(The following is being syndicated from An A-Blog for A-Rod)
There’s been CBA talk out the wazoo lately, and with good reason. The new agreement between Major League Baseball and the players will lead to over 2 decades of continuous labor peace for baseball, which is great news if you’re a Yankee fan or a baseball fan in general. And generally I agree with all that’s already been said in analyzing the new agreement. I agree that today’s players and owners made a sweet deal for themselves while overlooking future players; I agree that the new rules on draft slotting and limits put on international free agent spending are a blow to the Yankees; I agree that the new luxury tax rules that will come work to the Yankees’ advantage. All of my colleagues at TYA have already done a fantastic job at breaking down the good and bad in this new deal, and I agree with their points so there’s no sense in re-hashing any of that here.
My biggest problem with the new CBA, and the whole labor negotiation process in sports as it’s been a big part of the recent NFL and NBA news, is the constant talk about “competitive balance” and the strive for parity amongst the teams that has become the new goal in baseball. In my opinion, that goes against everything that sports is supposed to be about and what life is supposed to be about. In professional baseball, the goal is to win. You get more hits, you score more runs, you make more good pitches and good plays in the field, you win the game. You win more games, you make the playoffs. You win in the playoffs and get a championship. It’s similar in life. You use your talents and skill sets to the best of your ability to make a more successful life for yourself, whether it’s a better job, more money, a nice house, a family, whatever.
Some people are bigger than others, faster than others, smarter than others, prettier than others, work harder than others, and some people come from backgrounds and family situations that give them greater opportunity to be successful in life. And in the world there are a bunch of winners and a bunch of losers. It’s harsh, but it’s reality. Baseball is no different. Some teams have better players, better coaches, better scouts, better facilities, and more money and resources to help maximize the opportunity for success for their players as individuals and their organization as a whole. And this constant drive for parity, evening things out so the loser teams can catch up to the winner teams, is flat out unfair to those winner teams.
It’s not the Yankees’ fault that they have better players on their roster and more money than everybody else to spend on better players, be they high school or college draft picks, international free agents, or high-profile MLB free agents. It’s not their fault that the Pirates don’t have that much money to spend, or that the Orioles can’t develop any of their high draft picks to become “great” players, or that nobody wanted to go watch the Marlins in their crappy old stadium. And the Yankees shouldn’t be treated like it is. They already contribute their chunk to revenue sharing every season and to the luxury tax. It’s the price they have to pay as a winner and they accept it. But to continue to have their advantages taken away from them and to continue to have to pay more prices in ways that limit their strengths in an attempt to try to turn everybody into a winner is wrong. Whether the new rules help achieve that goal or not is irrelevant. It’s the fact that the losers are being given opportunities to be a winner that they didn’t earn at the expense of teams, like the Yankees, who have already earned their winner statuses.
And I know people out there think that it’s the right thing to do and it’s good for the game and it keeps people interested, but to me that’s all BS. Since the early days of baseball there have been good teams and bad teams. There have been winners and losers, record-setting ones in fact, and it has never damaged the game. The game has grown over time and continues to grow today, and no amount of winning by one team or losing by another has changed that or will change that. Almost every single game that’s ever been played in Major League history has had a winner and loser. That’s how they score it in the standings, “W-L.” Nowhere in there is there something for “Almosts” or “Close Games.” So if we’re going to continue to use that as the measuring stick on the field, why does winning and losing have to be eliminated off the field?
Parity and competitive balance make that game better? Hell no, they make it boring. I don’t want to see a bunch of perfectly even matched teams play to 3-3 extra-inning ties every game. I don’t want to see teams barely over .500 participating in the playoffs. I don’t want guys winning batting titles hitting .280 because there aren’t any crummy pitching staffs out there any more to feast on. I want to see facing some overmatched slob called up from Triple-A so he can take him deep. I want to see a sparkling 20-year-old rookie out of the DR come up and shut a team down with a 100-MPH heater in the postseason because the better big market team had the money to spend on him when he was 16 and did. I want to see somebody hit .400 again because he’s been working with his dad and professional hitting instructors in a cage at his house since he was 7, and he was such a beast coming into the draft that only a big market team with a great hitting coach could sign him.
Speaking of playoffs, I also hate the additional Wild Card team. Hate it. For the same reason that I hate parity, it’s soft and weak and lowers the bar to reward mediocrity instead of rewarding the best. If this is how it’s going to be, then why not agree in the next CBA to have “win sharing?” Teams that lose too many games can get a portion of the Yankees’ and Phillies’ and Rangers’ wins at the end of the year. How’s that sound? And a predetermined number of wins to qualify for the playoffs can be established each season based off last year’s win sharing average so that 24 teams can all make the postseason and the poor teams that don’t can still get a participation trophy and a pizza party courtesy of MLB.
Is this a bit over the top and Carlin-esque in its black-and-whiteness? Sure. Is my opinion jaded because I’m a Yankee fan? Absolutely. But I still can’t, don’t, and won’t support the idea that parity is good for baseball and good for sports because it’s not. Parity waters down the talent pool, rewards the weak, and cuts the strong down at the knees. You win World Series championships, you don’t competitively balance them. This is Major League Baseball, not the Little League World Series. If other teams can’t figure out how to become winners, that’s their problem. And if MLB wants to help them, great. But that shouldn’t come at the expense of other teams that already are winners. Doing that takes the true essence of competition right out of the sport, and THAT is what would ultimately drive fans away.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
sports·man·ship (spôrtsmn-shp, sprts-)
n.
1. The fact or practice of participating in sports or a sport.
2. Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.
Pay particular attention to the ‘fair play’ reference and stop whining.
Hahaha why don’t you just go back to http://www.draysbay.com or something. The only one whining is you, on every single topic about the CBA.
I’ve seen fans from every team in baseball griping about one aspect or another in the CBA, that’s just the facts. Stop trying to act like anyone is “whining”.
Obviously you can’t read
December 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm
sports·man·ship (spôrtsmn-shp, sprts-)
n.
1. The fact or practice of participating in sports or a sport.
2. Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.
Try a reference to the courtesy point.
Actually I’ve only heard Yankee fans whining about the new CBA. If the Drays thing has legs please feel free to post them. Otherwise explain why these points from the article are not whining:
I agree that the new rules on draft slotting and limits put on international free agent spending are a blow to the Yankees
It’s not the Yankees’ fault that they have better players on their roster and more money than everybody else to spend on better players, be they high school or college draft picks, international free agents, or high-profile MLB free agents. It’s not their fault that the Pirates don’t have that much money to spend, or that the Orioles can’t develop any of their high draft picks to become “great” players, or that nobody wanted to go watch the Marlins in their crappy old stadium. And the Yankees shouldn’t be treated like it is. They already contribute their chunk to revenue sharing every season and to the luxury tax. It’s the price they have to pay as a winner and they accept it. But to continue to have their advantages taken away from them and to continue to have to pay more prices in ways that limit their strengths in an attempt to try to turn everybody into a winner is wrong. Whether the new rules help achieve that goal or not is irrelevant. It’s the fact that the losers are being given opportunities to be a winner that they didn’t earn at the expense of teams, like the Yankees, who have already earned their winner statuses.
Parity and competitive balance make that game better? Hell no, they make it boring. I don’t want to see a bunch of perfectly even matched teams play to 3-3 extra-inning ties every game. I don’t want to see teams barely over .500 participating in the playoffs. I don’t want guys winning batting titles hitting .280 because there aren’t any crummy pitching staffs out there any more to feast on. I want to see Robinson Cano facing some overmatched slob called up from Triple-A so he can take him deep. I want to see a sparkling 20-year-old rookie out of the DR come up and shut a team down with a 100-MPH heater in the postseason because the better big market team had the money to spend on him when he was 16
Speaking of playoffs, I also hate the additional Wild Card team. Hate it. For the same reason that I hate parity, it’s soft and weak and lowers the bar to reward mediocrity instead of rewarding the best.
Is my opinion jaded because I’m a Yankee fan? Absolutely. But I still can’t, don’t, and won’t support the idea that parity is good for baseball and good for sports because it’s not.
Gonna need alot of cheese with all that whine.
This line of thought is right on the mark. With all of the extra advantages that bad organizations like the Pirates and Royals and Mariners and Orioles get by way of revenue sharing and prime draft picks, why are the better teams forced to go the further mile and forgo their own strengths? Why doesn’t MLB take a hard look at some of these loser organizations and require them to meet certain achievement standards? That would work for parity but with a view to making the poor organizations better instead of making the stronger teams weak. The emphasis by MLB is to take away from the successful organizations simply because they are successful in order that the losers get some sort of benefit that they do not deserve.
As for the expanded playoffs, I don’t mind that so much but what I would like to see is the winner of the wild card play-in game sit and wait until the remaining teams in each league play best four of seven series in each round, then play those hot teams in a best three of five to get to the World Series. I know that this would push the calendar even further into November but it also gives the advantage to teams who have proven themselves over the course of the regular season to be the better teams. If the cold Wild Card team can beat the hot division winner, more power to them. I like this format because it honors the work of the full regular season instead of breathing life into a team that is gasping at the finish line.
You’re essentially giving a bye to wild card teams. I get the idea of cold vs. hot but that could change at any moment so you’re assumption is wrong. Also, would you really think its fair that division winning teams have their season end before the wild card teams when the wild card teams haven’t even faced a division winning team?
Whatever other problems exist in your playoff proposal, playing games in November is what will get your idea nixed. Not gonna happen.
Captain- you seem to be setting up a straw man argument when you are demonizing parity- no one is talking about “perfectly evenly matched teams”, in fact, the “better coaches, better scouts, better facilities” and most importantly better front office people matter more in the new CBA as they give you the ability to find or develop undervalued resources and create an advantage that is not simply tied to highest revenue streams. You seem to think that Rich/Biggest Market = Winner; just because I’m a Yankee fan doesn’t mean I believe in that equation..
Pastor Carl- by definition anything that helps the weaker teams hurts the stronger teams, as there are a fixed number of games and therefore wins to be split up.
Don’t hold back – tell us what you really think! Just kidding :-)
I’m sympathetic to your point about there being natural imbalances in organizations’ abilities in identifying, acquiring and nurturing talent and that it’s futile to try to eliminate them with things like the silly “competitive balance draft” in the new CBA.
However, the Yankees’ real advantage is their territory – the largest metro area in the nation (half again as large as the second largest – LA – and twice as large as number 3 – Chicago). Yes they have to share it with the Mets but how big a drag is that on the Bombers? Also LA arguably has to share their territory with the LA Angels of Anaheim (or is it the other way around?) and Chicago is also a two-team city.
Better talent in terms of players, front-office personnel and fanatical owners obsessed with winning (nah, we never had one of those) tend to gravitate towards the Yankees because of their prominence, history and financial resources all of which are intertwined with their prime location.
Yes, there have been fallow periods where the Yankees have been ineptly managed and did not use what they had going for them to their best advantage. Those days ended with advent of the mega cable TV contracts culminating in the introduction of club-owned YES network and now augmented by the cash cow of the new Yankee Stadium.
Marvin Miller has pointed out on numerous occasions that the most direct way to counter the Yankee’s advantage is to put more teams in their metro area. Of course, under the current MLB bylaws this could never happen and there are other practical barriers. Besides, the idea is not to carve up the NY territory so that no team has a bigger share than the size of the Kansas City or Pittsburgh territories. The idea is to reduce, to some extent, the natural advantage the Yankees have due to their territory.
You’re correct to point out that it’s not the fault of the Yankees that other organizations are managed poorly or operated strictly to make a profit (like the Pirates) or minimize losses rather than to win at all costs. By the same token, it’s not the fault of those organizations that they’re not located in New York City and never had Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, Yogi Berra and Derek Jeter play for them (well OK, you can blame the teams that drafted in front of the Yankees in 1992 and didn’t select Jeter).
I don’t know if revenue sharing or luxury taxes are the best way to provide some kind of revenue equalization. Maybe there should be some kind of “bad owner” rule where guys that are running their teams into the ground (like Peter Angelos) or aren’t making an effort (like the Pirates and Royals were doing – or not doing – for a while) could be forced to sell. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
“It’s harsh but it’s reality” because we let it be reality. Skipping baseball for the moment, and moving to society in general, we have made an irrational ideal out of the winning and losing thing. We ought to judge our systems of belief by the results they achieve, not the results by the system that gets used. And I think there are better results out there than are achieved by blind acceptance of “it’s harsh but it’s reality.”
Getting back to baseball, it’s hard to say what the results would be of letting teams use their resources without check. For 50 years it worked–the leagues survived. Some teams made money, others got sold and resold, a few became perennial basement dwellers, and no team moved out of its home city. Then the system broke down. Since then. losing teams move, which creates resentment. Baseball has become more popular and richer than Branch Rickey could have imagined, with much more government support and thus community ties. It’s hard to say what would happen if baseball abandoned its drive for parity.