| Find out more | Log in | ||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - Dec. 20, 2000 | Alex Rodriguez's contract with the Texas Rangers has produced more e-mail than any sports-related event since I started with Salon, and most of them aren't replies to something I've written -- because I've scarcely written about the $252 Million Man yet -- but questions. There's no way for me to answer them individually, so I'll try to do it collectively. Sorry if I had to paraphrase yours beyond recognition. When is it going to stop? If they continue to offer salaries like this, aren't major league teams going to be bankrupted?
To take the first question first, it isn't going to stop, and each time a new player gets a bigger contract people are going to ask that question all over again just as if they hadn't been asking it since Catfish Hunter signed with the Yankees in 1976. Or, to answer it another way, yes, it will stop, when the profits stop. To answer the second, I wouldn't worry too hard about bankruptcy. There's always someone out there willing to pick up a franchise worth at least $200 million. What if it does happen? What if teams start going under? That's Major League Baseball's problem. The game's powers that be are always talking about "the Game" and "the Industry," so let them treat it that way. Let them take steps to see that all of their franchises are financially sound. If they're not going to do that they have no business talking about "the Game" as if all the teams in Major League Baseball are of equal importance. And you know what? Suppose Minnesota or Pittsburgh or Montreal (these being the three I hear mentioned most often in discussions of the sort) do go under? The world won't come to an end. If Major League Baseball doesn't care enough about them to keep them afloat and they lack the resources to compete on a major league level, then maybe they should go under. That's a pretty heartless attitude. Is that kind of thinking really good for the game? Hey, don't talk to me about it. If the owners don't care enough about the so-called small markets to share their revenues and keep them competitive, what do you expect me to do? Besides, who says they can't have baseball there? I mean, what's wrong with Triple A? But is Alex Rodriguez really worth it? I mean, who can really be worth $252 million? That depends on what you mean by "worth." If you mean will he sell enough tickets and beers to pay for his contract, then the answer is no. But the 10-year, $250 million cable deal the Rangers made with Fox probably couldn't have been made if the club wasn't going to get Rodriguez, so you might argue that the Rangers got that money because of him, gave it all to him, and that any tickets he sells are just pure profit for the team. But he can't make the Rangers into winners all by himself, can he? Well, who said he could? What he can do is put more games in the win column for them than any other player in baseball. But you can't win without pitching, can you? Oh, baloney. You win by scoring more runs than the other team. A-Rod will get you about 100 runs more than the guy he replaces at shortstop. What difference does it make if he produces 100 runs or prevents 100 runs? It's still 100 runs scattered over 162 games and should produce the same number of wins. Then you're saying that A-Rod will put them into the World Series or at least in the League Championship Series? I never said that. I do contend he'll produce more victories toward that end than any regular player you can name.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Politics 2000: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Mothers Who Think | News
People | Politics | Sex | Tech & Business and The Free Software Project
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop
Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
Copyright 2005 Salon.com