In the beginning....

The year was 1876 the owner of the Chicago White Stockings, William Hulbert, was drawing fire from other clubs with some questionable practices in signing players for his National Association team (the professional league at that time). Under the auspices of trying to create a stronger league that define territory for teams, he and a few others met on February 2, 1876, and created the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. The dominant team in those early teams was the team from Boston, then known as the Red Stockings. We now know them as the Atlanta Braves.

As one might guess from this opening passage, economics has always been a driving force once capitalists became involved in baseball. The game came from lesser motivations; it truly was a past time in its neophyte manifestations across the nation. Small communities and large communities battled not for prize money but for bragging rights. Eventually, though, economics loomed as a fact of life. In the 19th century, ball players wore wool uniforms which were a bit expensive. It costs a good deal to maintain equipment and to travel to other communities. The bottom line was that these early clubs had to eventually turn to means to generate income in order to survive, else they perished.

Teams were social clubs in their early days, and they generated income to support their clubs by throwing social events during the offseason. Eventually, clubs realized a potential in charging admission in enclosed environs. Turnstiles were erected, and fans were surreptitiously given the moniker "cranks" by turning those turnstiles. Eventually, clubs saw the potential in generating profit, and thus the game progressed into the professional realm with the Cincinnati Red Stockings.

Recently, MLB disclosed some fascinating news: it was approaching overall income of 6 billion dollars for the first time ever, placing it in the elite of other American Sports. The game has come a long way from the days when Alexander Cartwright drafted the original rules of base ball in 1845 (the game was written as two words then). Economics has shaped the overall game, much as it does in our society.

I don't make this statement lightly; I truly believe that if you follow the history of the game you can get a sense of how American society was shaping itself politically, socially, as well as aesthetically. This is probably a large reason that adore the game so.

And so now it's the fall of 2007, and we have officially entered the free agent signing period. Interestingly, I happened upon an article on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Tim Tucker which suggests that the Braves will be opening their coffers this off-season. Liberty Media, which purchased the Braves after a protracted acquisition process, from Time-Warner, has seen the Braves as possessing a good amount of cash flow, concluding that the Braves were "profitable" last year. Terry McGuirk, the Braves CEO has suggested that the Braves will increase payroll significantly, but did not have a set payroll. So, what does this mean for the tomahawk chopping fans in the thirsty state of Georgia (and I'm just talking about playoff drought here).

Well, it could mean good things, but it might also mean nothing. One problem the Braves still have is Mike Hampton and his lofty, backend of a contract. The Braves have financially managed to survive this ridiculous contract thanks in part to Hampton's injuries. John Schuerholz did not elaborate last season on how much the insurance policy was covering Hampton's contract when he went down again in spring training, but I doubt that the Braves would have pulled the trigger in obtaining Mark Texeira from Texas if they were paying the full contract. We also are seeing the advent of Tom Glavine's contract discussions. He declined a $13 million option with the Mets. The question is, how much do you spend on a 40-something pitcher who looked tired in his last few starts in September? If the Braves are poising to win beyond September they can't rely on the good memories of Glavine's glory days; they need to be assured that whatever they are spending on is going to get them back into the post season. Personally, anything beyond $7 million is probably a bit too much for "Tom Terrific" to return to the Braves dugout, but I'm not sure what new GM Frank Wren is thinking.

Just as an aside, the negotiations for Tom Glavine have been surprisingly open. The Braves for a decade and half have always stayed out of the public in their quest to sign or trade players. Frank Wren's candid remarks probably hurt the Braves' chances of getting a good deal; they lost the upperhand because someone probably thought this was a great image-enhancing deal. Well, winners don't worry about those image enhancers (see the latest Yankees moves...absolutely brilliant if you ask me). I fear that the Braves will probably sign Tom Glavine for more than he should be worth; it won't be money well spent.

Accordingly, the Braves seem to have become one of those teams that abhors Scott Boras. Has anyone noticed the previous Braves who were Scott Boras'? I always wondered if John Schuerholz took the view that he did not negotiate with Boras much as the US has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. He was quick to pull out the stakes with Andruw Jones, for example.

And the latest negotiations that Alex Rodriguez - arguably the greatest player in the game - opened on his own with the Yankees might not bode well for some other Boras clients. Remember when Andruw last signed with the Braves? He negotiated on his own what amounted to be a good deal for both he and the Braves. Will Andruw do this again, especially since A-Rod has already shown a penchant for going against the grain with the same agent? And, place this in context with the above article that I mentioned...does this open the door to new negotiations with Frank Wren and Andruw? I wouldn't rule it out at this point since, to be honest, Andruw's numbers were too low to ask for the numbers that Boras will be asking. In fact, I would not be surprised to see Andruw ask the Braves for a short term contract; he eluded to possibly doing something like in a recent AJC.com article (though he did not mention any teams that he'd possibly sign such a deal with).

As of last night (November 15th) it looks like Boras will be writing a smaller contract (in terms of dollars) for Alex Rodriguez, reportedly a ten year contract worth at least $275 million which is significantly lower than Boras' earlier asking price. What strikes me most is that Alex Rodriguez opened the dialog after Boras' faux paux of announcing A-Rods intent to exercise his opt-out while the World Series was still underway. Boras has a lot to learn about the game; no one person, be it a player, general manager, owner, or agent is larger than the game. Anyone who commits such blasphemy does so against not only the game, but America as well, in my opinion. Granted, Boras and numerous other agents have secured their place in changing the economic landscape of baseball, but their names will be mere footnotes decades from now.

Coming up on my next Blog: Paul Lo Duca, Barry Bonds, Derek Jeter, and s0me thoughts about the Brewers.