The Red Sox, a symbol of frustration, ineptitude and the cynicism of New
England’s finest, are for sale. The Jean R. Yawkey Trust has controlled 53%
of the team since Jean Yawkey died in 1992, and the team has been in the
Yawkey family since 1933.

John Harrington, a Yawkey family advisor and the closest thing the Sox have
to an owner, announced this week that the Trust will divest its interest in
the club to the highest bidder, preferably "a die-hard Red Sox fan
from New England who knows how important the team is to this town and the
fabric of this community". Rumor has it that Harrington tried to sell
the team on eBay, but determined that the $500 million bid from
dshaughnessy was phony.

As with any deal in which insanely large numbers get bandied about, it’s
easy to lose track of what exactly is being sold here. In the case of the
Red Sox, it’s quite possible that the new owners will be expected to shell
out a second large pile of cash after the purchase to help finance a new
stadium (or a "New Fenway", as the popular misnomer goes).

The new owners of the Red Sox will inherit a team with a rabid fan base
that has packed Fenway in record numbers the past two seasons, and a set of
TV contracts that will earn the team $15-$20 million per year through 2003.
But they’re also stepping into one of the worst stadium situations in
baseball: namely, the political football that is the plan for a new
baseball stadium for the Sox.

Fenway Park, as many of you already know, is now the oldest (88 years) and
smallest (about 33,500 seats) stadium left in the major leagues. While it
is still standing, concerns about the Sox’s profitability (a dubious
complaint) and parking and neighborhood issues (more valid ones) have led
to a government/team squabble over a replacement stadium. The current
agreement, which involves $312 million in public financing, is under fire
from the City Council and numerous neighborhood and libertarian groups for
its use of public funds and for its plan to take private property for the
construction of the park. The deal is in even deeper doubt now that it
appears that the Sox will no longer be owned by a nonprofit entity. And
even that agreement had the Red Sox paying at least $350 million themselves.

So the members of the group that purchases the Red Sox has to expect to
receive a less favorable stadium deal, and perhaps even finance most of a
new stadium themselves. Comparisons to the purchase of the Dodgers, which
included Dodger Stadium and an adjacent parcel of land ideal for a football
stadium, or the Indians, whose stadium is new and always full, are really
not appropriate. If the Sox are actually sold for the $300 million or more
that some expect–which is much less the $600 to $800 million projected by
an analyst on the local National Public Radio affiliate–the new owners
will take a very cold bath.

Another big "duh" hit the sports press this week with the release
of a report estimating that a high percentage of baseball players are using
steroids or similar performance-enhancing substances. There’s really no
story here: it’s not a question of whether anyone is using the stuff,
because it’s pretty obvious to the naked eye that they are. The question is
whether anyone in baseball will take it seriously.

The problem for players is simple: In a race of nine cheaters and one
honest man, the honest man will usually finish last or close to it. If the
choices available to a player are "cheat" or "retire",
most players will cheat, given the lack of alternative careers and the fact
that minor leaguers earn pittances and get no pensions for their time.

It would be simple to stamp out the problem if the owners and the Players’
Association agreed on how to do so, but the fact is that neither side has
any interest in stopping steroid use. The owners believe, with some small
justification, that the increased offense produced by players hepped up on
goofballs puts more fannies in the seats and more money in their pockets.
The MLBPA, like any labor union, fights any attempt to test players for
illegal substances as an invasion of players’ privacy; in other words,
something they’ll accept only if they can extract another pound of flesh
from the owners.

Will we ever see a change? Perhaps, but something will have to change the
economics of the situation before the owners decide to make it a priority.
The bad publicity caused by a player’s death due to steroid abuse might be

Keith Law can be reached at

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe