Jayson Stark, Idiot for Hire

Let's take a look at some of Jayson Stark's latest ridiculousness and wonder why any blogger hasn't been tapped to start writing professionally.

"All over the map, heads are still scratching, among agents and even some other club officials, over Oakland's announcement that it couldn't sign Miguel Tejada -- before it ever seriously negotiated with him.

One of Oakland owner Steve Schott's prime motives, obviously, was to dramatize his team's need for a new ballpark. But he's not getting one in Oakland, and trumping up a new Miguel Tejada crisis hasn't changed anything.

"That team needs to move," says one prominent baseball man. "Period."

What was especially outrageous, though, was Schott complaining about "the system" in baseball forcing him into this situation -- before Season One of the new labor deal, which he voted for in the name of competitive balance, could even begin.

"What good-faith effort did that team make to sign Tejada?" one agent fumes. "They made none. OK, if you make a good-faith effort and then you reach an impasse, then you can say you don't have the resources to sign the guy. But how do they even know?"

Let us remind you that a billion dollars in revenue sharing money will change hands over the life of this new labor deal. Teams like the A's will be prime receivers of that money. The market, especially for star players, has already begun plummeting back to earth. The spirit in which that labor deal was negotiated was supposedly all about restoring competitive balance.

So how can baseball allow an owner to announce he can't sign his biggest star before he sees how this new labor deal works? The commish has fined other owners for remarks far less injurious to the image of the game than that."

We'll take this piece by piece.

"All over the map, heads are still scratching, among agents and even some other club officials, over Oakland's announcement that it couldn't sign Miguel Tejada -- before it ever seriously negotiated with him."

Agent heads are scratching because their hair is dried out from using too much gel and too much Rogaine. Club officials range from team presidents, to GM's to the litter crew--so take any comments from those 'sources' lightly. Is there a rule in MLB that teams must negotiate with current players in Spring Training when their free agency year hits? We posted several times that Billy Beane did meet with Miggi's agent. If Billy is smart enough to know the team doesn't need to resign Tejada, he's damn well smart enough to take the free meal and not entertain any ideas of wasting energy on protracted negotiations.

"One of Oakland owner Steve Schott's prime motives, obviously, was to dramatize his team's need for a new ballpark. But he's not getting one in Oakland, and trumping up a new Miguel Tejada crisis hasn't changed anything."

Funny. Kaiser Selig was doing the harping on a new stadium, jackass. Schott has been fairly resilient in his ability not to muddy the waters with a lot of mud slinging over the new facility debate. Not to mention it's been less than a week since Schott spoke with Tejada regarding the Miguel Tejada Situation and people have been busy. You know, with cancelling trips to Japan, sending out the National Guard to protect roads, railroads, harbors and bridges and a crippling budget crisis, things are pretty hectic right now in the BayArea. Not a lot of free time to worry about Miguel Tejada and a new baseball only facility. Stark is attempting to point the blame at Schott, with Selig's finger.

"That team needs to move," says one prominent baseball man. "Period."

What the HELL is a 'prominent baseball man'? Whom are you referring to? Bud Selig? Pete Rose? Jayson Stark? The really fat guy in the left field bleachers of the Mets game in Florida yesterday?
Peter McGowan and Brian Saebean of the San Francisco Giants wouldn't mind seeing the A's leave the BayArea.
The fact is, the A's are a profitable franchise. They wouldn't be planning (and canceling) trips to Japan if they were losing money. They wouldn't restructure their lease deal with the Coliseum Board to begin paying for their accommodations. That's right. Up until this year the A's had a 'free lease'. They didn't pay a dime to play in the Network Associates Coliseum. Now they pay $1 million a year. True, it's chump change, but if the team was losing money they would have fought tooth and nail to be reimbursed for business loss for using a sub-standard facility operated by the Coliseum Board.

"What was especially outrageous, though, was Schott complaining about "the system" in baseball forcing him into this situation -- before Season One of the new labor deal, which he voted for in the name of competitive balance, could even begin."

Jackass. All of the owners voted for it. Do you see big oversized novelty checks sticking out of the Oakland A's mailbox? Huh, looks like there isn't any 'new' money lining the owners' pockets then, is there? The fact is, the results of the labor deal won't be seen for years. That's how labor deals work. You don't sign a deal and suddenly find out a week later that the dental plan is really working well. It takes years to figure out what consequences come from a deal. We can speculate, and offer opinion. It doesn't change things. Especially since MLB and the Union submitted two different signed agreements and screwed up the entire process after the fact*.

*That's a long story for another time-but, the 2002 deal was essentially gutted because there were language problems and the two sides just decided to go with the old language rather than start fighting again.

Jayson Stark suggests that the A's should just pay Tejada whatever he wants because the money will be there at the end of the season. Sounds awfully familiar to, the checks in the mail, doesn't it?

"What good-faith effort did that team make to sign Tejada?" one agent fumes. "They made none. OK, if you make a good-faith effort and then you reach an impasse, then you can say you don't have the resources to sign the guy. But how do they even know?"

What, are you an idiot? You find out if you even have the resources to begin NEGOTIATING, not after. If you know you won't have the money to pay a soon to be free agent player at his current rate next year, why bother negotiating about a higher salary now? That's old baseball, that's old business. That's bad baseball business. You practice economic competency. You look for alternatives. You become frugal and inventive. You don't negotiate a large contact with a big player and then make several other players sacrifice. That's just stupid. Who cares if an agent fumes? He makes 10% of a player's deal and then 10-20% off the earnings of the player's financial investments. A lot of money for zero work.

"Let us remind you that a billion dollars in revenue sharing money will change hands over the life of this new labor deal. Teams like the A's will be prime receivers of that money. The market, especially for star players, has already begun plummeting back to earth. The spirit in which that labor deal was negotiated was supposedly all about restoring competitive balance."

That's a nice projection, moron. Where did you come up with those figures? Just because the money changes hands doesn't mean any teams will actually get any of it back. Seligula will keep a portion of it in his discretionary Commissioner's Fund. Some of it will be paid in lawsuits and a few million will trickle down to the small market and low revenue teams. The New York Yankees will take a big hit this year with their salary, then a few players will leave to free agnecy or retirement. They'll take a little hit next year and lose a few more players. The third year they'll basically be sound at right at the payroll threshold suggested by the 2002 Labor Deal. Stark keeps thinking and writing in the future tense, basing his numbers on the current payrolls. The Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers will always overpay for talent, it doesn't mean they'll always be over the tax threshold. Stark also suggests the market for star players is, "plummeting back to earth". So why should the A's go and break the bank (a bank they don't even belong to, yet) on a 'silver' star player? Isn't that why salaries got out of control to begin with? Teams just spending money on contract extensions and free agents because they could-- rather than invest in their own infrastructure. What good does it do the A's to sign a player to a long term deal that won't even be the third best middle infielder in 2005 or even sooner? And remember we love Miggi, but, that's the reality of the situation.

"So how can baseball allow an owner to announce he can't sign his biggest star before he sees how this new labor deal works? The commish has fined other owners for remarks far less injurious to the image of the game than that."

Miguel Tejada isn't the biggest star on the A's and even if he were, that doesn't mean he deserves a damn cent. Billy Beane might be the biggest star on the A's, followed closely by Paul DePodesta, Danny McCormack, David Forst, Matt Keough (hey, Matt Keough!), Ken Macha, Rick Peterson and maybe the most important, Carolyn Jones. We still need to go through the Oakalnd A's telephone registry THEN we'll start talking about players being 'stars'.
Stark is so far off the mark with his last statement he should be fined by ESPN for suggesting Schott be fined by Kaiser Selig. Again, Selig and Bob DePuy have been far more vocal on the situation than Schott.
A number of players were even qoted as not understanding. But, that's why they get paid lots and lots of money while guys who run the ship get paid a lot less and do a lot more grunt work.


When you get down to it, we all root for laundry and colors. The players will always change. But, we'll love them as an Oakland A while they're here. It might be tough love, but you get used to it.


Somebody bring us the head (or typing hands) of Jayson Stark. Better bring the head, then he can't dictate to anyone. Well, we would hope someone would question whatever he dictates, but we can't take that chance.