Jump to content

Marlins' salary plan may anger union


Admin

Recommended Posts

Fox Sports

 

The minimum salary in the new collective-bargaining agreement increased from $414,000 to $480,000, giving even the lowest-paid players a handsome wage.

 

Baseball’s economic system, however, allows clubs to otherwise determine the salaries of players in the 0-to-3-year service class almost unilaterally.

 

The Miami Marlins, a team that spent lavishly on free agents this past offseason, are taking a particularly firm stand with those players, according to major-league sources.

 

The Marlins intend to automatically “renew� the contracts of virtually all their 0-to-3s at the new minimum, a move that might prompt the players’ union to file a grievance, contending that the team did not operate in good faith, sources say.

 

The union lost a similar grievance involving the Chicago White Sox in the 1980s. The amount of money at stake for each player is in the thousands, not millions.

 

But the Marlins, if they remain unyielding, would risk angering their most accomplished 0-to-3s – players such as All-Star first baseman Gaby Sanchez, right fielder Mike Stanton and left fielder Logan Morrison.

 

The players say that there should be “appropriate spacing� between a two-year veteran such as Sanchez and a player with less than one year of service and has barely worn a major-league uniform.

 

The danger in angering such players is that they might become more eager to take the Marlins to a salary arbitration hearing after they qualify for the process with three years of service.

 

Thus, the long-term costs of treating all 0-to-3 players the same might outweight the benefits of the minimal savings.

 

The Marlins recently lost arbitration cases to right-hander Anibal Sanchez and infielder Emilio Bonifacio. They are 3-7 all-time in the process and 1-5 since 2007, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

 

With 0-to-3s, the Marlins use the same type of scale as most clubs, rewarding those who contribute most. But according to sources, they are starting the scale with the old minimum rather than the new, reasoning that players will jump at least $66,000 anyway.

 

If the scale determines that a player merits a jump from the old minimum of $414,000 to say, $460,000, the Marlins will simply pay him the new minimum of $480,000, sources say.

 

No 0-to-3 player in the majors is likely to earn more than $510,000-$520,000, according to one rival executive. But other clubs are more flexible than the Marlins in awarding raises above the minimum, sources say.

 

The Marlins have nine players with at least one or two years of service, according to Cots’ Baseball Contracts.

 

Besides Sanchez, Stanton and Morrison, the list includes left-hander Wade LeBlanc, catcher Brett Hayes, outfielders Chris Coghlan and Scott Cousins and relievers Mike Dunn and Ryan Webb.

 

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/miami-marlins-renew-young-players-contracts-at-league-minimum-possible-dispute-022212

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*** the union. There shouldn't even be a minimum.

 

And f*** this article. It's not only pure speculation but also poorly reasoned.

 

For example, it [again, like most other articles] ignored all the reasons why their arbitration-related strategy might be beneficial despite their losing record in the hearings. And it implied that a player does the team a favor by not going to an arbitration hearing, when those hearings are supposed to determine a player's fair value (among the 2 competing bids).

 

How do such well-known writers submit such garbage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that lends credence to the article is that the Marlins have been beaten badly in recent arbitration hearings. But either way, when the time comes the Marlins are either going to give fair contract proposals or go to arbitration, and I don't think what the Marlins paid in the first 3 years is really going to change whether or not the player is being offered a good deal when it actually matters.

 

If anything, the article needs to be more worried about what the Marlins are offering these guys immediately before they go to arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that lends credence to the article is that the Marlins have been beaten badly in recent arbitration hearings. But either way, when the time comes the Marlins are either going to give fair contract proposals or go to arbitration, and I don't think what the Marlins paid in the first 3 years is really going to change whether or not the player is being offered a good deal when it actually matters.

 

If anything, the article needs to be more worried about what the Marlins are offering these guys immediately before they go to arbitration.

 

 

You should probably read mystikol's post above. Plus arbitration decisions seem to be volatile and somewhat subjective, and shouldn't be judged by a "record" from a small sample. The Marlins were completely right to go to arbitration with both Anibal and Le Visage de Gaffe this year, regardless of the outcome.

 

And as you say, I think this will have absolutely no bearing on players deciding whether or not to head to arbitration once they are no longer cost-controlled. That article predicates that players will hold a grudge based on a conception that they may have missed out on 20-30k over a couple years. That's stupid, and has no effect on what an arbiter will deem the player to be worth at the present. The Marlins are not required to pay anything above the minimum, and the minimum keeps rising.

 

There's also a good chance the Marlins might be somewhat flexible when it comes to exceptional performance by a cost-controlled player (like the 475k Coghlan got in 2010 for winning ROY). Though there's nothing wrong with them just leaving it at 480k. Until the minimum rises again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*** the union. There shouldn't even be a minimum.

 

Absolutely right.

 

Let's put this is terms fans can relate to. The existence of the MLBPA and their ability to extort owners increases costs for no good economic reason. Many millions of dollars per year per club between minimum salaries and a couple of dozen other provisions.

 

Fans get to pay for every single dime of it, it doesn't come out of the owners' hides.

 

An extra 50 cents or a dollar per hot dog, and extra dollar or two to park, an extra $3 or $5 or $10 or $20 per ticket, it's all spread out over millions of fans to benefit 800 MLB players (and their overpaid union and MiLB players.) Maybe 10 to 20% overall.

 

Same thing is true of unions in the general economy. Extortion results in above-market wages. The benefits flow to a select few union members, the costs are spread out over millions of people who don't get upset because the cost per head is relatively small.

 

Eventually, the extortion results in bankruptcy, see autos, airlines, steel, textiles and other union-dominated industries. It took 40-50 years to drive them into the ground, but it was inevitable.

 

And, just as there should be no "minimum wage" for MLB ($480K for 6 months of work,) there should be no minimum wage in the general economy. It prevents those with low or no skills from grasping the first rung on the employment ladder, witness the 20+% unemployment rate for those under 20.

 

Unions, whether MLB or any other are just a bad idea. Extortion is not a formula for other than temporary success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from Cody added:

 

"That’s one of the main reasons I went to a hearing against them in my second year of arb,� said Boston Red Sox outfielder Cody Ross, who beat the Marlins in arbitration in 2010, receiving $4.45 million after the team offered $4.2 million.

 

“I never forgot about them not giving me a raise ever as a 0-to-3 player. I didn’t think it was fair for me to make the same as a guy who comes up from minor league camp and makes the team.�

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*** the union. There shouldn't even be a minimum.

 

Absolutely right.

 

Let's put this is terms fans can relate to. The existence of the MLBPA and their ability to extort owners increases costs for no good economic reason. Many millions of dollars per year per club between minimum salaries and a couple of dozen other provisions.

 

Fans get to pay for every single dime of it, it doesn't come out of the owners' hides.

 

An extra 50 cents or a dollar per hot dog, and extra dollar or two to park, an extra $3 or $5 or $10 or $20 per ticket, it's all spread out over millions of fans to benefit 800 MLB players (and their overpaid union and MiLB players.) Maybe 10 to 20% overall.

 

Same thing is true of unions in the general economy. Extortion results in above-market wages. The benefits flow to a select few union members, the costs are spread out over millions of people who don't get upset because the cost per head is relatively small.

 

Eventually, the extortion results in bankruptcy, see autos, airlines, steel, textiles and other union-dominated industries. It took 40-50 years to drive them into the ground, but it was inevitable.

 

And, just as there should be no "minimum wage" for MLB ($480K for 6 months of work,) there should be no minimum wage in the general economy. It prevents those with low or no skills from grasping the first rung on the employment ladder, witness the 20+% unemployment rate for those under 20.

 

Unions, whether MLB or any other are just a bad idea. Extortion is not a formula for other than temporary success.

Lolextortion.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but you lose a lot of credibility when you are so unobjective in your word choice.

 

Just like the employees don't have to work for that employer, the employer doesn't have to hire them, either. And the surrounding legal context is vital to determining how employer/union relations would play out. Extortion is certainly not both obvious and one-sided across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what's wrong with his word choice.

 

Unions are basically a form of coercion. The owners and fans don't want a work stoppage, so they have little choice but to be complicit to the union's demands. Threatening a work stoppage is essentially a form of extortion. The result is that MLB salaries have increased drastically over the last ten years, presumably much, much sharper than the rate of inflation.

 

I think Mises put it best:

 

The weapon of the trade union is the strike. It must be borne in mind that every strike is an act of coercion, a form of extortion, a measure of violence directed against all who might act in opposition to the strikers intentions.

It paints employers as powerless victims, which is a joke. Employers, for example, typically have fairly broad rights to fire employees at will regardless of time and money expended to move to a locale, learn a craft, etc., and they can and do use that leverage.

 

Both parties extort each other then; in fact, defining it that broadly, extortion would seem to be the very foundation of a marketplace.

 

The connotation of "extortion" is quite strong, stronger than coercion even, and in my view, inappropriate.

 

Also, my comment/opinion regarding ...'s word choice goes beyond this one post, but I think it applies here, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But employees can quit just as easily as they can be fired, and any training received by that employee comes at the expense of the employer. The employee that quits doesn't lose that training either.

 

Unions were necessary, but are outdated and have been detrimental to business for a while now.

 

I wasn't denying that. I said quite clearly that both sides have power, and that's why I think characterizing it as SOLELY one side extorting the other is improper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what's wrong with his word choice.

 

Unions are basically a form of coercion. The owners and fans don't want a work stoppage, so they have little choice but to be complicit to the union's demands. Threatening a work stoppage is essentially a form of extortion. The result is that MLB salaries have increased drastically over the last ten years, presumably much, much sharper than the rate of inflation.

 

I think Mises put it best:

 

The weapon of the trade union is the strike. It must be borne in mind that every strike is an act of coercion, a form of extortion, a measure of violence directed against all who might act in opposition to the strikers intentions.

It paints employers as powerless victims, which is a joke. Employers, for example, typically have fairly broad rights to fire employees at will regardless of time and money expended to move to a locale, learn a craft, etc., and they can and do use that leverage.

 

Both parties extort each other then; in fact, defining it that broadly, extortion would seem to be the very foundation of a marketplace.

 

The connotation of "extortion" is quite strong, stronger than coercion even, and in my view, inappropriate.

 

Also, my comment/opinion regarding ...'s word choice goes beyond this one post, but I think it applies here, as well.

What does firing have to do with anything? Obviously teams have the freedom to drop players, but the union remains an omnipresent entity that will continue to drive salaries up beyond their fair market value. There really isn't a mechanism in place for the club owners to circumvent this. They could try to play with replacement players, but the quality of play would diminish so drastically that the financial hit would be enormous. To put it simply, threat of "firing" isn't really leverage on the part of the owners. I really cannot see any instance of the clubs "extorting" the players.

 

I see nothing wrong with the connotation of the word "extortion" in the context of unions. In fact, it's been used commonly in such contexts (I've already quoted Mises as one). Threatening a strike for failing to comply with union demands is certainly a form of extortion in my book.

I'm referring to firing in the general economy, not in the MLB market. That's my fault if my post didn't make that clear.

 

I think you can only call it extortion at most when you acknowledge the powers on both sides and the significant impact of the legal landscape, beyond the simple idea that employees can organize to collectively bargain with a (typically) already-centralized-and-organized employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you insist on being myopic? Both sides have rights within the legal system which vary, and typically, each can screw over the other.

 

I'm not denying that the owners have some "rights," but in the case of MLB labor disputes, the owners pretty much always have their hands tied.

That post was meant for squalls's post. I responded too slowly and it ended up out of place. Sorry about that. I agree about the MLB generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But employees can quit just as easily as they can be fired, and any training received by that employee comes at the expense of the employer. The employee that quits doesn't lose that training either.

 

Unions were necessary, but are outdated and have been detrimental to business for a while now.

 

I wasn't denying that. I said quite clearly that both sides have power, and that's why I think characterizing it as SOLELY one side extorting the other is improper.

But it is the union that makes it one sided. As an employer, if my employees formed a union and threatened strike if I didn't raise wages, I would be forced to hire new employees and train ALL of them, and deal with the turnover until I find a good workforce again (almost impossible). Or I cave and raise wages (unnecessarily) because the cost of a pay increase < hiring, training, employee turnover, hell. This would reduce the amount of money I can reinvest into my business, and therefore, expansion would slow as would hiring new employees. Or I can pass the cost onto my customers. This is the issue I have with unions.

 

Unions were great when it came to improving working conditions. Beyond that I don't care for them at all. And in this country they aren't needed anymore.

(This is where I intended it.)

Why do you insist on being myopic? Both sides have rights within the legal system which vary, and typically, each can screw over the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Marlins prefer to pay based on production rather than potential. I think it's only logical to pay the minimum until arbitration. Otherwise you are basically paying a player more money for simply doing what he is supposed to do.

 

But I do understand how not giving a player the small raise could bring anger which could eventually lead to them signing with another team.

 

One thing I would suggest is that since the Marlins have complete control over a player's salary for their first 3 years-should a player show that they are deserving of a raise then the Marlins could simply give him that raise & if he doesn't perform the next season then they could simply bump his salary back down to the minimum. By doing so they only end up paying the player's extra when they actually produce & don't have to worry them being angry when their 3 years are done & signing with another team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions were great when it came to improving working conditions.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. I would give much more credit to the increased productivity that offered the worker more luxuries. Countries that have deplorable working conditions aren't suffering because there aren't unions, but because their productivity is still proverbially in the stone ages.

 

Mostly those countries have laws outlawing unions, thus working conditions are kept poor, and wages are kept at insufferably horrid levels. Because of unionization in this country it brought about the middle-class and allowed the economy to boom because wages increased. With the loss of union pressure on businesses, wages have stagnated or gone down, and the buying power of the middle class is being squeezed out of existance.

 

Welcome to the Mexification of the American economy. What you see south of the border, is what America will look like in about 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from Cody added:

 

"That’s one of the main reasons I went to a hearing against them in my second year of arb,� said Boston Red Sox outfielder Cody Ross, who beat the Marlins in arbitration in 2010, receiving $4.45 million after the team offered $4.2 million.

 

“I never forgot about them not giving me a raise ever as a 0-to-3 player. I didn’t think it was fair for me to make the same as a guy who comes up from minor league camp and makes the team.�

 

That's because Cody wasn't even a full time player until 2008, and he hit arbitration immediately after that. Nor was he expected to be a lock for 500 PA going into 2008. He had less than 200 PA the previous year, and had done nothing to warrant a raise before then. What a douche.

 

The bottom line is most players are going to go to arbitration if they feel they have a legitimate shot at securing more money, regardless of their standing with the organization. Nor is the notion that they were somehow "treated badly", by not receiving an extra 20 thousand (when the min keeps rising as it is), going to have any bearing on an arbiter's decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation about labor unions and their power cannot be compared realistically between an AFL-CIO job and MLB or any of the other major sports union.

 

While most who are in labor unions are trained with a specialty skill, most of those people can be replaced much easier than specialized athletes. This gives them a much greater bargaining chip than most labor unions.

 

I'm just amazed at posters here complaining about people using the capitalist system we all believe in to make the most money they can. If it causes prices to go too far for the public to support, then the market will eventually correct itself. Just because its not in the owners favor in MLB or other sports too bad - thats business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is that it seems like the Marlins made some kind of formal announcement that they would only pay their 1-3 year players the minimum. They probably could have just implemented this policy without anyone noticing had they not made such an announcement.

 

I think the whole thing about not giving player's raises from the minimum salary when they show they deserve it is just an issue of status; player's who have spent 1-2 years in the league don't want to be making the same amount of money as a rookie.

 

In 2006 Ryan Howard was the NL MVP so the Phillies raised his salary from 355K to 900K. The following year he argued for 10M in arbitration and won the case. It could be argued that by giving him such a large raise the Phillies were able to engender such goodwill between him & the team that he stayed motivated to hit 46 HR's the next season. On the flip side however it could be argued that giving such a large raise really doesn't cause such a huge amount of production. Look at Jason Heyward who made 496K last year & yet his BA went down a full .50 from .277 to .227

 

All in all, I think this policy is a very short sighted method of saving a small amount of money, but simply put "business is business" & I completely understand the Marlins management's way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all, I think this policy is a very short sighted method of saving a small amount of money, but simply put "business is business" & I completely understand the Marlins management's way of thinking.

 

 

Well I agree with the short-sighted comment. It could end up angering someone like Stanton who will then turn around and just wait for free agency. Its risky and not worth it to me. To be so petty over a few hundred thousand dollars when you were about to give an unproven commodity (Cespedes) $ 6 million a year ? It's just illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who think the union has no place clearly doesn't remember the days of collusion and no free agency. Sorry, but you need to brush up on your baseball history if you don't think there was a need for a union.

 

All unions will ask for more than what is necessary. Just as well, in this case the employers will exploit every advantage or loophole they have. It's the nature of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions were great when it came to improving working conditions.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. I would give much more credit to the increased productivity that offered the worker more luxuries. Countries that have deplorable working conditions aren't suffering because there aren't unions, but because their productivity is still proverbially in the stone ages.

 

Mostly those countries have laws outlawing unions, thus working conditions are kept poor, and wages are kept at insufferably horrid levels. Because of unionization in this country it brought about the middle-class and allowed the economy to boom because wages increased. With the loss of union pressure on businesses, wages have stagnated or gone down, and the buying power of the middle class is being squeezed out of existance.

 

Welcome to the Mexification of the American economy. What you see south of the border, is what America will look like in about 25 years.

Unionization cannot bring about a boom, but only deter it.

 

Real wealth and prosperity can only be brought about through increased productivity, much like the modernization of machinery that the United States experienced during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Machinization increases industrial output, generates wealth and consequently puts downward pressure on prices. This in turn results in a higher standard of living. The problem is that the pro-union crowd doesn't have the slightest idea of where wealth comes from.

 

Mind you that during this industrialization period the presence of unionism was virtually negligible and wages in the industrial sector had climbed by the turn of the twentieth century. And Americans were arguably living better than their highly unionized, heavily regulated European counterparts.

 

Improved quality of life occurred in the United States (say less hours in the work week) became permissible because our productive boom permitted it to be implemented. Unionization and excessive regulation stifle this productivity (some studies have estimated that unions have contributed to tens of trillions of dollars in lost productivity for the US economy). The US economy has thrived despite the detriment of unions, not because of them.

 

You're comparing economic progression in a society which never at any point had any recognized class divisions with those of nations which for hundreds and hundreds of years had legally recognized lower classes with no mobility. It's not a controlled experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who think the union has no place clearly doesn't remember the days of collusion and no free agency. Sorry, but you need to brush up on your baseball history if you don't think there was a need for a union.

 

All unions will ask for more than what is necessary. Just as well, in this case the employers will exploit every advantage or loophole they have. It's the nature of the game.

 

You can repeal things like the reserve clause (or other measures) without recognizing a player's union.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't believe it happened in any major American sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...