MLB's Opening Day is once again here, and for the first time in more than two decades, Bud Selig is not at the helm. But as new Commissioner Rob Manfred begins his tenure, the league appears to be as strong as ever. Big-money RSN deals are providing teams -- small-market and big-market alike -- with huge cash infusions. Players are getting bigger contracts and revenue sharing has allowed for an unprecedented level of parity. However, Manfred will still have several key issues to deal with as the regular season begins. A handful of teams remain at odds with their respective municipalities over aging ballparks and how to replace them. But the hot-button issue this offseason was pace of play. Three of the baseball’s top media members -- Fox Sports' Ken Rosenthal, CBS Sports' Jon Heyman and ESPN's Jayson Stark -- took time to discuss a range of issues with THE DAILY as we get ready for first pitches around the league.
Q: What are the initiatives that should be at the top of Manfred’s to-do list?
Rosenthal: Youth, youth and more youth. I’m all for improving pace of play and exploring ways to boost offense, but Manfred needs to find ways to get kids to: 1) Play the game; 2) Watch the game. Improving pace of play and boosting offense actually would fall under the overall “youth” umbrella, and that is fine. But I worry about the future even though we’re talking about a $9B industry. I like that Manfred seems committed to bringing more kids into the sport.
Heyman: First, MLB needs to better market the best players. Manfred has mentioned Clayton Kershaw. I’d add Mike Trout, Buster Posey, Giancarlo Stanton and Andrew McCutchen to that list. Baseball needs to have heroes to appeal to young people, and that quintet is a great place to start. Second, MLB needs to do away with the DH once David Ortiz retires. I’m not sure this will ever happen, but I think uniformity is a plus, and I’d rather see the DH out altogether. Third, require teams to employ exactly 30 players in September. During the pennant drive, teams shouldn’t gain advantages by having the wherewithal to fill their clubhouses with extra players. Fourth, allow shorter DL stays than 15 days for all ailments, not just concussions. The 15-day rule is antiquated. Last, teams should have a payroll floor to avoid the occasional payroll that’s embarrassingly and ridiculously low and can send a message that a particular team isn’t trying. It's worthwhile for competitive balance reasons.
Stark: These suggestions exclude labor, since those negotiations won’t begin for a year: First, reach that younger demographic. That means analyzing why so many people 30 and under are using their MLB apps daily, but not actually watching signature events. Whatever baseball needs to do to connect with those people needs to happen. The future of the sport is riding on it. Second, baseball needs to get a better understanding of why offense has declined so dramatically. The game needs action, and there are nights where there just isn’t enough of it. Third, market the stars. Derek Jeter doesn’t work here anymore. It’s time for baseball to take its next generation of stars and turn them into the likes of LeBron James and Peyton Manning. Fourth, baseball needs a clear, comprehensive strategy for how to handle international issues, such as Cuba, the many complications of an international draft and more. Last, local TV mega-deals. Baseball has done a tremendous job of sharing revenue and creating more competitive balance. But the gigantic differences in local TV earning power of teams like the Dodgers, versus teams like the Brewers, is turning into an area that could threaten that balance.
Q: Will increasing pace of play work in attracting a younger audience? Does a time clock belong in the sport?
Heyman: The changes seem incremental to me. I am still at Spring Training games that take three-and-a-half to four hours. Perhaps that’s just the pace of spring. I do think, ultimately, game times will be down a bit, maybe 5-10 minutes. I’d be surprised if that makes a huge difference in perception. But it can’t hurt. However, I don’t want to see umpires hassling David Ortiz. I think his at-bat ritual is part of the show. Ultimately, I’m not sure that lopping five or even 10 minutes off game times will make anyone more inclined to go to games -- though that may be my age talking. Also, from what I’ve seen in spring training, they’ll need to enforce it better. I still see minor leaguers and journeymen taking their sweet time.
Stark: It’s great that baseball is trying to clean up some of the dead time during games. But to be honest, I don’t think that if the games end at 9:53pm instead of 10:02pm that it’s going to magically cause millions of 20-somethings to love baseball. It’s going to take a lot more than that. I’ve gone back and forth on the merits of a time clock. But I think in the end, I’ve decided I’m against it. The games need better rhythm, and the sport needs to work toward that. But the biggest reasons games last so long now can’t be solved by pitch clocks -- or even by stay-in-the-batters-box rules. It’s about long TV breaks, the proliferation of mid-inning pitching changes, the sabermetrics that have given us a newfound emphasis on stuff like pitches per plate appearance. And none of those issues seem to have a clear solution.
Rosenthal: Improving the pace of play would help. A lot of fans say baseball is “timeless,” but kids don’t want to hear that. They’ve got a world of choices in front of them, and they are drawn to more compelling products. Baseball is compelling. I view the season as 30 reality series unfolding, but the day-to-day action often can be boring. So, let’s quicken things up, and let’s react over the next few years if the offensive drought continues.
Q: What is MLB’s future in Cuba?
Stark: I’m not sure anyone knows yet. I went to Cuba in '99 for the Orioles’ exhibition game, and I was overwhelmed by how much people love baseball. And they especially love American baseball, even though many of them have never seen an actual major-league game. I’m sure we’ll see exhibition games in Havana in the near future. Beyond that, it depends on how quickly relations thaw in the political realm and how all that manifests itself.
Rosenthal: The sport’s future in Cuba hinges on how open the country truly becomes from the U.S. perspective. Youth academies similar to those in the Dominican Republic would be great. I can’t see a minor-league team in Cuba anytime soon, or a major-league team in the next 20-30 years.
Heyman: I could see exhibition games as early as '16 followed by some regular-season games. It works as far as the proximity. And I assume the interest, and attendance, would be huge. I’d like to see games that count there by '17.
Q: Which ballpark situation gets resolved first -- Tampa Bay or Oakland?
Rosenthal: Sometimes I think we’ll see a new ballpark on Mars before either of those situations is resolved. I would guess, Oakland, though. Much shorter lease, seemingly more momentum.
Heyman: I’m going to say Oakland, but I may as well have flipped a coin. I’m not sure either team gets a quick resolution. The Rays have that long lease and for some reason don’t seem to have made many friends on the St. Pete City Council. It may hurt the Rays that they don’t have local ownership. The folks of St. Pete probably would like a little backslapping. Even after all the Rays’ efforts, the city council there still doesn’t even want to let the Rays even look for a new stadium in the area. That’s a bad sign. The A’s situation is complicated by the rights and interest of the other team in the area.
Stark: Can I just flip a coin? There’s so little true headway being made on either front that I’m really only guessing. But I’d say Oakland. It seems clear now that the A’s are never going to be allowed to move to San Jose, so they need to find a path to a new park in Oakland. And that seems more doable than the politicians in Florida allowing the Rays to do what they need to do to get a new ballpark built in either Tampa or St. Petersburg. That conversation seems to lead to one dead end after another.
Q: Have the luxury tax and revenue sharing been successful in creating more competitive balance? Will the Yankees really show fiscal restraint in the long term?
Heyman: The revenue sharing and the luxury tax rules have indeed helped foster competitive balance. Without them, we may have one or two teams with $300M+ payrolls, and several at $30M or less. With the disparity in revenues between big-market and small-market teams only growing, more than ever baseball needs rules to try to even things out. Even with a substantial tax, there is still a wide disparity in payrolls, with the Yankees and Dodgers well over $200M and about double the average team’s payroll. For them, the Yankees have showed restraint, as they mostly sat out the free-agent market this year, even after two straight seasons failing to make the postseason. That’s a sign the tax system is working.
Stark: It hasn’t been just the luxury tax. It’s about revenue sharing in general. There is now close to a half-billion dollars a year being shared with teams in lower-revenue markets. Baseball gets way too little credit for its competitive balance compared with the NFL. The same teams don't win every year anymore, and the richest teams don’t win every year. Every team in baseball except Toronto has now played in a postseason game in this millennium. And look at how many teams, even in smaller markets, are keeping their stars. It’s harder to buy yourself a winner now. And that’s one of several forces driving teams like the Yankees to change the way they operate. The Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox will always have more money than the Pirates, Brewers or A’s. But that money doesn’t provide all the advantages it used to.
Rosenthal: The luxury tax has not been nearly as meaningful as revenue sharing in helping create more competitive balance. The overall health of the industry and boom in regional TV contracts also play a role. But revenue sharing is by far No. 1. The luxury tax has slowed down only a very small number of teams, and most do not even approach the threshold. As for the Yankees, no, they will not show restraint in the long term. They are not even showing restraint right now, though some of their fans perceive that to be the case. They spent a ton last offseason, and they will continue to spend heavily while trying to incorporate the products of an improving farm system. If they can pull off the latter, it will help them achieve lower payrolls.
