your views on the arbitration process

K

Knucksie

Called Up to the Major Leagues
With Mike Minor's win in his arbitration case, this might not be a bad time to discuss thoughts on the process. Everybody has feelings about free agency. Some of us are even old enough to remember the free agent draft. Yes, the Braves, like practically every team, actually drafted Dave Winfield. Little chance of getting him, even while Ted Turner was attempting to fashion himself as a southern version of George Steinbrenner.

Which brings us to Steinbrenner. The man was bombastic but he would occasionally bring up some valid points. He paid his players and expected them to perform. Anything less than a championship was considered failure. He obviously was huge in free agency, while he did not hold back his thoughts on arbitration. His problem with the process is that a certain player, with his agent, would peg salary demands, based on what a "similar" type of player was earning. (It's understood that the sabermetricians should be very interested in these aspects. However, it should also be kept in mind that the organizations have access to data, which isn't tracked at the Elias Sports Bureau or (ahem) Fangraphs.

Historically, arbitration tends not to lead to an actual hearing. Even when there is an actual hearing, teams usually settle by splitting the difference. With Minor's case resulting in his favor, this is likely typical of the mediator's decision. Player salaries almost always increase, even after after a average or below average season. In this instance, it was obviously only a difference of $500,000. We can debate whether this award was deserved, whether health issues were all that prevented him from consistency or displaying top form and if it might leave lingering resentment.

The purpose here is really to discuss perception of the arbitration process and the history. If you want to chime in about Minor or any other specific arb-eligible players, that's fine too.
 
I don't know if it's still the case, but for years, the owners were willing to "give" to the players on the free agency issue if they could "get" something from them on the arbitration issue. Minor is just the most recent case why the owners would like to get some help here. $500,000 isn't going to break the bank, but the fact that Minor won is pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not going to blame the stat-intensive types for this, but with all the numbers floating around, it can be fairly easy to make a rhetorical case why the player should win (and my guess is the players' agents really work that angle extremely hard). There's probably a comp to Minor who is actually making more than Minor (thanks to the idiocy of a different front office) and that likely sways the arbitrators. It's no wonder teams try to tie up guys contractually through their arbitration years to avoid the process altogether.
 
Here is the exact criteria from the CBA that the Arbitrators are expected to abide by:

(10) Criteria
(a) The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball salaries (see paragraph (11) below for confidential salary data), the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance (subject to the exclusion stated in subparagraph (b)(i) below). Any evidence may be submitted which is relevant to the above criteria, and the arbitration panel shall assign such weight to the evidence as shall appear appropriate under the circumstances. The arbitration panel shall, except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service, give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his representative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as is deemed appropriate.

(b) Evidence of the following shall not be admissible:
(i) The financial position of the Player and the Club;
(ii) Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing on the performance of either the Player or the Club, except that recognized annual Player awards for playing excellence shall not be excluded;
(iii) Offers made by either Player or Club prior to arbitration;
(iv) The cost to the parties of their representatives, attorneys,etc.;
(v) Salaries in other sports or occupations.

(11) Confidential Major League Salary Data. For its confidential use, as background information, the arbitration panel will be given a tabulation showing the minimum salary in the Major Leagues and salaries for the preceding season of all players on Major League rosters as of August 31, broken down by years of Major League service. The names and Clubs of the Players concerned will appear on the tabulation. In utilizing the salary tabulation, the arbitration panel shall consider the salaries of all comparable Players and not merely the salary of a single Player or group of Players.
 
50PoundHead said:
I don't know if it's still the case, but for years, the owners were willing to "give" to the players on the free agency issue if they could "get" something from them on the arbitration issue. Minor is just the most recent case why the owners would like to get some help here. $500,000 isn't going to break the bank, but the fact that Minor won is pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not going to blame the stat-intensive types for this, but with all the numbers floating around, it can be fairly easy to make a rhetorical case why the player should win (and my guess is the players' agents really work that angle extremely hard). There's probably a comp to Minor who is actually making more than Minor (thanks to the idiocy of a different front office) and that likely sways the arbitrators. It's no wonder teams try to tie up guys contractually through their arbitration years to avoid the process altogether.
Click to expand...

For a while, there were figures being bandied about which attempted to tie individual player salary more directly to overall revenue generated for the specific clubs, attendance and TV viewership. The trend didn't seem to gain traction after some heavy promotion (maybe in USA Today and Sports Weekly?). This was more apparent with superstar-level players. They could actually makes cases that they underpaid, despite record contracts (especially after the last work stoppage).
 
Hawk said:
Here is the exact criteria from the CBA that the Arbitrators are expected to abide by:

(10) Criteria
(a) The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball salaries (see paragraph (11) below for confidential salary data), the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance (subject to the exclusion stated in subparagraph (b)(i) below). Any evidence may be submitted which is relevant to the above criteria, and the arbitration panel shall assign such weight to the evidence as shall appear appropriate under the circumstances. The arbitration panel shall, except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service, give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his representative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as is deemed appropriate.

(b) Evidence of the following shall not be admissible:
(i) The financial position of the Player and the Club;
(ii) Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing on the performance of either the Player or the Club, except that recognized annual Player awards for playing excellence shall not be excluded;
(iii) Offers made by either Player or Club prior to arbitration;
(iv) The cost to the parties of their representatives, attorneys,etc.;
(v) Salaries in other sports or occupations.

(11) Confidential Major League Salary Data. For its confidential use, as background information, the arbitration panel will be given a tabulation showing the minimum salary in the Major Leagues and salaries for the preceding season of all players on Major League rosters as of August 31, broken down by years of Major League service. The names and Clubs of the Players concerned will appear on the tabulation. In utilizing the salary tabulation, the arbitration panel shall consider the salaries of all comparable Players and not merely the salary of a single Player or group of Players.
Click to expand...

This is good to read. Of course it's lawyerly, which means it's also vague and subject to "interpretation." Impression is that a player could arb-eligible, after spending a majority of the previous season on the DL and still have an excellent chance at a big salary jump.
 
This is good to read. Of course it's lawyerly, which means it's also vague and subject to "interpretation." Impression is that a player could arb-eligible, after spending a majority of the previous season on the DL and still have an excellent chance at a big salary jump.

If it's somehow calibrated to both the team/market and comparable players, I don't see why even that would be a problem.

My short take on why things are the way they are is because Marvin Miller and his team were WAAAAAAAAY smarter and better at their jobs than the people they were negotiating against. Corollary to that is that baseball players get a bigger percentage of the pie—and one more commensurate with their contribution—than do other pro athletes, and rightfully so. High player salaries don't make ticket prices higher, necessarily. It just means that the players are getting money that would ordinarily be going to owners.

The arbitration system is not that bad, really. It allows teams to have several years of player control, rewarding them for their investment in drafting and developing a player; it allows the player to be better compensated if he warrants it earlier in his career; and it controls the supply of FAs hitting the market in any given year. Beats the **** out of the reserve clause.
 
Julio3000 said:
If it's somehow calibrated to both the team/market and comparable players, I don't see why even that would be a problem.
Click to expand...

It's a problem insofar as how the club benchmark's the player's value vs. what the player and his representation perceives it to be. Hence the process.

From a fan's perspective, it's certainly valid to question whether 20% or more of overall salary should be tied to just one player. We don't need to be reminded of this fact, with the Braves paying BJ & Uggla this season! (Hey, maybe part of the motivation for cost-awareness on Minor was because of those contracts...) Of course, it's outside the scope of arbitration, but certainly a contributing factor in overall escalation of player salaries. Dare we ask, does anybody really deserve to be paid over $20MM to play baseball?

Julio3000 said:
My short take on why things are the way they are is because Marvin Miller and his team were WAAAAAAAAY smarter and better at their jobs than the people they were negotiating against.
Click to expand...

Excellent observation!

Julio3000 said:
Corollary to that is that baseball players get a bigger percentage of the pie—and one more commensurate with their contribution—than do other pro athletes, and rightfully so. High player salaries don't make ticket prices higher, necessarily. It just means that the players are getting money that would ordinarily be going to owners.
Click to expand...

George Will said that he's a socialist in this regard. The only time you will hear him say it! His point being nobody pays to see the owners do their jobs. Then, of course, it could be argued that without ownership, an established professional league, the relative value of possessing baseball skills is worth considerably less! Not to take either side, because it's a complex issue. When we start to get into areas, such as labor law, it's probably not the most fascinating subject that we can discuss here but it affects all of us.
 
Yeah, I appreciate George Will's take on it, per Ken Burns's film. I wonder if his feelings have changed at all in the intervening couple of decades.

My bottom line is that, relative to other pro sports, baseball's stronger union has lead to a more equitable distribution of the proceeds of the sport. Of course, there is arguably a negative impact on fans in any case.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, I appreciate George Will's take on it, per Ken Burns's film. I wonder if his feelings have changed at all in the intervening couple of decades.
Click to expand...

The last work stoppage left a bad taste in most people's mouths. Neither party has (wisely) chosen to press the issue since when the collective bargaining agreement was about to expire. George Will must still follow the game enough to realize the consequences, esp. since he'd rather discuss baseball than politics.
 
I would love to have a job where I can get a raise after underperforming from my previous year of work.
 
NinersSBChamps said:
I would love to have a job where I can get a raise after underperforming from my previous year of work.
Click to expand...

I bet you wouldn't love to have a job where you only had one option for an employer, and they paid you way less that you would get if you could choose. And if you didn't like what they paid you, no other company in the field would be allowed to hire you. Bet you wouldn't actually like that.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I bet you wouldn't love to have a job where you only had one option for an employer, and they paid you way less that you would get if you could choose. And if you didn't like what they paid you, no other company in the field would be allowed to hire you. Bet you wouldn't actually like that.
Click to expand...

well put.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I bet you wouldn't love to have a job where you only had one option for an employer, and they paid you way less that you would get if you could choose. And if you didn't like what they paid you, no other company in the field would be allowed to hire you. Bet you wouldn't actually like that.
Click to expand...

And your employer could trade you to another data entry firm across the country for a crate of toner without your consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top