High salaries endanger major league baseball

Thursday, February 18, 1999

High salaries endanger major league baseball

COLUMN: Having money allows big-market teams to have unfair
advantage

Here is an SAT analogy for you: Derek Jeter is to Kevin Brown as
…?

Ok, so one is a pitcher and one is a shortstop. One speaks with
the controlled ease and politeness of an East Coast education, one
with the thick, sometimes passionate drawl of the Deep South.

They each have a World Series ring, though Jeter’s Yankees
outdueled Brown’s Padres last year for his second. And they each
finished in the top 10 in Most Valuable Player voting in their
respective leagues last year.

One thing stands out, though: $5 million to $107 million.

Oh, and one other thing: 24 to 34, as in Jeter’s age to Brown’s
age.

When New York elected to take Jeter to salary arbitration last
week over a $1.8 million salary difference, they reopened the door
to criticism of baseball’s off-season spending spree and the chaos
that accompanied it.

For instance, how a large-market team like the Dodgers could
justify paying Brown $107 million for seven years while Jeter, the
1996 unanimous Rookie of the Year, could still peddle a measly $3.2
million, the going rate for utility outfielders in these days of
Major League Baseball.

So it’s true you can’t give all your position players franchise
labels, and certainly the Dodgers have done that for Brown – but if
owners are going to pay the money, shouldn’t they consider their
investments?

Brown will turn 34 next month. He will enter his final season as
a Dodger, presumably, at the ripe age of 41. Only one other pitcher
in the modern era who threw in the velocity range of Brown survived
to that age, and that was the immortal Nolan Ryan, whose biggest
arm problem in his career amounted to blisters forming on his
fingers.

Even Los Angeles general manager Kevin Malone has said he
doesn’t expect Brown to be as dominant at age 40 as he will be in
the next few years. But he will still make over $10 million for his
services, likely more if the inflation of baseball salaries
continues as it did this off-season. We have to ask if the
carelessness of large-market owners is going to backfire when they
simply can’t afford to pay their players.

The NBA would know something about that, for it just occurred
last summer. Baseball, though, could be in a bind, with already
dwindling fan support thanks to the 1994 player’s strike and
without the cunning of a commissioner like David Stern.

The effects already loom. The Yankees, heretofore baseball’s
model organization, could have locked up Jeter in a long-term deal
(his first contract expired in 1998). Of the American League’s trio
of young shortstops, including Alex Rodriguez and Nomar
Garciaparra, Jeter may be the most sound defensively, and though
not as offensively explosive, did hit .324 in 1998 with 19 home
runs and 84 RBIs.

When Jeter asked for $5 million, the Yankees countered with $3.2
million.

The Yankees of baseball’s golden age would have never let Jeter
get to arbitration, if there were such a thing. Lee MacPhail never
saw a young talent get away, especially due to nominal salary
differences – much less when that player had helped him win two
World Series in three years.

Maybe there just isn’t enough money around. Eventually that has
to be the case, right?

But the Yankees came through with more money for Bernie
Williams, to keep him from roaming the Arizona desert or patrolling
the hated Green Monster in Boston. And they still had hopes of
signing Mo Vaughn and/or Randy Johnson.

The money is always there in New York. The Yankees are estimated
to be worth more than $1 billion, and that is without George
Steinbrenner’s proposed downtown Manhattan stadium, which would
raise the amount considerably.

Is Jeter worth $107 million? Depending on the philosophy you can
argue yes or no. To many people, no one is worth $107 million to
play a child’s game. From a strictly business sense, the amount of
revenue Brown will bring to the Dodgers could amount to that
figure, though the length of the contract may be more Social
Security than a determined effort to keep Brown’s talent in Los
Angeles.

Brown has been criticized for blackmailing the Dodgers into a
seven-year deal, using that length as a starting point for any
contract negotiations with any team. In reality you cannot blame
him.

But while players in their prime continue to sign lucrative
contracts that cover greater lengths than most budget agreements, I
have to wonder what will happen to the influx of young talent that
is scattered around the league. Will we have a few large-market
teams of veterans and superstars in their prime, and then 24 other
groups of young players just beginning to make their mark on the
league, only to be snatched up by the L.A.’s and New York’s of the
game? Or will these sketchy, long-term investments by the owners
come back to haunt them when they are fielding balding men
experiencing their mid-life crises?

Wait a few years and ask any Seattle resident that question, and
see if they were able to hold on to a couple guys named Griffey and
Rodriguez, who may end up in Turner, Ga., and Steinbrenner’s New
York in the coming seasons.

Wait seven years and see if Kevin Brown is still throwing 98
miles per hour in the World Series.

Derek Jeter got his $5 million from the salary arbitrator and
will be in the Bronx for a few more years. Even if he does leave,
the Yankees will have to get him back once he hits his prime.

I am certain that the baseball salary structure is out of whack.
I would take the 24-year-old everyday player over the 34-year-old
pitcher any day.

But then again, I am from San Diego. I learned from Tony Gwynn
that you can only go home once, no matter what the price.

I’d rather see a 24-year-old turn 41 than a 34-year-old turn 41
anytime.

Scott Street wishes to remind you that spring training starts
this week. Yes, already. Please send comments to
[email protected]

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]