Playing With Fire

Superagent Scott Boras wants his clients to stand firm in the face of MLB owner demands for more salary concessions.  The way Boras sees it, any owner in trouble for outstanding loans is of no concern to them.  And, he’s right, to a point.

 

Boras told clients in a recent memo that clubs borrow money all the time, and it goes for projects to benefit owners, not players.  As cited by Boras, the Cubs are a perfect example.  If and when the Ricketts family sells, do you think they’re going to share any of the profits from developing Wrigleyville?  Don’t hold your breath.  Then, why make concessions that will only benefit the Ricketts’ clan?

 

So, stand firm, yes, but also realize you’re playing with fire.  What if a team or two actually does go bankrupt, then what?  Trust me, fans won’t feel a thing, but players will.  Baseball’s financial structure could collapse, with no more billions for owners when they sell, no more tens of millions for players when they sign their free-agent deals.  If only the Ricketts were a little more appealing poster candidates.  Alright, a lot more appealing.

 

Here’s the thing.  In his column today, the Trib’s Paul Sullivan quotes an unnamed MLB official, who says paying players for games without fans would mean “significant” losses for all teams, and “we’d be better off not playing.”  No, you wouldn’t, because as Jayson Stark notes in today’s The Athletic, that would mean no baseball for a year and a half.

 

You think fans will wait, sheep-like, for both sides to make nice?  I don’t.