who can explain baseball arbitration to me?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

i guess in the context of ryan howard's latest "victory"

 

[Kelemvor]

no idea. but sports people don't seem to have to abide by the same laws as others when it comes to contracts or anything else so...

 

[A5]

Step 1:
Player and team tell the arbiter how much money they think the player should get paid.
Step 2:
If the team and player agree to a contract before the arbiter rules, then it's all good (this is what usually happens).
Step 3:
The arbiter considers the arguments from the player and the team and uses players with comparable performance to establish what they are worth. The arbiter is only allowed to choose from the offers by the team and the player. If it gets to this step, the arbiter's decision is binding.

 

[GDaddy]

Simply put, a player thinks he should make This, the team only want to pay him That. So they ask a third party to determine if it is This or That or somewhere in between.

 

[Legendary]

Team makes a salary offer
Player makes a salary offer

If they can't agree both offers are presented to an arbitration panel who decide which offer is better. The ruling is binding.

Howard Wanted $10 million, Phils offered $7 million. The midpoint of those two numbers is the key, since all Howard has to do is prove he's worth more than 8.5 million, which he did.

I believe this only happens with restricted free agents? Not sure about that though

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

so what's the difference between arbitration and contract negotiation?
sounds like the same thing to me. why get a 3rd party involved?
if you don't like the team's offer, then sign with another team who will give you what you want.

 

[Glayde]

Arbitration years are when the team still holds your contract.

You can't become a free agent until n amount of years.

Your first year you make minimum salary, moving up for a couple years. After that you are arbitration-eligible for a few years then you become a free agent.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
so what's the difference between arbitration and contract negotiation?
sounds like the same thing to me. why get a 3rd party involved?
if you don't like the team's offer, then sign with another team who will give you what you want.

Arbitration can be requested when the two parties don't agree. Its a risk for both because someone will win and someone will lose and not be in between, but the teams usually win over the players iirc.

 

[sciencewhiz]

In baseball, you aren't eligible for free agency until after 6 years. If your contract runs out before 6 years, and you can't reach a contract agreement with your current team, you can go to salary arbitration.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

so basically a re-negotiation of your current contract...

isn't that what a contract is in the first place. you agreed to it already and now you want more.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
so what's the difference between arbitration and contract negotiation?
sounds like the same thing to me. why get a 3rd party involved?
if you don't like the team's offer, then sign with another team who will give you what you want.

Arbitration can be requested when the two parties don't agree. Its a risk for both because someone will win and someone will lose and not be in between, but the teams usually win over the players iirc.

They usually meet in the middle, but players win out more often. The player basically just has to find another player he is better than, that is paid higher that him, and he wins arbitration. With all the high priced duds in the game, it's not that hard to find such other player. It's an oversimplification, but you get the point.

Teams usually try to avoid arbitration, not only because players usually win, but also the process is very demeaning to the player. The team representatives must argue why the player is not deserving of the raise. The Cubs for instance, have been through arbitration I believe just once in the past 4 years.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
isn't that what a contract is in the first place. you agreed to it already and now you want more.

Take for instance a player who signed out of college for the minimum salary. Four years later he has made it to the big leagues and is having a fantastic season, say makes it to the All-Star roster. He is stuck on minimum salary for 3 more years while everyone else at his talent level is making $5m+.

I'm not positive on this, but I believe arbitration only applies to your first contract with MLB, so like free agent signings can't come back and demand more money.

It's a part of baseball, similar to like the rule 5 draft, where a player must either be advancing in the organization, or another team can sign him. If these rules weren't in place, like the Yankees used to do this, sign top players in the game and bury them in their minor league system for no other reason than reduce the talent levels of the other teams. That's bad.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
They usually meet in the middle, but players win out more often. The player basically just has to find another player he is better than, that is paid higher that him, and he wins arbitration. With all the high priced duds in the game, it's not that hard to find such other player. It's an oversimplification, but you get the point.

Teams usually try to avoid arbitration, not only because players usually win, but also the process is very demeaning to the player. The team representatives must argue why the player is not deserving of the raise. The Cubs for instance, have been through arbitration I believe just once in the past 4 years.

The MLBPA statistics say that the teams win around 55% of the time.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
isn't that what a contract is in the first place. you agreed to it already and now you want more.

Take for instance a player who signed out of college for the minimum salary. Four years later he has made it to the big leagues and is having a fantastic season, say makes it to the All-Star roster. He is stuck on minimum salary for 3 more years while everyone else at his talent level is making $5m+.

I'm not positive on this, but I believe arbitration only applies to your first contract with MLB, so like free agent signings can't come back and demand more money.

It's a part of baseball, similar to like the rule 5 draft, where a player must either be advancing in the organization, or another team can sign him. If these rules weren't in place, like the Yankees used to do this, sign top players in the game and bury them in their minor league system for no other reason than reduce the talent levels of the other teams. That's bad.

I think with a rule 5 draftee, he has to stay on the roster of the team that took him. If he's sucking it up big time, they basically send him back to his former team and pay a penalty. It's usually a good thing for the player, but sometimes he really should be back in AAA getting some plate appearances instead of bench warming in the majors.