MLB players shouldn’t allow salary squeeze
Desire to see games can be pushed aside if owners insist on financial hardball
We can live without baseball. Food and water? Not so much. One would think it unnecessary to make said point. One would be wrong.
Thus, the relative panic — mostly in the form of childish anger — that has set in for some as they imagine a year without the grand old game is not just disappointing. It is sad.
Have you talked to a pitmaster? There is a national beef shortage. That is serious business. Worthy of panic.
I will not protest the government’s getting involved in the opening of exercise gyms, beauty salons or clothing-optional establishments.
But organize a demonstration demanding bureaucratic protection of brisket and the masterminds who best prepare it?
I’m there with “no sauce needed” bells on.
You are not going to get me riled up with the debate between the Major League Baseball owners and the league’s players on how to split monies if and when they start the 2020 season.
It’s not that deep.
I am rooting for the return of sports. ASAP.
Not only would I prefer that this column be about Justin Verlander’s brilliance, Jose Altuve’s excellence, or Dusty Baker’s genius, I truly need to be writing such a column very soon.
As is the case with barbers if everyone went bald, car salesman if we all started walking and bartenders if the entire world went on the wagon, a sports columnist’s value would be virtually nil if there were no sports.
That said, I will not undervalue athletes’ contribution to my entertainment and livelihood for the sheer sake of said entertainment and livelihood.
They are well paid, but they don’t owe me.
It is amazing that Nationals pitcher Sean Doolittle has received backlash for expressing a
reasonable trepidation about returning to play a sport when there exists the potential for becoming infected with a lifethreatening disease.
Whether players are reluctant to return to the field out of health concerns or a desire to be paid what they believe they are worth in a shortened season, I won’t side against them.
Verlander made $140 million in base pay over the last five years. Unless he hosts bonfires and cranks up the pit with cash money and lighter fluid, he should be able to withstand a salary-free season.
But who am I to ask him to be a volunteer pitcher instead of a paid one just so I could watch some games?
If a financial hit must be suffered, I’d lay that on the owners. Owners’ crying about financial woes in this situation draws little sympathy from this corner.
While there haven’t been any truly horrible ones in recent years, Jim Crane is the best owner of a local sports franchise.
The Astros owner is straightforward and direct, smart enough to know what it takes to win, and competitive enough to make that happen.
I have little doubt Crane wants the Astros to win the 2020 World Series in the worst way. He is driven to see his team succeed, such that defeat is painful.
If baseball and winning means as much to him as all that, he should accept losses (or less in profit) for the season.
Easy for me to say. It isn’t my money riding on whatever deal the owners and players work out.
And that is the key.
MLB owners and players will work to some agreement as to how to handle their business during the novel coronavirus pandemic.
The players aren’t interested in a revenue-sharing plan because, generally speaking, salary caps limit salaries.
Players wouldn’t put in any less work if some games are played in fan-free stadiums. Their desire to receive a prorated sum based on the number of games played, which MLB owners agreed to when the season was paused, is reasonable.
Whatever owners lose this season they will get out of your pockets down the road.
Whatever they save by taking it out of the players’ pockets will not come back to the fans. It would be a pocket-to-pocket exchange, players to owners.
I want them to figure it out.
We don’t need sports. We don’t need baseball. We just want them.
You can’t always get what you want. I don’t want it at all it if is at the players’ expense.