend, acquiring expensive
veterans such as Jay Bell (five years at $6.8 million apiece) and
Fred McGriff (two years, $5 million per year), and giving $10
million-plus to a couple of unproven first-round draft picks last
year.

So, Boston’s $43 million might not even be good for 17th
anymore.

Hey, if they’re going to get jack anyway, why pay more for it?
Save some money.

Then spend it all at once.

Here’s what small-market teams should do.

First step, follow the Pittsburgh-Montreal example: Dump
everybody for prospects. I don’t care how good that southpaw is; if
he’s making $7 mil a season, he’s outta here. Let the Braves have
him.

Anybody over 27 or 28, and making more than, say, $2 million is
history. If they don’t have any trade value, cut ’em. Keep one or
two low-priced veterans, hopefully of the "gamer" variety, to make
the transition to the pros easier for the kids.

When Pittsburgh held its fire sale a year ago, they slashed
payroll to less than $9.1 million, lowest in the majors by far (I’m
sure you’ve already heard that Albert Bell and Greg Maddux each
earn more than the entire Pirates team). It wasn’t easy and it
wasn’t popular, but it was the right thing to do: Pittsburgh
finished second in the weak NL Central, five games behind
Houston.

Now, if you’re the average salary-dumping team, you probably
won’t do as well the first year out, but not to worry: The lure of
young potential and hustle is irresistible, and the fans will come
back.

Also, chances are that you won’t make cuts quite as extreme as
the Pirates’ (there’s probably some young superstar you would want
to hold onto despite his $4 million salary). That’s okay. Get down
to even, say, $12 million, and the savings should still be
enough.

Then, sit on what you have for four or five years. Invest
heavily in scouting and development to ensure that you get
youngin’s that can play, but otherwise pocket the difference. If
any of the kids are up for a new contract, make it somewhat
long-term and back-load it, paying the bulk of the money in the
last few years.

And, for God’s sake, whatever you do, stay out of the free agent
market. Apart from a couple of said "gamers" (absolute max, $1
million each), don’t do a damn thing. I don’t care who’s on the
market, let somebody else have them.

Then, in year four or five, just as your young core has
established itself, go crazy: Spend all of the money you saved on
free agents for this season. Even assuming your payroll increased
over time (meaning your yearly savings decreased) there should be
enough to knock the socks off four or five big-name free agents.
Just make sure you bring along an umbrella for the drool.

Let’s look at Boston again. The savings from cutting their 1997
payroll down to even a modest $15 million would be a whopping $27
million. Even if they let payroll increase to $25 million in the
fifth year, their average savings would still be $22.5 million. In
other words, they would have saved more than $112 million over that
time.

Screw Florida’s $90 million in long-term contracts; if Boston
blew its savings on one year, do you think they might be able to
sign a few superstars? Sure, Kenny Lofton might dream of playing at
home for Arizona, but do we really think he’s going to pass up $20
million per season to play for the Sox?

Even the smallest of markets could use this strategy. If the
Twins, the very definition of small market, were to cut their
already pared-down 1997 payroll of $24 million to $12 million, they
would save $12 million the first year. Even assuming a 50 percent
increase over the five years to $18 million, the team would save a
total of $42.5 million.

That should be enough to buy a couple of position players, maybe
two starters and two or three relievers, all big names. Add those
to that young nucleus and see what happens.

Sign all the free agents to multi-year contracts, with the
balance coming in the first year or two, so they’ll still have
trade value later. Then, after a World Series (or two, if you can
afford it), ship everybody out and start the process over
again.

Mercenaries can be useful when used correctly.

Is it good for the game – probably not. Will it help
small-market teams win? Yes.

And, to use another old-timer saying, winning isn’t everything –
it’s the only thing.

Kariakin is a fourth-year political science student. E-mail
responses to [email protected].