Jeff Passan has a great piece up about how teams are looking for “winners.” Or at least players perceived to be “winners.” Players like the ones who propelled the San Francisco Giants to two World Series titles in the past three seasons and who, as a result, are now in demand regardless of whether or not there is any empirical basis for calling them that.
Passan’s case study is the Kansas City Royals. His example on the Royals: Jeff Francouer. “Jeff Francouer is a winner,” Dayton Moore tells Passan. And then Passan demonstrates just how not a winner Jeff Francoeur is by any reasonable definition of the term. Read it: it’s genius. You’ll think my slamming Francouer over the past several years is tame by comparison. Yet Passan says nothing that is not demonstrably true.
Chemistry. Juju. Mojo. Leadership. Call it whatever you want, but as Passan observes in this wonderful piece, it seems to be what teams are looking for these days.
And even if you don’t care about any of that stuff, you gotta read it for the lede about Ned Yost at Starbucks, which is absolutely priceless.
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!