Brewers to erect a statue of Bud Selig

21 Comments

And there was much rejoicing. At least among pigeons:

The Milwaukee Brewers plan to unveil a statue honoring baseball commissioner and former owner Bud Selig on Aug. 24.

Selig’s
likeness will join those of Hank Aaron and Robin Yount in front of
Miller Park. Selig’s foundation donated the first two statues at the
stadium. Selig’s statue will be cast in bronze and measure more than seven feet tall.

We all take our shots at Bud Selig, and a lot of those shots are warranted. But I can’t take issue with a Bud Selig statue outside of Miller Park.

Selig worked his butt off to bring baseball to Milwaukee after the Braves abandoned the city. The Brewers are a great franchise too, leveraging their tiny market beyond anything that could reasonably be expected and there’s more passion for that team in Wisconsin than for 20 other baseball teams I could name. No, that didn’t all occur on Selig’s watch — he hasn’t owned the team in years — but it wouldn’t have been possible without his efforts and passion for baseball.

That doesn’t take away the bad stuff — he was one of the midwifes who helped give birth to collusion, his leadership gave us the suspended 1994 season and he turned a blind eye to steroids for way too long — but I think that goes on his Commissioner’s ledger, not his ownership one.  Give the man his statue. Give the man his day.

Then — as we do for almost every other statue — ignore it for all purposes other than as a second hand ticket sales rendezvous point.

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!