PDA

View Full Version : Iguchi and Collusion


1951Campbell
01-17-2006, 11:11 AM
In today's New York Times, Murray Chass passes along to the reader Richard Moss' suspicion that collusion is back in MLB. I guess Moss thought Iguchi would get around 3/20, like the Matsuis, but instead, as we know, he got much less.

Moss represented players in the 80's, such as Jack Morris and Andre Dawson and thinks he knows collusion when he sees it, I guess. I am too young to fully remember the hub-bub about collusion.

Anyway, here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/sports/baseball/17chass.ready.html&OP=47ffd63eQ2F3Q3FjY3,_Q5CDz__dQ2B3Q2BQ23Q23E3Q23g 3g.3D1_zdD3YRDjYRmm3g.Q5CwRDDszjR,cswdKm (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/sports/baseball/17chass.ready.html&OP=47ffd63eQ2F3Q3FjY3,_Q5CDz__dQ2B3Q2BQ23Q23E3Q23g 3g.3D1_zdD3YRDjYRmm3g.Q5CwRDDszjR,cswdKm)

HomeFish
01-17-2006, 11:23 AM
Collusion = parity.

I don't see why we should necessarily be opposed to it.

wilburaga
01-17-2006, 11:28 AM
One factor that adversely affected Iguchi's contract negotiations was that the other highly regarded middle infielder imported from Japan (Kaz Matsui) had pretty much been a bust. No doubt the Sox got a bargain with Iguchi but it would be nearly impossible to prove collusion.

W

Flight #24
01-17-2006, 11:31 AM
Collusion = parity.

I don't see why we should necessarily be opposed to it.

Except for the fact that it's illegal, sure.

ewokpelts
01-17-2006, 11:31 AM
One factor that adversely affected Iguchi's contract negotiations iwas that the other highly regareded middle infielder imported from Japan (Kaz Matsui) had pretty much been a bust. No doubt the Sox got a bargain with Iguchi but it would be nearly impossible to prove collusion.

WWhile Hideki was worth every penny, Kaz is worth LESS than what the Mets are paying him(which is way too much).
I guchi didnt get many inqueries from MLB teams last year, which is why the Sox were able to snag him cheap.
Gene

1951Campbell
01-17-2006, 11:34 AM
While Hideki was worth every penny, Kaz is worth LESS than what the Mets are paying him(which is way too much).
I guchi didnt get many inqueries from MLB teams last year, which is why the Sox were able to snag him cheap.
Gene

According to the article, of 14 teams approched, only the Sox were interested.

And HomeFish, I understand that collusion = parity, but it's also illegal.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2006, 12:01 PM
Collusion = parity.

I don't see why we should necessarily be opposed to it.I assume that means you would have no objection if those who employed people in your line of work colluded to depress your salary, too.

ondafarm
01-17-2006, 12:40 PM
In short, the Sox made a smart move by staying interested in Iguchi and staying in the negotiations. Had Kaz Matsui tunred in a great year 2004 then Iguchi would have gone for much more. As it was we got a very solid player at a key defensive position for a very reasonable salary. In 2007 he'll get more but how much more is the question.

voodoochile
01-17-2006, 12:41 PM
Collusion = parity.

I don't see why we should necessarily be opposed to it.

Because it's a violation of federal law and goes against everything America stands for.

Sheesh

Oh and how does it necessarily equal parity?

Tell the owners to open their books and to start a SERIOUS revenue sharing program like other sports or not to expect ANY sympathy or respite from escalating player salaries.

SoxSideIrish
01-17-2006, 12:44 PM
OK, I'm a youngin' here. Could someone please explain collusion for me?

chaerulez
01-17-2006, 12:45 PM
Iguchi is probably one of the biggest bargins in the league. When he signed for that low, I was surprised he didn't get at least a 3/18 deal.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2006, 12:47 PM
Because it's a violation of federal law and goes against everything America stands for.

Sheesh

Oh and how does it necessarily equal parity?

Tell the owners to open their books and to start a SERIOUS revenue sharing program like other sports or not to expect ANY sympathy or respite from escalating player salaries.It's worth noting that the collusion judgements were not based on illegality. The MLBPA had a much surer case. They didn't go to court but to an arbitrator. Collusion violated a specific prohibition in the CBA that was put there at the insistance of the owners. Section XX(E) reads, in part:

(1) The utilization or non-utilization of rights under Article XIX(A)(2) and Article XX is an individual matter to be determined solely by each Player and each Club for his or its own benefit. Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs.

ondafarm
01-17-2006, 12:53 PM
Iguchi is probably one of the biggest bargins in the league. When he signed for that low, I was surprised he didn't get at least a 3/18 deal.

I think that the White Sox will see what kind of year Iguchi will have for a sophomore season and then renegotiate his contract to add several years so that his productive life will be in Chicago.

voodoochile
01-17-2006, 12:53 PM
OK, I'm a youngin' here. Could someone please explain collusion for me?

It's when the owners get together and decide not to try and outbid each other for FA players. Pretty much they all get together and agree not to spend more than a given amount for FA's and to keep their player salary budgets in line with each other.

In the 80's Andre Dawson signed a blank contract with the flubbies for a single season. You read that right. He signed the contract and said, "Fill in the dollar figure you think I am worth." The flubbies filled in $500K - which was WAY low for a player of his capabilities back then. It was a huge blow to the whole collusion issue. Dawson went on to have an MVP caliber season (I think he won it actually - for a 5th place team).

Owners got their asses handed to them in court later on. If they are trying to pull this crap again, they are going to get smoked on a national level and they will probably lose their anti-trust exemption.

voodoochile
01-17-2006, 12:54 PM
I think that the White Sox will see what kind of year Iguchi will have for a sophomore season and then renegotiate his contract to add several years so that his productive life will be in Chicago.

They already hold an option for 2007, IIRC.

itsnotrequired
01-17-2006, 12:55 PM
OK, I'm a youngin' here. Could someone please explain collusion for me?

As it applies to baseball, it means the owners get together in secret and agree not to pay high salaries. It was feared that the free agent market would drive salaries through the roof but if all the owners agreed not to pay over a certain amount, they could keep their costs low.

peeonwrigley
01-17-2006, 12:55 PM
In short, the Sox made a smart move by staying interested in Iguchi and staying in the negotiations. Had Kaz Matsui tunred in a great year 2004 then Iguchi would have gone for much more. As it was we got a very solid player at a key defensive position for a very reasonable salary. In 2007 he'll get more but how much more is the question.
Per the article he has an option year as part of his deal at $3.25M (I would assume for 2007). I would think the Sox would jump all over that. His contract sucks.

Left with no other choice and having ended Moss's representation of him, Iguchi signed with the White Sox for two years and $4.95 million with an equally cheap salary, $3.25 million, for an option year. His 2005 salary, $2.3 million, fell below the average salary in the major leagues.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2006, 12:58 PM
Per the article he has an option year as part of his deal at $3.25M. I would think the Sox would jump all over that. His contract sucks.All told he will earn well over $8M. I wouldn't exactly say that sucks.:tongue:

peeonwrigley
01-17-2006, 01:00 PM
All told he will earn well over $8M. I wouldn't exactly say that sucks.:tongue:

Ha, of course this is all relatively speaking :smile:

1951Campbell
01-17-2006, 01:03 PM
I assume that means you would have no objection if those who employed people in your line of work colluded to depress your salary, too.

Heh heh.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-17-2006, 01:05 PM
Tell the owners to open their books and to start a SERIOUS revenue sharing program like other sports or not to expect ANY sympathy or respite from escalating player salaries.

Are you trying to say teams like the Cubs understate their revenue? That the Cubs getting several million dollars less from their radio and TV contracts than the White Sox (prior to 2005) is not an accurate reflection of their finances?

Bud Selig said MLB lost close to $2 billion between 1996 - 2001. He is a very trustworthy fellow, representing trustworthy ownership groups.

duke of dorwood
01-17-2006, 01:23 PM
Collusion = same gas price at every station

SoxFan64
01-17-2006, 02:38 PM
As it applies to baseball, it means the owners get together in secret and agree not to pay high salaries. It was feared that the free agent market would drive salaries through the roof but if all the owners agreed not to pay over a certain amount, they could keep their costs low.

And for those that are a bit too young to remember, ol' Jer had his hands in this in a behind the scenes kind of way back in the mid 80's

Remember he is the owner who complains that other owners raise the bar too high for salaries because of their own ineptness. (Well it is a paraphrase.)

I will not blast Reinie here since he did give us a championship but if collusion is back you can half expect our guy to be working on it while not leaving his fingerprints since it is illegal.

TheOldRoman
01-17-2006, 06:42 PM
I assume that means you would have no objection if those who employed people in your line of work colluded to depress your salary, too. Im assuming by his line of work you mean trolling?
Homefish trolls pro bono.:D:

soxruleEP
01-17-2006, 07:35 PM
It is a gigantic leap of (il)logic to conclude that just because a bunch of owners aren't lining up to (over)pay players, it is collusion.

Remember, it is NOT free agency that drives up the average salary, it is arbitration and the threat of arbitration.

Daver
01-17-2006, 08:04 PM
It's worth noting that the collusion judgements were not based on illegality. The MLBPA had a much surer case. They didn't go to court but to an arbitrator. Collusion violated a specific prohibition in the CBA that was put there at the insistance of the owners. Section XX(E) reads, in part:

That is there because of the Collusion case the owners lost in 84, and they lost it in a federal court, in front of a federal judge and the NLRB. It was in that courtroom that Giamatti got his nose rubbed in what constitutional labor law was, and exactly why the document signed by his hand proved to the world that MLB was guilty of violating it.

Of course MLB was able to get out of this rather cheaply, because they hold an exemption from anti trust law, they were required to pay simple damages, to the tune of approx 200 million, this is off the top of my head, so if the numbers are wrong, so be it, as opposed to the TREBLE damages that any other business caught doing the very same thing would be required to pay.

Daver
01-17-2006, 08:06 PM
It is a gigantic leap of (il)logic to conclude that just because a bunch of owners aren't lining up to (over)pay players, it is collusion.

Remember, it is NOT free agency that drives up the average salary, it is arbitration and the threat of arbitration.

How can arbitration be a threat to the owners, when it was the OWNERS who insisted on it when FA in baseball was established in the seventies?

The MLBPA did not want arbitration, they would have preferred unlimited free agency, and still would.

bigfoot
01-17-2006, 08:52 PM
How can arbitration be a threat to the owners, when it was the OWNERS who insisted on it when FA in baseball was established in the seventies?

The MLBPA did not want arbitration, they would have preferred unlimited free agency, and still would.


Another case of "be careful for what you wish?" They got it, then regretted it!

voodoochile
01-17-2006, 11:17 PM
Collusion = same gas price at every station

They actually won a judgement on this exact issue a few years back. Turns out the owners didn't even need to talk to each other, just follow the lead of the guy across the street...

UofCSoxFan
01-17-2006, 11:24 PM
Collusion is illegal but it is also very hard to execute, especially long term. The secret agreements to supress wages only works if EVERY team agrees to it. Once one team (Yankees, Bost...etc) realizes "Hey I can make more money by getting a great team paying more than agreed upon with owners. The whole agreement then falls apart. BJ Ryan signed what a 50 million dollar deal? If collusion did exist it certainly does not exist now.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 09:03 AM
That is there because of the Collusion case the owners lost in 84, and they lost it in a federal court, in front of a federal judge and the NLRB. It was in that courtroom that Giamatti got his nose rubbed in what constitutional labor law was, and exactly why the document signed by his hand proved to the world that MLB was guilty of violating it.

Of course MLB was able to get out of this rather cheaply, because they hold an exemption from anti trust law, they were required to pay simple damages, to the tune of approx 200 million, this is off the top of my head, so if the numbers are wrong, so be it, as opposed to the TREBLE damages that any other business caught doing the very same thing would be required to pay.Actually, the collusion clause was put there at the insistance of the owners. Koufax and Drysdale held out together in spring training in 1966 in order to get the best possible deal. The owners remembered this and insisted on a collusion clause in the 1976 CBA. The players agreed as long as the prohibition applied to the owners as well. The rest is history.

Also, the MLBPA did NOT want unlimited free agency. They reasoned (probably correctly) that too many free agents would glut the market and drive down prices. They were perfectly happy to limit FA to players with 6+ years. But I agree that it can't be arbitration that drives up salaries when arbitration awards are ALWAYS less than what the player would have gotten as a FA.

For those interested, there's a good article on the subject here (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/eugene_freedman_2003_11_14_0/).
(http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/eugene_freedman_2003_11_14_0/)

soxruleEP
01-18-2006, 01:49 PM
How can arbitration be a threat to the owners, when it was the OWNERS who insisted on it when FA in baseball was established in the seventies?

The MLBPA did not want arbitration, they would have preferred unlimited free agency, and still would.

Perhaps I should have said "the threat of an arbitration hearing." I think you will agree that this is what led to Crede's receiving the huge raise he got. Arbitration is a crapshoot and a horible experience for both sides since the player has to hear the team paint him in as poor a light as possible and the owners may have an even parger raise to deal with.

There is little doubt that arbitration has increased the salaries of the average player in major league baseball. Not the average salaries, since huge free agent contracts will do that, but the salary paid to an average player, someone like, for example, Joe Crede, who is above average in the field but happens to play at the historically weakest position in baseball.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 02:05 PM
Perhaps I should have said "the threat of an arbitration hearing." I think you will agree that this is what led to Crede's receiving the huge raise he got. Arbitration is a crapshoot and a horible experience for both sides since the player has to hear the team paint him in as poor a light as possible and the owners may have an even parger raise to deal with.

There is little doubt that arbitration has increased the salaries of the average player in major league baseball. Not the average salaries, since huge free agent contracts will do that, but the salary paid to an average player, someone like, for example, Joe Crede, who is above average in the field but happens to play at the historically weakest position in baseball.What a lot of claptrap. Players get "huge" raises in their first arbitration year not because they get inflated salaries but because the previous year they had to accept tendered contracts at or near the league minimum. People usually get "huge raises" when they graduate from college and get real jobs. Does that mean that those entry level salaries are inflating wages for everyone?:o:

Arbitration awards are ALWAYS less than what the player would have gotten on the free market. Lower salaries only increase the average in bizarro world.

dugwood31
01-18-2006, 09:45 PM
How can arbitration be a threat to the owners, when it was the OWNERS who insisted on it when FA in baseball was established in the seventies?

The MLBPA did not want arbitration, they would have preferred unlimited free agency, and still would.

Actually, Daver, the arbitrator in the Messersmith and McNally grievance went to the owners and told them to settle before he handed down his decision so that they could avoid an unlimited free agency situation. The owners, stubborn as usual, refused -- they thought that they'd win the grievance outright and would be admitting defeat on the issue if they negotiated a settlement.

Then, the arbitrator had no choice but to rule on the side of the grievants, which ended the reserve clause forever and created, by the absence of any contract language, unlimited free agency. At that point (after the owners lost their appeal), the MLBPA went to the owners and negotiated limited free agency because they were afraid that unlimited free agency would destroy the game because of its destabilizing potential. The owners were more than happy to do it at that point (only after they lost the grievance) -- but the players did not have to negotiate it at that point.

This is where my memory gets fuzzy, but I think arbitration happened a few years later, maybe even a few CBA's down the road. The players did want arbitration because it covered players that weren't eligible for free agency.

Have you read "The End of Baseball As We Knew It?" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/103-1446577-6643063?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=the+end+of+baseball+as+we+knew+it&Go.x=3&Go.y=6It's a history of the players union, written by a bona fide labor historian. It's fascinating and definitely makes the owners look both evil and stupid.

flo-B-flo
01-18-2006, 10:14 PM
Just popped in because I'm hazy about a lot of this stuff. Great thread. The owner player taffy pull has been going on for a lonnng time. Good reading.

The Wall
01-18-2006, 10:31 PM
After the ridiculousness of this offseason in paying some players, I wish owners did collude :(:

KW would have had an easier time retaining Paulie and Garland for lesser money than he eventually had to pay. And dont forget the rest of the pitching staff will come up for raises soon enough.

Dolanski
01-19-2006, 06:20 PM
I don't know if there is any collusion going on IMO. I mean, look how much journeyman pitchers were going for this year.

Iguchi's low price tag was a result of Kaz Matsui having a terrible year before him and the new collective bargining agreement which had every team holding back last season on free agents.

soxruleEP
01-19-2006, 06:59 PM
What a lot of claptrap. Players get "huge" raises in their first arbitration year not because they get inflated salaries but because the previous year they had to accept tendered contracts at or near the league minimum. People usually get "huge raises" when they graduate from college and get real jobs. Does that mean that those entry level salaries are inflating wages for everyone?:o: .

No, and that analogy is not even useful. If we were talking about minor leaguers moving to the majors it might apply, but we are talking about experienced workers. It is true that the main factor in the percentage raise players receive in the first arbitration year is the low level of their salary in the previous year.

Arbitration inflates salaries because owners pay more than they would have submitted as their arbitration number so as to avoid the dangers of the arbitration hearing. The players accept these offers to avoid the dangers that pertain on their side. When arbitration hearings do occur, the players always get a huge raise if they win or lose, it is only the magnitude of the raise that is changed. You can consider it claptrap if you like, but I consider it a fact.

Arbitration awards are ALWAYS less than what the player would have gotten on the free market.

Correct--but so what? It has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make--that arbitration, not the huge salaries paid to a few elite players, is what has driven up the salary of the average player in MLB.

Lower salaries only increase the average in bizarro world.

Again, a true statement that is not to the point. I never said that "lower salaries drive up the average." Of course they are lower than they could be; that doesn't mean they are not in fact higher and therefore driving up the average.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2006, 08:38 PM
No, and that analogy is not even useful. If we were talking about minor leaguers moving to the majors it might apply, but we are talking about experienced workers. It is true that the main factor in the percentage raise players receive in the first arbitration year is the low level of their salary in the previous year.

Arbitration inflates salaries because owners pay more than they would have submitted as their arbitration number so as to avoid the dangers of the arbitration hearing. The players accept these offers to avoid the dangers that pertain on their side. When arbitration hearings do occur, the players always get a huge raise if they win or lose, it is only the magnitude of the raise that is changed. You can consider it claptrap if you like, but I consider it a fact.



Correct--but so what? It has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make--that arbitration, not the huge salaries paid to a few elite players, is what has driven up the salary of the average player in MLB.



Again, a true statement that is not to the point. I never said that "lower salaries drive up the average." Of course they are lower than they could be; that doesn't mean they are not in fact higher and therefore driving up the average.Don't be ridiculous. Arbitration cases almost always settle because the difference between the player's figure and the team's figure is too small to justify the animosity and expense of an arbitration hearing. So if Mark Prior gets a $3.5M instead of the $3.3M the team wanted, that's fueling inflated salaries? If you say so. :kukoo:

soxruleEP
01-20-2006, 06:45 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Arbitration cases almost always settle because the difference between the player's figure and the team's figure is too small to justify the animosity and expense of an arbitration hearing. So if Mark Prior gets a $3.5M instead of the $3.3M the team wanted, that's fueling inflated salaries? If you say so. :kukoo:

You are ignoring the point. The salaries are inflated by the very process. I doubt very seriously that most arbitration figures are so close.

But let me try to explain one more time.

The vast majority of major league players will never get the big pay day of a giant free agent contract. However, the salary of the average player--that is, the every day player who is not an all-star and who is just better than a replacement player--has increased exponentially. The reason for this is arbitration process. The average player derives more benefit from his various arbitration years than he does from his free agent year, as I have set out already. This drives up salaries.

It's not that important for me to argue anymore. I will agree to disagree with you. I often find your posts in total alignment with my views. I usually don't post unless I have something new to contribute so as to save bandwidth. I do find the use of the crazy emoticon in what I had tried to make a fairly logical discussion slightly insulting.

ondafarm
01-20-2006, 06:53 PM
I actually think that the number of players who get to arbitration hearings (as in have been in the majors long enough is fairly small.) You have to figure that very few guys get to the majors to begin with and then most are marginal to fair players who are typically ecstatic to get the huge jump to be making minimum to slightly better. When a guy is good enough to reach arbitration, something like a year after the average major league career is over, then he should get rewarded. The few players truly gifted and tenacious enough to last through to free-agency deserve what they get. For every $100 million dollar player career there are easily 100 guys who never accumulate $1 million over their career.

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2006, 07:24 PM
I doubt very seriously that most arbitration figures are so close. If you actually took the trouble to find out what you're talking about you'd find that they are.

Link (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060104&content_id=1291500&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp)

soxruleEP
01-20-2006, 10:51 PM
If you actually took the trouble to find out what you're talking about you'd find that they are.

Link (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060104&content_id=1291500&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp)

Okay, now you're being nasty.

Here's the averages for all the arbitration figures posted there:

Team's Average Figure: $2,691,829
Player's Average Figure: $3,440,853
Average Difference: $749,024
Percentage Difference: 27.8%

Now that's a big difference from the $200,000 posited in your Mark Prior example. ($200,000 being 6% of $3.3M)

Now here are the same numbers, if we eliminate the players who are asking for under $1M (a total of seven):

Team's Average Figure: $3,120,294
Player's Average Figure: $3,979,411
Average Diffrence: $859,117

Now that's an even bigger difference. Clearly 3/4 of a $1M is not "close."

Of course this proves my point, which all along has been, that arbitration and the threat of losing arbitration is the main engine driving up the salaries of average players in the major leagues. If Joe Crede an example of the typical increase, to argue that this is not so pretty much ignores the facts.

I now retire from this argument.

jamesto
01-20-2006, 11:13 PM
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that they screwed up Iguchi's name. They called him Taguchi in the middle of the article.


The reprise occurred when Moss was representing Tadahito Iguchi, a free-agent Japanese infielder looking to play in the United States. A four-time All-Star in Japan's Pacific League and the winner of three Gold Gloves as a second baseman, Taguchi might have been expected to sign a contract at least reasonably close to the deals reached by his countrymen Hideki Matsui (three years, $21 million) and Kazuo Matsui (three years, $20.1 million) when they joined the major leagues.

Domeshot17
01-20-2006, 11:28 PM
Its all garbage in the long run. The owners cry poor when baseball players get huge salaries, but at the same time dont seem to mind the fans payin 4 bucks a dog and 6-10 bucks a beer. 4 bucks for a soda, 5 for nachos. Its all related. Salaries come up but so do the big draws for the fans. Inside the park a 10 dollar hat costs 30, a 3 dollar pink basebal costs 8 etc etc etc.

I love the game, but if someone offered me 120 grand a year to go and play baseball for the rest of my life, I would be all over that. Baseball has gotten out of control. Konerko is my fav. Sox player, but I really find it funny when he gets a 5 year 60 mil deal and says he just wanted a fair offer. There probably is collusion in the game, and its everywhere. You dont think if Konerko would have taken a 5 years 30 mil deal to stay where he wanted the mlbpa would have been ALL OVER HIM. The players know they have the choice to stay where they want, but are urged to get every last cent they can.

I know collusion avoidance is a good thing in many aspects. I know teams can no longer collude I remember hearing something to the extent of the cubs dealt Rick Sutcliffe somewhere for a player to be named, he went, won a huge game for the other team, and was traded back to the cubs ( he essentially got traded for himself). Surely the cubs probably for a good chunk of change for the trouble, but could you imagine if the yankees, desperate to keep the red sox out of the wild card, dealt Arod and Sheffield to the indians for 2 minor leaguers, and traded them back 3 days later.

In the end though, none of it matters. We all go out and cheer our heart outs, and for 80% of mlb, I think they leave the money in the dugout for 9 innings, 162 days a year. I believe this because no matter how happy someone is at a signing/team introduction, they dont celebrate the way they do when they win the world series.

A good friend of mine once said that there was no difference between the pros and us when we were 12. We all played the game, loved it, loved playing catch and dreamed of playing pro baseball. Not signing that huge contract, but just playing in the pros.

Kind of a shame something everyone dreams of has a collusion clause, aint it

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2006, 10:22 AM
Okay, now you're being nasty.

Here's the averages for all the arbitration figures posted there:

Team's Average Figure: $2,691,829
Player's Average Figure: $3,440,853
Average Difference: $749,024
Percentage Difference: 27.8%

Now that's a big difference from the $200,000 posited in your Mark Prior example. ($200,000 being 6% of $3.3M)

Now here are the same numbers, if we eliminate the players who are asking for under $1M (a total of seven):

Team's Average Figure: $3,120,294
Player's Average Figure: $3,979,411
Average Diffrence: $859,117

Now that's an even bigger difference. Clearly 3/4 of a $1M is not "close."

Of course this proves my point, which all along has been, that arbitration and the threat of losing arbitration is the main engine driving up the salaries of average players in the major leagues. If Joe Crede an example of the typical increase, to argue that this is not so pretty much ignores the facts.

I now retire from this argument.So if they split the $800K difference, the player gets $400K more than the team was offering. Obviously, that's the reason for skyrocketing player salaries.

One more point you may have missed. MEDIAN player salaries have increased hardly at all in the last 5-6 years. So that "average player" salary that's increasing so rapidly...isn't.

voodoochile
01-21-2006, 12:31 PM
So if they split the $800K difference, the player gets $400K more than the team was offering. Obviously, that's the reason for skyrocketing player salaries.

One more point you may have missed. MEDIAN player salaries have increased hardly at all in the last 5-6 years. So that "average player" salary that's increasing so rapidly...isn't.

And it's more spread out than it used to be. Guys like Manny and ARod really skewed the numbers when they signed their contracts. In fact there were a handful of guys making 17-25M which really jumped the collective mean.

Now it's less likely for a guy to get over $15M but a team will spread the money around to several players. Skyrocketing salaries really is a bad description, what we are seeing here is a solid sellers market but less insanity when competing for the high end products.

That's to be expected and most of the "crazy" salaries this off season have been offered to pitchers which is to be expected - much like QB's get higher salaries in football if they show even a hint of competance.

soxinem1
01-21-2006, 01:07 PM
There are varying points on this arbitration issue, but the reason it was instituted is because, as was the case with Koufax and Drysdale, if the owners offered something the players did not think was fair the only grounds of protest was a hold out.

For example, a couple years ago before Mark Buherle was eligible for arbitration the Sox were a little heavy handed with him. They offered him a three year deal they thought was fair and if he didn't want it, then he would be renewed for a small fraction over what he made the prior year. MB refused, and they renewed him.

I agree to an extent that arbitration does increase salaries to a degree, but I also agree that arbitration figures are substantially lower than free agency contracts. But arbitration was adopted so that the owners could not get away with paying a guy like Albert Pujols $300,000 for three years while he hits .330 and averages 35HR/120RBI during that time. I don't think anyone thought in their wildest imagination at the time that combined figures of $8-14 million would ever be exchanged.

The players assoc. would never go for it, but years ago I thought a maximum salary structure should have been worked in for years 3-4-5 for a MLB player. I always thought arbitration was more like a law suit or a custody battle, as it leaves a bad taste with someone regardless of who wins the hearing.

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2006, 08:26 PM
And it's more spread out than it used to be. Guys like Manny and ARod really skewed the numbers when they signed their contracts. In fact there were a handful of guys making 17-25M which really jumped the collective mean.

Now it's less likely for a guy to get over $15M but a team will spread the money around to several players. Skyrocketing salaries really is a bad description, what we are seeing here is a solid sellers market but less insanity when competing for the high end products.

That's to be expected and most of the "crazy" salaries this off season have been offered to pitchers which is to be expected - much like QB's get higher salaries in football if they show even a hint of competance.Mean salaries are what is commonly reported, but as you point out, the mean is skewed a lot by the handful of very high salaries. The salaries for most players has hardly changed at all over the last several years. I don't have 2005 data, but here's the median, 75th percentile and mean from 2000-2004.

2000 750,000 3,000,000 1,987,543
2001 925,000 3,250,000 2,277,319
2002 900,000 3,500,000 2,389,250
2003 800,000 3,500,000 2,555,536
2004 787,500 3,000,000 2,482,534

All data from business of baseball pages (http://www.businessofbaseball.com/data.htm).