A Rant on MLB's "Commitment" to the WBC (Nov 05)

(From an email conversation in November 2005)

Nearly all of you will be completely uninterested in this. I post it here for discussion's sake on Yehoodi's baseball thread.


I know that [holding the WBC mid-season during the All-Star Break] likely will never happen. But hockey managed to work it that out (I'm still amazed) and they said that would never happen either. Actually, while I'm aware of all of those negative aspects of the proposal, and while the NHL doesn't have "prime time" weather to be concerned about, the guys that didn't play in the Olympics (the majority of the league) have said that the two weeks off left them stronger for the second half of the season than ever before. For me, it basically comes down to this: Why are you creating this tournament in the first place? And, by extension, how do you want your sport to be perceived worldwide and how much do you want this tournament to effect that?

Hockey is/was in dire straights with both attendance and ratings and felt that the Olympics would be an important showcase for their sport and their stars. Everyone involved was willing to sacrifice a fairly large degree of risk (attendance money, player's health, the list goes on) for the greater good of promoting their sport to the world.

Why is baseball creating the WBC if not for the same reason? I honestly don't know what Selig, the owners, or MLB is expecting to come out of the WBC but from what I read in the media and what I hear from you, this whole thing is going to happen in spite of itself and in spite of what everyone involved wants. Who wants this other than the commissioner? The owners obviously don't want it. The players appear to be split on the issue - for every Dontrelle Willis there is a Gary Sheffield. Other nations are having to be talked into it, the media is skeptical at best, and the public is either unaware of its existence or otherwise uninterested.

Even though MLB is reeling a bit in the public eye from the steroid issue, it still isn't even close to being in the trouble that the NHL experienced in '02, is experiencing now in '05, or even baseball itself experienced in post-strike in '94. Attendance was at an all-time high last year, right? So why rush the WBC? Personally, I see very little to gain and a great deal more to lose. If this thing flops I don't see how in '09 it has a snowball's chance in hell of taking off.

Every story that's come out in the past year about the WBC has been less-than-flattering. Japan balking. Sheffield saying he won't play. Pitch count limits. The only positive thing I can remember reading (other than the initial announcement) is that San Diego and Arizona will be hosting games. And really, calling that "good news" is a stretch. I realize that at this point, canceling/postponing the WBC is impossible, but I think at the very least there needs to be some positive spin put on the whole thing to the public. What's the long-term plan? What are the goals? What's going on? Does anybody even care about this thing or are they all working on it or playing in it because they have to?

This is where my point of legitimacy comes into play. Right now the impression that I, Joe Average Fan, is getting is that this is little more than a sideshow and a comedy of errors. If that pitch count rule and others like it really are invoked, I'm not watching it. Seriously. Because that rule tells me that the biggest concern and the bottom line is money. It's not about the sport of baseball that I love so much, but rather it's about owners investments and players paychecks. Of course, that's always been the suspicion among fans, but with that rule baseball is just flat-out confirming it. It's not about showcasing the best competition between the best players of the best sport in the world, but rather it's having some token big-name-but-not-yet-in-shape players putting on a dog-and-pony show for anyone that may or may not be interested so MLB can make an extra buck. You have to ask yourself, if this event isn't worth it to the owners to endure whatever financial hit they may take by shifting 8 to 12 July games to a week in March and a week in September once every four years, why is it worth it to MLB to put the time, money & effort into holding it in the first place? Why is it worth it for me to watch it?

I know a lot can change between now and March, but the only people that are going to watch the WBC at this point are the people that are already sold on baseball. Where am I going to watch it? When am I going to watch it? Who am I even going to watch? It's only discussed in the vaguest of generalities which is frustrating as a fan and uninteresting as a non-fan.

Where is the commitment by baseball, the owners and the players? It isn't apparent to me that there is any and that's why I'm little more than skeptical about the WBC. Where is the excitement about this tournament? How does FIFA do it with the World Cup? I have no idea, but they manage it despite having *multiple* high-level leagues and governing bodies worldwide.

Now, I realize that it's not easy to get something of this scale off the ground and there are a myriad of tedious details that need to be agreed upon and that is never a pretty picture. I'm also not saying that taking two weeks off during the season is the answer, but it would be something. It would be a commitment. It would be a start. It would say to me, "Hey, we are going to show you the best of what we have to offer. It's awesome, and we're going to prove it to you." Right now I'm not seeing that to any degree, but rather I'm seeing everyone fighting the success of the WBC tooth and nail. And that frustrates the hell out of me.