Union Weighs Temptation to Call It a Ball of Collusion

The question most asked of baseball journalists by people focused only on “Joe Millionaire” is this: “Well, what do you write about in the off-season?”

The answer: “What off-season?”

It is now February, with players packing for spring training, and it is as if the 2002 season has never ended, the customary pattern now in a 12-month business.

The latest barrage of “off-season” stories that will linger into spring and beyond include the possible sale of the Dodgers; the potential filing of a collusion grievance by the players’ union; the possible reinstatement of Pete Rose (whose latest IRS problems have endangered the process); the owners’ quest to override union opposition and have the winning league in the All-Star game get home-field advantage in the World Series, and the beginning of the search for a new home for the Montreal and San Juan Expos, whose relocation may be delayed until after the 2004 season.

A closer look:

The Information Bank?

The union insists that it’s not troubled by the expected correction that the market experienced under the umbrella of a new labor agreement and the economic problems in and out of the industry. It’s the suspicious conduct behind the correction, the large number of similar offers to free-agent players, that prompted the union -- in the possible first step toward the filing of a collusion grievance -- to ask for documents that may show whether teams shared information regarding their negotiations with individual players, a violation of the bargaining agreement.

Information requests are not unusual, and there is no certainty that the union will ultimately file a grievance, but the specter of collusion has haunted the industry since the owners paid $280 million to settle their violations of the mid- to late ‘80s. Since then, a covenant in the bargaining agreement has committed the owners to paying triple damages if found guilty again.

“We’re not basing our request on any one signing or any series of signings,” a union lawyer said. “We really do believe in the market, as long as it operates freely. There were simply a lot of things that went on that demand some explanation and inquiry. The similarity of offers is just one aspect.”

Agents have been complaining about the similarity of offers all winter and have been reminded by the union to keep thorough notes regarding their negotiations. The complaint has centered on the array of $1-million offers -- the Angels, for instance, made first-come, first-served proposals in that amount to Rob Fick, David Justice and Eric Owens before Owens jumped on it -- and the fact that the clubs, finally getting wise, perhaps, chilled the market by controlling both the supply (through releases and the non-tendering of contracts) and demand.

Rob Manfred, baseball’s lead labor lawyer, said the agents’ complaints are ludicrous, that there was a very competitive free-agent market (“from the signing of Jim Thome to David Bell and beyond”) and that his central office handled this market no differently than any other since 1990.

“The notion that there would be collusion in the first year of a new agreement that moved the economics in the direction of the clubs makes no sense,” he said. “Look, we went into this winter with too many clubs losing money and too deep in debt. The economy went into the dump and the credit market tightened. That this would be a different market should not be shocking, and all of that is before you mix in a new bargaining agreement in which we wanted to change the economic direction and did.”

There seems to have been enough movement and enough signings, big and small, to make the proving of collusion difficult. There are suspicious elements, but maybe the owners -- given the global forces, the new agreement and some internal coaching -- have simply learned to master the market.

As Manfred noted, the union had no problem two years ago when the clubs were signing Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Mike Mussina, among others, and “spending money like drunken sailors.”

If some of the sailors seem to have sobered up, does that translate to collusion?

Given the violations of the ‘80s, the union can be excused for seeking a strict interpretation.

A Wilting Rose?

The all-time hits leader seemed headed for reinstatement later this month -- providing he admitted that he bet on baseball while manager of the Cincinnati Reds, apologized for 13 years of lying about it and served a summer of probation before a full reinstatement (including eligibility for the Hall of Fame) next fall -- but that scenario is no longer a certainty.

“He just doesn’t seem to learn,” a high-ranking baseball official said of Rose’s latest tax problems and a recent Cincinnati Post report that Rose had been seen gambling in the Bellagio casino in Las Vegas and seen in the sports book at Caesars Palace. Nothing illegal about that but not the smartest move for a guy trying to reshape his image while talking his way off the ineligible list for having violated baseball’s gambling rule.

In addition, Rose, who served a five-month prison sentence on tax charges a decade ago, owes $151,689 in federal taxes from 1998, according to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, and on Oct. 4, 2000, the IRS placed a lien on a Sherman Oaks house that he and wife Carol own, according to property tax records.

Accountant David Stern, who handles some of Rose’s California business, did not return a call to his Marina del Rey office Friday.

The baseball official refused to say what impact these new developments were having on Rose’s possible reinstatement, but he added, “Obviously, we’re concerned.”

Of course, maybe it’s baseball that doesn’t seem to learn.

The public relations move that would be Rose’s reinstatement makes a mockery of those 13 years of lying, the voluminous evidence unearthed by lawyer John Dowd in his investigation and the contention of former commissioner Fay Vincent that Rose bet on baseball while still a player. It would seem to say the gambling rule isn’t as sacred as it has been made out to be, and it would certainly cause vibrations among the descendants of the 13 others on the ineligible list.

You don’t have to be in an Iowa cornfield to hear Shoeless Joe Jackson crying, “Say it ain’t so.”

Exhibition, or What?

The union remains rigidly opposed to the owners’ desire to have the winner of the All-Star game get home-field advantage in the World Series, a considerable advantage indeed.

What to think?

On one hand, that advantage is now simply rotated between the leagues, so just about anything that would have it determined by records or play on the field is preferable.

On the other, anyone thinking that home-field advantage in the Series will restore a measure of fading glory and competitiveness to this midsummer exhibition must be thinking they are going to defrost Ted Williams so he can attempt to win it with a ninth-inning home run, as he did in 1941.

The competitiveness and distinct divide that marked American and National League relations for decades have faded amid free-agent movement and the dissolution of league offices and separate umpiring staffs. Those players attending the All-Star game from teams in playoff contention may sense a greater imperative to win, but it’s foolish to believe -- with salaries as high as they are -- that any player is going to risk injury imitating Rose crashing into Ray Fosse.

It’s a different era, different game. If last year’s hadn’t ended in an impromptu and embarrassing tie when both managers ran out of players, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Unfortunately, the surreal ending, and the beer-stained reaction to it in Commissioner Bud Selig’s own Milwaukee ballpark, erased the fact that there had been several satisfying moments, including one of the all-time All-Star catches by Torii Hunter as he took a home run from Barry Bonds.

In reality, all that was needed was a strong reminder to future managers that every player doesn’t have to play, that starting pitchers can go three innings and that starting position players can go five or six, satisfying the fans who voted for them.

As it is, however, our beloved Fox is the tail that wags the baseball dog, and the television network lobbied for the proposed change, thinking it might help restore intensity and stem falling All-Star ratings.

Because Fox basically underwrites salaries and could opt to be a restrained bidder in the next rights negotiations if the proposed change isn’t approved, that should ultimately be enough to convince the reluctant but cornered union -- which believes the change wouldn’t achieve the owners’ objective and is an unfair way to determine home-field advantage in the Series -- that agreeing to it is its wisest course.

Field of Dreams?

Baseball’s relocation committee met last week with political and civic leaders from Portland, Washington and northern Virginia regarding their desire to land the Expos. It’s all about money, all about which of those three locations can guarantee the building of a new stadium -- an impossible proposition amid the current economy, perhaps. The committee would like to make a decision by the end of summer, but some in baseball think the Expos will have to stay in Montreal through 2004 while again playing about a fourth of their home schedule in Puerto Rico.

Intolerable!

Bruce Froemming is a jolly fellow and generally respected umpire, but he should have been fired rather than merely suspended for 10 days and losing his season-opening assignment for the Oakland-Seattle series in Japan when he used a slur in reference to major league administrator Cathy Davis at the end of a telephone conversation when he thought she had already hung up.

Froemming apologized and agreed not to challenge the suspension, but his comment is no less insensitive and self-damning than those made by Al Campanis on “Nightline” that cost the then-Dodger vice president his job.