Keeping the Dominoes from Falling

Don’s update on the contraction issue.

Pondering The Next Moves in Baseball?s Surreal Game of Chicken

We?ve made it to the least cheery Christmas season in memory, what with saber   rattling, economic downturn, and two forms of contraction staring us   in the face. (The first form?contraction of our civil liberties under the ruse   of ?greater security??is clearly the more venal of the two, but this is not   the space in which to dwell at length over the malfeasance of our ?leaders?   in Washington.)

Ironically, another group of those government ?leaders? will start interacting   with the forces trying to impose that second form of contraction?the willful,   deliberate and totally unnecessary murder of two baseball franchises (to be   named later?). Bud Selig will take his hopelessly overexposed puss to   Washington this week, where he will attempt to convince Congress that major   league baseball is virtually bankrupt.

That they are?but not financially.

You all know that I called Bud (?affectionately? known here as Budzilla,   but also often referred to by many of you as Beelzebud) the ?President   of the Liar?s Club? in these cyberpages some three weeks ago. Since then, a   number of more timorous (read: professional) sports journalists have begun to   join me in such a charge.

You have to give Bud his due, though. Not content with lying on an ordinary   scale, he?s now stepped up to logarithmic prevarication. The age-old American   tradition of the tall tale has been taken to skyscraper proportions by Selig:   his recent claim that baseball lost $500 million in the last year is funnier   than even the best howlers concocted by Mark Twain, Bret Harte,   and the still-missing Ambrose Bierce (whose four-score and seven years-long   disappearing act is one Bud should consider emulating).

Congress will begin to look into this matter this week, which probably won?t   get us anywhere, but it will give Bud a platform from which he can attempt to   sell his most recent?and biggest?lie.

What all of us who are baseball fans want to know, of course, is how this latest   bit of choreographed chaos is going to play out. I?d like to interject a few   thoughts on that subject that will hopefully seem more cogent than crabby (though   the margin will be as whisper-thin as that fatal vote in Florida).

First, contraction. The biggest question about it is whether the owners have   the right to unilaterally impose it. That?s more important than any of the deadlines   that loom around it. (Baseball, of course, is hurting its own cash flow by pressing   this issue, because tickets can?t be sold without a schedule, and without a   resolution to this matter, there?s no schedule. With an economic downturn in   progress, baseball risks losing some of its fan base, who will opt to spend   their dwindling discretionary income elsewhere while the owners fiddle with   the domino of contraction.)

The key decision point about contraction will come at the hands of the NLRB   arbitrator, Shyam Das. If Das rules that the owners must negotiate contraction,   it will essentially remove this domino from the table.

While I?m no expert on these matters, I?m figuring that it?s about 80/20 that   Das will rule that the owners cannot impose contraction unilaterally. You lawyers   out there can argue with me, but I think the key sticking point is the precedent-setting   that would endanger the rights of union members. Once you establish such a precedent,   you invite capricious and malicious utilization of such actions. That, to me,   is one of the basic protections to be upheld by labor laws.

The other factor that will be important is whether the owners (via mouthpiece   Bud) can convince anyone that their financial situation warrants contraction.   I doubt that the economic factors can be totally separated from the legal decision,   and as a result Das will have to take into account the credibility (or lack   thereof) of the owners? claims.

If Das rules for the owners, we will surely not see baseball played for a while.   The Players Union will appeal the ruling, and contract talks will not get started   until the appeals process is completed.

But that is the 20% scenario (in my opinion). The likelier   scenario is that the owners will be forced to negotiate contraction, and once   this becomes the case, the players will have an opportunity to quash it by trading   remedies with the owners in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Major league players may wish to keep the status quo, but that is clearly a   ?bury your head in the sand? position at this point. There are some problems   that have to be dealt with, and with a ruling that says contraction is negotiable,   the Players? Union would be in a position to press those issues from a perspective   broader than its own self-interest.

What do I mean by this? Here?s a specific example: the players could grant   concessions on arbitration policies in exchange for not only the removal of   the contraction proposal, but its replacement with a plan to partially remedy   the economic disparity in the game?via expansion.

Now hold on, you ask. How can that work? The owners are crying poor, and want   to contract, not expand. But contraction is just another ruse, another   piece of brinkmanship from a group that just can?t seem to address economic   issues in a straightforward (need I say honest?) manner.

What the owners really want is some kind of compromise on the salary   structure?and the players can afford to give up some freedom in the arbitration   process, if by doing so they create at least 50 more jobs at a time when most   industries are laying people off.

The Players Union should give on arbitration once the owners agree to expand   into New York and Los Angeles with two new franchises in 2004. The owners can   be given leeway to decide if they want to move ?sick? franchises and create   new expansion teams in the abandoned cities, but the best solution is to find   solid ownership candidates for the new big-market franchises. The best remedy   for a ?sick? franchise is relocation, but there are still places other than   the two mega-markets to move into: there?s always ?northern Virginia?, where   either the Expos or the Marlins can be renamed the Beltway Bandits.

But George Steinbrenner and Rupert Murdoch will never go along   with this, you protest. They have territorial rights!

Of course, those ?rights? are an artificial construction   being used in a monopolist?s shell game, and quite probably won?t stand up to   scrutiny in a comprehensive examination of baseball?s bizarre anti-trust exemption?something   that Congress just might get around to if they feel that Budzilla has lied to   them.

Or should I say?lied too egregiously. Lying is as American   as apple pie, but even given that, there are limits to what can be gotten away   with.

Now, at a time when your Attorney General is actively planning   to incrementally divest the average American citizen of his civil rights, I   see no reason why baseball can?t step up to the plate and say ?George, Rupert,   you?re going to have to take one for the team.?

In other words, there are times when even capitalists have   to be brought to heel.

The Players Union may protest that it?s not part of their purview to engage   in such negotiations. That may have been true in the past; but these are unique   times. The union may need to take some initiatives that would have seemed inappropriate   in the past.

Events may transpire in the next few weeks that make this one of those times.

The arbitration process is biased in the favor of the players, and recasting   it in a way that reduces the salary inflation of pre-free agent players is a   significant concession. And it?s a fair one all the way around.

Tying this concession to an agreement to expand rather than contract is the   only way that the game will have a credible growth path open to it, and that   will allow constructive methods of dealing with structural imbalance.

(However, it?s still up to the owners to deal with lingering economic disparity.   They need to close the loophole that lets teams ?sandbag? and simply pocket   ?luxury tax? money, as has been the case under the current CBA. The players   cannot, and should not, be forced to solve that problem.)

If Shyam Das gives the Players Union a leg up in this matter, the opportunity   for meaningful, positive change will be in their hands. If he doesn?t, we are   in for a long siege.

Will Das tip the domino, or will he shove the owners? brinkmanship back down   their throats? I?ve told you what I think; now it?s your turn.