The 'Business' of Baseball

One of the quotes that have become increasingly common from players switching teams goes something like this: "It's a business. I accept/understand that." In general, there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, Major League Baseball is a business; that is indeed true. But there is something in this quote that bothers me every time I see it. This line always seems to be presented as if the player is resigning himself to that truth, and not simply proclaiming it to be the current state of affairs. It's as if this is some sad truth that one needs to come to terms with after much soul searching (many of us accept/understand our own mortality). Granted, this may be coming from media presentation as much as the players themselves, but it is still a common undertone to the quote. There are two reasons that bother me, one is superficial, the other is a bit deeper. Let's start with the superficial.

When looked at this way, this line comes off as a dig against ownership. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. If players and ownership ever really get along, it will be a sure sign that one (or both) group(s) has collectively gotten very stupid and they are being screwed behind their backs. What I don't like about this is that players are probably more responsible for the salary problems that force many teams to unload popular players that they can't afford. If the MLBPA were not so militant and salaries were lower, perhaps Pedro and Johnny would still be on the Sox, perhaps Giambi would still be on the A's and Areu the Phils. So, really, its an issue of their own making.

Again, I don't think this is really a bad thing. The players are the draw, they are the product. They deserve their share. The money is there no matter what, so I'd rather see the players get their fair cut. Don't worry about the owners, they will do just fine no matter how much A-Rod is making. The reason I bring it up is that players seem unwilling to accept their own role in creating the economic system in which they work. They have not been thrown from a vacuum into the current landscape of Major League Baseball. They (or at least many of their colleagues) have played a major role in actively shaping it. So to say anything like "I have accepted it, time to move one . . ." is like humanity in general saying "well, we have accepted global warming, time to move on and live with it." Accepting the situation does nothing. If you have power over the situation (which the players do) and you have a problem with it, then do something about it. Otherwise, you are just passing the buck and complaining.

As for my deeper concern, it is this: most of the time players use this line it is largely irrelevant. The team has not traded/let a player go because they are a business, they did it because they are a baseball team. To illustrate this, I am going to pick on Kevin Millar. Now, his role on the 2004 Sox was undeniable. He was an important part of that team. But the Sox did not let him go because they are a money hungry business. They let him go because he is not a very good first baseman. He was not even the best first baseman on the team in 2005. He did not see it that way, though, and made a whole stink about loyalty and so forth . . . "it's a business."

Well yes, Kevin, it's a business, but more importantly it's a baseball team. If it were a gentlemans club, you could hang out with your good-time buddies (like Johnny Damon) all day, drink Jack Daniels, and not play baseball/play bad baseball. But it's not a club. It's not a bunch of guys put together to have fun; it's a bunch of guys put together to win baseball games. And in a competative market and division like Boston in the east, a baseball team simply cannot afford to have a starting first baseman like Kevin Millar. When a child gets cut from a high school team, they may have many reasons to complain and quite likely they will try all of them out at some point. However, you will not hear "it's a business," because it's not. It's a high school baseball team. This is the same thing. Both organizations are just trying to field the best team they can.

Further, it seems that the presentation of the FO as a business is intended to contrast with the baseball team. Again, I think this is a mischaracterization. An MLB team is necessarily both. They come part and parcel, and it is difficult to separate them.

The fact that MLB teams are also businesses admittedly cannot be completely ignored. Many players are let go, despite being good players, over contract issues. Here, we can turn to Pedro and Johnny Damon as examples (gee, I wonder if Theo is the Sox fan on the blog). Certainly Damon was the best center fielder on the market. He was not let go because he wasn't good enough. He was let go because in 4 years he may well not be good enough (or not the best option, anyway). This risk was not worth the long term commitment of making him the center fielder for 4 years. That is, there were better ways to fill that position. It doesn't make sense to tell someone, "OK, you can be our center fielder beyond your prime because you are good now." This is not a business issue, but a baseball issue. In four years this team will likely be better with someone else out there. If you are confident you can find that someone, then go do it.

There is also the possibility of reinvestment of the money demanded. Certainly this is a money issue, but still I think the money is not as central to the issue as many seem to think. The team line is roughly this: "we could have spent this $5/10/15 million on this one player, or on several players who would have filled more holes and made the team better all around." Sure. The anti-'business' objection is that, well, why not spend the money on all of them. However, reallocating the money does not preclude spending more. Even if you have $400 million, you should still get the most out of every $10 million you can for the good of the team. It's not necessarily an issue of spendthrift as it is allocation of resources. You can only have a certain number of players and you only have a certain number of ways to get them. That is a fact for every baseball team, not just MLB.

Now, I know it looks like I have an ax to grind on these former Sox who left the team with varying levels of animosity. But I assure you, it is not just that. These are simply convenient examples from the top of my head. Evey time I hear a player say someting like "it's a business," I roll my eyes and stop paying attention. Certainly, there are some poorly run organizations and some poorly exected deals by good organizations where this may be the case. It may well be that several moves are made purely as business decisions (another example is teams stocking young players to drive value up in anticipation of a sale of the team). But, in general I think it is foolish to view on field decisions as purely those of a business.

I am not intending to come down squarely on the side of owners. I just dislike this paticular characterization of the way teams do business. The 'business of baseball' line has become a go-to sound bite for players switching teams, and is thus often used when it really doesn't apply. Yes, it's a business. But more importantly, it is a baseball team. There is nothing wrong with it being both, the players just need to recognize this.