Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

The Young and the Restless

By Scott Ham
July 16, 2008

News flash: Three Major League Baseball players complained about their salaries this spring. 

Not news, right? 

This wasn't Gary Sheffield complaining that he's being disrespected.  No, instead a slew of baseball sophomores decided that the long standing salary structure isn't good enough.  Under baseball's rules, any player with less than three years of service time is not yet eligible for arbitration.  They can try and negotiate a salary with their team, but the team is under no obligation to meet the player's asking price.  In fact, the team can simply renew the players contract for an amount of their choosing without the player's consent.  It's been done like this for a long, long time and it's not very often that you hear a player complain. 

We heard it from three players.  It started with Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers.  Prince was anything but stately when he said: 

"I'm not happy about it at all.  The fact I've had to be renewed two years in a row, I'm not happy about it because there's a lot of guys who have the same amount of time that I do who have done a lot less and are getting paid a lot more.  But my time is going to come. It's going to come quick, too."

In 2007, Fielder made $415,000.  On Sunday, the Brewers raised him to $670,000 for the 2008 season for more than a 50% raise and certainly not chump change despite the numbers thrown around the majors the last six months.

Fielder is at a couple of disadvantages: he's a product of the me generation, born in the eighties where everyone was owed a life, a lifestyle, and a crapload of money.  And, he plays for the Brewers, which provides little life and even less money. 

In case you didn't know, Prince is the son of Cecil Fielder, aka Big Daddy, the former slugger of Tigers and Yankee fame.  Big Daddy apparently filed for bankruptcy in 2004.  I can't find any reference to where his finances are now, but if his gambling addiction is as bad as reported, it may not be good.

Nick Markakis of the Orioles was next on the shafted list and he was reportedly "miffed."  He was quoted in the Baltimore Sun as saying: 

"That's just how the Orioles feel. I don't have much of a choice. I'm just going to have to deal with it."

Markakis was raised up to $455,000 from $400,000 last year.  He didn't post near the numbers Fielder did and his road splits suggest that Camden Yards helped him a bit.  He's also at the disadvantage of playing for a team that is not only run by a disheveled front office, but is also in the hopes of getting younger for cheaper. 

Our last candidate is Jonathan Papelbon of your World Champion Boston Red Sox, who made these comments before learning what his actual salary would be:

"I feel a certain obligation not only to myself and my family to make the money that I deserve but for the game of baseball.  Mariano Rivera has been doing it for the past 10 years and with me coming up behind him I feel a certain obligation to do the same."

Papelbon has been with the club for two and a half seasons and he's already equating himself to Mariano Rivera, despite the fact that he wanted to be a starting pitcher last year.  He made $425,500 in 2007.  Do you know what Mariano Rivera made his second year in The Bigs?  $131,125.  It wasn't until Rivera hit arbitration that he received a significant raise. 

Papelbon's assertion that he has an obligation to "the game of baseball" to make as much money as he can is laughable.  Is he serving baseball by complaining about the salary structure in place?  Is he serving his team by openly complaining about a contract that hasn't even been determined yet?  Jonathan Papelbon is currently in the business of serving himself.  Looking at what Mariano Rivera is making after twelve years of major league service is hardly a comparison.

Papelbon wasn't finished talking: 

"It's a tough situation for me right now.  I feel like with me being at the top of my position, I feel like that [salary] standard needs to be set and I'm the one to set that standard and I don't think that the Red Sox are really necessarily seeing eye to eye with me on that subject right now."

This needs to be looked at line by line:

"It's a tough situation for me right now."  This indeed is a tough situation.  Jonathan was forced to live on $425k last season, a figure most Americans don't see unless they're the CEO of a major corporation.  But for a simple baseball player, it's a tough situation.  Impatience can be difficult. 

"I feel like with me being at the top of my position..."  Top of his position?  Paps is good, but he ranked 10th in the majors in saves in 2007 and third in ERA for closers while pitching the second fewest innings of the top twelve guys.  

"I feel like that [salary] standard needs to be set and I'm the one to set that standard and I don't think that the Red Sox are really necessarily seeing eye to eye with me on that subject right now."  This is where it really falls apart.  There is no underlying standard to what an above average player is supposed to make at this stage of their career.  That's the point of the system.  The Red Sox aren't seeing eye to eye because they are working within the system.  Papelbon is complaining about it, not working in it. 

Papelbon was eventually given a salary of $775,000 for the 2008 season.

This salary structure is in place for a specific purpose, which is to help control the inflated salaries across baseball.  There is no way to put a limit on free agent salaries without instituting a salary cap, which Papelbon will probably tell you, flies in the face of what is best for the game of baseball.  Since players like Johan Santana can only be paid by a handful of big market teams, there needs to be a structure in place that allows the Oakland A's, the Milwaukee Brewers, and other small market clubs to compete.   

One of the ways to achieve that is by controlling the cost of young players.  The first two years basically reside at the major league minimum and then a raised contract.  After that, it's arbitration or a negotiated salary.

It's a reasonable system in place to protect an unreasonable market.  And logically, does it make sense to give a player like Papelbon a five-year contract worth $75 million after two and a half seasons and 160 innings or pro ball?  Does that compare to Mariano Rivera on any level? 

The players have done very little to prevent the escalating salaries in baseball.  A salary cap probably isn't the answer given how ridiculous the NBA cap works.  The last thing you want to see is a player getting thrown into a deal simply to clear room for another player to come in.  It's made a mockery of NBA trades.

Giving the players more control of their salaries so early in their career would be the death knell for many small market teams.  It is this structure that gives the Brewers, etc the ability to compete at the level they are.  The simple fact is that all three of these players will have their day in the monetary sun.  And if, by some circumstance, they flame out before then, they probably wouldn't have deserved the big bucks in the first place. 

I propose that in the next collective bargaining agreement, the players offer to relinquish unilateral control of baseball's drug testing policies.  In return, maybe the owners can rework the salary structure.

I'm not counting on either of those happening.

 

Scott Ham can be reached at scotth23@hotmail.com

 
 

COMMENTS (14 Comments, most recent shown first)

ScottHam
starkers:
Point taken. I meant that more in terms of media market/exposure, but when one doesn't explain oneself, it can be offensive.

My apologies.
8:31 AM Sep 2nd
 
Starkers
Master Fielder might want to take a look at what his employer did for Ryan Braun before he starts throwing around accusations about who is getting paid more for doing less. $670K still buys a lot of tofu at Whole Foods, Prince.

I liked the article a lot and mostly agreed with it, but drop me a line if you're ever having trouble finding signs of the high life in Milwaukee, Mr. Ham.
1:37 AM Sep 2nd
 
rnotr2
Whole books have been written that do not cover all that is the economics of baseball.

In Marvin Miller’s autobiography he describes a bargaining session where the owners have already conceded free agency and are trying to hang on to the rights to a player for as long as they can. Miller agreed to 6 years as being reasonable if, after year 3, a player is eligible for salary arbitration.

Miller knew that arbitration would be the open door to huge salaries. The few prime free agents would command big bucks and then the arbitration eligible players would be able to point to those players and demand comparable salaries ratcheting salaries up every year. At this point in the session Charlie Finley stood up and said, “F*** ‘em. Set them all free every year.” Miller almost threw in his mouth. He realized that Finley was the only one who understood what a completely free labor market would mean. The last thing Miller wanted was an open market where 600 to 800 players would have to go seeking work every year. At that point though, the other owners told Finley basically to sit down and shut up and Miller laughed along with them saying how foolish Finley’s idea would be.

Imagine how different baseball would be it they had only listened to Crazy Charlie. There would be superstars making the max and some second tier players making good money. The rest would have to earn it every year. Man, wouldn’t that lead to some interesting hot stove conversations.

5:17 PM Jul 28th
 
scotth23
On a separate note:

There was a poster who had written a comment under the name RT, I believe. His comment on this article was accidentally removed. I wanted to apologize to RT for that. It was an honest mistake when one of my replies posted three times. In the process of deleting those, his was removed as well.

Please repost your thoughts.

Thanks,
Scott
3:05 PM Jul 18th
 
scotth23
I'm not a corporate man at all. I've stated many times that I think the players deserve to make as much money as they can. The question comes down to when that time is reasonable. Is it reasonable after one year of service? Is it reasonable after three? Five? At what point does over-investing in players with a lack of history have a negative impact on the sport?

We've all seen flash in the pan players, whether they be high injury-risk pitchers as you highlight, or the late twenties prospect that comes up mid-season and hits 10 home runs in 20 games. Opening the door to inflated salaries for second year players with great rookie seasons opens the door for everybody.

My concern isn't the owners. I'd rather the players have the money. My concern is the financial state of the sport. I don't want to see the Brewers not be able to hold on to Fielder for a few seasons because he became too expensive his second year. At that point, baseball will exist in large markets and nothing more because it won't be feasible for Florida, KC, Milwaukee, etc to maintain a team.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Pitchers certainly are at a higher risk than position players. They're also the most difficult players to project, the old TINSTAAPP principle. That's a risk that falls on both sides. It would be to the players benefit to give them large contracts after a season of greatness. What if that's a small market team and the player suddenly need Tommy John surgery and is out for a year and a half, never quite recovering? A team investing a high percentage of it's payroll into one player that can't perform could be crippling.

These things happen all the time and for every reasonable contract, there is Barry Zito. It's the owners faults for signing such deals. But allowing those deals to creep into second year players I believe would have a very bad outcome for the league.

I'm not trying to look at this from a corporate versus individual basis. I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of what can sustain the sport. Considering that the only way the Rays and the Athletics have been able to compete this year is by developing young talent at a cheap price, where would those teams be if each player got a 400 percent raise next year? They'd be rebuilding once again. I can't say that that scenario is good for the sport.
2:08 PM Jul 18th
 
scotth23
I'm not a corporate man at all. I've stated many times that I think the players deserve to make as much money as they can. The question comes down to when that time is reasonable. Is it reasonable after one year of service? Is it reasonable after three? Five? At what point does over-investing in players with a lack of history have a negative impact on the sport?

We've all seen flash in the pan players, whether they be high injury-risk pitchers as you highlight, or the late twenties prospect that comes up mid-season and hits 10 home runs in 20 games. Opening the door to inflated salaries for second year players with great rookie seasons opens the door for everybody.

My concern isn't the owners. I'd rather the players have the money. My concern is the financial state of the sport. I don't want to see the Brewers not be able to hold on to Fielder for a few seasons because he became too expensive his second year. At that point, baseball will exist in large markets and nothing more because it won't be feasible for Florida, KC, Milwaukee, etc to maintain a team.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Pitchers certainly are at a higher risk than position players. They're also the most difficult players to project, the old TINSTAAPP principle. That's a risk that falls on both sides. It would be to the players benefit to give them large contracts after a season of greatness. What if that's a small market team and the player suddenly need Tommy John surgery and is out for a year and a half, never quite recovering? A team investing a high percentage of it's payroll into one player that can't perform could be crippling.

These things happen all the time and for every reasonable contract, there is Barry Zito. It's the owners faults for signing such deals. But allowing those deals to creep into second year players I believe would have a very bad outcome for the league.

I'm not trying to look at this from a corporate versus individual basis. I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of what can sustain the sport. Considering that the only way the Rays and the Athletics have been able to compete this year is by developing young talent at a cheap price, where would those teams be if each player got a 400 percent raise next year? They'd be rebuilding once again. I can't say that that scenario is good for the sport.
1:59 PM Jul 18th
 
RyanTorres
Sure put up straw-man arguments and don't address other concerns like the difference between pitching and being an everyday player in terms of injury risks. You see if you could demand Rob Neyer, or Peter Gammons money as a writer and be taken seriously then you would and should receive it, so should an auto-worker or a soldier, or any other person who does an important job in our world. We live in a strange economic market where teachers get paid nothing though they hold the only profession that impacts 100% of the country. But the economics of baseball are different than the economics for the rest of us and it can and should be challenged regularly. So I don't begrudge anyone for saying "I want the most money possible at the moment." Yes it is their choice to enter the system of baseball salaries, but they should be allowed to ask for changes from within. Following your logic, any person making a choice to enter any job should never negotiate for a raise. The person knew what the pay structure was when they entered the job so to heck with raises for the first 3 years if that is how the system was set-up or five years or ten or whatever the CFO decides. They can quit if they dislike it. Papelbon could go to Japan or the Dominicans... Really? You criticize people because they simply want a bigger piece of the pie? You defend the corporations trying to minimize their risk instead of making more of an investment in players earlier? I guess that's where we split, you backing the owners for wanting to spend the least amount possible, and me wanting the player to be able to ask for the most possible. I would have never taken you for a corporate man.
1:17 PM Jul 18th
 
scotth23
The guy is making $775k this year. I could only dream of spending a year in his cleats. He has opportunities and earning potential that most people can only dream of. If he takes on a certain risk to hopefully make $15 million a season some day, that's his choice, certainly not a dumb one, but his choice regardless. That doesn't give him or the other guys the right to overturn a system that has been in place for years in the only major sport without a salary cap. These guys aren't suffering. If he trips and breaks his arm, is he entitled to anymore pity than autoworker who gets hurt on the line? The autoworker hasn't made $775k, I can tell you that. Or the health insurance. Or the level of medical care. Or the same pension.

High risk, high reward. Make it three years and your performance will start to pay off. That's quicker than anyone else in this country, and our minimums aren't over 300k. No one pays for our face on an ad or our signiatures, either.

These players have a right to male money and they are. They don't have ARod's history or stats, so they're not making ARod money. Do it for four years and someone will pay you nicely for four more. Earning versus entitlement.
8:21 AM Jul 18th
 
RyanTorres
Pitchers burn out. Just ask the Yanks and Joba Chamberlain about his "rules". It seems a little unfair to compare position players to a guy who had to be shut down for a shoulder subluxation at the end of his rookie season, whether he wants to make the most money he can while he can. Fielder and Markakis might trip over a base, but pitching is one of the most unnatural motions any professional is ever asked to constantly repeat. Especially at a high stakes level.

I guess I would equate it to asking you to live blog the world series where every typo you wrote affected your career badly, and if your keyboard broke you might never get to write again. Ever. You've worked up to this for years, you should ask for Rob Neyer money if you can. Could you survive if you never blogged again? Probably. But it seems absolutely wrong to point a finger at Paps like that. Walk a mile in someone else's cleats Scott.
11:14 PM Jul 17th
 
scotth23
The economics of baseball don't compare to that of the rest of the country. That doesn't change the value of a dollar, or mean Papelbon's $425,000 salary for 2007 is small in comparison to the average household income of $46,000 in 2006. Papelbon has a great chance of making ten, twenty, even forty times last years salary. How many Americans can say that? And while he waits and works for that opportunity, he's making almost ten times the American family average.

Yes, the market is different than average America and allows such salaries. Players deserve as much of a piece of the pie as the owners, even if the owners are assuming the risk. This article is about players and their salary gripes entering their second and third years. If we see fit to grant Fielder and Papelbon the rights to contracts like ARod and Barry Zito, the economics of baseball will come tumbling down awful quick. I don't begrudge a player the right to make as much money as they can get in a free market, but player salaries are usually determined by past performance. One or two years isn't enough to justify a top tier salary. A system like that would virtually guarantee that a fifth of the league could never compete for more than a season. Applying those extremes to first and second year players means making a large investment into failure more often. That's what the current system protects against. It's what management has put in place to protect salaries. Players complaining about it just highlights what an extraordinary position they happen to be in.

There are better ways around this. The Rays contract with Evan Longoria is a good example. Longoria will make $17.5 mill over six seasons and could go up to $44.5 mill over nine seasons. That seems reasonable as both parties assume a little bit of risk, either by Longoria taking security over possible higher earnings and the Rays committing to a young player and assuming injury risk, although insurance would certainly help.

10:49 AM Jul 17th
 
Richie
The players talk to the media about it because, well, they're professionally obligated to talk to the media, and you can't just always say "I'm feelin' 110% today, Reporter Ralph. The team is really getting its confidence." So if they're asked about money, some of 'em will actually go ahead and answer rather than evade the question.

The media ask about salaries 'cuz, evanecurb and me notwithstanding, enough other people find money sufficiently fascinating such that they find talk about it interesting.
12:16 AM Jul 17th
 
BigDaddyG
I totally disagree with this article. This is another example of fans putting down players for making too much money. How about the owners? How much are they making? Do we place restrictions on the owners on how much they can make in their first 2-3 years as an owner? How about for the average working man- should they not be allowed to negotiate in a free market to try to realize their maximum possible salary? Fact is- baseball generates a ton of profit. I do not feel particularly sympathetic to keeping that money in the hands of the owners.
12:15 AM Jul 17th
 
evanecurb
I am not at all interested in the salaries of individual players. I don't understand why the players talk to the media about their salaries and I don't understand why the media reports the stories.
11:44 PM Jul 16th
 
cunegonde
Nicely put, Scott.
10:19 PM Jul 16th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy