The death of baseball’s nonexistent parity (MLB)
Playoff time in Major League Baseball is also that annual time of year where the “powers that be” inevitably start congratulating themselves. “Parity is alive and well,” and “the game has never been stronger” are the clichés they trot out like old horses every fall. Only this year they haven’t.
It’s not hard to understand why.
In 2009, there hasn’t been any parity. Six of baseball’s top eight spenders are in line for playoff spots. There are no pennant races to speak of. Of the eight teams headed to the playoffs, six have been locks since at least mid August (the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Cardinals, Dodgers and Phillies), one has been a virtual lock (the Rockies), while the one genuine “race” consists of a big-spending team’s (the Tigers) inability to salt away a club playing without a perennial MVP candidate (the Twins and Justin Morneau).
Of these eight, only the Cardinals and Rockies are not in the top eight in the league in money spent.
Predictably, Bud Selig has already called this season “an aberration.” In his mind, he likely clings to the fact that the lowly Rays defeated the mighty Yanks and Red Sox last season, howls about the Astros and White Sox facing off for the title in 2005, and shouts at no one in particular that the A’s, Twins and Marlins have all been perennial playoff contenders this decade.
“We have revenue sharing for goodness sakes,” he surely finishes off his diatribe with.
This is true. The Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs (and the pre-Madoff Mets) of the world are forced to give some of their pocket change to the gutter monkeys of the game, such as Pittsburgh and Cleveland.
But time has run out on this idea. No longer is a few million here, and a compensatory draft pick there, enough to ensure competitive balance (if it ever was).
Obviously, America is a free country, free market and all of that. Blah blah blah blah blah.
But at what point does so few having so much become counter-intuitive to the game? If only four or five teams can be truly financially competitive, why bother having 30 clubs? Heck, why even bother with having 16? Only about 7 or 8 can even keep up, let alone spend what it takes to be competitive year in and year out.
With the big spending clubs, the problem isn’t even necessarily the money they give out, it’s the precedents they establish. Now every pitcher with numbers similar to CC Sabathia (admittedly not many, but still a handful) thinks they should get paid $160 million.
Guess who can afford to pay that? Four, maybe five teams.
This offseason promises to provide the saddest examples of this in some time.
So far during the 2009 regular season, superstars Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, Felix Hernandez and Joe Mauer have all been linked to the Yankees or Red Sox. None of them are free agents. But these players’ clubs, and the people who follow the game, know that eventually these will likely be the only two teams that can give these athletes their “market value.”
And what is their “market value” based on?
Whatever obscene amount New York or Boston gave the most recent players they extorted from the teams that drafted them.
So the consensus is that these poor teams might as well give their players away while they can still get something in return for them.
Truly, what is the point in having a league if a team (San Diego) cannot keep a player (Adrian Gonzalez) that is cheap ($20 million for the next two seasons), a prolific power hitter (106 home runs the past three seasons), young (27) and a San Diego native?
Functionally, the San Diegos, Floridas, Minnesotas and Seattles of the league are now a farm system for Boston, New York and Chicago.
Is this what anyone ever had in mind?
It’s pure madness that baseball is now at a point where its second most successful franchise, the St. Louis Cardinals and their ten world titles, feel as if they have no shot at keeping their big midseason acquisition (Matt Holliday). What if the NFL’s second most winningest franchises, the 49ers and Cowboys, literally had no chance at signing a high-priced free agent to be?
No one would stand for it, and the NFL doesn’t.
Yet, it’s there Major League Baseball stands. A bastion of capitalistic American “can-do spirit” that can’t say no to its wealthiest franchises. It may be a smart monetary strategy for ten, or maybe even 20 or 30 years. But at some point, when the Seattle Mariners can’t keep their Felix Hernandezs, and the San Diego Padres cant keep their hometown heroes, they won’t be keeping their fans, either.
If you can never bite the hand of the haves that feed you, will the have-nots even have anything left?
Baseball is about to find out.
–Patrick Daugherty, Red Editorial Staff







Growing up, Pulitzer Prize winner Jane Smiley dreamed of horses and avidly read many of the popular horse novels of the time. Recently Smiley, who lives in Northern California, took a break from writing such best sellers as A Thousand Acres and The Age of Grief to pen The Georges and the Jewels (Knopf 2009, $16.99), the first in a trilogy aimed at middle school aged children about a girl named Abby and her horses.
After graduating from college, author Jane Smiley spent a year traveling through Europe where she worked on an archaeological dig before attending graduate school at the University of Iowa where she earned both her MFA and Ph.D.
It’s hard to imagine a mess call bringing tears to your eyes, but I wasn’t the only one in the crowd getting a bit verklempt as we watched hundreds of West Point cadets marching into Washington Hall for a bite to eat.