Jonathan Singleton Getty

At least one major leaguer is not pleased with the Jon Singleton deal

71 Comments

An eighth round pick with no big league experience probably doesn’t have a ton of money in the bank. So when he signs a deal that guarantees him $10 million and could net him $35 million despite the fact that he is three years from having any sort of negotiating leverage it’s not exactly a sad story.

But Jon Singleton’s story is an interesting one that goes to the heart of team-player power dynamics. As in, Singleton obtained that $10 million worth of security by giving up the chance to snag many times that amount of money if he’s even a slightly above average major leaguer over the next few seasons. And the Astros used their collectively-bargained leverage over him to maximal levels in order to get that deal. In essence, they told him that if he wants to be in the bigs now, he has to sign. He signed.

While all of that went down between two willing parties and was subject to the clear rules of the system, some people aren’t too happy about that. One of those people is Orioles pitcher Bud Norris, who thinks Singleton made a bad deal that could set a bad precedent for other players:

I get that sentiment. If one player takes a deal that saves the team a ton of money and could cost the player a ton if things break right there will be more attempts by teams to get players to take such deals. Over time, that lowers salaries and that’s not a good thing from the players’ and union’s perspective. And even for Singleton himself, if he comes up and puts up even one good half season before signing anything, he stands to make much more even on a deal that buys out his arbitration and one of his free agent years.

But even if I see all that — and even if I’d handle it differently for myself or advise Singleton differently if I were his agent — I’m having a hard time getting on board with Norris and any other players or union folks who have a problem with this.

For one thing, it’s Singleton’s life and $10 million over five years is likely to change it dramatically. If he got his arm lopped off by a dwarf with a battle-axe tomorrow, he’d have a cushion of cash on which to live. We talk about player and contract value in the quasi-abstract all the time and to some extent we become immune to how large these numbers we talk about are. This is Singleton’s life and Singleton’s choice and union politics aside, that has to be respected.

[RELATED: How does Singleton fit into Houston’s lineup?]

But more to the point: the Bud Norrises of the world (i.e. veteran players) are what subjected Singleton to the Astros’ leverage in the first place. It’s not written in stone that players don’t reach arbitration for three years and free agency for six. That was negotiated by the union. A union which, in recent years anyway, has frequently seen fit to bargain away the rights of amateur and minor league players in negotiations at the expense of things that better-serve veteran players. Why are there slotting and bonus caps in the draft now? Why do minor leaguers make almost zero money and live in deplorable conditions? It’s because no one with the power to help them out — be it the teams who control their destiny in the first instance or the players who could use their power to help them out in the second instance — gives much of a crap about them. Maybe if Singleton’s life in Oklahoma City was more comfortable he’d feel more comfortable waiting the Astros’ out and negotiating a better deal for himself. I guess we’ll never know.

Clearly this is a difficult issue — any gamble on one’s own future that could impact others’ futures brings with it some hard choices — but it takes a pretty entitled and narrow-minded person to not see that Singleton’s incentives were predetermined and his choices somewhat limited by virtue of a system that was set up long before het had to make his choice.

Baseball Hall revamps veterans’ committees

Cooperstown
Associated Press
5 Comments

COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. (AP) Baseball’s Hall of Fame has again revamped its veterans’ committees, attempting to increase consideration for more contemporary players, managers, umpires and executives.

Under the change announced Saturday by the Hall’s board of directors, there will be separate committees for Today’s Game (1988-2016), Modern Baseball (1970-87), Golden Days (1950-69) and Early Baseball (1871-1949). Today’s Game and Modern Baseball will vote twice every five years, Golden Days once every five years and Early Baseball once every 10 years.

“There are twice as many players in the Hall of Fame who debuted before 1950 as compared to afterward, and yet there are nearly double the eligible candidates after 1950 than prior,” Hall chair Jane Forbes Clark said in a statement. “Those who served the game long ago and have been evaluated many times on past ballots will now be reviewed less frequently.”

Today’s Game will vote in 2016, `18, `21, and `23, and Modern Baseball in 2017, `19, `21 and `23. Golden Days will vote in 2020 and `25, and Early Baseball in 2020 and `30. The Hall’s Historical Overview Committee will decide which committee will consider those who span eras, based on the time or place of their most indelible impression.

Since 2010, the Hall had established three veterans committees: Pre-Integration Era (1871-1946), Golden Era (1947-72) and Expansion Era (1973-2016). No one was elected by the Pre-Integration Era committee in December.

In addition, the Hall eliminated the one-year waiting period between a player’s last appearance on the Baseball Writers’ Association of America ballot and his veterans committee debut for consideration. The Hall also said active executives 70 or older may be given consideration, up from 65.

Committees will remain at 16 people, with a vote of at least 75 percent needed for election. The ballot size will be 10 for each committee; it had been 12 for Expansion Era and 10 for the others.

The BBWAA votes on players who have been retired for at least five years and no more than 15. Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza are to be inducted Sunday.

The Hall also changed some of the rules for the Ford C. Frick Award, presented annually to a broadcaster for “major contributions to baseball.” The committee making the annual decision will consider a three-year cycle of Current Major League Markets (team-specific announcers) for the 2017 award, National Voices for 2018 and Broadcasting Beginnings (early team voices and pioneers) for 2019.

Since 2013, the Frick’s three-year cycle had been High Tide Era (mid-1980s to present), Living Room Era (mid-1950s to mid-1980) and Broadcasting Dawn Era (before mid-1950s).

The criteria will be “commitment to excellence, quality of broadcasting abilities, reverence within the game, popularity with fans, and recognition by peers” instead of “longevity; continuity with a club; honors, including national assignments such as the World Series and All-Star Games; and popularity with fans.”

The Frick ballot size will be reduced from 10 to eight, and the three ballot spots previously determined by fan voting will be decided by historians.

Ozzie Smith, inducted to the Hall in 2002, was voted to the Hall’s board of directors.

Red Sox analyst Remy struck by monitor as wind causes havoc

ramirez
AP Photo
5 Comments

BOSTON — Red Sox TV analyst Jerry Remy was hit in the head by a falling TV monitor as swirling winds caused havoc during the first inning at Fenway Park.

Remy was sent home from Boston’s game Saturday night against the Minnesota Twins but is expected back Sunday. Former player Steve Lyons, also an analyst during some games, came in for Remy.

The strong winds made for an interesting first.

Minnesota’s Robbie Grossman hit a fly that appeared headed for center, but a gust blew it to right, sending right fielder Michael Martinez twisting as the ball fell for a triple.

There were a handful of stoppages as dirt and litter swirled around the field. Batters stepped out to wipe their eyes and Red Sox first baseman Hanley Ramirez headed to the dugout to have a trainer help him clear his left eye.