SI Vault
 
Conspiracy Theory
Tom Verducci
February 10, 2003
Some baseball players are taking a pay cut. Tough times or collusion?
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
February 10, 2003

Conspiracy Theory

Some baseball players are taking a pay cut. Tough times or collusion?

View CoverRead All Articles
Print This PRINT E-mail This EMAIL Most Popular MOST POPULAR SHARE SHARE

Remember the euphoria and goodwill surrounding the baseball labor agreement of six months ago? It didn't last long. The two sides have a long history of distrusting one another, which explains last week's news that the players' association has filed a request with the commissioner's office that teams turn over documents related to negotiations with free agents this winter. It's the union's first step toward a possible grievance charging that owners acted in collusion to keep salaries low.

The union believes that an inordinately large number of players have received below-market contract offers this off-season; it is also responding to feedback from agents who say their clients were tendered suspiciously similar offers from several clubs. If that sounds farfetched, remember that the baseball owners were found guilty of collusion in 1985, 1986 and 1987 and had to pay $280 million in damages to the players.

This time, however, the union's case seems less obvious. Unlike the big freeze of the mid-'80s, when even Andre Dawson and Jack Morris couldn't arouse interest, the owners lately have ponied up some good money to Jim Thome, Tom Glavine, Ray Durham and Mike Remlinger, among others. Ivan Rodriguez, who got a five-year $42 million contract extension in 1997, did settle for less, but he still got a $10 million one-year deal with the Marlins. The union may simply be having a hard time adjusting to baseball's economic reality, brought about by the new luxury tax and the downturn in the U.S. economy. Players have become accustomed to a world in which journeymen pitchers such as Dave Mlicki (who has a career record of 66-80) pull down more money ($6.2 million last year) than the best running back in football, Marshall Faulk ($4.3 million). Imagine: Mlicki won't be able to buy a vowel after being forced to take a one-year, $750,000 deal from Milwaukee.

The owners, so often criticized for profligate spending, are showing the restraint and the smarts to flood the market with mid-level players ( Brad Fullmer, Jose Cruz Jr., John Thomson) by not tendering them contracts. G.M.s finally realized they were paying too many players on the basis of service time rather than performance. Baseball's executive vice president of labor relations, Rob Manfred, called the allegations of collusion "ludicrous." For the union to prove its case, it will need a paper trail. The owners couldn't be that reckless. Could they?

1