Baseball Musings: Summary

December 18, 2003

Summary

With all that's been going on today, I'd like to summarize the story and my thoughts for the day (I'm going off to a blogger party, so I'll be out of commission for most of the evening).

Alex Rodriguez and the Red Sox work out a deal that will allow the Red Sox send Manny Ramirez to Texas in exchange for A-Rod's services.

The union says no to the deal, based on a pretty clear rule in the CBA that does not allow the value of a contract to be diminished.

Red Sox fans get very upset by this, go to protest in front of the MLBPA.

The deadline for the deal is 5 PM, coming up soon, and no side has asked for an extension.

The argument in favor of the MLBPA position is that a rule is a rule, and you should follow the rule. If not, owners will start doing things like alienating players so they want a trade, then restructing their contract so they take less money. Or offering them a trade to a team where they would make less money, but become a starter.

The argument against the MLBPA is that there is non-monetary value to contracts. There is value to playing where you want to play, playing for a good organization, playing in a large market where you might get more endorsements. And all of these should be taken into account.

Well, here's the rule that Steve Bonner sent me:

No Salary Reduction
6.(c) The amount stated in paragraph 2 [i.e., Payment] and in special covenants hereof which is payable to the Player for the period stated in paragraph 1 hereof shall not be diminished by any such assignment, except for failure to report as provided in the next subparagraph (d).

The problem is that there is not a lot of room to finesse this rule. What the people who want the deal to go through would like is for the the MLBPA to take a very loose view of what constitutes salary. If the agreement had contained the word value instead of salary, I think they could have gotten away with it. Rob Manfred talked about potential benefit, but I don't see anything in the rule about potential. This rule is about money, and it's pretty clear that you can't reduce the money a contract is supposed to pay a player. This means, that if Bud takes them to arbitration, he'll lose.

Now, I disagree with the slippery slope argument, simply because players don't have to submit to coersion. No one in this deal is being forced to do anything. And if I'm a player who is told "take this pay cut or we won't trade you," I'll just stay where I am. It's not like the teams have that much power over players today.

No, it comes down to a rule that is too clear to finesse. If the deal had been completed, someone would have noticed that the union allowed the rule to be broken. And other players would have been upset by that. Someone more creative than I might have found a way around it, but it didn't happen.

Update: The deadline is passed and there's no word as of 5:15. Looks like the deal as it was structured is dead.

Posted by David Pinto at 04:58 PM | Trades | TrackBack (2)

Comments

I don't get it. Tom Hicks should be able to say to A-Rod that for the next seven years you will not play shortstop, instead you will deliver coffee to front-office personnel. And with a guaranteed contract, that's what A-Rod has to do, right? If he doesn't like it, he can ask for a trade. If there are no takers, he can retire. But he still gets his money. If he's so expensive that nobody wants him, that's his problem. A rather ironic one, to say the least. But unless he agrees to a salary reduction, Hicks will continue to pay $25 million a year for a Starbucks delivery boy. If A-Rod wants to play ball on his own terms, then he can agree to a reduction in pay.

And why are the Red Sox so certain that A-Rod is the answer at $20 million, while Manny is not? The Mariners had A-Rod, Griffey, and the Big Unit all on the same team, but didn't make progress until all three of them were gone.

You know, this the MLBPA that went nuts when Ron Gant shattered his leg in a motorcycle accident then found himself cut by the Braves, who didn't feel like paying him $5 million a year, or whatever it was back then.

Posted by: Zooty Zoot at December 18, 2003 06:32 PM

David - I think the clause Rob Manfred was talking about was Article II which provides "an individual Player shall be entitled to negotiate in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Agreement (1) an individual salary over and above the minimum requirements established by this Agreement and (2) Special Covenants to be included in an individual Uniform Player's Contract, which actually or potentially provide additional benefits to the Player."

I have not seen information on what A-Rod's salary would have been going forward, but the "potentially provide additional benefits" seems like a clause that could definitely be defended (probably successful) in arbitration.

The point is that this is a total outlier situation and not one that I can imagine would be precedental for the proverbial "25th guy, rank and file" type of player that Orza is purportedly protecting.

Posted by: Jeremy Naylor at December 18, 2003 09:04 PM

So if A-Rod goes to Tom Hicks and says, "I will pay you to trade me to the Boston Red Sox," the players' association can nix that?

I always perceived the collective bargaining agreement in part as a tool by the high-priced talent to protect themselves at the expense of minimum-salary guys.

This whole thing has gotten so stupid that the owners should just say, "Okay. From now on, everybody has unlimited free agency." How much do you want to bet that the union would find a way to turn that down?

Posted by: Zooty Zoot at December 18, 2003 09:36 PM