Very interesting press release just hit my e-mail.
The following joint statement was issued today by the Major League Baseball Players Association, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and the Florida Marlins:
The Basic Agreement requires that each Club use its revenue sharing receipts in an effort to improve its performance on the field. This requirement is of obvious importance to all players, Clubs and fans of the game. In recent years, the Union has had concerns that certain Clubs have not lived up to this requirement, and has consulted regularly with the Commissioner’s Office about those concerns. The Florida Marlins are one of a number of Clubs that have been discussed.
After extensive discussions, the three parties are pleased to announce that they have reached an agreement regarding the Florida Marlins’ continued compliance with Article XXIV(B)(5)(a) of the Basic Agreement.
MLBPA Executive Director Michael Weiner said:
“In response to our concerns that revenue sharing proceeds have not been used as required, the Marlins have assured the Union and the Commissioner’s Office that they plan to use such proceeds to increase player payroll annually as they move toward the opening of their new ballpark. Today’s agreement, which covers the period 2010 through 2012, calls for ongoing communication among the Marlins, the Commissioner’s Office and the Union as the Marlins proceed with that plan. It also permits, after consultation among all parties, adjustments in the Marlins’ plan to respond to unforeseen developments, and calls for arbitral intervention if disagreements arise. We greatly appreciate the willingness of the Commissioner’s Office and the Marlins to engage with us and ensure that all terms of the Basic Agreement are met.”
Marlins’ President David Samson said:
“The Marlins have consistently made every effort to put the best product on the field and our record supports the fact that we have been successful in that regard. Throughout the discussions, the Marlins maintained that there had been no violation of the Basic Agreement at any time. While we know that the Marlins will always comply with the Basic Agreement, we were happy to work cooperatively with the Union and the Commissioner’s Office on this matter.”
MLB Executive Vice President, Labor Relations Rob Manfred added:
“The Basic Agreement contains confidentiality provisions that preclude the parties from publicly discussing the specifics of the Marlins’ finances. There will, therefore, be no comment by any of these parties on any further specifics of this agreement. All three parties agree that the Basic Agreement provision on the proper use of revenue sharing dollars is an important part of our agreement. Today’s announcement is the product of a positive dialogue between the MLBPA, the Commissioner’s Office and the Club.”
Dan Szymborski
Posted: January 12, 2010 at 07:23 PM |
61 comment(s)
|
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Business,
Florida
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If they have been in compliance, why was an agreement needed?
“The Marlins have consistently made every effort to put the best product on the field and our record supports the fact that we have been successful in that regard. Throughout the discussions, the Marlins maintained that there had been no violation of the Basic Agreement at any time. While we know that the Marlins will always comply with the Basic Agreement, we were happy to work cooperatively with the Union and the Commissioner’s Office on this matter.”
So they pled nolo contendre.
The "while" here strikes me as oddly placed.
An informal salary floor?
This team could still sign Pujols and be well below the average payroll.
#1, you know as well as we all do that the press release is standard face-saving -- the Marlins & MLB agree to stop doing what they've been doing while making no admission that they were doing it.
And of course it's no different than whatever PR language was used when drug-testing was agreed to -- it's not like Fehr came out and said "damn yes, we've been roiding up for years but they're making us stop now."
The "while" here strikes me as oddly placed.
I found the "will" more interesting ... "have" would have been the more obvious choice.
I thought this was interesting ... "calls for arbitral intervention if disagreements arise" -- first because it would seem to open a real can of works for MLB if teams can be taken to arb over payroll totals ... and because I didn't know "arbitral" was a word.
And I have no idea what this phrase means (which just precedes the one I quoted): "It also permits, after consultation among all parties, adjustments in the Marlins’ plan to respond to unforeseen developments," ... is this the MLB out clause for "hey, if the economy tanks again, all bets are off?" Or the MLBPA hammer of "if revenues pick up, we're coming after more"? But it's the bit about the Marlins' "plan" which makes it sound like they already had something in mind.
By the way, this provides some vindication for Boras' comments earlier this offseason. I also wonder if there have been some agreed trades (e.g. Marlins dumping Uggla, Jason Johnson, etc.) that made it clear the Marlins were gonna shoot for like a $20 M payroll this season and the MLBPA forced Selig to quash them.
As to who else ... under Littlefield, the Pirates spent decent chunks of money so I think it would be some time before any formal process could be started against them. The Padres had the second-lowest payroll last year but have regularly been in the 60s and 70s. Anyway, the upshot will be an informal "minimum" payroll that teams aren't supposed to drop far below for extended periods of time and obviously everybody knows it now. Expect teams to start spending about $50-60 M minimum.
If this explains the Royals' current spending bonanza on crappy players, then what explains their spending bonanza on crappy players from every other recent offseason?
If this explains the Royals' current spending bonanza on crappy players, then what explains their spending bonanza on crappy players from every other recent offseason?
Volume!
I, for one, won't be happy 'til every major league team has an average or higher payroll...
***
This, I think, is easily the most interesting baseball story thus far this year. (Particularly if you're not Roberto Alomar or Bert Blyleven.)
Tripon, that's just mean.
the Basic Agreement requires that each Club use its revenue sharing receipts in an effort to improve its performance on the field.
...leads me to wonder whether investment in minor league facilities, foreign academies, international signings, draft bonuses, etc., qualifies as "an effort to improve its performance on the field." Or does it strictly mean increased major league payroll?
I'm not saying this applies to the Marlins necessarily, just wondering if a team that's still a few years away from being competitive is allowed to use the money in a way that actually makes sense, or if they're forced to use it for useless things like signing Aubrey Huff.
Of course it would, but this is Loria and Samson we are talking about here. What evidence is there that they've done any of that?
Team 2008 2009
Pirates $48,689,783 $48,693,000
Padres $73,677,616 $43,734,200
Marlins $21,811,500 $36,834,000
Every other team was over $60M payroll. The Padres were low last year, but were over $70M the year before. Pittsburgh has stayed the same over both years. The Marlins increased their payroll by 68% and were still the lowest payroll by 18%.
The Nationals and As both increased their payrolls from the 40s to the 60s between 2008 and 2009. The Royals upped their payroll from $58M to $70M. The Twins went from $56M to $65M. Every other team has been over $60M for both years.
If we were to look for another team that could be having the same discussion, the Pirates seem to be the obvious candidate.
I think the wording is flexible enough to allow for some of that to count, but the MLBPA will not want it to be only that stuff; they'll want some of the doremi going to their members.
I don't see this as a great victory for the MLBPA, but rather a sign that maybe they and MLB were actually able to sit down and work through some issues like grownups. Quite a refreshing change.
KC has a payroll around $70 million and have been one of the biggest spenders in the amateur draft.
Glass and Bud are tight. I think Bud gave Glass the heads up a season or two ago "hey, you need to spend some more money on your club - the union is on my back about this." So Glass upped payroll, and Dayton spent it on crap.
It's interesting to think about the conflicting interests here. Obviously the Yanks would like to keep as much of thier revenue as possible and they don't want to line the pockets of the other owners. Certainly, Loria wants as much of the Yankees revenue as possible but his track-record with the Marlins is pretty good as far as on-field performance. And Bud has to herd all the cats in the same direction or he runs into huge problems with the Union.
Sounds like a money-maker for the legal community.
it's times like this that i wish john was alive to skewer loria/sampson/bud over this
Yeah, I'm sure that they want to ensure that their revenue sharing money isn't being used fraudulently. On the other hand, does it really make any sense for these teams to want this type of enforcement? Do you think the Mets are really saying, "Please, Marlins, spend more money on payroll so you'll have a better chance of beating us?"
Why is that? The Pirates shouldn't be spending big money right now, seeing that their trying to rebuild the mess that Littlefield left behind. I could be wrong, but Pittsburgh does not strike me as a city that will struggle to maintain a ~$80 million payroll once they start to turn things around.
I'm not in favor of a minimum payroll, which would force teams to spend money even if the talent wasn't out there. I would support a requirement that revenue sharing money be spent on improving performance on the field or else it isn't paid out.
In other words, rather than tell the Marlins that they need to have a $XX million payroll, tell them that they only receive revenue sharing money to the extent their payroll exceeds $YY million.
It makes me so very sad that the Royals spend $70m for the team they have.
And Doug Pappas too.
I didn't say that Pittsburgh wouldn't have a good reason for not spending money. But they are the only other team besides the Marlins who have had payrolls under $50M for the last two years.
This seems close to unworkable to me though. Even for the Marlins, the "revenue sharing receipts" (as opposed to "central revenue" and their own generated revenue) is a fairly small piece of the pie (about 25% for the Marlins I'd guess). How could you argue (legally I mean) that they aren't spending enough of the 25% of their revenues on payroll (even assuming that's an accepted meaning of "effort to improve") unless there's a rule covering what % of the other revenues they are supposed to spend on payroll.
That is the Marlins could have a payroll equal to 20% of their total revenue and spend another 5% on draft and development and claim "we are spending 100% of our revenue sharing receipts on team improvement" and I'm not sure their payroll would go up at all.
I'm just curious what legal arguments MLBPA could have made.
Why is that? The Pirates shouldn't be spending big money right now
As the poster said: IF we are looking for another candidate (which was raised early on), the Pirates are the next obvious choice ... because they're the only other team that haven't cracked the $50 M barrier either of the last two years. They would also have the second-lowest 2-year payroll I'm pretty sure (possibly the Nats) and one of the lowest 3-year payrolls. Neither the poster nor I said the Pirates _should_ be the next candidate.
The other obvious reason it might be the Pirates is because, in the last 1.5 seasons, they have traded away an entire starting lineup worth of starting-quality players (plus an extra starting-quality OF and some mediocre pitchers), non-tendered their "good, young closer" because he was about to start making $2-3 M a year and I think their highest-paid player might be Iwamura. That sort of thing draws attention.
And also, that sort of thing has their current payroll standing at $20 M plus two arb awards (Duke and Milledge) plus whatever Church is gonna cost. Seems they're shooting for something in the $25-30 M range which makes the 2009 Marlins look like the Yankees! (kidding) If the Pirates are committed to this plan (it's the Pirates, don't count on it), it's hard to see their payroll rising substantially from where it is for another 3-4 years (when potentially McCutchen and Alvarez have nice arb buyouts and maybe they're adding vets because enough other young players have turned out good).
Those steps might be in the long-term baseball interest of the Pirates but they (1) certainly aren't in the short-term baseball interests of the MLB Pirates, (2) are certainly in the short-term profit interests of the Pirates' owners and (3) are certainly not in the short-term financial interests of the MLBPA and most of its members.* So it wouldn't be shocking if the Pirates are another team the MLBPA has in mind.
* one can argue that a decent-good team in Pitt is in the long-term interest of the MLBPA but that's contingent of believing that the Pirates do have a good long-term _baseball_ plan. One can also argue that it is in the short-term interests of MLBPA members who are currently on 40-man but not 25-man rosters since these are the sorts who get a chance to play for league minimum on the Pirates, Marlins, etc.
I'm trying to figure out which set of players this might most benefit. Seems the majority opinion here is the fringe FAs and that's sensible. But I think it may most benefit the Matt Capps types. If there's an informal floor and you're the Pirates and you've got choice between tendering Capps or signing a Farnsworth-style FA, it seems pretty clear you'd rather spend it on Capps in hopes that he stays as good as he's pitched rather than on the proven and aging mediocrity. It would also give teams more incentive to offer arb to their FAs in hopes of compensation draft picks -- worst-case scenario you "waste" $10 M on a Adam LaRoche type rather than 2 Farnsworths.
Any minimum payroll will have to be MLB controlled. The union wants no part of administering a minimum team payroll under the CBA as it opens them up to a possible maximum team payroll implementation.
I agree but at this point all I expect to see is an informal floor. It won't be difficult to manage. Assume that behind the scenes, the negotiations must have been along the lines of "c'mon, Loria's barely even spending his revenue sharing money on payroll -- you know we have no choice but to make a big stink about this and you know the CBA gives us room to make a big stink about this. You know this isn't how it was supposed to work and we both know a lot of your owners are pretty annoyed too. What do you say we avoid a big stink and these cheapskates agree to spend most of their central and shared revenue on MLB payroll?"
I could imagine situations where a team violating the salary floor performs better than a team abiding by it.
We all can -- see Royals.
But nobody seems to be arguing that we'll see a "strict" salary floor. It's not at all clear the MLBPA wants a salary floor -- they've never asked for one and, as someone noted earlier, it would almost certainly be tied to a salary cap which the MLBPA has really never wanted. And the players and the MLBPA understand that teams will want to bounce up and down so even if there is eventually an official, negotiated salary floor, it will be some sort of "over X years" sort of thing surely.
But I think a couple things are often overstated here. First, as I speculated above, it might be more the "pretty good but not great" mid-late 20s players (the current non-tenders) who benefit as much or more than the 35-year-old has-been. Matt Capps might not be worth whatever he would have made in arb but does anyone think the Pirates are a better team without him? John Buck might have made more in arb than the Royals signed Kendall for but would the Royals really be worse off?
Second, we tend to overstate how much a team could even invest elsewhere. The Marlins, without even breaking a sweat, could have a $50 M payroll while making the same level of investment they currently are in the minor-league system (which is productive). A $50 M payroll for the last 2 years would have been, what, $40-45 M more than the Marlins actually spent and they were heading towards another season in the $30-35 range I believe. There's nothing in the "emerging" market to invest $40 M (or $20 M per year) in. Sure, Aroldis Chapman might cost you $30 M but that's $30 M spread over several years, backloaded, etc. so even that is only putting a minor dent in those payroll savings.
There is an obvious logic to teams running at, say, a $60 M payroll when good, cut to 40 M and rebuild when that team gets old, saving that $20 M a year then, when the kids start getting good, splurging the money in the bank on FAs -- but near as we can tell, we've never seen a team do this. This isn't to deny that teams may shift some resources from ML payroll to development but that appears to work more along the lines of "we'll spend X total but shift % spent on ML payroll depending on context". But most of the time it really is a choice between that money going in the owners' pockets or going in the players' pockets. I'll say it's all of the time when you see payroll drop by $20-30 M. We might not have a reason to prefer one outcome over the other but the MLBPA sure does.
Anyway, the point is that the Marlins could have spent another $20-25 M a year on their ML payroll the last couple of years without hurting their development of young players one bit and while still providing a nice, tidy profit to the owners. That investment almost certainly would have improved their on-field performance -- doubly true since they're run by a pretty smart GM.
Or maybe put it this way. I don't know what sort of figure the MLBPA has in mind but let's say it's about $55 M. Without an official floor in place, it would be hard for the MLBPA to press a strong case against a team with a $50 M payroll. That means we won't (generally) be talking about a team under pressure to sign a Jason Kendall just to meet a hard floor. I don't think that's so much what concerns the MLBPA. What concerns them is seeing the Marlins, followed (at least temporarily) by the Pirates and the Padres, dropping to payroll levels that would have made them the lowest payroll teams 10 years ago.
I really don't think we're talking about the Marlins having to sign Podsednik for $5 M; we're talking about the Marlins giving Miguel Cabrera a 5/$90 extension rather than trading him -- or some other $15-20 M per year investment.
Ooh, I was a bit off on my guess. Lots of low payroll teams in 2000. In 2001 though, the lowest payroll was Minn at $24 M, then a cluster of Oakland, KC and the Marlins around $34-36 M. So the 2008 Marlins actually beat the 2001 Twins I think and the 2009 Marlins would have been right where the 2001 Marlins were. And the payroll of the 2008-9 Marlins is almost exactly the payroll of the 2000-1 Marlins. That's in nominal dollars, no correction even for regular inflation. Just under regular inflation, the Marlins' 2009 payroll would probably need to be about 1/3 higher to keep pace with their 2001 payroll; under standard baseball inflation, probably at least double. Split the difference and call it a $20-25 M underspend.
Only a low payroll team run by Dayton Moore couldn't substantially improve itself by spending $20-25 M more per season. And nobody but Dayton Moore would waste that sort of extra payroll on low-cost marginal players.
ANYtime is times like this.
The obvious solution is not to let leeches like Loria into the game in the first place.
Re: The Pirates... happy as I'd be to pile onto the Pirates, the language quoted says the revenue sharing money has to go into 'improving the team', which is a different thing from 'directly into MLB payroll'. The Pirates (and Royals) have spent fairly heavily, well above average, in the past couple of drafts, which the Marlins do not; I would imagine that keeps the heat off them somewhat.
Basically the Marlins are being targeted because quite frankly, Loria hasn't even done much to hide the fact he's putting the team's revenue sharing money directly in his pocket.
On the other hand, the Marlins went 87-75 last year...
Sure, in AAAA.
Right, that's why I suggested you should only get the revenue sharing money for spending above the so-called "floor". That way you're allowed to trade the guy, but it is an earnings-neutral event. The obligation goes away, as do the revenue sharing dollars.
This is why I suspect it's strictly an ownership struggle and nothing involving the MLBPA. I'm sure there is a sizeable contingent of owners who don't want the others to live off the good will MLB has generated over many decades without helping build it for the future. That group is not limited to those who pay into revenue sharing.
The timing is another factor; it's not like this is being announced just after a new CBA.
I also don't see how any collusion allegations would have provided leverage. It's an extremely difficult thing to prove - which is part of the reason the owners were so brazen about it the first time around.
Except that the Pirates have been reducing their obligations for 2010; at this point the payroll doesn't look like it's even going to be as high as it was a year ago, although that could change depending on what happens with Duke, Church, etc.
-- MWE
wala? really?
[normally I don't comment on spelling idiosyncracies -- but wala???]
Try voilà
IIRC this was the point of John Henry made earlier at the owners meetings. People jumped on his wanting to see the Yankees limit their spending, and it managed to bury this point.
Well... um... gearing up for some major spending in the 2010 draft?
I'm not sure this would be true for any sort of salary floor that would be implemented. The MLBPA doesn't care -- the guy keeps getting his money and the total amount spent on players stays the same. Now I can see where teams would have an incentive to not do this during the offseason -- that would create floor problems that MLBPA would care about unless the trading team spent those savings that offseason on payroll.
But even if mid-season salary moves were counted against a team's floor, you could also write the reg such that money the team picked up did. Then it becomes a better turn-out for the trading team -- the salary hit to them is the same regardless so now they can trade the guy only for the best talent in return. Part of the "problem" currently is that teams trade such players for minimal return on talent because their main interest is dumping the money. But if there's little/no benefit to them dumping money and therefore also little/no salary cost to the team receiving the player, the talent flowing back the other way should go up. Clearly you need to tweak something if the traded player has more than a year left on his contract.
The Pirates (and Royals) have spent fairly heavily, well above average, in the past couple of drafts, which the Marlins do not; I would imagine that keeps the heat off them somewhat.
Before getting to this, I made a big mistake in an earlier statement. The Pirates under Littlefield didn't spend nearly as much as I remember. They were over $50 M (barely) only twice in the last 10 years and the 2008/9 opening day payrolls were up $10 M from 2007 and equal to 2006 and, all told, were their 3rd & 4th highest of the decade.
But your comment was part of the point I was trying to make. This depends a lot on what amount the "floor" is or should be. The Pirates appear headed for a 2010 opening day payroll about $20 M below the 2008/9 payrolls (still a couple arb awards and Church/Dotel still waiting I guess). There is no way to invest that much in the draft or international signings -- as mentioned, even if it's a Strasburg year, that player's $15-20 M is going to be spread over 4-6 seasons and probably backloaded. It's one thing for a team to shift a few million from their MLB payroll to give them more money for signing bonuses, but it's not an excuse to cut payroll by $20 M.
I'm not saying the Pirates couldn't maybe make a case: (a) we've had limited resources and needed to reduce expenses anyway; (b) but we had lots of guaranteed contracts we couldn't get away from in 2008-9; (c) we need better amateur talent so we'd already increased that spending and need to keep it at that level; (d) the economy took a dive. In short, we spent $5 M more than we could really afford in each of 2008/9 before we knew the economy was going to crash (that cost us another $5 M) ... so we need to make that all back this year...
Anyway, this deal isn't likely to be a huge issue for cases like this precisely. Without a hard floor, the MLBPA is going to have a hard time pressing a case if a team makes a big 1-year drop in payroll. This is only going to come into play if a team is running way below the soft floor for years on end.
This is why I suspect it's strictly an ownership struggle and nothing involving the MLBPA.
Not sure what "it" refers to here. If you mean this announcement, then I don't think you're right. I think this thing is an MLBPA-initiated action -- it's been bubbling for a long time and we had Boras talking about it and some other low-level rumblings over the last few offseasons of "the Union is looking into this." I almost wonder if there was a quieter agreement a few seasons ago that the Marlins were going to up spending, they didn't, they tried to hide behind "it's the economy" but the Union had MLB beat. I do suspect that one reason this seems to have ended with little fight from MLB is at least partly due to ownership discord on this issue too.
But if "it" referred to any hypothetical future hard floor, then I basically agree.
I also don't see how any collusion allegations would have provided leverage.
Not sure what this was in reference to. I raised collusion as being the other legal/arbitral :-) avenue that the Union has developed to battle the owners' attempts to lower salaries. This is a new avenue and one that I think would be much easier to prove. And given they haven't really had much trouble winning collusion cases, their case here must have been awfully strong.
IIRC this was the point of John Henry made earlier at the owners meetings.
Oh some of us noticed. I pointed out how rare (unheard of!) it was for an owner to cop that this was going on. Henry's claims were very close to Boras' earlier claims which had been roundly (but weasily) denied by Manfred.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4826840
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main