|
|
Breaking Balls: The Problem With Mini-Camps
by Derek Zumsteg
After any article in which I include a toss-off reference to politics, like
calling our president "President-by-court-order," I get a lot of email
that says, essentially, that I shouldn't talk about politics. For those of you
in this group, I'm going to get to baseball here in about four paragraphs.
The best one so far ran like this:
My complaint is that I don't read the Prospectus for political commentary. If
anything, I read the Prospectus to get away from political rhetoric for a while.
It's somehow comforting to know that people from all points along the political
spectrum can share a common love of baseball and engage in a debate about the
game that results in opposing camps that political divergences wouldn't
anticipate, or that people from all points along the political spectrum can come
together in your forum and share, for example, a common admiration of Billy
Beane.
-- Michael Martin
I don't think this is possible. Baseball is steeped in politics. The issues of
tax burden and allocation: is it right to build a stadium for a team, and what
good (if any) does it for the city? Labor relations and the roles of unions in
the modern economy. Our Canadian readers are probably aware of the economic
problems created by two floating currencies, one dramatically weaker. Baseball
coverage in this country is driven by companies that together have a
billion-dollar motivation to sway public opinion one direction in labor
negotiations, an issue that arises from the way our country has allowed media
interests to consolidate into a few giant companies and prevent meaningful
dialogue on issues.
It even runs onto the field: Our society's disgraceful notions of race kept the
players white, for instance. Labor issues affect whether games get played at
all.
Which brings me to my next point: baseball has had a new Collective Bargaining
Agreement for what, a couple months, and the owners have already broken it. Why
do people wonder why labor relations are so awful in baseball?
There's a section of the CBA that talks about when players can be asked to come
to Spring Training. In the last CBA, it looked like this:
A. Reporting
(1) injured Players, pitchers, and catchers may be invited to attend Spring
Training workouts no earlier than forty-five (45) days prior to the start of the
championship season; and
(2) all other Players may be invited to attend Spring Training workouts no
earlier than forty (40) days prior to the start of the championship season.
There's no evidence that any of this section changed, though I haven't gotten my
grubby mitts on a new copy to confirm this with my own eyes.
It's a particularly clear section of the CBA, and there are teams that are
violating it already. The Pirates are running a mini-camp with about 35 people.
The Pirates have said it's strictly voluntary. And yet Lloyd McClendon said some
things to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that indicate it's voluntary only if
you're a slacker who doesn't really want to play for the club:
Among other comments. The Mets are doing this, too, as is the Rangers' John
Hart, checkbook manager of the Rangers, who was quoted in the Dallas Morning
News as saying: "We don't have any hard numbers of which players are planning to
come in early, but it's being strongly, strongly encouraged."
Mini-camps may or may not be useful. McClendon's description of his mini-camp as
a happy fun summer camp where all the players go fishing and play golf doesn't
matter, though. It doesn't matter if you call them mini-camps or Happy Fun Team
Building Excursions. They're prohibited by the CBA. You're not allowed to ask
players to come out this early.
It doesn't matter if players show up early or not either. If I, just
hypothetically, played sports - say, I ran cross-country, for purposes of this
example - in high school and we were prohibited from having team practices
before a certain date, we might have had a tradition that in late summer we'd
get the team together for informal practices. Just the team, you know. We'd go
on a run and, hey, check that out, there's the coach, also out running at the
same time on the same route, and he might offer a suggestion on where we might
go running that day, and how hard. That's pretty close to being a violation of
the rule designed to protect me. But if that's what it took to get on the team,
as a student I'd be out there running if I wanted to compete.
It's the same deal here - the players who are exploited by these teams are those
who are on the margins. The players who aren't showing up to the Pirates'
mini-camp are guys like
Brian Giles and
Jason Kendall--players
with guaranteed contracts who don't depend on the favor of management to be
playing. The people being strong-armed to show up are the people closest to the
average fans, the guys with an invite and no contracts, who don't make that much
money, risking injury by playing games they shouldn't be playing. And if they
get injured, that's it - no contract, no pay, and no awesome medical care for
their recovery.
This is why there's a section in the CBA that prohibits this. And yet there are
teams that have ignored this, and will almost certainly have a labor grievance
filed against them. If they wanted to put on mini-camps, they should have put
that clause in the agreement. Teams agreed to these terms, and to ignore
them immediately demonstrates how little the owners have moved toward forging a
new and productive partnership with the players.
This is part of why we have labor strife. It's not only about the larger issues,
like salary caps. It's about the thousand little cuts owners inflict throughout
the season, trying to screw players at every turn, trying to find ways to betray
the spirit of an agreement they freely entered into. There was some hope after a
strike was averted that things were going to change, and so far we've seen
nothing to bolster that hope.
Pitchers and catchers report (legally) in a month.
Derek Zumsteg is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact him by
clicking here.
|