Is the Arbitration System Broke?

by MrNegative1 on Nov 14, 2011 12:08 PM EST

David Price being a Super 2 guy is probably going to cost the Rays 1 plus year of control. Matt Garza coming up to arbitration would of been too costly for the Rays. The Cleveland Indians may not be able to maintain control of Chris Perez through his arbi years if he continues to garner the all important "save" stat.

The goal of arbitration is to allow players to make more money based on performance but that amount is still less than what the player would make on the open market as a free agent.

Does it seem as if the arbitration system has peeked a little north of what the owners should be paying for some guys?

Does the arbi system, as it is now constructed benefit owners and players both?

Does the arbi system hurt smaller market clubs?

If you could make any changes to the arbi system what would it be?

Do you agree that the present arbi system is designed in such a way that its benefits of the whole outweigh the salaries of a few?

I don't know where I stand but I'd like to see some examples/justifications that others may have on this topic.

This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Arbitration inflation rate is unsustainable for small/mid markets.

The value of closers are just insane. If the Rays develop a shutdown reliever they need to use him as a high leverage arm and pitch in the critical non-save situations.

I understand that arbitration is still a discount based on what a player would earn on the open market especially since they are lower risk 1 year deals. But the 6 years of team control are pretty much a joke at this point in order for teams in the lower half of payrolls to keep their All-Star home grown talent.

A perfect example in Tim Lincecum which is projected to make $19-20MM in his arb3 as a super 2, so he has 1 more arb case pending. Even if they wanted to trade him in order to save money they won’t be able to get the return they probably should because he is priced out of most team’s affordability. How much can they really expect when they can only trade him to a team that could take on about 2/45MM deal for him.

If you try to project beyond 2012 for the Rays, how much will it cost to keep our current youngsters around? With increases in arbitration a well run organization won’t be able to keep competitive,especially in this division, without churning out talent that makes it to the Majors and perform at very high levels.

All this said, the players should get paid even during “cost-controlled” years, but when you develop a star the team shouldn’t be forced to have to get rid of their players because of cost before they obtain their free agency. When a team is forced to move a player if their trade partners are limited to just the big market teams, such as in the Lincecum example, it doesn’t do anything to increase parity throughout the league.

by jtmorgan on Nov 14, 2011 12:41 PM EST reply actions

The arby process isn't doing what it's intent was

Papelbon actually settled on a deal which pays him per year what his final arby year did

Fielder gets $15mil in arby3. Players like Lincecum and Verlander in order to avoid arby sign deals covering their arby years that the Rays wouldnb’t be able to give a FA, but still some say the process works

For who?

follow me on twitter @sternfan10

by sternfan1 on Nov 14, 2011 2:25 PM EST reply actions

The system works for the players, MLBPA, and the agents.

For Papelbon he received $6.25, $9.35, and $12MM in his 3 arbitration years. I understand that he performed well, but how many teams could actually afford to pay those salaries for a closer on the open market?

by jtmorgan on Nov 15, 2011 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

Rumored to be in the next CBA.

A larger number of players — known as Super Two players — will be in a position to earn arbitration eligibility with less than three years of major league service. Previously, players had to have 86 days of service in the big leagues and be in the top 17 percent in total service in their class to become a Super Two player. That number will increase to more than 20 percent.

If this is true, this can’t be good.

by jtmorgan on Nov 18, 2011 9:01 PM EST reply actions