Spinning the Astros' moves

Leave a comment

The one bit of conventional wisdom that came out of Indianapolis is that the Astros made some really, really bad moves. Brandon Lyon for $15 million?  Pedro Feliz?  This is not the stuff a smart team does.

But they do have at least one defender. This unattributed post comes from the FOX Sports.com rumors blog that had recently started doling out attribution between Rosenthal, Morosi and Ringolsby depending upon whose story it was. No one is claiming this, however:

So, [the Astros] ended up with Lindstrom, Lyon and Feliz for almost the same
amount of money — in 2010, anyway — that it would have cost them to
keep Valverde.

Whether you’re a fan of those three players or
not, we can agree that Houston general manager Ed Wade has more talent
on his roster now than if Valverde had accepted the arbitration offer.

I guess that’s one way to put it. Another way to put it is that they’ve spent more than $10 million on parts that only begin to fill their many, many holes. That the players they spent more than $10 million on aren’t worth the money they’re making and that as currently constructed — and without much more available in the way of cash — the 2010 Astros stand to be substantially worse than the 2009 Astros. And that doesn’t even take into account the two additional years on the Lyon contract.

This spin reminds me of the sort of thing my dad says when he’s at Best Buy. He’ll covet a TV or something else he can’t afford, dismiss it, and then walk out of the store with three things that, together, cost as much.  When you ask him why he bought that stuff, he’ll cite all the money he saved by not buying the TV.

MLBPA thinks all 30 teams will take a “file-and-trial” approach to arbitration

Wikimedia Commons
Leave a comment

There’s something interesting deep in Ken Rosenthal’s latest notes column. It’s about arbitration, with Rosenthal reporting that the players union believes that all 30 teams will take a “file-and-trial” approach to arbitration this winter.

If you’re unfamiliar with this, it breaks down thusly:

  • In mid-January, teams and players who are eligible for arbitration will exchange proposed salary figures. The player says what he thinks he’s worth based on comparable players of his quality and service time and the team will propose a lower counter-figure;
  • Generally, the parties then use these proposals as negotiable figures and eventually reach a compromise deal, usually near the midpoint between the two figures, avoiding arbitration;
  • If a deal cannot be reached, they go to an arbitration hearing and arbitrators pick one of the numbers. They CANNOT give a compromise award. It’s either the higher player’s number or the lower team number.

In the past, a handful of teams — most typically the Blue Jays, Braves, Marlins, Rays, and White Sox — employed a “file- and-trial” approach, meaning that they treated the figure exchange date as a hard deadline after which they refused to negotiate and stood content to go to a hearing. As more teams have adopted this approach, there have been more arbitration hearings. As Rosenthal notes, last year there were more hearings than in any offseason for the past 25 years. Now, the union thinks, every team will do this. If they do, obviously, there will be even more hearings.

There is certainly an advantage to file-and-trial for a team. It makes the player and the agent work harder and earlier in order to be prepared to negotiate with the club before the file deadline. It also makes them work a lot harder to come up with a defensible filing number given that, rather than merely being an opening salvo in an extended negotiation, it’s something that they will certainly have to defend in open court. It’s also simple hardball. Teams have greater resources than the players and the agents and it’s less painful for them to pay for lawyers and hearing prep and to conduct the actual hearing. There’s risk to the team, of course — they might lose and pay more than a settlement would’ve cost — but teams are obviously concluding that the risk is worth it.

The only question I have is, if the union is right and all 30 teams will now proceed this way, how was that decided? Everyone suddenly, after several decades of arbitration, simply decided to take the same approach? Or was there, I dunno, a meeting in which the strategy was coordinated? Inquiring minds want to know!