Baseball Getting the Business End

A Visit to the Mound

Baseball fans over-analyzing an over-analyzed game

If you kids don't get your sh*t together I'm replacing all of you

A Visit to the Mound is regularly updated series of emails touching on a wide range of baseball subjects. 

Uncle Bones

Since we seem to be trending towards the business side of things here a bit check out this link to Forbes valuations of all the MLB franchises:

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

Granted, this is only a snapshot of an organization's financial health, but I'm still curious if any of these numbers jump off the page at you. (Beyond the $ values which are largely hypothetical)

Pay particular attention to the teams who are operating in the red this season. A few of them are floating right around breaking even, but a some others like the Phillies, Tigers & Blue Jays are operating at major losses.

Does MLB owe it to its consumers to ensure that these franchises have a long term plan to get in the black? Or is it really OK for an owner or ownership group to throw money around like they're Rick Ross at a strip club until they're like MC Hammer at the soup kitchen?

Josh

I feel like you were lofting a Detroit poverty joke over the plate for me, but I am going to Joey Votto that one and let it go by, hoping to earn the walk.  

I always find the idea of "owing" consumers interesting. What DOES a team owe it's fans in general?  Going back to the tanking debate, some might say that the team owes it's fans the best product they can put on the field night in and night out. OR does the team owe them long term sustainability, which is what tanking is working toward?  I tend to agree with the latter.  Earlier in the year Buster Olney pointed out that Joe Girardi hit Jeter second in the lineup due to "organizational pressures."  In that case, did the team owe it's fans the best line up possible, or did it owe them the ability to watch a legend go out on his own terms?  The line is murky at best, totally open ended at worst.   

That wasn't a filibuster, but more of an establishment of how debatable the idea of "owing" your fans something is.  I do believe in owing them long term sustainability.  I live in Buffalo, and until Terry Pegula fracked his way into our hearts, we lived with a constant dread of the Buffalo Bills moving. Once the Bills started playing games in Toronto, the dread went from minor anxiety to full blown freakout.  Much like the "presence" in the current horror hit It Follows, the fear was ongoing, ever present and impossible to shake. When the Pegula deal was announced, grown men called into the local radio station crying tears of joy. So does a team owe it's fans peace of mind?  Ideally yes, but this idea is better in theory than in practice.  Just ask San Diego Chargers and St Louis Rams fans how they feel right now.  

In regards to the financial numbers, if anything I took away that baseball is in the age of parity.  Look at the Royals and Athletics, two contenders last year operating with low payroll and showing financial health.  The Mets, Phillies and Yankees appear in the top 10 franchises, further proof that money buys you a chance but guarantees you nothing in baseball. Parity rewards fans. The NFL probably likes the Pats and Seahawks playing in the super bowl, but poll casual fans outside of those two fan bases and I'd wager you hear about how they're tired of seeing those teams in the finals. Who WASN'T excited watching the Royals last year, you know? 

Uncle Bones

Being a Bills fan the last 10 years was sort of like having a loved one being diagnosed with a terminal illness. We felt like it was just a matter of time before they were gone, but we really didn't know when or how exactly we would deal with it. Then suddenly a pop-up billionaire swooped in with the miracle cure and here we are. Personally, I had already started the "moving on" process only to be sucked right back in. I'm still not sure how I feel about it given my other apprehensions surrounding the NFL, but I'm fairly sure I'll be tuned in come September.

I like to pretend that I can disassociate the emotion of being a fan with the business realities of professional sports, but it's not quite that simple. I think what surprised me the most about that list was the total valuation of all the MLB teams combined that fell somewhere around $36 billion give or take. Theoretically, should MLB be posted for public trading it would fetch around that number for an IPO, but I suspect it might creep up a little higher than that.

That's seems like a lot of money and it is, but it still less that half of what Facebook was offered for. That's crazy to me. MLB has an over 100 year history and has been an American establishment as long as any who is alive can remember. Facebook has been on the planet for the third of the time that you and I have been and I can't even hold it in my hand. I've never attended a Facebook, its not on TV, it only exists on the Internet and something tells me that in 40 years we won't be talking about the comment that Parker liked that Madison made about the picture Lily posted of her cat's birthday cake in the same way we still talk about 1975 World Series.

So yeah, baseball is a business and it's a big one, but there are bigger ones out there. I was also surprised to see that some teams didn't make money last year. I know that there are debt issues attached to that math, but what it reminds me is that you don't buy a sports team to necessary make money. Its kinda like the ultimate rich guy status symbol. You know you're rich when you own a team and so does everyone else.

That also says to me that if you cared enough to buy a sports team then you are probably a fan yourself. And as a fan you would want the team that you own to win as much as possible. I wouldn't want to own a loser. Some people might be fine with it, but it would piss me right off.

Keep that in mind when I own (sponsor) a slew of Little League teams. You'll just hear in the news that "Local man ejected from LL game again", but truth will be that I was just doing everything in my power to urge those little tykes to victory. Oh and also to grow my brand.

Pete Rose For Dummies

'There's only one pinch hitter who can win this game and his name is Pete Rose'

If you've been around long enough to remember Pete Rose as an actual baseball player you probably have fond memories of him. If not, I better not hear a peep about 'playing the game the right way' because in researching this piece it sure sounds like Pete Rose went out and played the game the 'right way' every damn day. You don't record 4,256 base hits by lolly-gagging it down the line. You don't make the All Star team at 5 different positions if you're not a team first guy. And you don't plow through a catcher in an All Star game if you don't care about winning more than anything else. If that's not 'playing the game the right way', then I don't know what the definition is.

But if you're not someone who remembers baseball from the 60's and 70's then Pete Rose is something more like a cartoon character. He's sort of like the Michael Jackson of baseball. While Rose was doing his thing he was great, one of the all time greats, but people's opinion of him changed after certain things came to light. To be clear, I am not comparing the alleged crimes of either man to the other, only how are perceptions of these men have changed. Michael was never the same musician and Rose was never officially a baseball man again, but both persisted in the peripheral, periodically grabbing our attention in passing.

However, while Michael's existence lent itself to a short lifespan, Rose has mad the absolute best of the hand he's been dealt. He's largely gone the Donald Trump route by using his heyday exploits combined with savvy marketing to continue to make a living off his image. According to Wikipedia, Rose is able to pull in close to $1 Million a year for just being Pete Rose. For that I give him a lot of credit, but then again you don't earn the nickname 'Charlie Hustle' because you sit around on your ass all day.

Now, I'm not here to excuse away what Pete Rose did. He bet on baseball while he was an active player and manager and the sport has always had a sore spot for that. It's probably because baseball is such a precise sport dependent on so many single moments, controllable by individuals that even the smallest hint of maleficence for profit feels like such a betrayal. There have been very clear rules in place in baseball regarding gambling for a very long time and Pete Rose broke them. Whether or not you agree that the punishment fits the crime, the rules were on the books and Rose himself agreed to the banishment.

Bud Selig seemingly had no interest in entertaining the idea of a baseball world with Pete Rose as a card carrying member. I get where he's coming from. During Selig's tenure baseball went corporate. Once a sport in decline Selig shepherded an era with unprecedented revenue and player salary growth combined with a 20 year period without any labor disruptions. Guys with Rose's reputation would have been bad for business. The thing is though, Selig wasn't exactly playing on the level either. PED use was rampant during his time as commissioner and he did nothing to stop it until after all the new stadiums were built and public pressure finally made it a priority. Once again, I don't necessarily blame Selig fom handling the situation that way. There's a fine line between integrity and opportunity, and when you're playing a game for a living opportunity weighs. 

New commissioner Rob Manfred recognizes the position MLB is in now regarding Rose, PED's and the future of the game. We've already seen his openness to do something about the pace of play, at least discuss the affects of defensive positioning and shifts and he let Will Farrell fly by helicopter to different Spring Training games in a charity stunt that was far more interesting that last summer's 'look at me fest' Ice Bucket Challenge. Manfred has a clear idea of where things are going, what the sport needs and how baseball's position regarding Rose has changed at the conclusion of the PED era.

Baseball can no longer sit back an claim that Rose has no place in the sport because he's a gambling addict. Yes what Rose did was bad for the game, but on a whole his contribution to the game has been an unequivocal positive. Just like with PED's. Does it send the wrong message to the children? Sure. Did it prolong the careers of otherwise great players? Probably. Did it elevate some meh players to the spotlight? Maybe. Did it drive ticket sales, merchandise sales, advertising sales, TV contracts? Yep. Because at the end of the day teams win, but stars sell. Just ask Brian Wilson or Pablo Sandoval.

Probably the funniest thing that I heard during my podcast research for Fantasy Baseball season this year was the claim that if Pete Rose was reinstated he would just start gambling on baseball again. I get that these guys look at baseball in a different way, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. Pete Rose could be betting on baseball right now and maybe he is. Its not like if he got reinstated tomorrow that teams would be lining up to hire him as a manager, GM, team liaison, or beer guy. It ain't gonna happen. The Reds might have a welcome back ceremony or Phillies might do something because it would be the most entertaining baseball story in Philly this season, but Rose's days as a paid baseball employee are over.

Funny thing is that reinstating Rose might actually be the worst thing for him financially. Right now he is able to make a good living on being the outcast. The best player who ever played who cannot get into the Hall of Fame. He goes to Cooperstown every year and signs autographs. He makes commercials. Hell, he's in the WWE Hall of Fame. He'd probably get an initial bump for a year or two after he was reinstated and maybe another when he gets in the HOF, but after that nothing. His whole appeal would be gone. Then he'd just be another face the on the autograph tour. He'd lose his sports villain status. Bonds and Clemens could try to claim it, but why. They made so much money that they can do what they want now. Rose didn't play in that era. He may need to keep working his image as long as he can.

So Rob Manfred has an interesting choice to make. He could leave things the way they are. Rose broke an established rule and agreed to the punishment, Manfred doesn't have to do anything. But doing nothing leaves baseball in the position of looking like a hypocrite for punishing one type of transgression while leaving the other in a sort of limbo. Or he could really punish Rose be reinstating him and watching his revenue streams dry up. I'm not suggesting that's the right thing to do, but Manfred would look like the 'Great Forgiver' for letting Rose back in baseball while still finding a way to twist the knife quietly.

For the record, I think Pete Rose belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. He's one of the greatest players who ever lived and he's ultimately no worse than a lot of other players whose plaques hang in that museum. And while actually reinstating him may do him more harm than good, I also suspect that Pete knows the score. I wouldn't doubt that he has a 3rd act up his sleeve, People have been counting him out for as long as he been able to tie his shoes. You don't get the nickname 'Charlie Hustle' because you sit around on your ass all day.