I'm starting to have suspicions that this recent spate of young stars discussing their contract situations is being orchestrated to some degree by the MLBPA. It would be quite a coincidence if all these guys arrived at the conclusion that they should speak out about their contract status within days, if not hours, of one another.

Is the union firing a warning shot in advance of future CBA renegotiation? Stricter drug testing in exchange for a reduction in the service time required to be arb eligible?

Sticking to his guns, huh? Perhaps all this talk is organized by Luke Scott.

While I realize that the Sox have enough money and can afford to sign all of them, it seems to me that the young superstars are forgetting about all the players who don't pan out. Teams invest money in them, too, and don't really see any return. Paps is subsidizing the Ty Weedens and Caleb Clays of baseball.

He can't expect the economic system that needs to account for all minor league players (not just the superstars on rich teams) to suddenly change because he proved "Alright, I'm really good."

Maybe he should complain to the guys who got the current passed that gives ample rewards to vets and nuttin for the kiddies. Sorry, Paps, that's the rules. Look forward to when you get your years in; at lea$t it appear$ more $alary is ahead of ya.

While I realize that the Sox have enough money and can afford to sign all of them, it seems to me that the young superstars are forgetting about all the players who don't pan out. Teams invest money in them, too, and don't really see any return. Paps is subsidizing the Ty Weedens and Caleb Clays of baseball.

Papelbon isn't "forgetting" about them any more than the Red Sox were "forgetting" about the way baseball's salary structure rewards seniority when they didn't offer Trot Nixon a multi-year contract after 2006.

It's set up as an adversarial system. Players use what rights they have under the CBA to get the most money, owners use what rights they have to keep their money. Pre-arb players don't have many options, so they're going to use the press to create pressure that they can't create through other channels. No one is "forgetting" anything - they're all using the system to the best of their abilities.

He can't expect the economic system that needs to account for all minor league players (not just the superstars on rich teams) to suddenly change because he proved "Alright, I'm really good."

He doesn't expect the economic system to change. He's not a Marxist. He just wants another hundred grand, and he wants the Red Sox to start thinking about a long-term contract.

Players with less than 3 yrs service time are now taking much too big of a hit in the current market. Total player costs have greatly decreased as a percent of total revenues because teams have gotten smarter about free agent values, but the way the system is set up the excess money does not flow down to young service time players (well somewhat to arb eligible players) and isn't to amatuer players either as the slotting system is keeping thier bonuses down.

When players as a group made 55-60% of revenues and amatuer bonuses were going up 15-20% per year you could argue that the cheap pre-arb salaries were paying for the amatuer busts and the post-FA excesses that the young players would hopefully (but all assuredly) get.

That's no longer happening and young players are getting screwed. I don't think the MLBPA has ever shown much fight for young players, but that's the segment of thier constituency that needs the MLBPA's collective power the most. Minimum salaries should be much higher and some kind mimimum's for yr 2 and yr 3 service time players might make sense as well if they can't get earlier arb rights.

That's no longer happening and young players are getting screwed.

$900K is a screwing I could live with.

...We need to take a stand and not let them take advantage of us just because they can.”

Hunger strike? Throwing balls over the backstop? Holding your breath till your face turns blue? Refusing to stand during the national anthem?

This could be fun.

$900K is a screwing I could live with.

From what I hear, there are people who endure a lot more screwing and make a lot less than $900K

Or maybe Papelbon should just stick to these guns.

He doesn't expect the economic system to change. He's not a Marxist. He just wants another hundred grand, and he wants the Red Sox to start thinking about a long-term contract.

This is a point well taken. I'm thinking more in terms of what would happen if Paplebon's "suggestions" were to be instituted across baseball. It's all good as long as you ignore the spesifics coming out of his mouth.

He invoked Ryan Howard, who is another interesting case. If Paps wants a long term deal from the Sox he's going to have to give back (probably in terms of a lower annual salary), and has there been any indication that he would do that? Howard is trying to get what he thinks is a "Market" deal without cutting the Phillies a break for their years of control. Is Paps looking for the same thing?

I don't think the MLBPA has ever shown much fight for young players, but that's the segment of thier constituency that needs the MLBPA's collective power the most.

This is too true. Unfortunately it's not likely to change as minor leaguers are not admitted into the PA, so they don't get a voice.

and isn't to amatuer players either as the slotting system is keeping thier bonuses down.

Is slotting really working to keep bonuses down, though? It seems like more and more teams realize that it's not going to work and are going above slot. If slotting crumbles this might go a long way towards addressing Pap's grievance (although too late to help him); of course that would mean that players would have to look at their bonus as an upfront salary payment and then not complain when they're making the league minimum, which also strikes me as unlikely to happen.

Jonathan Papelbon, hard-boiled negotiator.

Or maybe Papelbon should just stick to these guns.

That is a shirt of unsurpassed awesomeness.

The MLBPA is doing a nice job of making the clubs look like the bad guys in this, when it was the union that negotiated the CBA that allows the clubs to unilaterally set these salaries. If Papelbon (or Fielder or tomorrow's complainer) has a problem with no getting "paid what he is worth" before he is arbitration-eligible, he should ##### to his union rep, not his employer.

The MLBPA is doing a nice job of making the clubs look like the bad guys in this, when it was the union that negotiated the CBA that allows the clubs to unilaterally set these salaries.

It's not a bad ### for tat in regards to the clubs going out of their way to make the union look in bad in relation to PED's and the Mitchel report, even though the owners probably had a pretty good idea of what was going on.

Holy Moly! I didn't read the whole article, but talk about overrating the closer "position." Comparing himself to Ryan Howard? Did anyone tell him Howard won the ROY in his first year and the MVP in his second? Oh, yeah, and he also occasionally plays more innings in a week than Papelbon does all season. What an A**.

I'm starting to have suspicions that this recent spate of young stars discussing their contract situations is being orchestrated to some degree by the MLBPA. It would be quite a coincidence if all these guys arrived at the conclusion that they should speak out about their contract status within days, if not hours, of one another.

Is the union firing a warning shot in advance of future CBA renegotiation? Stricter drug testing in exchange for a reduction in the service time required to be arb eligible?

This nailed it. No doubt we are witnessing a new strategy here. I happen to think the only thing about baseball favorable to small markets is the fact you can control your players for 6 years.

I think this factor has much, much more to do with giving small markets a chance than revenue sharing does.

I'm starting to have suspicions that this recent spate of young stars discussing their contract situations is being orchestrated to some degree by the MLBPA.

The Rockies this off-season locked up Troy Tulowitzki and Manny Corpas to long-term deals, before either of them even became arb-eligible. Plus you had Ryan Howard signing for eleventy billion dollars, or however much he got, before he reached free agency. I think what most likely spurs these stories is seeing other players in similar conditions get the contracts you want.

I think this factor has much, much more to do with giving small markets a chance than revenue sharing does.

Precisely correct. Reducing the time to arb eligibility and/or free agency by even one year would be noticeably destructive to competitive balance.

$900K is a screwing I could live with.

From what I hear, there are people who endure a lot more screwing and make a lot less than $900K

Yes, but, from what I hear, these people aren't worth $15 million per year on the open market.

An amount which Papelbon may never see -- despite being worth that much -- if he gets injured.

The players who are fortunate enough to stay healthy and good for long enough in order to be given a market value contract get called Greedy Ballplayers for their troubles, as people act as if these players took no risks along the way, and deserved to be underpaid then -- but don't deserve to be paid market value now.

Good point, Ray (in #20), but in my recollection the players who whine about this kind of situation the most are the very good players with a more checkered health history.

So far - with two "full" seasons on the job - Papelbon has thrown his arm out of its socket, and has reported migraines so severe that he can't perform his job. As much as I hate to think about it in these terms, the performance we've seen from Papelbon to date might be the best we'll ever see from him. To me - and I recognize that not everyone thinks like me - he's being greedy if he's looking to get paid for time in which he might not be able to perform; but I certainly don't hold it against him for trying.

But the other folks in this thread are correct: Papelbon can't get market value now because the system he's in discourages it; but as unacceptable the practice is to him, the MLBPA - his representative - has deemed it acceptable.

The players who are fortunate enough to stay healthy and good for long enough in order to be given a market value contract get called Greedy Ballplayers for their troubles, as people act as if these players took no risks along the way, and deserved to be underpaid then -- but don't deserve to be paid market value now.

Why stop there? Why shouldn't Papelbon be allowed to pimp himself out in June, July, August? That contract he signed can't be valid, it limited his free market capabilities.

He can always find another line of work if he doesn't like the rules of the agreement he has freely entered into.

Good point, Ray (in #20), but in my recollection the players who whine about this kind of situation the most are the very good players with a more checkered health history.

I don't keep track of who "whines about this kind of situation the most," but it would stand to reason that the very good players are the ones getting hurt the most, since they're the ones with the greatest disparity between actual income and market value.

So far - with two "full" seasons on the job - Papelbon has thrown his arm out of its socket, and has reported migraines so severe that he can't perform his job. As much as I hate to think about it in these terms, the performance we've seen from Papelbon to date might be the best we'll ever see from him.

Well, yes. ERA+s of 171, 515, and 256 are pretty difficult to duplicate.

To me - and I recognize that not everyone thinks like me - he's being greedy if he's looking to get paid for time in which he might not be able to perform; but I certainly don't hold it against him for trying.

And was the team also "greedy" for paying him close to the league minimum for the kind of performance they got from him? Or is it just players who are "greedy"?

As for the potential for him to get hurt in the future -- despite Papelbon's injury issues, if he were a free agent the market for his contract would easily be something like $12-15 mil for 4 years. Rivera just got $15 mil for 3 years, and he's 38 years old. That should give you a sense of just how much Papelbon is underpaid until he gains some leverage in the negotiations.

I don't think it's accurate to say the MLBPA negotiated away players rights to negotiate contracts in the first three years. For a long time, they had no rights to negotiate any contracts ever. That they made progress in getting free agency and salary arbitration doesn't mean they don't deserve those rights from the beginning. It's not as if the player complained to his union rep they would then be able to ensure that players are free agents or arb-eligible from day one.

None of these players are saying they won't play under their renewed contracts. They're just saying the system sucks for them, which it does.

And was the team also "greedy" for paying him close to the league minimum for the kind of performance they got from him? Or is it just players who are "greedy"?

Exhibit A, the Marlins, who just renewed Hanley's contract for a whopping $37,000 raise.

I don't think it's accurate to say the MLBPA negotiated away players rights to negotiate contracts in the first three years. For a long time, they had no rights to negotiate any contracts ever. That they made progress in getting free agency and salary arbitration doesn't mean they don't deserve those rights from the beginning.

They most certainly did. Marvin Miller knew back in the 70's that everyone becoming a free agent every year would depress salaries, and thus suggested a waiting period. If Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrerra and David Wright and Ryan Zimmerman were all free agents last year, would Alex Rodriguez have a $300 mil contract right now?

Why stop there? Why shouldn't Papelbon be allowed to pimp himself out in June, July, August? That contract he signed can't be valid, it limited his free market capabilities.

I didn't say his contract wasn't valid; I said he's vastly underpaid.

He can always find another line of work if he doesn't like the rules of the agreement he has freely entered into.

Of course, the "rules" were pre-negotiated for him, and without his input. Yes, he chose to continue his baseball career anyway; but that doesn't mean that comments such as "900K is a screwing I could live with" -- when you're not worth anywhere close to 900K to begin with (let alone $12-15 million) -- are not asinine.

They most certainly did. Marvin Miller knew back in the 70's that everyone becoming a free agent every year would depress salaries, and thus suggested a waiting period. If Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrerra and David Wright and Ryan Zimmerman were all free agents last year, would Alex Rodriguez have a $300 mil contract right now?

Quite interesting.

They most certainly did. Marvin Miller knew back in the 70's that everyone becoming a free agent every year would depress salaries, and thus suggested a waiting period. If Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrerra and David Wright and Ryan Zimmerman were all free agents last year, would Alex Rodriguez have a $300 mil contract right now?

Obviously not, in the preposterous world where "free agency for all" equals "mandatory one-year contracts."

Obviously not, in the preposterous world where "free agency for all" equals "mandatory one-year contracts."

The point is, it was the union and not the owners who suggested a waiting period for free agency. Charlie Finley astutely wanted to free everyone at once and Miller had to backtrack, knowing the implications. I'm not sure if the MLBPA wouldn't take the same stance today if given a choice.

The mandatory one-year contracts idea was Charley Finley's, if my newest BP annual isn't lying to me. It's an owner's wet dream but is incredibly one-sided, which is probably why it isn't used in any other sports league I know of.

I imagine that the current system providing for pre-arb compensation at minimal levels was a compromise Miller et al were willing to make in exchange for more robust free agency rights thereafter.

The mandatory one-year contracts idea was Charley Finley's, if my newest BP annual isn't lying to me. It's an owner's wet dream but is incredibly one-sided, which is probably why it isn't used in any other sports league I know of.

Isn't that what the NFL has?

They most certainly did. Marvin Miller knew back in the 70's that everyone becoming a free agent every year would depress salaries, and thus suggested a waiting period.

That may have been true, in the short term, but as time went on and the market matured, salaries for stars would have still exploded as the market sorted itself out. In fact, single-year salaries would be quite a bit higher now for stars if there were forced one-year contracts because the downside risk for teams would be much lower. A whole lot of superstars would give teams choices, but they'd also have a lot more spots to fill.

Finley, however, knew what was good for Finley, and no doubt he would've taken advantage of a glut while the going was good and being nearly 60, would figure that he'd be retired before the market correction.

Misirlou, freeing everyone at once would be happily embraced by the players so long as there was no limitation of contract length. I'm sure Papelbon would love to have the ability to sign a 5 year, 60 million dollar deal with the Tigers tomorrow. There are probably only a handful of players in the entire league who would be worse off right now if every player suddenly became a free agent: Jason Schmidt, Vernon Wells, Todd Helton, Juan Pierre, and a few other guys inked to long-term deals that they'd have no chance of ever signing again.

Sure, you could say that A-Rod would have a lot more competition if David Wright, Cabrera, Zimmerman, and Hanley were all free agents, but he'd also have a lot more suitors, as all of those players' former teams would be searching for a third baseman. Instantaneous free agency likely wouldn't change the total amount of money spent on players, it would just reallocate it toward younger stars like Papelbon and Cole Hamels and Prince Fielder.

Dan, I was just about to post what you said but decided I was getting a little long-winded and edited my post. Besides, you're more eloquent anyway, so your appearance on this thread is pareto-improving.

The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts but is still a long way from mandatory one-year contracts.

The biggest problem with mandatory-one year contracts, IMHO, is that it disincents teams from developing players in the minors. Why draft and develop Joe Mauer if you're the Twins if he'll leave for the Yankees as soon as he has one good season? This is less of a problem in the NFL because of the shorter period of development needed to play in that league (and, for that matter, the NBA as well).

There is no question the players in the NFL get "screwed" much more than 1-6 players in baseball.

There is no question the players in the NFL get "screwed" much more than 1-6 players in baseball.

That I definitely agree with.

No one is "forgetting" anything

I find that hard to believe. I bet most of these young guys still (forget) anything in a skirt.

Well, yes. ERA+s of 171, 515, and 256 are pretty difficult to duplicate.

I meant in that he is enough of a health risk on at least two fronts that he could soon be out of the closer, if not pitcher, business. But your point holds.

And was the team also "greedy" for paying him close to the league minimum for the kind of performance they got from him? Or is it just players who are "greedy"?

Latter question first: no, the teams are also greedy. Are they greedy in Papelbon's case? Yes and no. They are greedy much in the same way as Papelbon is: they're trying to shift the equation toward their benefit, but I don't blame them for trying. But from what I've read the team has made significant medical investment in Papelbon in the last 18 months - an investment that helps keep his value to the team high, but also increases Papelbon's "market" value. Team investment in minor-league development did the same. And they fielded a competent-enough team around him to win him a ring, something that no one player can do on their own.

I'm not saying Papelbon shouldn't want more than he has; like I said, I don't blame him for trying. But from the comments he's made I get the impression he has a problem with the system itself, and doesn't seem to think that the team has "gone to bat" for him in any way. And they most certainly have, in ways that don't show up in a paycheck. (Not this year.)

I meant in that he is enough of a health risk on at least two fronts that he could soon be out of the closer, if not pitcher, business. But your point holds.

Yeah, I know you meant that.

My point is that even despite his health issues, teams would still throw a Rivera type contract at him, probably with a fourth year to boot -- thus betting that he would remain healthy. (As for his value on the open market, remember that while nobody can touch Rivera's postseason performance, Papelbon hasn't been too shabby in the postseason himself: 0 earned runs in 14.2 innings. Granted Papelbon pitches fewer innings than Rivera during the regular season.)

I'm not saying Papelbon shouldn't want more than he has; like I said, I don't blame him for trying. But from the comments he's made I get the impression he has a problem with the system itself, and doesn't seem to think that the team has "gone to bat" for him in any way. And they most certainly have, in ways that don't show up in a paycheck. (Not this year.)

But the team has invested in him for their own benefit, not for his. And there's no way their investment in him, however special it may be, approaches his market value.

Ray, I think you're talking past everyone. If I simply said, "Papelbon is definitely way underpaid relative to what he'd bring on the open market," would you have any need to reply? Because I agree with that, and I don't see anyone who doesn't.

You also seem to be saying it's asinine to suggest he should be content with less than that. If that is what you're saying, yeah, you'll have a lot of people disagreeing with you, including Papelbon himself. These people recognize that Papelbon IS being paid market value - the catch is that his market within MLB is artificially restricted (via the CBA) to only one team. In the confines of that "market", he is worth whatever Boston wants to pay him in 2008, and whatever an arbitrator deems appropriate in 2009-11, provided he chooses to play under those conditions. The "open" market that is available for his baseball services is in the independent leagues, or in another country, neither of which is a very good gauge of his theoretical MLB-based open market value (though if the exchange rate follows its current trend he could go overseas and do even better than MLB). It's an absurd situation, but it's reality.

Papelbon wants more than the "market" (Boston) will bear. The "market" (Boston) wants to pay less than his performance will warrant. They're both greedy, and they're both rational. I've been going down a separate path, latching on to Papelbon's comment that the team needs to "go to bat" for him, and pointing out that they've been doing so for 5 years; but there's nothing here that contradicts your point that under a completely different system Papelbon would be worth so much more.