Can't Buy Me Love
| 12
|
by user DNL
This article originally appeared at FoxSports.com on August 18, 2002. In a recent FoxSports.com redesign, it disappeared, but I had it stored here, so I'm republishing it.
Bud Selig wants "competitive balance," his oxymoronic war-cry for economic parity in Major League Baseball. The end result is to level the economic playing field so that money will no longer be an issue: good player personnel moves would lead to strong teams; a team's bankroll would no longer be a factor. But if money were truly eliminated from the equation, would things really be equal?
Of course not. In most cases, the red-headed orphans of the leagues will continue to end up with gruel while dynasties will feast at the dinner parties of stars. Players don't just follow the money. Other factors — all of which become more prominent when the money spigot dries up — influence ballplayers' decisions.
The Three "Other" Factors
Location
Shaquille O'Neal signed with the Lakers after the 1996 season, before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement was in place. At the time, the salary cap was $23 million. Shaq was in the market for a big payoff, the cap had restrained most teams from bidding. In essence, the league had made money much less of an issue, so other factors took over.
Minnesota — as the Twins well know, hardly a state paved with sports gold — should have also been a cap beneficiary. Theoretically, the salary cap would also make the Cavs and the Bucks into perennial contenders. But why would Shaq want to waste away in Cleveland or Milwaukee when he dreamed of superstardom? By far, the best fit was Hollywood. Nowhere else, save possibly New York, could Shaq find the opportunity to be a household name in entertainment circles. In Orlando, he hung out with Mickey; in L.A., everyone else. Anyone who expected him to go anywhere else was fooling himself.
The same can be said for players like Seattle Mariner first baseman John Olerud, who wanted to play for his home team; Ken Griffey Jr., who allegedly wanted to be closer to home (he picked Cincinnati, remember, and gave them a discount), and Mike Hampton, who chose Denver for the area schools. Even when money is no object, what baseballer chooses Kansas City or Tampa Bay?
Team history and the spotlight
Jason Giambi donned a goatee in 2001, while he was still playing first base over in Oakland. But there was little question that come 2002, he'd be playing first for the Yankees, and that the goatee — per Yankee rules — would be gone. Was money a factor? Sure. Not many teams could afford Giambi, and the only other team that even made him an offer was the Athletics. But still, the allure of the Yankees is hard to pass up: 26 world championships, including four of the last six; four straight AL pennants; Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Joe DiMiaggio and Mickey Mantle and ... can I stop now? Giambi has plenty of reasons above and beyond the paycheck to play for the Yankees, and history provides plenty.
We see the same in the NBA. Rodney Rodgers — hardly a superstar — recently gave the Nets a contenders discount, taking less money to ink a deal with the defending runners-up. Why such the weird formulation — "defending runners-up"? Because even though the NBA employs incredible revenue sharing and a salary cap, the Lakers are three-peaters with no signs of slowing down. (The Kings, perhaps, will give them another run for their money, but can any Eastern team compete?) We've already addressed why Shaq chose Los Angeles over the just-as-green (money-wise, thanks to the cap) pastures of Cleveland and Minnesota, but why the Lakers over the Clippers? If it strikes you as silly that Shaq would ever consider playing for the Clips, there's a reason for that. And rest assured, you aren't alone.
Coaches
We've hit baseball and basketball, so why not football? The NFL has the most player-unfriendly economic landscape in the major sporting world, causing Jerry Rice to leave the 49ers, Cris Carter to retire and the Bills to simply cut Bruce Smith instead of trading him. During this current off-season, Drew Bledsoe found himself on the trading table with only one suitor in the Buffalo Bills. Trading the All-Pro QB fetched the Patriots merely one future first-round draft pick — and they ended up sending him to a division rival.
But coaches' salaries are exempt from the cap. The Tampa Bay Buccanneers know this and dropped a wad of cash to lure Jon Gruden away from the Oakland Raiders. But the Raiders weren't about to let their coach go for free. Tampa Bay gave Oakland $8 million, two first round picks, and two other draft picks on top of Gruden's salary — much more than Bledsoe cost the Bills. Is a coach more important to a team than a starting QB? Hardly. But with the economic landscape leveled, the Bucs needed a way to attract players for less money — or, rather, less money that counts against the salary cap. Landing Gruden did that.
Application
Yes, in a fantasy world, where money is no object, other things will stand in the way of equality. Hey, they may even worsen the situation. But will we ever know? Professional sports by their very nature will never be able to remove money from the equation. Is there an example in place of consumer-targeted sports where salaries don't come into play?
Yes. College football and basketball.
In the NCAA, players aren't paid save for in the form of highly regulated scholarships, and each scholarship is roughly equal (monetarily speaking) to each other anyway. So how do high school stars choose from literally dozens of teams?
The same way pros do. Location plays a big role; players often want to be close to home. Indiana youngsters dream of wearing Hoosier red. Marcus Vick (Michael's younger brother) followed his older brother's footsteps to the local Virginia Tech Hokies. And if you think it's a coincidence that the warm-weather states like Florida have the best football teams each year, try tossing around the pigskin during a Buffalo snowstorm.
The spotlight has a lot to do with it, too. The Duke Blue Devils were in the top 5 of the basketball polls last year, from start to finish. Then they lose three starters to the NBA draft. Do they fall in the pre-season polls? Yes. One major outlet dropped them — all the way to number 6. The rich may not get richer, but they certainly come close. In college football, we see a similar phenomenon — Florida State, coming off its worst season in years, finds its way to a New Years' Day bowl game. This reputation gives them a significant competitive advantage not only in the bowl selection process, but also in the recruiting process.
Coaches? Tyrone Willingham had the opportunity to leave a 9-2 program at Stanford (and a #11 ranking) for Notre Dame (5-6, unranked) for similar reasons that the Bucs wanted Gruden. The Irish have an ever-slipping reputation and need a way to restart it, but they can't go out and sign a free agent or trade for a Drew Bledsoe. So they do all they can — grab a big-time coach. The opposite effect is seen at North Carolina. Their basketball program tried to maintain their elite standing by going after Roy Williams, but he chose to stay in Kansas. UNC settled on former Tar Heel Matt Doherty, went 8-20, and now is scrambling to make a major outlet's top 50. (Their location and reputation will probably bail them out.)
The NCAA has made careers out of weeding money from its garden of amateurism; not a year goes by without an investigation into a school's dealings with new recruits or a newspaper expose on a rule-violating booster. Have the NCAA's measure leveled the playing field or provided "competitive balance?" Not at all. While Brigham Young University won their first twelve (of thirteen) football games in 2001, they were never considered by any objective source to be a contender for a national title. In the end, the 12-1 Cougars played in a December 31st bowl game (the Liberty Bowl) that carried roughly as much respect as the Peach Bowl of the same date — pitting 7-4 Auburn versus 7-5 North Carolina. At best, this money-free environment allowed the best team of the no reputation, spotlight-lacking class of schools to operate at the same level of the mid-level teams with all the superlatives going for them.
Conclusion
In the end, money will always make a difference. But it doesn't make all the difference. Furthermore, cash well spent is the best weapon the Milwaukees, Pittsburghs, and Detroits have against the intangibles of New York or L.A. After all, who wants to be called "The Padre Clipper"?
