Did Maddon Just Seal Longoria's Fate?

Ya he did, my bubble is bursted...along with my bracket thank you Hilltoppers.

Bull..Pardon the pun there, but Bull

Give the kid a bone.  Sounds like the Democratic presidential debate, poking holes just to justify the position.  I would rather him be here, and the team once and for all doesn't use arbitration to justify a decision.  He is going to make his money anyways, so why stunt his service time?  Either pay me later or pay me MORE later?

Funny - NY fans on LoHud.com are all talking about the Longoria thing too. Now, Maddon's not held in the highest esteem there - but the consensus is he's delivering the party line, giving the org cover for a cost based move.
Sample comment:

"I know, you're probably right. It just SEEMS like Tampa is more interested in saving money than putting a contending club on the field. Not that they wouldn't welcome a contending club if it should happen, but it sure seems more like a passive thing than, say, the Yankees or Red Sox."

Or a little harsher:

"I agree. The Longoria thing is embarrassing. The left side of their infield in triple A will be better than their major league starting lineup.

It sends a bad message to the waves of talent they have in the minors. It tells all of them that they are going to only make the show when its financially optimal for the club and not based on their play.

Why should Tampa bring him up at any point all year? They aren't going to contend. If they keep him in triple A until next May they'll push back his service time a full 2 years."

Hey - they're talkin' about you anyway.

Optimistic:

""What good are the picks if you're not going to use them? "

They are going to use them. I mean, they're going to skip what...two months of Longoria. They're not going to contend this year anyway. He'll still be a part of their potential contending 2010 club, most likely."

 

I totally agree, I saw the Rays play in Orlando last weekend and found myself being far happier to see #67 Reid Brignac, Longoria, and Elliot starting than I would have been seeing Aki, Bartlett, BJ, and CC all playing atleast 5 innings.  Long live our Durham left side and the double play combo!

All that need be said:

"Every single one of us wants him here."--Carlos Pena

"This game has gotten to be a bunch of political, a bunch of [expletive] budget, a bunch of [expletive]...They forgot about the talent."--Ozzie Guillen

As for the change ups... didn't Evan foul off like a dozen in the 9th before launching a double into the gap? And didn't the announcers also point out that Pena was getting dealt a steady diet of change ups and struggling with them? I think it is a shame if they send him down... and I don't believe Andrew F. when he says it is NOT financial. However, management has done alot this odd season to build goodwill. They will survive this unpopular move... it it truly happens.

If I were a betting man, I would probably lose it all by saying Evan Longoria is going to be the Rays starting 3rd baseman. I just feel DRO will feel the backlash if they send him down. Like Joedobr said though, they are gonna have to do a James Shields on him to keep him long term. Don't be suprised if he pulls an Alex Gordon though.

I will say it again, and I appreciate all of the feedback, but this is a problem that baseball owners and the MLBPA need to get rectified ASAP, or else there will be big time problems down the road.  Arbitration and the service time that is accrued towards free agency was/is supposed to be a stop gap or a mechanism that prevents these incredible salaries from skyrocketing out of control.  Already this spring, we have seen mild complaints from Prince Fielder and Papelbon on their deals, and they weren't even arbitration eligible!!  Arbitration was supposed to be a smaller market's saving grace, but the over-manipulative agents have won out and have reversed the process.  Its a perverse system that rewards greedy and opportunistic players and agents alike.

So, when the next CBA gets hammered down, and I am pipe dreaming here, but maybe there should be an extension of the six year service time agreement?  If owners can't legally collude to control salaries, then there needs to be a fix.  Now, its becoming advantageous to the owners to sign players to long term contracts BEFORE there is any arbitration eligibility.  What a risk!!

So, again, its something I have railed on in the past.  Just how much stomach does Stu Sternberg have to pay skyrocketing salaries?  Kazmir has already mouthed off about his treatment and had his Super Two stripped from him similarly to what appears to be happening to Longoria, but is it really the right thing to do?  These players know their business and want to get paid, rightly or wrongly.  So, why not say just ignore the Super Two and pay the guy regardless, because its right for him and right for the overall attitude of the team?   Hate to get into the company line, but its something I really don't like about what has happened with arbitration the last couple of years.

Is there any reason to label players as "greedy", "opportunistic" or any other such pejoratives? And is there any reason to pity the owners or worry about hurt feelings on either side? Or for that matter, is there any reason to consider salaries "out of control" or "incredible"?

In fact, I thought that most of the arbitration cases this year were won by the teams, not the players. (I am not sure about that but think it is true.)

Owners have claimed that free agency, arbitration and the rest of the changes in power relationships over the past 40 years were going to destroy the game ever since those changes began. And the result instead has been that a near moribund industry, which baseball was becoming in the late 1960s, has exploded since, with owners raking in bigger profits than ever before, team values skyrocketing and attendance and fan interest growing exponentially.

I imagine there are reasonable changes that can be made in the arbitration system and other arrangements, but there is nothing in any of it that should elicit apocalyptic pronouncements. As a fan, I too get frustrated by threats that my favorite players will move on, but it has always been so. I want to reiterate that point; it has always been the case that some teams have routinely gotten rid of their stars in order to cash in on their value, and it happened just as frequently when even the stars had to work in shoe stores in the off-season to supplement their meager salaries (which were still high by ordinary workman standards).  

Those are true, but the key "battleground" battle was won by Ryan Howard, and he set a new arb 2 record breaking 8 figures.  All I am saying is that arbitration now is cost-prohibitive and now its more advantageous to get a longer deal done that buys out a year of FA.  Problem is, quicker a player gets to FA, the bigger his contract and what he commands.  Its a catch-22.

Call it apocalyptic, its semantics, but when players are making 8 figures in their 2nd year of arbitration and a power hitter like Fielder hasn't even hit arb and he is already squaking, I see a real problem, a big problem.  Its not how the system was designed and now collusion is the only answer, or some sort of salary regulation.

I like the idea of buying out free agent years. It creates more stability and more opportunity for fans to identify with the players. To me, pressure on teams to offer longer term contracts is a good thing.

Of course it is a risk. Locking up a 22-24 year old player for 6 or 7 years is risky and teams have to calculate the pros and cons in each case. On the other hand, signing 32 year old free agents to 4 year deals is equally risky, even if there is more history to base a decision on.

I disagree that arbitration is cost-prohibitive. That is swallowing owner's propaganda whole and without salt. Teams are making enormous profits, including the Rays, no matter what they say about it, and while there is no question that escalating salaries will affect the willingness of many teams to sign certain players, it doesn't have to and will more likely lead to creative ways to build teams rather than limiting their ability to compete.

Players have complained about salaries since they began getting paid in the 19th century, and they have always been accused of greed. There is nothing new in it. When DiMaggio held out after his second season (I think it was then), he was pilloried in the press and booed once he returned. At the turn of the 20th century, players routinely jumped teams, including many of the biggest stars, but owners eventually found a way to keep them down. (That is why the two leagues made peace.)

If the owners are proven to collude again, I hope this time they get hard time in prison instead of simply fines. Talk about unethical behavior, now there is real criminality, and the last time it was done it ruined some players' careers.

Arbitration was negotiated. There is no right or wrong here, just the normal labor negotiations in which each side seeks to gain whatever advantages it can. If you think the owners are paying too much, then you are simply saying they did not do a good job at collective bargaining. If they feel that way, I am sure they will frame their next tactics in such a way to remedy it, and the players' union will frame theirs to stymie efforts at changes that hurt them.

The real injustice comes when ownership turns to Congress (or Congress intercedes) to pressure the players into concessions (as happened with the steroids issue). By exploiting the phony and maudlin notion that baseball has some special significance in American life that exempts it from normal labor-management negotiations, they unfairly unbalance the power relationship. It is how they maintained the insidious reserve clause for so long and why they still maintain exemption from anti-trust laws.

As for other sports, I don't think any of them has had as effective a players' union as has baseball which at least partially explains their differing conditions. Frankly, I dislike the various expedients such as salary caps, restricted free agency and the like. But if baseball owners can win it in collective bargaining, so be it.

Incidentally, I do not think the primary reason for dealing Haren was financial as he had a pretty reasonable contract. Beane is rebuilding that team, and he got a pretty good haul for Haren who he may consider had already peaked. I think it was a very good trade for Oakland.

From Buster Olney today:

A couple of years ago, it was not unreasonable to think that Cabrera might have a chance to get the third $200 million-plus deal in history -- A-Rod has landed the first two -- but alas. The smart money now would be on Hanley Ramirez of the Marlins to be the next $200 million man.

Ramirez was arguably the best player in the National League last year, posting ridiculous numbers: 48 doubles, 29 homers (15 in the Marlins' enormous park), 6 triples, a .332 batting average and .562 slugging average and 51 stolen bases. And he's still just 24 years old, as he prepares for his third full season in the big leagues.

His salary next season should rival or perhaps surpass the $10 million arbitration award won by Ryan Howard this year, and assuming he stays healthy, he'll make enormous financial strides after that. It's possible the Marlins will pay big money to make him the centerpiece of their forthcoming ballpark, but if not, he'll have a big-market future in front of him, given the increasing disparity in the ability of big-market and small-market teams to pay elite stars like Ramirez. Both the Yankees and the Red Sox figure to be shopping around for their next shortstop within the next three years, which is about the time the Marlins would look to trade Ramirez if they can't sign him.

The two players with the largest deals in history have both been shortstops -- A-Rod and Derek Jeter -- and Ramirez, too, offers that rare ability as a strong offensive player at a position valued for defense.

Bob, you can't tell me this isn't a problem!!  This is the problem that will deal with guys like Price, Niemann and Longoria too.  Olney also delves into this in his column today.  I REALLY hope someone takes a look at this and asks some strong questions of the NRO in regards to this.

For whom is it a problem? Every time there is a new surprising salary, screams go up about it, and every year it proves to be no problem at all. I can't imagine why anyone cares what Ramirez's salary will be. (And by the way, it is even possible that by the time he does hit free agency he won't be a shortstop. Not that it matters.)

Is it a problem that teams are making enormous profits. Or that Selig has a $15 million/year salary? Or that when I topped out at a 5 figure salary after 34 years, my former students just 5 or 6 years before were starting at 6 figures?

Most ballplayers are lucky to have 4 or 5 years when they can earn big money. Most of them are done in their mid-30s. And there are at any one time just 750 in the entire world who are in the majors and not that many more capable of replacing them. Of course in an open market their value is astronomical. Had I been in a profession where only 750 could do the job at any one time, and where I might be incapable of doing it at any moment, and almost assuredly before I was 40, I would have held out for as many million/year as I could get.

There is no problem, only one of perception by fans who have been propogandized by multi-millionaire owners (or is it billionaire owners?) and sensation-seeking media to take out their resentments on the more public wealth of some players. I do not care how much money A-Rod makes; it has practically no effect on me-and not on ticket prices either by the way. All I am interested in is that the players on the team I root for produce, and would never reference their salary as part of the reason they should. That is a shabby gambit intended to appeal to the basest, most churlish elements of our nature.  

I am not looking for an over sentimental argument here.  I feel the same way basically about the game as you.  If all was equal, I would root for the players just like you.  But in this day and age, you have to step back and ask your self the simple question "Why?".

I want the team to suceed and the players on this club to succeed.  I want the organization to succeed.  Let there be no doubt about that.  BUT... I have a problem with some of the rhetoric I have read, especially when it come more from Matt Silverman.  I think you would agree there is a fine line Bob, between an "excuse" and a "reason".  That goes beyond this discussion.  If you want to question that my perception is incorrect, then that is ok by me.  All I know is that this organization felt compelled to go to James Shields before he was even eligible to go to arbitration and sign him to a deal that offers both the organization and himself some security.  Yet you see the kind of contract that Miguel Cabrera signed, or what Hanley Ramirez could sign or K-Rod from LA could sign, and in my opinion, you got to ask yourself if you are Kazmir or Longoria, "Why can't that be me?"  And I believe they are asking themselves that question.

Its supply and demand.  And then as a fan, as a "smaller market" club, you have to ask yourselves in 2-3 years, "Who can this club keep?"  That in itself is ridicuous because in my opinion, the arbitration system was built to allow players no matter how much the fuzzed or complained that they must wait their time before they can hit the open market.  In theory it doesn't work that way much anymore.  You got to get two to tango, Bob.  Your theories are sound on this argument, but when I talk about greed and opportunity, don't you want players who are competitive and your organization to offer competitive salaries and not be straddled with the notition that they are among the bottom 1/3rd in team payroll year after year?  I think that is starting to change, but its why I am as angry as I am about the arbitration system, because the arbiters, agents and players have lost sight (and yes some owners too) of why this system is in place.

So what's the problem?  Shouldn't any of the 30 teams "in theory" be able to sign Hanley Ramirez to the kind of contract he may be proposing?  This is the problem, because maybe 4 teams could do it.  Boston, the New Yorks and Los Angeles, sometimes Chicago will open their wallets and act as a magnet to these kinds of players.  Thus, you have to be creative AND lucky.  And it sometimes doesn't work, Bob.  

The arbitration system was established because it was negotiated. The owners may have seen it as a way to keep salaries in line. I have no idea what their motives were in agreeing to it or how the negotiations played out which led to the agreement. My guess is there were all sorts of issues on the table and the arbitration system emerged out of a web of compromises. I doubt there was any deeper purpose to it, or even whose proposal it was.

I reiterate, I am neither for nor against arbitration. It is simply not a fan issue. It is a labor issue, and there is no point in taking sides because it is enmeshed in the larger labor/management relationship. It is not a stand-alone issue. Let's say the owners want to modify it. What are they willing to give up to get that concession? Since I am not at the table, I cannot even begin to guess how such a negotiation would play out.

My position doesn't even have anything to do with being on the player's side in their quarrels with management, although I admit I usually am. Rather, it is a simple recognition that arbitration is one part of a much larger picture, and to call for its alteration means little as it can only be addressed within the overall negotiations process. I know that if I were on the negotiating team and thought that arbitration was a plus on my side of the ledger, I would not concede on it unless I received compensation elsewhere.

As for the issue of whether all 30 teams should be able to sign the biggest stars, my answer is no. Or rather, that I do not expect all 30 teams to think it worthwhile to do so. And given the remarkable improvement in competitiveness since the beginning of free agency, I see no reason to worry about it if they do not all consider it worthwhile.

One of the more egregious lies of the master of mendacity, Selig, was his assertions in the face of obvious evidence that it was absolutely untrue, that disparities in budgets were weakening competitive balance. As a matter of fact, while he was asserting that ludicrous proposition, exactly the opposite was true, yet the lapdogs and panderers of ESPN and other media published those statements as factual and casual fans simply accepted it and passed it on so it became accepted common knowledge. Like so much common knowledge, it was nonsense.