The Futility Infielder

There's a lot of smart writing out there about the current state of the game with regards to the labor situation and the lawsuit against Bud Selig. At the risk of sounding overly didactic, I think every baseball fan who wants to have an argument about the state of the game with regards to money should read these articles:

• Salon's Allen Barra reviews the basics in the current conflict: "What are the issues involved in this year's labor problems? Exactly the same ones that have been involved in every work stoppage since 1972. And every single one of those stoppages was preceded by the owners' making new demands of the players -- demands that would restrict their hard-won right to free agency -- while the players were prepared to accept the status quo."

Barra takes certain writers to task for their pox-on-both-houses rhetoric attitude, a tactic of writers who "prefer to fan the flames of anger and resentment." But he misses an opportunity to draw the connection between media-owned franchises and writers who shill for ownership's interests in their publications. Paging Phil Rogers...

• Over at Baseball Prospecuts, Doug Pappas does his usual stellar job debunking the untruths being spread by Robert DuPuy, president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball in a recent interview with Baseball America. For instance, DuPuy claims that "Just in operations alone, the clubs last year lost over $300 million," which contradicts MLB's "official" figure of $232 million in operating losses, never mind that Forbes Magazine (which knows a wee bit more about money than Bud Selig) estimated that MLB actually made an operating profit of $76.7 million. DuPuy also offers the demonstrably false statement regarding the profitability of the last dozen major league franchise sales ("Of the last dozen sales," says DuPuy, "fewer than half recouped the investment, let alone the investment plus the losses." ; Pappas examines each one and concludes that at worst three were break-even and the rest either solidly or highly profitable. Pappas' work in examining MLB's finances and exposing their inaccuracies is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL reading; one simply can't have a legitimate argument about the financial state of the game without acknowledging it.

• David Pinto, a former researcher for ESPN's Baseball Tonight, has a thoughtful weblog called Baseball Musings. Recently he provoked the ire of a Brewers fan with the following statement:

"This is the team that is making more money than any other franchise. Why didn't Selig (sorry, I mean, 'Wendy') take the profit and give it to Giambi? Here Jason, here's 18 million a year, come play in Miller park and hit 80 HR a year. We'll fill the stands, and maybe win some games. No, Bud has to prove that small market teams can't win in this environment. Meanwhile, the A's, Twins and Expos are showing how you can do it. The Brewers organization is a sham, and they should be the team to go."

In his response to the disgruntled Brewers fan, Pinto discusses the relationship between Selig, the stadium game, attendance, and contraction, and offers several remedies specific to Milwaukee's situation. At the risk of wearing out my welcome to excerpt his work, I'll advise you (especially my Brew Crew readership) to check out his site.

• Back at Baseball Prospectus, in an otherwise meandering column, Joe Sheehan succinctly summarizes one of the most important solutions to baseball's current woes: "Motivated ownership groups. Not revenue sharing, not a luxury tax, not the firing of Bud Selig, not new stadiums, not a work stoppage. Motivated, well-funded ownership groups are what baseball needs. Leeches like Carl Pohlad or the Tribune Company or Disney do nothing for the game. " Amen, brother.

• Finally, Bull Magazine's Craig Calcaterra discusses the impending racketeering lawsuit against Selig and Expos cum Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, which charges that the Commish, DuPuy and Loria conspired to dilute his partners' ownership shares:

"This is no gentlemanly, contractual dispute. To sue someone under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") is to go thermonuclear. And while you probably care just about as much as I do (i.e. not at all) about a bunch of obscenely wealthy Québécois getting deked out of their vanity investment, consider that a RICO suit will almost certainly involve gobs of invasive discovery. If nothing else, Selig's and Loria’s dirty laundry is sure to get a good airing. And if the suit isn't settled relatively quickly (which, given Selig’s demonstrated lack of foresight, it probably won't be), we should finally get the inside skinny on some of the league's more titillating misadventures in ownership."

Calcaterra opines that should a RICO settlement (in which damages are automatically tripled) cost wealthy owners like George Steinbrenner and Rupert Murdoch serious money, it could spell the end of Bud.

Which obviously wouldn't be a bad thing, in many of our opinions.