Quote of the week

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this on twincities.com:

Although many of his Twins spring training teammates drive luxury vehicles to Hammond Stadium, Loek Van Mil, a 7-foot-1, 230-pound right-handed fastballer, rides a bicycle nearly five miles each way to and from the ballpark.

"I don't have a license to drive a car," said Van Mil, 25, who is from Utrecht, Holland. "And I don't care for cars. If I ever get a car, it will be a rundown one."

Nothing like a little extra cardio after a long day at spring training.

The story reminded me of a rumor about another tall pitcher. Apparently Randy Johnson occasionally chose his bicycle as his preferred mode of transportation in San Francisco last season. The 6-foot-10 future Hall of Famer could at times be spotted strolling up to the gates of AT&T Park, helmet firmly strapped to his head.

Unlike Van Mil, something tells me Randy actually owned a car or two, and I doubt they were of the rundown variety.

Here's to tall guys on bikes:

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2005/TallGuyBike.htm

HGH testing?

I read an article recently talking about HGH testing. Apparently the plan is to use a blood test in the minor leagues. First, I think this is great news. Developing a test for HGH has been difficult, and in my opinion, a test is needed. But there's a problem.

They're not going to catch anyone.

Okay, so they might catch a couple of idiots, but minor leaguers aren't using HGH. Unlike steroids, it's very expensive and hard to obtain. You need a pile of cash and a crooked doctor. I'm not saying that zero minor leaguers are using HGH, but the numbers are very, very small. They simply lack the resources to obtain the substance.

I also hope that the test has been thoroughly developed. If it hasn't been adquately tested, then minor leaguers shouldn't simply be guinea pigs. Maybe our lives really are worth less than others.

I'm all for HGH testing, but I'm a little skeptical about this news. Hopefully the test is a good one, and hopefully testing will be expanded to include non minor leaguers. Until then, I'll contain my excitement.

College baseball replacing the minor leagues?

I love college, and I love baseball. It's only natural that I love college baseball as well. But some within MLB want to help out the college game. Huh? (scratching head while thinking)

Here's an excerpt from a recent Buster Olney blog:

So there is sentiment within MLB right now about wanting to help the college game. It could do so, of course, by very publicly funding scholarships, in concert with the NCAA. To put the dollars in perspective, for the cost of one Stephen Strasburg signing bonus of $15.6 million, MLB could fund 390 full $40,000 scholarships at college baseball programs, creating a lure for coaches. In theory, MLB could fund one full ride at every Division I college in the country, which would be a pretty big deal. Or maybe MLB could pick a conference or group of teams in an area where baseball is more prevalent, such as Florida, Texas or California, and fund scholarships there.

I'm not sure how much a few extra scholarships would actually help out college baseball. I think the effect would be fairly marginal. The whole idea seems a little silly to me. But other proposals being kicked around might have a much larger effect on college baseball, and on minor league baseball.

A recent Biz of Baseball article brought up all kinds issues. Stating that player development cost around $600 million annually (around 6% of most teams' budgets), the article claims that changes are needed to reduce costs.

I'm all in favor of trimming fat. Yes, too many players are signed each year in the draft. Many of these players are released within a year of signing. Out of the 40 plus players signed by the Giants in my draft class, only 10 remained just a few years later. Teams approach amateur players the way a newly made millionaire might approach real estate. They buy, buy, buy with no intention of even keeping properties. They get rid of it as quick as they buy it.

Yes, perhaps a level of minor league baseball could be cut as well. Maybe low A could be merged with advanced A, or maybe the two short-season levels could be combined. I've talked this over with a few people, with mixed results. Some think it could work, some think that there is too great of a real difference between the various leagues to merge any of them.

Measures could be taken to curb signing bonuses at the top levels slightly. This would save a bit of money as well.

But others are proposing more drastic measures. Some believe that the entire model of player development should be scrapped. The theory goes that baseball should approach player development in a manner similar to that of the NFL or NBA. They should allow colleges to develop their players.

There's one obvious problem with that. Our public universities weren't built to merely develop athletes. Yes, they are at times used that way, but I'm not sure if this is right.

More importantly for baseball, it wouldn't work. Almost 30% of MLB players are Latino. Close to 50% of minor leaguers are Latino. How will teams develop these players without a minor league system?

These players are signed when they are 16. Many are shoved to baseball schools around the time they get out of diapers. Are we simply going to send all the Dominicans and Venezuelans to our public universities to develop them? Something tells me this wouldn't work.

Furthermore, we shouldn't expect every kid in America to attend college. Some athletes are so talented that they should be allowed to play professional baseball as soon as they graduate college. Other athletes simply struggle with school. They shouldn't be shoved into college if they instead have the opportunity to play professionally.

I remember discussing this with a college professor some time ago. In his mind, baseball had the right system. Colleges shouldn't be feeder systems for professional sports leagues.

So yes, some improvements need to be made within player development. Inefficiencies need to be identified and trimmed from the budget. But the entire system shouldn't be scrapped in favor of a college development system, and the money saved shouldn't just go into the pockets of owners. Improvements should be made within the system. Those players who are brought in should be paid slightly better. They should also be provided better meals and affordable housing.

Again, I love college, I love baseball, and I love college baseball. But using college baseball instead of the minor leagues to develop your players just seems like a bad idea.

Playermail and a link

Playermail (different from blackmail)

I had a player email me not long ago about the cost of his insurance. He's a minor league free agent, so his insurance benefits expired. Here's what he said regarding purchasing COBRA:

"For me its $404.51 per month. If I had a family with a wife and kid for a total family of 3, its $1,375.40 per month. "

The player went on to say that there's no way he can afford it. He found little work in a tough economy this off-season. He made little money during the previous season, and was far from a bonus baby. If he doesn't sign with an affiliated team but instead plays independent ball, he'll simply go without insurance.

In fact, he didn't even get a gym membership this off-season. He had to save money.

Meeting the Straw man

On a completely different note, I met Darrly Strawberry recently. One of the heroes of my youth, it was a pretty cool experience. For some reason though, these experiences always seem to lack the expected luster. Here's what I wrote for Baseball America:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-diary/2010/269459.html


Hope February is treating all of you well!!

The things you think when you're in an MRI machine

So I underwent my first MRI of my life this morning. Our trainer said that not many ballplayers my age could say that. I don't know if that's a compliment or not.

To make up for lost time, I decided to have not one but two MRIs done at the same time. Due to my own stupidity, I've been ignoring pain in both my back and hip for too long. It was time to get it checked out.

The MRI was much louder than I expected. Here were some thoughts that came to mind while I laid there for an hour and a half without moving:

1. We're being attacked by aliens.

2. I feel like I'm trapped in my mom's old, 25-year-old washing machine (it makes similar noises).

3. If a heavy metal guitarist developed schizophrenia and still decided to rehearse, this is what it would sound like.

4. I hope we don't have a fire. I'd never hear the alarm.

5. Maybe this contraption is like the big golden thing in the movie "Sphere." Whatever dreams I have will become real. Except instead of being haunted by "A Thousand Leagues Under the Sea," I'm haunted by "A Thousand Leagues Under the Big Leagues."

6. Hopefully I don't emerge from this thing acting like Lady Gaga.

7. Am I being turned into an Avatar? I better be allowed to fly on one of those weird dragon animals.

Just a few thoughts. I emerged unscathed and free from alien attack.

Chapping something

In the conclusion of a long saga which involved a catfight between agents and a parade around scouts, Aroldis Chapman signed with the Reds recently. The Cuban defector sparked a bidding war that resulted in a six year, $30 million contract.

First, let's talk about Chapman's stuff. He reportedly throws 100 mph (smoke tinges the words with each keystroke). No problem there. He's also left-handed. That's always a plus. He's 21-years-young (give or take a few years). No problem there. He has control problems. Uh oh.

Chapman allowed 5.37 walks per nine innings in Cuba. Last I checked, that wasn't very good. Now, yes, we've all seen pitchers get better command as time goes on. A quick look at Randy Johnson's career reveals an atrocious walk rate early in his career, and then an exceptional walk rate at the end.

In fact, Randy Johnson's name has been thrown around a lot lately. He's been retired for only a few days, and already people are expecting some kid from Cuba to be "The Next Randy." Let's not forget, Randy Johnson's a certain first ballot Hall of Famer. He's one of the top 5 pitchers of all-time. And we're comparing an unproven 6'4" defector to him, simply because he's left-handed, throws hard, and has terrible command?

It's symptomatic of a general problem in the baseball world, and the world in general. When judging someone or something, we look for shortcuts. We say a person reminds us of another person because it instantly delivers information. But that person is an entirely different person. Chapman is his own being. He's not Randy Johnson and shouldn't be compared to him. It's not fair to Chapman or Johnson, and it doesn't deliver enough meaningful information.

Back to walk rates, Chapman may very well have a long and successful career. He certainly has the raw ability. But the problem with raw ability is that you don't know what the finished product will look like. Instead of going down, his walk rate may instead increase. Nobody really knows what will happen. The Reds just gave a lot of money to a guy who is a "maybe."

Since he was on the open market, the bidding war resulted in this contract. Some will say this is his fair market value. I think it's too much money, but the market says otherwise.

A few of my teammates emailed me saying this is a problem. Some foreign players such as Chapman are able to use this open-market system to their advantage while Americans, Canadians and Puerto Ricans are subject to a draft. A phenom such as Stephen Strasburg had no control over who picked him in the draft. Once taken, he could only negotiate with a single team. While he was paid handsomely, there was no bidding war. On the open market he would've received much more--perhaps more than Chapman.

MLB and the union need to decide what system they want. Do they want free market system, where anyone can negotiate with any player, and the player has the ability to choose? Such a system existed prior to 1965 when the draft was instituted. Or do they want a worldwide draft?

Selig has said he wants an international draft. So have several others. I'm generally not a fan of systems that limit a player's options, but I recognize the need for a draft, as without it, talent would be even more unequally spread than today. The rich would keep getting richer. But if such a draft is instituted, mobility must be ensured as well. The Rule 5 draft should be expanded, and changes should be made to it to allow more players to stick with new teams. The length of contracts should also be examined.

The current system certainly segregates against players from certain countries. This is unfair. All players should be subject to the same rules when dealing with MLB teams. There are obvious complications to this (look at the Japanese posting system.) since you're dealing with several countries, but the status quo simply isn't sufficient. A system is needed that ensures mobility, allows a player to gain close to market value, and also provides equal access to talent for large and small market clubs. The current system provides none of these things.

Legislative Dam: A Q&A about the Curt Flood Act of 1998

Members of Congress have a lot going on. Between health care legislation, cap and trade bills, idiots trying to sneak bombs onto airplanes, and running for re-election, their plates are as full as the bellies of medieval kings. Yet somehow they repeatedly make room for baseball.

We all remember the Congressional hearing of 2005 that infamously featured McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, and Schilling. But there have been many other moments as well, and today I want to talk about a lesser known act of Congress, the Curt Flood Act of 1998.

The act contains language that directly affects minor leaguers' abilities to challenge baseball's labor structure. I reference it in the upcoming Baseball America feature on the history of minor league salaries (scheduled for the season preview issue), so I thought it would be good to learn more about it. For this reason, I turned to an expert.

Ed Edmonds, the Associate Dean for Library and Information Technology at Notre Dame Law School, might know more about the Curt Flood Act than any person in America (including the authors of it). He's literally written volumes about it, and is an expert on all things legal in the baseball world. He contributes regularly to Sports Law Blog and was kind enough to respond to a few of my questions:

Why was Curt Flood such a significant figure? Why does this legislation don his name?

Curt Flood is a significant and symbolic figure in the labor struggles in baseball because he took a stance after his trade from St. Louis to Philadelphia in October 1969 that he would not accept the trade. He brought a lawsuit with the financial support of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) at a time when the union was just beginning to gain some strength against the owners. Flood lost his case at the Southern District of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.

So, despite losing his lawsuit, some see Curt Flood as a major figure in the creation of free agency. The arbitration decision that created free agency involved Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally. When Curt Flood made his stand in 1969 and into the early 1970s, active players did not come to his support by testifying at his trial or openly supporting him to the press. They were not empowered in 1969 to force changes in the game. By 1975, when the McNally-Messersmith decision was rendered, the balance of powers between owners and theMLBPA had changed dramatically. Flood made a personal sacrifice of his career to advance the cause. There is a good deal of complexity and nuance to this story, and the many books and articles that have been published in the last few years concentrating on Curt Flood explored much of that. Flood is honored for his “early” efforts during a period of great transition. Because of the success of 1975 in creating free agency and because baseball did not collapse as so many predicted, I think that Curt Flood is seen as a symbolic figure in advancing the cause of players’ rights. When I wrote about this in an article published in the Marquette Law Review and later in a legislative history of the Curt Flood Act of 1998, I argued that the naming of the act for Flood was a “hollow” victory. His case was not tried as an antitrust case, although it was largely brought as such. He lost his case although many commentators consider the Supreme Court decision to be an incorrect one. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the case had labor implications that could override antitrust ones, and he certainly predicted the future in this area correctly. So, the Curt Flood Act stands for the proposition that major league players, and only major league players, have the right to use antitrust law in the same way as other professional athletes. However, because labor law policy wins out, and that policy largely produced the result that Flood sought for himself, I think that naming the act for him was symbolically nice but ultimately not that legally significant.

What were the main effects of this legislation? Did it prompt any real change?

After the 1994-1995 lookout was resolved, both MLB and the MLBPA agreed to go to Congress to jointly request legislation to change theantitrust exemption with respect to labor relations. The move was largely symbolic because as long as a labor relationship exists between the union and management labor policy trumps antitrust policy as determined by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996). There is a really narrow possibility that if a union decertified and the National Labor Relations Board agreed that the process was appropriate, that the antitrust leverage would reappear. This technique has been used effectively in the past by the NFLPA.

So, I do not think it has really changed baseball. What it has done from my perspective is actually entrench the business as it existed in 1998. The passage of the act has made it more difficult for minor league players or the champions of the rights of minor league players to change the labor conditions in that area.

The legislation seems to be very narrow in scope and to apply only to MLB players. In fact, it contains a specific clause to exclude minor leaguers. What exactly did this clause state?

The Curt Flood Act can be found at 15 U.S.C. § 27a (2006). Subsection (b) provides a limitation to subsection (a) that specifically states that only the employment of major league baseball players playing at the major league level is covered by the legislation. The specific language involving minor leaguers is as follows:

“No court shall rely on the enactment of this section as a basis for changing the application of the antitrust laws to any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements other than those set forth in subsection (a). This section does not create, permit or imply a cause of action by which to challenge under the antitrust laws . . . (1) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of organized professional baseball relating to or affecting employment to play baseball at the minor league level, any organized professional baseball amateur or first-year player draft, or any reserve clause as applied to minor league players.”

Just to be clear, the law included a second subsection, (b)(2) that stated that the Professional Baseball Agreement between Organized Baseball and the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues cannot be the cause of any action or “any other matter relating to organized professional baseball’s minor leagues.” The question of whether or not independent minor league baseball is covered would need to concentrate on the word “organized.” The legislative history, in my opinion, supports the argument that the independent minor leaguers are also not accorded any right to bring a cause of action under the statute.

Subsections 3-6 also make it clear that franchise relocation is not altered by the act; the act does not change the antitrust exemption created by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961; umpires cannot use the Curt Flood Act to their advantage; nor can anyone else use the act to attack the basic structure of Major League Baseball.

You've written about entities within minor league baseball lobbying Congress during the passage of this act. Can you talk about the effects of these efforts?

Minor League Baseball was quite concerned about the possibility of any changes to the basic “farm system” relationship of minor league teams to major league teams. In particular, major league teams cover the salaries of minor league players, and this is a critical feature to the existing business model of minor league teams. When the legislation was first considered in Congress, Minor League Baseball made sure that it approached the many Congressmen and Senators with minor league franchises within their Congressional districts or states to make sure that any possibility of a lawsuit by a minor league player could not happen by changing the status of major league players. Most courts that have considered baseball’s historic antitrust exemption have held that it covers the entire business of baseball. The legislation basically left a slight bit of ambiguity by stating that baseball players are “subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent such conduct . . . would be subject to the antitrust laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.”

Link to the act in its entirety:

http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/curtflood.htm