Columnist Dean Juipe: Baseball balks, misses out on parity

Dean Juipe

Monday, Dec. 24, 2001 | 8:53 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or 259-4084.

As a microcosm of what's both good and bad in baseball, consider the case of Jason Giambi, the New York Yankees and the Oakland Athletics.

Giambi is a feared slugger in the prime of his career who recently left the A's to sign as a free agent with the Yankees for a contract that covers seven years and will be worth $120 million to him.

It was a move that allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to once again curse their fate if not dwell on their lowly place in the sport's hierarchy. The money-conscious A's had offered Giambi $91 million over six years yet he rejected the deal in light of the Yankees' interest, his own desire for a larger national spotlight and, of course, those extra millions that were beyond Oakland's means.

As the radio broadcaster for the A's for the past six seasons, Las Vegas resident Ken Korach was as devastated as the fans in his audience when Giambi traded his green-and-gold jersey for one with pinstripes. Yet he shrugs in acceptance, reality having slapped him in the face many times before.

"I think the A's were resigned to it," he said of Giambi's departure. "It's hard for the fans to see, but they've tried to hold the line on salaries and they're trying to be very careful who they sign and go after.

"They try to field a respectable team and be fiscally responsible, and the offer they made Giambi wasn't a bad one.

"But even if it had been for $100 million, it may not have mattered."

Giambi is one of three free-agent players to have left the A's in the past 10 days, reliever Jason Isringhausen having signed with St. Louis for $27 million over four years and outfielder Johnny Damon having signed with Boston for $31 million over four years.

During that same time the Red Sox have been sold for $700 million, doubling the previous high paid for a team, and the Yankees have worked on spending the full $115 million that has been allocated for their 2002 payroll -- which is no problem given the fact they had a record $242 million in operating revenue this past year.

Meanwhile, the Montreal Expos and Minnesota Twins are fighting to stay alive in the face of contraction talks that would eliminate their franchises, and a team like the A's is habitually counting its pennies.

"Not that anyone would listen to me, but I think baseball needs to do two things," Korach said. "One is to have a minimum salary cap, so fans of a team like the Expos don't feel shortchanged. The other is to require teams to share their local TV revenues."

The Yankees are able to spend the $181 million they already have this winter on contract upgrades and free agents because of a lucrative contract to televise their games in the New York City area. Revenue sharing, which is the No. 1 reason for the parity that's enjoyed by the National Football League, is nonexistent in baseball and every team not among the "haves" suffers for it.

Given the benefits of revenue sharing and the belief that far more teams would prosper and favor such a system than not, it's bewildering that Major League Baseball has not moved in that direction. Yet there's no sign of it, and two teams may be folded while several others tread cautiously in an attempt to make ends meet.

Why the majority doesn't take it upon itself to rule is beyond me.