Profiles in Discouragement

More stupefying comments from Denny Hocking (the Twins representative to the MLPA) showed up in an article in the Star Tribune today. Within just a few sentences he reveals the lack of courage he has in his convictions (or just his lack of convictions) and his lack of understanding of the economic issues surrounding the game. His quote, on receiving a letter from a Minnesota legislator regarding the deleterious affect a players' strike would have on the chances of the Twins securing public funding for a new stadium in 2003:

It seems like I'm being blamed here, I'm part of a union. If 29 guys vote one way and I vote the other, how does that make me look to my peers?"

So is he saying that if it were left up to his own conscience he would vote against a strike? But because he doesn't want to look uncooperative in front of his "peers" (which I'm forced to conclude are 29 other slap-hitting, limited range utility infielders with pre-pubescent goatees)--he is compelled to simply go along with the crowd? Not exactly Henry Fonda/12 Angry Men-level courage here. In fact, it's overt cowardice. Yet he's presenting this as being justification for his actions--as if we'll all say "when you put it that way, of course you'd have to vote 'yes.'" And remember, this is just the vote authorizing a strike--not his personal decision to break a picket line or ignore the decisions of the union. This is a revelatory comment about the nature of this union--one in which absolutely no pubic dissent is accepted--lest anyone might be led to believe the players' themselves question the economic reality of someone like Denny Hocking making $1.1 million a year (it’s true). Let me remind you he’s currently hitting .249 with 2 home runs and 23 RBIs. And he has a team leading 9 errors--despite the fact he's only played in 2/3 of the team's total games.

But then again, reality is a subjective term for the players, as illustrated by Hocking's further comment:

Hocking said the Twins' survival depends on a new stadium. "It's apparent we can't survive in Major League Baseball because of the revenue we do not generate. Building a new stadium would generate that revenue," he said.

If that's his actual understanding of the situation--I weep for the future (said in the tone of the maitre d' in Ferris Buehler's Day Off). He's conveniently (or purposely, due to ignorance) leaving out a big part of this equation. Under the current system, the only way to generate all that revenue is to have someone else (the public) build you the stadium for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then you (that is, owners and players) get to reap all the profits from it, in perpetuity.

That is the only way to sustain the current economic model in baseball--and the only way that Hocking will earn $1.1 million. Grossly simplified, the owner's position is to change the model so as to limit expenses (salaries) and thus diminish (somewhat) the requirement of public subsidy. The player's stance is to refuse this change and to ensure tax dollars continue to subsidize their salaries. And that is why Hocking will vote to strike, despite his apparent raging bout of conscience.