MURDOCH, THEY VOTE

Nobody has to guess Ted Turner’s favorite movie. It’s got to be the latest James Bond flick, “Tomorrow Never Dies,” right? Turner hates Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch despises him right back. They sue each other’s companies. They call each other names. Ted should have “Tomorrow Never Dies” playing on every TV set in his manse. How often is an international media mogul depicted in a movie as a worldwide menace?

By a vote of 27-2 (with one abstention), the baseball owners decided that Murdoch was a swell guy and, in every sense, deserved to be included in their lodge as owner of the Dodgers. Indeed, they recognized him as one of their own. Maybe the Braves owner should have asked his wife, actress Jane Fonda, how Hollywood always manages to erase the nasty nemesis in the last reel.

Last year, Turner said of Murdoch, “Like the late Fuhrer, he controls the media for his own personal benefit. [Murdoch] is crazed for money and power. . . . I fear him and I don’t trust him.”

Naturally, Turner thought Murdoch’s bid to buy the Dodgers should be rejected. Turner even skipped a Time-Warner board meeting to plead his case in person.

It might’ve helped Turner’s cause--helped a lot, in fact--if he hadn’t skipped every other owners meeting in the 1990s. The only club that voted with Turner Thursday? The Chicago White Sox. What could be scarier than looking around the room and realizing the only people with their hands up are you and Jerry Reinsdorf?

All in all, Thursday was an entirely typical baseball owners meeting. Extremely difficult decisions were on the table that would have enormous long-term consequences for the game. Those problems could be faced, discussed and battled out, although the intellectual work would be hard and feelings might be hurt.

On the other hand, everybody could just duck the issues, hope for the best and catch an early plane home to South Fork in time for dinner.

Guess which route baseball chose? The last jet was in the air by noon.

Conflict of interest? What’s that? How could a meeting chaired by permanent-temporary commissioner Bud Selig possibly consider such an issue with a straight face?

That doesn’t mean a real sports commissioner, such as Paul Tagliabue of the NFL, couldn’t see the issue in a heartbeat. “The ownership of an NFL team by a media conglomerate or a media owner would present a conflict of interest in competitive situations,” Tagliabue told the Washington Post Thursday in an interview in New York. “You’re better off dealing with the networks directly. We always want our outlets to have but one interest. That might be compromised.” In fairness, Tagliabue pointed out that baseball had other tangled considerations because local TV revenue is such an important part of its lifeblood.

So, if you want analysis of baseball problems, you know who to ask. The NFL commissioner.

Once, families owned baseball teams--the Giants (Stoneham), Phillies (Carpenter), Cubs (Wrigley), Senators (Griffiths), Tigers (Fetzer), Pirates (Galbreath) and Red Sox (Yawkey). Beer brewers also loved ballclubs--and their radio networks. Now, cable TV companies lust after the low-cost, high-quality programming provided by a 162-game season. How much would you have to pay for 500 hours of “Seinfeld” and “E.R.”--even reruns? That’s how many hours the Braves, Cubs, Angels and Dodgers can eat up for Turner, The Tribune Company, Walt Disney and now Murdoch. Suddenly, Sammy Sosa doesn’t look so overpaid.

So far, there’s been an unwritten rule--a gentleman’s agreement--that these cable-owned teams will be run like actual stand-alone businesses, not merely as red-ink loss-leaders for an entire media conglomerate.

Is Rupert Murdoch this sort of gentleman? Does he care about the long-term health of baseball? Or about its traditions of semi-fair play in the corporate boardroom?

The Dodgers are a painfully perfect illustration of the point. Last year, they ranked 13th in payroll (at $52.2 million) but missed the playoffs by two games with an 88-74 record. The team has a worldwide reputation and a photogenic superstar in catcher Mike Piazza. The roster drips with international marketing appeal with Hideo Nomo (Japan), Chan Ho Park (South Korea), Ismael Valdes (Mexico) and Ramon Martinez and Raul Mondesi (Dominican Republic).

The Dodger groundwork has been laid. Any Rotisserie League geek, with Murdoch’s open checkbook, could buy the two players--one star hitter and one dominant pitcher--to put this club over the top. If the Dodgers buy a World Series champion, as Wayne Huizenga bought one last year for the Florida Marlins, it would also attract viewers to Murdoch’s Fox network.

From a pure business point of view, Murdoch’s choice is pretty obvious. Blow baseball’s salary structure to smithereens. Grab the two or three key stars that he needs, no matter what the price. And build a perennial Dodger powerhouse that will become the National League heir to . . . well . . . to Turner’s aging Braves.

Turner’s Braves, it should be noted, have won their pennants without distorting the sport. They’ve spent. But not gone crazy. By the standards of rich teams, they’ve played fair.

Will Murdoch?

Sometimes, Murdoch buys a quality property, like the Village Voice or New York magazine, and leaves it intact. But, let’s face it, most of the time he either takes something decent and turns it into trash or, given a blank canvas, he commissions trash from scratch.

In the end, baseball made its decision based on only two considerations. Murdoch put $311 million on the table. That raises the value of every other franchise. And, if Rupert had been snubbed and gotten mad about it, he’d have been one mean dude to fight in court in a challenge to baseball’s antitrust exemption.

So, baseball did what it usually does. Everybody hopped a jet and hoped for the best.