PDA

View Full Version : Legit Players Union Offer?


duke of dorwood
03-15-2002, 09:12 AM
This from Associated Press:

Baseball's union would give up salary arbitration and a minimum salary if owners were willing to let all players be free agents each time their contracts run out.



''I'll make the deal with you today,'' Gene Orza, the union's No. 2 official, told management negotiator Rob Manfred during a panel discussion yesterday at the World Congress of Sports

Dadawg_77
03-15-2002, 09:30 AM
It doesn't appear to be a legit. The system currently in place works better for both sides then total free agentcy. It was mostly just posturing by the union.

nut_stock
03-15-2002, 09:56 AM
That sounds like a terrible deal for the owners. At least with arbitration the club has an extra couple years to hang on to their young talant with out having to bid against other clubs.

voodoochile
03-15-2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock
That sounds like a terrible deal for the owners. At least with arbitration the club has an extra couple years to hang on to their young talant with out having to bid against other clubs.

Yeah, but arbitration is a double edged sword, because the players can have one good season right before FA kicks in and clean up at the negotiators table. Also, I believe players can make arguments from other sports and entertainment in general as to what their salary should be based on. That means that a guy can argue he is as popular as Jim Carrey and deseres to be paid $20 million/year. Beyond that if a player has an ARod like season right befor FA, it would enable him to claim he deserved to be paid like PAYrod. Arbitration does not allow the arbitrator to compromise. They have to take one of the two offers put before them.

For example, there is a good chance that Foulke could have asked for $10 million in arbitration, because his stats are as good or better than Rivera's.

The system essentially makes the highest played player's salary the baseline for other equally talented players. That can lead to some really bad situations for smaller market clubs trying to hang on to their talent...

czalgosz
03-15-2002, 11:49 AM
What that would mean is that the top draft picks would have tremendous leverage. Without playing one inning of professional ball, they would be getting multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts to play "A" Ball, because otherwise they would just bounce around from organization to organization all the way through the minors until they found someone who would pay them. Teams would have to cough up on draft day, or else not have any development time at all.

And, one players made the big leagues, if they had a passable rookie year, their value would be huge.

The owners are better off keeping the current system. They avoid arbitration 90% of the time, anyway, because no matter who wins, the player gets a huge raise in arbitration. So, most of the time, as arbitration approaches, they sign the good players to contracts and avoid arbitration, and trade or release the marginal ones. Simple as that.

What Fehr is suggesting would be a huge victory for the players.

Dadawg_77
03-16-2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

What Fehr is suggesting would be a huge victory for the players.

For the star players. This deal would hurt your marginal players big time. And it might depress salaries of stars to. What the deal would is increase supply of players on the market, now demand would remain the same since there wouldn't be any new teams. Thus price of the players would go down, esp with no market constraints such as a minimal salary. So your bench players who make at least couple hundred thousand dollars by rule, would only make maybe 50-75K for one year deals. Your young stars would command higher salaries then they do now (0-3), after that it would even out to what is in place now.

czalgosz
03-16-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


For the star players. This deal would hurt your marginal players big time. And it might depress salaries of stars to. What the deal would is increase supply of players on the market, now demand would remain the same since there wouldn't be any new teams. Thus price of the players would go down, esp with no market constraints such as a minimal salary. So your bench players who make at least couple hundred thousand dollars by rule, would only make maybe 50-75K for one year deals. Your young stars would command higher salaries then they do now (0-3), after that it would even out to what is in place now.

Well, assuming that teams were smart, that would end up depressing salaries, but what's more likely is that most teams would overpay to keep their decent players.

But, setting that aside, it's really hard to place a free-agent value on players who have never played in the majors. The prospect of them becoming free agents after say, two years in the minors means that most teams wouls have to overpay their draft picks to keep them in the minors for 4-5 years, so that they have some development time.

Now, if that draft pick is someone like Joe Borchard or Hank Blalock, that's not such a big deal. But when you're taking a flyer on a mid-round draft pick that you think might be good, you don't want to be stuck with a guaranteed contract for several seasons for a guy who has a really good chance of falling on his face.

The main problem I have with that idea is that it's going to kill most teams' scouting and development programs. Without adequate time to see what kind of player they are, without worrying about having to compete with other teams for their services, you're going to have chaos - guys bouncing around from organization to organization in the minors, getting coached one way by one team, another way by another. It will really hurt the sport as a whole, IMO.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yeah, but arbitration is a double edged sword, because the players can have one good season right before FA kicks in and clean up at the negotiators table. Also, I believe players can make arguments from other sports and entertainment in general as to what their salary should be based on....

I agree. This appears to be public posturing by the union, too. The owners have earning kudos for their revenue-sharing concept and the union appears to be the Grinch for not agreeing to luxury taxes--a polite way to stick more money in the owners' pocket at the players' expense. As others have already explained, it does nothing to promote competitive balance between teams--just make the owners richer.

Charlie Finley suggested making all the players free agents back in 1976. He knew supply and demand would work to the owners' favor. Of course the downside is all the rosters would be scrambled after each season. The proper balance must be struck somewhere in the middle.

The owners would never go for this, which is precisely why Orza proposed it. It's good P.R. for the union.

Viva Magglio
03-16-2002, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
That sounds like a terrible deal for the owners. At least with arbitration the club has an extra couple years to hang on to their young talant with out having to bid against other clubs.

:tool:reinsy
You've got that right!

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
For the star players. This deal would hurt your marginal players big time. And it might depress salaries of stars to. What the deal would is increase supply of players on the market, now demand would remain the same since there wouldn't be any new teams. Thus price of the players would go down, esp with no market constraints such as a minimal salary. So your bench players who make at least couple hundred thousand dollars by rule, would only make maybe 50-75K for one year deals. Your young stars would command higher salaries then they do now (0-3), after that it would even out to what is in place now.

Exactly. The big winners in the union's proposal would be the "apprentices"--players with less than 3 years service time. They have virtually no bargaining power in the current system. If not for Buehrle's service time restrictions, he would already be one of the highest-paid left-handers in the game.

Journeyman veterans would be hurt the worst. Their careers are largely over, and they never did much to begin with.

czalgosz
03-16-2002, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Exactly. The big winners in the union's proposal would be the "apprentices"--players with less than 3 years service time. They have virtually no bargaining power in the current system. If not for Buehrle's service time restrictions, he would already be one of the highest-paid left-handers in the game.

Journeyman veterans would be hurt the worst. Their careers are largely over, and they never did much to begin with.

Which is why it's kind of surprising that the union suggested this deal, unless they are sure the owners will reject it. This plan really does a lot to help prospects, who aren't even MLBPA members.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Which is why it's kind of surprising that the union suggested this deal, unless they are sure the owners will reject it. This plan really does a lot to help prospects, who aren't even MLBPA members.

That's the surest sign that makes this simply posturing by the union. They would never suggest this unless they were sure the owners would reject it.

And yes, the premium paid to high school and college stars would become even larger as teams scramble to lock up young talent.

This will never happen.