Happy New Millennium, Hot Stove Leaguers

"Clearing out high salaries, the Dodgers traded Ismael Valdes and Eric Young to the Chicago Cubs."

That was it. On the front page of the Los Angeles Times. That was all it was. Of course, the details were spread throughout the sports page, in Section D, but this tiny spittle of information was all I needed to know.

As you may know, I read nothing in the sports page anymore. I watch no sports on television nor do I listen on the radio. I indulge in no sports stuff at all, ever. I am the Himalayan monk of sports celibacy. And I have been going strong for over a year now.

Laboring under this what some may consider unfortunate condition, I can still tell you firmly that major league baseball, the media, and all the Powers-That-Be would love to convince you of the "truth" of those first four words in this little front page news tease.

"Clearing out high salaries."

"Hey!" Joe Fan will say, "Look at dem Dodgers! See! They aren't that spendthrift team that all those stupid people are saying they are! See! They need to cut salaries, too!"

The Powers-That-Be have Joe Fan right in the palm of their slimy, scaly clutches. The whole idea is to make it seem like the Dodgers, the Yankees, and the Diamondbacks, Orioles, Red Sox, Braves, and Indians for that matter are all in the same boat with everyone else. Trying to keep those salaries down to a reasonable level.

Only a bonehead would buy this.

First, when a team attempts to use wisdom in its financial dealings, it does not mean that they will not spend a lot of money. Fiscal responsibility and huge expenditures are two different things.

(I realize that that sounds sort of like, "Eating chili burgers and not eating chili burgers are two different things." What I mean is, let's say that the Dodgers acquire Pedro Martinez, Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Mariano Rivera, and oh, a bunch of really great super-stud players. The total commitment to these contracts would be, say, $200 million a year, but the Dodgers swing it so they only have to shell out $100 million. They spent a buttload of money, but were fiscally wise, at the same time. They'll probably win the next 20 championships and make a mint in ticket sales, media coverage, merchandising and whatever else.

Let's say the, oh, Giants, yeah, let's say they spend $10 million on re-signing Kim Batiste, Vic Harris, Roger Smegma, Marge Schott, and Kemal Ataturk's pet lemur. True market value: $1.56. Twenty-seven fans attend Giants games during the 2000 season. Tiny expenditure, really, the $10 million, but fiscally wise?)

Secondly, if a team like the Dodgers trades guys like Valdes and Young, who I'm sure were extraordinarily expendable -- I know, at least, that Valdes pretty much sucked last year -- they will simply use the money they are saving to invest in the guys who will make them a contender. Watch carefully and see if the Dodgers' salary level drops into the middle of the pack. I can guarantee you it won't.

The Dodgers will simply revamp, spending whatever it takes, through however many "revampings" it takes, to buy a winner. I will stick by my prediction of last year and say it'll be this upcoming year. They will win it all. I'm already one-for-one so far picking the Yankees last year to win in 1999.

And as we enter a new millennium, I just thought I'd share with you a thought about just how important sports is, really, at least in the eyes of the Powers-That-Be.

I wrote a long time ago that sports franchises are really just playthings for the owners. That they are really piddly operations compared to the real corporate ventures in this country.

As I still observe the way people glom to sports -- they just get sucked in by its allure like a limpet sticks to a rock -- I see how far the Powers-That-Be will go to convince Joe Fan that their sports affection is the most important thing in the world.

I understand this. How how I loved the Giants, the Kansas City Chiefs -- I still do. (I even hear the Chiefs are in first place now. When they win the Super Bowl, I'll give a good cheer.) [Well, we know now that that ain't gonna happen. -- GP]

But man, oh man, is it not. It is not big news to see how little significance sports has. This isn't just my sports celibacy talking. A major factor supprting this perspective is found in looking at those lists that come out of the people who had the most profound impact on the world over the past 1,000 years. I think specifically of Life Magazine's list, and the list on A&E's Biography list -- their lists of the 100 most influential people from year 1000 to 2000. Many people made both lists, people like Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Napoleon, and Leonardo daVinci. Guess where sports greats like Jackie Robinson placed?

Nowhere. As in no -- where, nary a mention on either list.

What about Babe Ruth? Johnny Unitas? Muhammad Ali? Michael Jordan? Arnold Palmer? Joe Louis? Joe DiMaggio? Jesse Owens?

Not a mention. Not even a tick. None of the bunch.

This is to say nothing against Jackie Robinson. He was probably the most important sports figure in all of sports history. I wouldn't disagree with that.

What this does say is that sports has the tiniest, teensiest impact on events in the world. For those of us who narrowly follow its provincial exploits, it may inspire or excite a bit, but what else? The truth is that world-wide more people attend religious services on any given weekend than do all the people who attend all the sporting events during the entire year.

Would the Powers-That-Be continue to suck Joe Fan dry if Joe really knew about the true nature of the object of his affections? Particularly in a world where those affections are manipulated more and more with the machinations of free agency?

Oh, and by the way, there was one sports guy, just one, who made one of those lists. The Life magazine list. Can you guess who it was?

Number 92 on the list. (91 more influential people than he. Thing is, I could probably name a thousand more significant than he, but I imagine they felt they needed a sports guy in there somewhere....)

It was Roger Bannister.

Yeah. The guy who broke the four-minute mile.

I suppose the guy who breaks the 3-minute-30 second mile will be in the list of top 100 people of the next millennium.

EEEEEE! Contributing Editor David Beck used to have the strangely discolored toenails and once got in trouble as a teenager for playing catch with the dog -- that is, using the dog as the ball.

Copyright ©2000 by David Beck

Back to the EEEEEE! Home Page