While aimlessly browsing twitter the last few days and listening to Tool albums on repeat, I interacted with the so-called "blogger in chief" of NBC's Hardballtalk baseball blog Craig Calcaterra. We had a small bit of back-and-forth on the issues surrounding the popular Alex Rodriguez fiasco that the baseball media is pushing at the moment. However, the most interesting part of my interaction with Calcaterra came when he posed a simple (well maybe, but probably not) question to his twitter followers:
"Which institution is worse for baseball: Biogenesis Lab or the Marlins?"
I would have to imagine that the immediate reaction from most fans would be that the Biogenesis Lab scandal is worse for the game. Simply put, the common fan is likely incredibly tired of constantly hearing about PED and might consider MLB's credibility severely weakened for how it has handled the issue of PED in the past. The fallout of the Mitchell Report is a changed league where pitchers have emerged and the league has gotten away from the positive allure of "chicks dig the long ball." Then again, we're faced with the other simple fact that I don't have many personal friends who are fans of the game that don't absolutely detest Jeffrey Loria and what he has done to Marlins fans (among other people). To get the root of the question at hand, it's important to understand what is at stake in each scenario.
First Side: Biogenesis Lab PED Scandal
Anyone that's kind or bored enough to be reading this is probably familiar with the Mitchell Report and the media-dubbed "Steroid Era" of baseball history. To spare some time, the short version of that story is this: players use illegal substances, fans highly enjoy following results, people get caught with substances, Congress gets involved, MLB handles situation miserably, and fans go home sad and confused. Now, to this point the Miami clinic PED scandal hasn't been revealed to be as widespread as the steroid era supposedly was. In fact, the names listed to this point are so few and far between that there's some sliver of hope that this might actually not blow up in the face of the league. The full extent might end up in a few 50 game suspensions and the shutting down of a PED operation. At best, that's the footnote in baseball history and all we have to deal with. Then again, there's the possibility that this clinic gets linked not only to more players, but to more clinics. The suddenly we've got a big, possibly nationwide, scenario where MLB has to do some serious thinking about the future handling of PED users.
Now, let's pause for a second. Why are PED bad for the game? A simple question that honestly doesn't get asked enough. The answer most will come up with (and that I tend to agree with) is that I would prefer to have an ideal world where Barry Bonds does what Barry Bonds did without having to take any kind of substance. However, that's really the extent of the problem, isn't it? PED are bad because the media says they are bad, the league says they are bad, and fans have been conditioned to believe they are bad. Just a thought: these things being true doesn't make PED inherently bad. In fact, it could pretty easily be argued that PED are good for the game of baseball. After all, PED are intended to do positive things for the body such as increasing strength, endurance, and the ability to recover quickly from injury. All this does is make it so that players might be able to do their jobs better. What modern company is going to succeed while holding its employees back like that? A better question: how does an entertainment company (which is all that MLB is, and nothing more) succeed without its entertainers? Would rap not be better off had Tupac and Notorious B.I.G been around longer? Would Hollywood be the same if Morgan Freeman had lived many decades earlier and thus not been given the opportunity to act? The point is that PED are intended to increase ability and keep players on the field, thus enhancing the product on the field. Bud Selig's career is going to be defined by two things: PED and innovation. Why were PED cast aside as a negative? As someone who has worked for a baseball data company and is going to continue work with another, I have to say that I'm involved in the business of gaining a competitive edge. After all that's what scouting reports are used for, that's what the SABR movement has been about, and that's why guys like Bill James and Tom Tango receive jobs with teams: they are really good at using their resources to gain a competitive edge.
Really, this all is why this side of the argument just doesn't seem all that bad to me. So what if a few players are found to have used PED and are suspended? Are people really naive enough to be surprised or angered by this news? The last 10 years in baseball history (the post-"Moneyball" era, as I like to call it) have been about utilizing resources to compete in a dynamic industry that demands perfection. Fans are becoming more open-minded about enhancing the product through statistical analysis, video technology through replay, and other efforts. In my opinion, this will eventually happen with PED if the media and MLB stop trying to tar and feather individuals who are just trying to be the best that they can be at their jobs. I wear glasses to increase my ability to see, thus improving my ability to read, write, type, and analyze baseball players. They *gasp* enhance my performance and I'm a better person for it. Is this really all that different than PED use? Most will say no, but I believe that to be the byproduct of the modern age. In short, the Biogenesis Lab is probably going to be a minor footnote in baseball history. Baseball is always going to be all about its history, but the game in this modern age is about innovation and improvement of the business. Disallowing PED use is probably just blocking the league from being more innovative.
The Other Side: The Miami Marlins
Every organization in baseball is a product of its ownership. This is a simple fact that cannot be refuted or ignored. Due to this, everything the Miami Marlins do is an extension of one Mr. Jeffrey Loria, an art dealer who purchased the team in the early 2000's. Before I even get into what Loria has done to the Marlins' franchise, lets backtrack. "Back in the day" Loria owned the Montreal Expos. Because of the closeness Loria seems to share with bud Selig, Loria sold the franchise a property run by the 29 other clubs in the league (basically the commissioner's office), jumped ship, got a large no-interest loan from MLB, and then bought the Florida Marlins. What did this do? It created a death sentence for the Expos and led to their move to Washington (it also, as an extension, helped create the Boston Red Sox of the last 10 years). This was considered by many to be terrible for the game. Luckily for the game, the franchise has recovered well in Washington due to a great ownership group and deep talent throughout the front office and the rest of the organization.
However, that's only the first thing Loria did. After taking advantage of my Cubs in 2003 and winning the World Series, Loria decided to save himself some cash by completely blowing up the team. Now, there are fire sales and then there are what the Marlins have now done 3 times (post-97 and this year, which we'll get to shortly). After gutting the roster to save a quick buck and completely disregarding any feelings the fan base had, Loria began working on his next move: getting a new park. Now, the Marlins were in a pretty bad situation as they were playing in an awful park and couldn't draw fans. Really, this was all Loria's fault. He moved a franchise to a city that many thought would not support a baseball franchise (and oh my how those people were right). Anyway, as any bad-market owner has always done, Loria sold Miami-Dade County on the fact that the team couldn't draw because of their ballpark. For whatever reason, officials in the local government ignored the fact that this is frequently just an excuse by sports owners to save money by cutting expenses. That's not even the worst of it, as the Marlins contributed only $155 million dollars to the $525 million project and net 100% of the profit. That's right, Loria managed to convince people that he only needed to front 29.5% of the cost and can keep all of the profits. Some may be thinking: so what? A good businessman gets a great deal. Well kind sirs and madams, the best part is yet to come:
After the plans to build the park were finalized, Loria decided to re-brand his product. The Marlins, as many teams do, changed their name to reflect the institution that funded their stadium product and became the Miami Marlins. Logo changes and color scheme changes followed, and the Marlins then went on a massive spending spree. They signed several key free agents including Jose Reyes, Heath Bell, and Mark Buehrle. The complete transition of the franchise to this money-spending mega product has proved to be nothing more than a ruse, however. Fans didn't show up, the team performed miserably, and the public was made to believe that Loria and his financial forecasters did not actually expect this to happen. As a result, the Marlins blew it all up roughly 12 months after completely re-branding the franchise. Now, to help explain something, part of re-branding a sports team is changing the way you act. You can put a $5,000 suit on a pile of garbage, but the fact is that it's still going to be a pile of garbage. Nothing the Marlins changed in their re-branding really mattered. They were still in a bad baseball market, they didn't make any significant front office changes, and they were still run by Loria. After all of that money, all of those promises to fans, the Marlins didn't change anything. The only thing that happened was that Loria made some money and got rid of all of the responsibility he burdened himself with. The Marlins will now have a cheap roster, make bunches of money in TV revenues and ballpark revenues, and Loria will still be the same guy who screwed over Montreal in the late 90's and early 2000's. Yet, by some miracle the other baseball owners continue to support Loria and he's still involved in the game. Two franchises essentially left for dead (my money is that Loria will flip the team for profit in the near future, because that's just who he is) in 15 years of time in the league.
So back to the original question: what's worse for MLB? In my opinion, the answer is the Miami Marlins. The answer is Jeffrey Loria. PED are just another phase in MLB that will pass and possibly come to be accepted as part of the game. Loria, however, is going to continue to sap public funds, defraud the people that want to support his product, and constantly add more pain to this wound that has been his time in MLB. Sports ownership should be about promoting a brand, building a fan base, and winning titles. Loria has shown time and time again that he's in it to make money. This wouldn't be a problem if it were one of many goals like it is with most other MLB owners, but the evidence suggests that it's the only thing he's concerned about. In my opinion, fans should be a lot more concerned that this individual is allowed to be in the league than whether or not their favorite players are trying their best to improve their performance and enhance the entertainment value of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment