Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

  1. #1
    GOREDSGO32
    Guest

    Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    So one sided. OK say a guy is making nothing, has a spectacular year, and goes to arbitration ... he's gonig to get a raise right? But ownership can't go back and say 'hey Milton sucks, lets go back to arbitration because we are paying too much for him' .. same with Griffey. I think if players are going to get raises on increased performence, they should get cuts too on decreased performence.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,643

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    If Milton were in his arbitration years they could actually go and say that.
    Go Gators!

  4. #3
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,789

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Arbitration is a horrible, horrible idea.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  5. #4
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,627

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    The owners in an attempt to hold everything close to them were the ones who gave arb to the players.... and that was the best day in Marvin Millers life up to that point.

    When the Robber Baron gets greedy they often trip themselves up.

  6. #5
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,848

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by GOREDSGO32
    So one sided. OK say a guy is making nothing, has a spectacular year, and goes to arbitration ... he's gonig to get a raise right? But ownership can't go back and say 'hey Milton sucks, lets go back to arbitration because we are paying too much for him' .. same with Griffey. I think if players are going to get raises on increased performence, they should get cuts too on decreased performence.
    Arbitration is a totally separate deal from multi-year contracts.

    As WOY alluded, the whole thing started in the pre-free-agency era. The players' union was picking up steam, and these were the days when negotiations amounted to "take it or leave it" and holdouts were common. Arbitration was a mechanism designed to end holdouts by providing a method of resolution if the team and player couldn't agree on a contract.
    Not all who wander are lost

  7. #6
    Member OesterPoster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    West-central Ohio
    Posts
    2,050

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by GOREDSGO32
    I think if players are going to get raises on increased performence, they should get cuts too on decreased performence.
    It's a good thing they don't do this at my place of employment....um...because my co-workers would be screwed. Yeah.


  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,624

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    The owners don't HAVE to offer arbitration hearings.

    They are more than welcome to let the player become a free agent and bid for their services. The fact that owners aren't willing to do that in most cases implies that arbitration is a good deal for the OWNERS.

  9. #8
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    The owners in an attempt to hold everything close to them were the ones who gave arb to the players.... and that was the best day in Marvin Millers life up to that point.
    There was one proposal that scared Marvin to death to because he understood how markets work, fortunately for him and the players it was made by Charlie O so nobody gave it any serious attention.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  10. #9
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,627

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by flyer85
    There was one proposal that scared Marvin to death to because he understood how markets work, fortunately for him and the players it was made by Charlie O so nobody gave it any serious attention.
    Charlie understood the effect a flooded market had on the product, that was learned after squeezing the A's into Oakland during a major MLB attendance downturn in a somewhat indifferent market.

  11. #10
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,988

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Arbitration (assuming no reserve clause) is the reason that Johann Santana and Albert Pujols aren't Yankees yet.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  12. #11
    Member 919191's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    the corner bar
    Posts
    3,787

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    You know, I am union, and we had a contract go to arbitration. Same arbiters. They even call it "baseball style " arbitration.


    Oh yeah....we won!
    I've been to dinner at Jimmy Buffet's house, and I've eaten it at a homeless shelter. And there's great joy and harrowing terror to be found in both places.
    -Todd Snider

  13. #12
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,444

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    It would also be unfair to make a player wait 7 years to cash in.

    IMO, there are worse things about the business side of MLB and the labor agreement than arbitration. With the amount of money in the game, the system has to be adversarial to be fair. The days of Johnny Bench negotiating his own deal and saying "pay me whatever you like" are as far removed from present-day reality as the TV shows of that era.

    It would be a Dyn-o-mite deal for the Reds, if players could go back to that kind of thinking, though.
    /r/reds

  14. #13
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,988

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Part of the "problem" or "necessity" of the arbitration system is that other sports don't have the same role in player development. Part of this is the nature of baseball as being more heavily skill based rather than athleticism. However, because baseball has a very rich player development system, players are able to develop more fully even if they are not ready immediately. Arguably this leads to a higher level of talent.

    If baseball were like football or basketball, and only fielded major league rosters, all the players in the minors would be forced in to independent leagues. Player development as we know it would cease, as the teams of "developing" players lost incentive to develop them.

    If you buy in to the notion that the farm system is good for the game, well, then you need to provide a system which allows teams to hold and invest in over 100 players. This requires more than simple free market contracts. Otherwise, you end up with a system like you saw in the teens and 20's (and 50's... Roger Maris anyone?) where the Royals were literally the farm system for the Yankees, developing players so they could sell them off to the real teams. This concentrates talents in a few select markets.

    I think arguments can go in many directions here, but just realize that the aribtration system is an outgrowth of the entire structure of baseball, not merely a way to "keep salaries down". And given that, any major changes to it would have great consequences on the structure of the league.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  15. #14
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,160

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    Charlie understood the effect a flooded market had on the product, that was learned after squeezing the A's into Oakland during a major MLB attendance downturn in a somewhat indifferent market.
    Refresh my memory. Finley was calling for annual free agency or something like that? The history of this is, as WOY said, the owners greed. The fought and fought free agency and frankly the old system was certainly basically unfair to the players. Unfortunately, ownership never really tried to work out a system that was equitable to each party. Certainly arbitration has helped to skyrocket salaries.

    Frankly, I was glad to see some of the rules put in place that allowed minor leaguers attain free agency after a certain time period. Guys used to get buried behind stars and never had a chance to make it. I'm guessing some of the historiy buffs on there can cite guys who were basically career minor leaguers who could have made it at the ML level but for being locked out by the big guy below them.

  16. #15
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,988

    Re: Who else thinks arbitration is the stupidest thing?

    A complete free market system would squash player development. In the real world, it is very costly to bring people up to speed when they take a new job. The cost of training somebody and bringing their productivity up to par is often as much as an entire year of pay. Thus, there is financial incentive in the business world to hire young and talented people and develop/train them.

    However, in sports, the "job" is simpler, the environments homogenized. If you can play ball well in Oakland, you can play ball well in Chicago, and immediately. Thus, the most efficient use of money is letting other people train/develop talent, and merely purchasing it once it's ripe.

    The problem with this of course is that given unequal resources, a limit number of markets are able to monopolize the best talent. Without the ability to get a lot of the best talent, there is no incentive to get any good talent. There is no room to build a talent base without incurring market costs. This would not be a problem if franchises were free to locate as they wished, such that 5 teams could move to New York. However, because markets are monopolized by 1, or at most 2 teams, an artificial inefficiency is created, dooming those teams in smaller markets.

    Unless there is a system in place which levels the playing field and provides incentives for player development, you end up with only a few teams competing and the overall level of quality is lowered.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25