Why Roger Clemens Is Bad For Baseball
Later today Roger Clemens is expected to make his long-awaited season debut against the Pirates (assuming he doesn’t strain his groin brushing his teeth). Yankee fans see it as the thing that can save their season, and the rest of the country sees it as a $28 million Hall of Fame sideshow. What nobody seems to realize is that Roger Clemens is bad for baseball and bad for sports in general.
In order to explain, let me take you back in history. Forty years ago, before Curt Flood successfully challenged the reserve clause, their were no free agents. While the main reason for this was that greedy owners didn’t want to give players bargaining power, there were also many people who truly believed that free agency would destroy the game. They didn’t think people would be interested in following a team whose roster was constantly in flux. In time, they were proved wrong, and baseball has flourished in the free agency era.
Clemens’ half season rentals have now taken free agency a step further, and this “uber-free agency” threatens to harm professional sports. Imagine a scenario six years from now where LeBron James announces that instead of signing multi-year contracts, every February he will sign a lucrative four month contract with the contender of his choice. It sounds far fetched, but that’s exactly what Clemens is doing. Right now Clemens is a 44 year-old exception, but if other people follow his lead, free agency could damage the game the way owners feared it would be 40 years ago. Fans can deal with some degree of player turnover, but they will not watch a sport where every player is on a one year contract.
I know this scenario is pretty unlikely, but the reason there’s a slim chance of it becoming a reality is that owners will pay anything to win. Just look at the Clemens situation. The Yankees are making a 44 year-old who might be the 20th best starter in baseball the highest paid pitcher in the game. What’s even worse is that there were at least two other teams willing to do nearly the same thing. Owners simply cannot be trusted to do what’s in the best interest of the game if it’s not what’s in the best interest of their team. As for the players, they are no different. They still want some degree of stability and security, but the past has shown they’re willing to give it up for a bigger salary and a better shot at a title.
Tomorrow fans should be rooting for Clemens to fail—not so Yankee fans can feel what it’s like to lose 90 games, but so other teams will be discouraged from throwing money at future half-year rentals. When Clemens takes the mound at Yankee stadium later today I will be watching will wary eyes, hoping he remains the 44 year-old exception.
7 Comments »
on 09 Jun 2007 at 8:15 pm #
this is why a strong commish is needed. Bowie and the like would have squashed this. another reason baseball is going in the crapper.
on 09 Jun 2007 at 8:30 pm #
Boy, you hit the mark on the head. I miss the old days when a team had the same core players for many years. The farm systems were crucial and trades were made. Nowadays, there is no continuity. It lessens the game.
Insurance Phoenix / Car Insurance Phoenix
on 10 Jun 2007 at 12:15 am #
Hey, if the Yankees are willing to waste money on Clemens, fine by me. I think I’ll stick with Johan Santana, thanks.
Speaking of Clemens: Is he the master of doggin’ it, or what? He looks to be all washed up when he leaves Boston a decade ago, then suddenly is born again with the Yanks? Why the sudden turnaround? Did he stop doggin’ it, start ‘roiding it, or both?
on 10 Jun 2007 at 1:35 am #
What a couple of silly comments.
on 10 Jun 2007 at 12:16 pm #
…..and don’t forget Kurt “fake bloody sock/I’m in love with Bush” Schilling. What a fraud
on 10 Jun 2007 at 12:47 pm #
this is a silly critique. it’s amusing that you point out that the owners’ fears were unfounded, and then proceed to use the same “logic” as they did. free agency didn’t ruin baseball, a unique pitcher signing a one year contract won’t ruin baseball.
clemens signed one year contracts the last two years…how’d that work out for the astros? apparently signing huge one year deals doesn’t guarantee championships. and furthermore, longer contracts, not shorter contracts are what the players want. soriano just signed for 8 years. zito got what, 5 years? players want stability, not one year payouts.
there is some truth to the seinfeld comment that we’re all just “rooting for pajamas” in the world of free agency. but baseball is having a fantastic year, setting all sorts of attendance records.
i’d say the rumors of the game’s death are, once again, premature.
on 12 Jun 2007 at 2:00 pm #
this doesn’t seem that different than:
1. Randy Moss and various other players taking sub-par contracts to play for the Patriots, or
2. NBA players taking sub-par contracts to play for contending teams (old examples that come to mind are Brian Williams on the Bulls and Karl Malone on the Lakers, but i’m sure it’s a practice older than that)
this is the continuation of a trend that’s never turned into anything groundshaking. the only difference with Clemens is that he’s turned the very act of signing his contracts into a yearly 6-month public spectacle that again is not that different than the ongoing Brett Favre debacle