The Texas Rangers cultivated financial hardship--Slate, 11/18/03...and Boras on '60 Minutes'

• An 11/18/03 Slate article discusses financial aspects of the Texas Rangers trading Arod. The author, Allen Barra, notes Boras and Arod were interviewed on '60 Minutes' in March 2001, the interviewer focusing on money for awhile.

(Slate, Barra): "And the Texas Rangers don't need the money.

• The myth that they do is one of the most cherished in sports, one carefully cultivated by the Rangers and Major League Baseball and swallowed almost whole by the country's baseball press—

and the rest of the press, too—as exemplified by Lesley Stahl's question to A-Rod's agent, Scott Boras, during the March 25, 2001, edition of 60 Minutes:

"Do you ever feel," Stahl asked Boras, "that you have gone too far [in getting a $250 million, 10 year contract for his client]? Do you ever say, 'Oh, my God! This is—this is gross. This is so out—a quarter of a billion dollars'?"

"So 'out' of what, exactly, Ms. Stahl? If your ratings allowed your agent to get you the same kind of deal, what would you reply to one of your 60 Minutes colleagues who drilled you with 'Do you ever ask yourself if it's gross?' "

"Are you embarrassed?" Stahl asked Boras and Rodriguez.

They shouldn't have been, Lesley, but you should have been for asking the question.

Americans are always embarrassed about the subject of the big money paid to professional athletes because, at heart, we know they're paid that because it reflects how much more we care about them than the things we say are more important. The notion that the Texas Rangers and owner Hicks were bamboozled by Boras in the Rodriguez deal should have been dispelled long ago. First of all, with deferred payments and the interest that began accumulating on the Rangers' money before Rodriguez was even paid his first salary, the sum the Rangers pay A-Rod every season surely comes to considerably less than $25 million.

Second, and more to the point, the Rangers didn't exactly reach into their pockets to pay Rodriguez.

• They had the money for his contract because Fox Sports Net bought the 10-year cable rights to the Rangers and Dallas Stars hockey games for $250 million, and paid another $250 million for both teams' local broadcast rights for 15 years, according to some sources (Forbes reported the latter deal at $300 million). The Rangers, presumably, got the lion's share of that money.

The TV deals boosted the value of the team, as reported in Forbes, by 16 percent, and the addition of A-Rod beefed up their revenues considerably. The Rangers jacked up their ticket prices by an average of 10 percent for Rodriguez's first season, 2001, and finessed several new endorsement deals, including a sponsorship pact with Radio Shack.

• The question that should have been asked three years ago (in 2000) was not "How can the Rangers afford to pay Alex Rodriguez $250 million?" but "Why don't the Rangers use some of the money produced by those deals and the acquisition of Rodriguez to buy some pitching?"

Why then are the Rangers willing to part with the most valuable property in baseball? Possibly because, at this point, there's more money in dealing him.

• The TV contracts are in place for several more years, and the Rangers will continue to receive the money whether they're paying his salary or not.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that any money saved by dumping A-Rod's contract would be pure profit—minus the cost of a new shortstop.

• Maybe the Rangers can get Royce Clayton back. Clayton was the man A-Rod replaced in 2001. In 2000, he hit .242 with 14 home runs to Rodriguez's .316 and 41 home runs. This past season, Clayton hit .228 with 11 home runs and made $1.5 million. You get what you pay for."
• From Slate article by Allen Barra, "Trading Alex Rodriguez," 11/18/03

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon