Collect Call From Mr. Selig..............

[Skipper Steve]

Neyer's column was so cool today that I had to direct ya'll to it - - imagine Bud calling him to bitch.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/42798.html

Friday, December 14
Questions for Selig
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com

You know, it's not often that the Commissioner of Major League Baseball calls you on the telephone. In fact, it happened to me Tuesday afternoon for the very first time.

"Hi, this is Rob. Leave me a message and I'll call you back."

"Rob, this is Commissioner Selig calling. It's five o'clock, 5:07 in Milwaukee on Tuesday, December 11. I'd like to talk to you, and my number is ... So whenever it's convenient, please give me a buzz. Thank you very much. Bye."

It's intimidating to hear from the Commissioner. I mean, think of Bud Selig what you will, but he is, by definition, a historic figure. Selig is just the ninth commissioner, and has been running the show for nearly a decade; three other commissioners have served at least six years, and all three are in the Hall of Fame.

So when I did talk to Selig, I wanted to be prepared. I studied everything I could find about baseball's finances, and I came up with a list of questions for Selig. I also worried about Selig's attitude toward me; after all, beginning in October 1998, I've criticized the guy virtually every chance I've had. I've done this for two reasons. One, I honestly believe, as a baseball fan, that Selig is not serving the game well. And two, it's both fun for me and, I hope, entertaining for you. But I certainly wouldn't expect Selig to treat me as a friend, given what I've written over the years.

And when we finally did speak, it quickly became clear that Rob Neyer isn't Bud Selig's very favoritest baseball writer. He had a print-out of Monday's column, and for the great majority of our 30-minute conversation, he went through said column virtually line by line, quibbling with specifics and expressing disgust with my conclusion that he had been something less than forthcoming in his testimony in Washington last week.

I think what really made Selig mad was my concluding paragraph ...

And I think that the men who run Major League Baseball will, just has they have been doing for the last 30 years, continue to behave stupidly and dishonestly in their dealings with their employees and their customers. Frankly, they just can't seem to help themselves.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I have to stand by that comment. If the owners had behaved intelligently, they certainly wouldn't be in the mess that they're in (or that they claim to be in). We know they've behaved dishonestly; remember collusion? To this day, owners constantly claim that building a new, taxpayer-financed ballpark will result in a long-term financial windfall for its host city, even though every economist who studies the issue will say it's simply not true.

Anyway, when the Commissioner finished rapping my knuckles, he coincidentally had to take another phone call, which left me with my list of questions but no answers for them. I did try to reach him this afternoon, without success. But in case Commissioner Selig is reading and wants to get back to me, those questions are presented here; he can answer them at his leisure, but specifics would be appreciated rather than the generalities we're used to.

Neyer: Most, and perhaps all, individual owners -- as opposed to media conglomerates like the Tribune Company and Disney -- buy baseball teams not because they're looking to make money, but because they're baseball fans, so one might argue that the joy of owning a team should be payment enough, especially considering that the great majority of the owners are quite wealthy outside of baseball. With that mind, I won't ask for specifics, but can you tell me how much money baseball's owners paid themselves in salary last season, across the industry?

Neyer: On the other hand, a lot of profit-driven media conglomerates are buying baseball teams. If it's such a lousy business, why are these conglomerates in the business?

Neyer: Looking at the local TV, radio and cable revenues that were released last week, we find that the Chicago Cubs earned $6.5 million less than the Chicago White Sox. Given the Cubs' national exposure on WGN, along with their greater popularity in Illinois, how is the Sox's advantage possible? I do know that superstation revenue is taxed by MLB, but can that tax really account for this discrepancy?

Neyer: By all accounts, MLB and the Players Association were engaged in serious negotiations last summer. Donald Fehr claims that the Players Association made a significant proposal, one that included additional revenue sharing, in late June, but that instead of responding you broke off negotiations and haven't yet responded. Why the (supposedly) sudden end to negotiations in June, with the Collective Bargaining Agreement set to expire in just a few months?

Neyer: In your testimony last week, you suggested that there is no legal impediment to relocating a club to Washington, D.C. or northern Virginia. Are you saying that Major League Baseball is not worried about the reaction of Peter Angelos, if such a relocation were proposed? And if MLB isn't worried about Angelos, then why isn't a team moved to Washington, when so many studies suggest that it's probably the best market for a new (or old) franchise?

Neyer: On November 6, you announced two things. First, you announced that the owners had overwhelmingly voted to contract two teams. And two, you guaranteed that there would not be a lockout in 2002. Now it appears that contraction certainly won't occur in 2002, if ever. But are you standing by your guarantee that the owners will not lock out the players next season?

Neyer: One last question ... Albert Einstein once said, "You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it." Given that you were Acting Commissioner in 1994, and that in fact you've been involved with ownership for more than 30 years, might not one reasonably argue that you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution? That what baseball needs is new leadership rather than old?

You know what's funny about this whole thing? When it comes to the players and the owners, I'm squarely in the middle. I believe that a number of owners really are losing money (some of them a lot of money), I believe that a salary cap would be a good thing, I believe that competitive balance really is a serious issue, I believe that the players really are sandbagging on revenue sharing, and I believe that the Players Association is run by a bunch of greedy men who care for almost nothing but their wallets.

So it's odd to find myself quoted at the Players Association's web site, and credited with "insightful reporting" and doing "a strong job of breaking down Commissioner Bud Selig's testimony ..."

Which makes me doubt, at least a bit, my own "insights." Bud Selig is one of the minds that created the problem, but so is Donald Fehr. If anyone associated with the Players Association considers me a fan, they should think again. Fehr is no better-equipped to solve the problem than Selig is; if the owners and the players really want a healthy industry, they should get rid of the guys at the top.

[sweaver]

Good stuff, no doubt. Rob usually is. And I find Selig's behavior unsurprising. I would have appreciated Rob giving us info on the Commish's statements, but it is possible they were made "off the record." Also not a surprise. Still, Rob is right, and I am glad the game can overcome all the nincompoops involved in it. Still, if only someone intelligent could get into position to do something, and actually build interest in this wonderful game instead of stifling it.

Just imagine if the Commish ever got wind of THIS site. whooo!

[Skipper Steve]

OK, I can't keep the secret any more - - - BuzzBuzzard is really Bud.

[CubFan7125]

The part of Neyer's column I particularly liked was where he basically told the MLBPA to get off of his side, that they were as much as fault as Selig in this whole mess.

I have read quite a few columns recently that have taken good shots at the union or "Bud & His Boys" but Neyer is the 1st one I have seen that squarely puts the blame on both.

[Duque]

Originally posted by Skipper Steve
OK, I can't keep the secret any more - - - BuzzBuzzard is really Bud.

Buzz can at least put a cogent thought together, which is much more than we can say for Bud.

Tim Keown had a piece on him last week calling him "Existentialist Bud" after some of his more...vague...answers before the Judiciary Committee.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Duque
Buzz can at least put a cogent thought together, which is much more than we can say for Bud.

All you Andys stick together.

[sweaver]

Wait a minute......Steve, how many identities do you have on this site?

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by sweaver
Wait a minute......Steve, how many identities do you have on this site?

To quote the Talking Heads:

I've changed my hairstyle, so many times now, I don't know what I look like.....................