Getty Images

Bryce Harper and Mike Trout traded home runs. Harper kept going.


As I wrote last week, baseball can’t promote its stars in a game-specific manner. It can’t — like the NBA can with LeBron James and Steph Curry or the NFL can in the battle of two marquee quarterbacks — guarantee you that two superstars facing off in an upcoming game will shine in said game. Sometimes the greatest player goes 0-for-4. Sometimes a reliever and a utility infielder are the most important dudes in a game.

Last night, however, Bryce Harper‘s Nationals and Mike Trout‘s Angels faced off, and the two biggest stars in the game each rose to the occasion.

In the first inning, Bryce Harper hit a homer. And not only did he hit it, he hit it directly over Mike Trout’s head in center field. Then, in the bottom half of the first, Trout hit a homer of his own. Watch:

Harper didn’t stop with his homer, though. He had two singles and a triple on top of that to finish his night 4-for-4. Trout’s homer would be his only hit of the night, though he did knock in a second run with a ninth inning grounder.

This is only the second series in which baseball’s two best players have faced off. The first time took place in April 2014. In that series Trout went 5-for-14 while Harper went 1-for-11. They only have one more game in this short, two-game series. Though there are no guarantees in any given game, it feels like one we should tune into tonight.

Must-Click Link: Do the players even care about money anymore?

Getty Images

Yesterday I wrote about how the union has come to find itself in the extraordinarily weak position it’s in. The upshot: their leadership and their membership, happily wealthy by virtue of gains realized in the 1970s-1990s, has chosen to focus on small, day-to-day, quality of life issues rather than big-picture financial issues. As a result, ownership has cleaned their clock in the past few Collective Bargaining Agreements. If the union is to ever get back the considerable amount of ground it has lost over the past 15 years, it’ll require a ton of hard work and perhaps drastic measures.

A few hours later, Yahoo’s Jeff Passan dropped an absolute must-read that expands on that topic. Through weeks of interviews with league officials, agents and players, he explains why the free agent market is as bad as it is for players right now and why so many of them and so many fans seem not to understand just how bad a spot the players are in, business wise.

Passan keys on the media’s credulousness regarding teams’ stated rationales for not spending in free agency. About how, with even a little bit of scrutiny, the “[Team] wants to get below the luxury tax” argument makes no sense. About how the claim that this is a weak free agent class, however true that may be, does not explain why so few players are being signed.  About how so few teams seem interested in actually competing and how fans, somehow, seem totally OK with it.

Passan makes a compelling argument, backed by multiple sources, that, even if there is a lot of money flowing around, the fundamental financial model of the game is broken. The young players are the most valuable but are paid pennies while players with 6-10 years service time are the least valuable yet are the ones, theoretically anyway, positioned to make the most money. The owners have figured it out. The union has dropped the ball as it has worried about, well, whatever the heck it is worried about. The killer passage on all of this is damning in this regard:

During the negotiations leading to the 2016 basic agreement that governs baseball, officials at MLB left bargaining stupefied almost on a daily basis. Something had changed at the MLBPA, and the league couldn’t help but beam at its good fortune: The core principle that for decades guided the union no longer seemed a priority.

“It was like they didn’t care about money anymore,” one league official said.

Personally, I don’t believe that they don’t care about money anymore. I think the union has simply dropped the ball on educating its membership about the business structure of the game and the stakes involved with any given rule in the CBA. I think that they either so not understand the financial implications of that to which they have agreed or are indifferent to them because they do not understand their scope and long term impact.

It’s a union’s job to educate its membership about the big issues that may escape any one member’s notice — like the long term effects of a decision about the luxury tax or amateur and international salary caps — and convince them that it’s worth fighting for. Does the MLBPA do that? Does it even try? If it hasn’t tried for the past couple of cycles and it suddenly starts to now, will there be a player civil war, with some not caring to jeopardize their short term well-being for the long term gain of the players who follow them?

If you care at all about the business and financial aspects of the game, Passan’s article is essential.