Baby steps

New labor agreement will bring change eventually

PHOENIX -- Change comes slowly to Major League Baseball. It's part of the game's charm. It's part of its curse.

Late last summer, when players and owners sidestepped what would have been a disastrous work stoppage by coming to terms on a new contract, some crowed that the new agreement was a bold, game-changing step toward fixing the problems that have plagued baseball in modern times.

Yeah. Well, if it's a step, it's not much of one. Not yet.

The new labor agreement has a lot of provisions that are supposed to make baseball better. Greater revenue sharing and a tax on teams that exceed a set payroll limit ($117 million), mainly. The whole idea was to help economically strapped teams compete for pricey talent, theoretically giving more of them a better chance to win.

But so far, the New York Yankees still are spending bundles more than anyone else, payroll tax be damned. And now the Oakland A's, one of those small-revenue teams that is supposed to be helped by the new collective bargaining agreement, have told their shortstop -- the American League MVP last season, a player that many teams would love to build around -- that they can't afford to keep him.

"The system is broken down," Oakland owner Steve Schott said, "when only two or three teams can pick up a player of Miguel's caliber and sign him to an eight-to-10-year contract and pay him the money he deserves."

None of this is earth-shattering stuff. The Yankees are the Yankees. And it would have been almost impossible for the A's to keep Miguel Tejada, new agreement or not. As Schott says, there aren't many teams -- what three or four maybe? -- that can afford an MVP shortstop.

It's a long, slow trip that baseball is taking. If it's moving at all.

"If you would expect that in one year that it's a panacea," Oakland general manager Billy Beane said of the new agreement, "Well, that's unrealistic."

The agreement, in the few months it's been around, has had an effect. The free-agent market was decidedly down this offseason, so much so that many were whispering that the owners were colluding to depress salaries.

According to The New York Times, only four players signed multi-year deals worth at least $8 million a year this offseason. Eight players did so after the 2001 season. And the 2000 offseason was the landmark one that saw Alex Rodriguez sign a record $252 million contract with the Rangers.

That salary downturn is good news for the small-revenue teams.

The increased revenue sharing -- some $225 million is supposed to go from the richer to the poorer teams -- has been credited for the Twins being able to re-sign some of their stars, including All-Star centerfielder Torii Hunter.

Still, if the Yankees can keep doing what they're doing and the A's can't get done what they really need to do -- keep their core intact -- how far has baseball come?

What chance do the Expos have of re-signing Vladimir Guerrero? (Little or none.) Or the A's of signing Eric Chavez next season? (Chavez, it is suggested, is the star the A's will try to keep.) How will the Marlins keep that strong young pitching staff intact? (They won't.)

"The goal," Beane says, "is competitive balance. If there is more competitive balance over the course of this year, I think that will signal that it's a step in the right direction. I'm confident that it will be."

Last summer, commissioner Bud Selig hailed the new deal as "a historical agreement" and said that "baseball is the greatest game in the world, and all of its fans will be the beneficiary of this."

Maybe. Maybe some day.

But right now it sure seems like not a whole lot has changed.

John Donovan is a senior writer for SI.com.

Comments? To e-mail Donovan, click here.

 

Related information

Stories

Previous John Donovan columns

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video