Pinto had a good point on his podcast last night: if the Phillies offer a record amount (over the previous record of ~$7.5M set by Miguel Cabrera) they probably win because they have the reasoning of "we're making him a record setting offer" to fall back on.

Conlin was right!

I'm not surprised Howard won. He has a ton of RBI and an MVP award. Howard's lawyers can win pretty much by just spamming that through the entire hearing.

I wonder how much the Phillies offered in their attempt to sign him before arbitration? I'd have gone as far as $9 million. I don't really know much firsthand about the whole arbitration process, but I figured Howard would win, just assuming it's pretty hard to win an arbitration hearing against a guy with an MVP award, especially when your offer is $3 million lower than his.

Well if you are the Phillies you have to look at it this way- it's still quite a bit less than what he'd get on the open market.

I think that the Phillies were hoping this would happen, as suggested by various journalists. They were under real pressure from Seligula and the rest of the owners' cartel to not set a precedent in terms of their offer - since Howard < Pujols, they would have set a real bad precedent if they had offered a record-breaking amount. But from their point of view this is a unique situation.

If they had won, they would have lost in terms of their relationship with Howard and the likelihood of buying out some of his free-agent years in a year or two. All for just $3M which may be a big mistake when you give it to Wes Helms, but shouldn't be the difference maker in a case like this.

"I'm not surprised Howard won. He has a ton of RBI and an MVP award."

Mr. Bad News Cubs, you might consider Howard's victory in the arbitration with less than 3 years service time as an indication that at least one arbitrator agrees with you.

When I think of Howard, David Ortiz comes to mind. After his big 2003 season, he went to arbitration with more than 3 years service time and settled at $4.5 million. My impression is that arbitration awards have not changed much over the last 4 years. It is true that Howard has put in 2 very big seasons instead of Ortiz' 1, and arbitrators aren't likely to make the park/league adjustments to see that Howard is not quite the monster that he appears to be.

arbitrators aren't likely to make the park/league adjustments to see that Howard is not quite the monster that he appears to be.

Howard's career #'s home vs away are nearly identical (65 HRs away, 64 at home, 1.005 OPS away, 1.008 at home). Though there is no denying he plays in an extreme hitters' park, I think he is a bit of an anomaly in that his HR's travel so far they would be out of any park (including Yosemite as the old line goes). I am confident I have seen the majority of his HR's live or on highlights, and I can't recall any that landed in the first few rows. I am guessing the high # of k's also works to lessen the home park advantage.

Has there been a player of Howard's stature who has gone to arbitration all three years?

I can't think of one; either the player has been traded (Soriano, Cabrera, Willis) or signed to extension. I guess K-Rod is up for #3, but his first award was only 3.775M.

Edit: I mean three years with the same team.

I can't recall any that landed in the first few rows
Rodder, the only ones I can think of are a couple of his ultra-top-spin line drives that start diving right at the wall.

Mr. Bad News Cubs, you might consider Howard's victory in the arbitration with less than 3 years service time as an indication that at least one arbitrator agrees with you.

That seems uncalled for...

I expected the arbitrators to take Howard’s lack of service time into account more than they apparently did.

That's not how the process works. Both sides present evidence around players with comparable service time - in this case, past first-time-eligible players - and the arbitrators then decide, in effect, whether the player deserves more than the midpoint between the two figures or less. The arbitrators don't take service time into account beyond the fact that the entire proceeding is limited to discussions of players in the same service-time class.

In this case, I'm guessing that Casey Close's argument was something like this:
* Miguel Cabrera got $7.4 million as a first-time eligible player
* Ryan Howard has 25 more HR than Cabrera and only 51 fewer RBI in almost a full year less of playing time
* Howard won an MVP award and a RoY award
* Therefore Howard deserves a significant premium over Cabrera

I think that's a reasonable argument that Cabrera deserved over $8.5 million, the midpoint between the two sides' submitted figures.

Reasonable, Keith? It might be understandable, in light of the prevailing lack of understanding about the meaning of various measures of offensive productivity.

The Morneau contract and the Howard arbitration award do provide another reason why small market teams need to pay particular attention to players with skills other than driving the ball a long, long way.

Well now the arbitration process pay outs will increase...perhaps the first cause of a market correction? I mean, with so many young talents coming up, and arbitration getting more expensive, these massive free agent contracts are going to crash sooner or later, right? The Phillies should have offered 7.5 million, and probably would have won because that was a "new high."

To what extent do arbitrators factor league revenues into their decisions?

If an agent makes the following argument, is an arbitrator persuaded?

Player X is comparable to player Y. Player Y was awarded 6 mil in arb Z years ago, and revenue has increased 50% since the yeara Player Y was awarded 6 mil. Therefore, Player X is worth 9 mil.

Miguel Cabrera got $7.4 million as a first-time eligible player

Even though he was a first-time eligible, Cabrera had over three years of service time, and nearly a year more than did Howard. Because of that extra (near) year of service, I would have thought that Cabrera wouldn't have been in the equation - Howard's comparables would have been other super-twos and players with "just" over three years of service. But I guess the parameters aren't held that closely.

-- MWE

#15: How many super-2s would be good comps for Howard though? That might be such a small pool of players that it would be too limiting.

To what extent do arbitrators factor league revenues into their decisions?

None

If an agent makes the following argument, is an arbitrator persuaded?

Player X is comparable to player Y. Player Y was awarded 6 mil in arb Z years ago, and revenue has increased 50% since the yeara Player Y was awarded 6 mil. Therefore, Player X is worth 9 mil.


There is some discussion of salary inflation over N years, but team and league revenue is completely excluded from consideration.

A colleague who has worked on union-management arbitration cases (not baseball salary arbitration) once told me this "dirty little secret" of the process after a decision that didn't make sense to me:

Arbitrators, who are hired from a list reached by mutual agreement of the two sides, can't let every decision they make go to one side or the other. Sometimes, they have to bend backward to balance things out just so that they continue to be on that list (i.e., remain employed).

We can't know, of course, whether this was any kind of factor in the Howard decision, but Howard's win, which to me was unexpected and comes after the owners had won the first five cases this year, sure brought to mind that discussion.

Mike, I think the issue is that there are no good comps. All the players in the super-twos and just over threes do is establish a floor for Howard.

Bill. Arbitrators don't consider league revenues at all. However he might buy that type of argument framed in terms of average salary rather than league revenue. (but as I said before arbitrators are professional skeptics)

Mike, Philly's a large market by any reasonable definition. Mike Jones has them at #6. They may not behave as one, but that's a different issue.

ess eff ~ I am a labor arbitrator. While I haven't had the pleasure of hearing baseball cases, I do know several of the people who serve on these panels including two of the ones who served on the Howard case. I suspect that your colleague is casting aspersions against an arbitrator who ruled against him or her. I lost, but it can't be my fault or my client's; let's blame the arbitrator. The only thing that arbitrators have to sell is the integrity of the process. If a side thinks that my brethern are engaged in "balancing things out" in the manner you suggest, the arbitrator would be stricken from the panel, whether FMCS, AAA, or ad hoc, immediately.

I guess I'm the second Mike. I agree that Philly's a large market. I was trying to make a general point about one implication of the Morneau contract and of the Howard arbitration award; the excess of perceived value over actual value for players of this type creates an incentive for small market teams to prefer other skill sets.

The only thing that arbitrators have to sell is the integrity of the process. If a side thinks that my brethern are engaged in "balancing things out" in the manner you suggest, the arbitrator would be stricken from the panel, whether FMCS, AAA, or ad hoc, immediately.
dlf, so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. :) Whether this set of arbitrators did what 18 is wondering about, there still is a built-in confict of interest. Surely, when the next round comes up, the players (or management) would not want someone back who ruled 0-6 against them.

Even though he was a first-time eligible, Cabrera had over three years of service time, and nearly a year more than did Howard. Because of that extra (near) year of service, I would have thought that Cabrera wouldn't have been in the equation - Howard's comparables would have been other super-twos and players with "just" over three years of service. But I guess the parameters aren't held that closely.


Mike ~ The panel is directed to give "particular attention" to players within one year of the same service time. Cabrera's with somewhat less than one additional season clearly fits within that parameter.

The arbitration panel shall,except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service,give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his representative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as is deemed appropriate.

dlf,

I can't deny the possibility. I think the point came up when two arbitrators reached opposite decisions on cases that seemed, at least to us observers, to have very similar background.

ess eff ~ The same, though, is often true with two different judges hearing very similar cases. And judges lack the immediacy of an incentive to keep parties happy so she'll be selected for the next case. Judicial elections are much more remote than the next panel appointment.

Super-twos are not treated as a separate class. It's first-time eligibles.

Arbitrators, who are hired from a list reached by mutual agreement of the two sides, can't let every decision they make go to one side or the other. Sometimes, they have to bend backward to balance things out just so that they continue to be on that list (i.e., remain employed).

I believe this to be true. I know that the Commissioner's Office tried to track such things, and there was always a concern when a panel had a few arbitrators who had voted too often in one direction. An arbitrator can be fired from the process by either side, unilaterally, so an arbitrator who consistently rules for one side has to be concerned he'll lose his gig.

Also, as dlf quotes, Howard can compare himself to others with different service time because of "special accomplishment" - RoY and MVP.

Also, as dlf quotes, Howard can compare himself to others with different service time because of "special accomplishment" - RoY and MVP.
So the lesson, class, is that you shouldn't pimp your young players for awards, you might get burnt in arbitration. That could be quite a marketing vs. finance discussion in the team's board room.

Man, how much is Howard going to make in arbitration in his last year? Assuming a 30% increase a year, that's like 22 million in the last year. And that 30 percent increase isn't really that much considering that Cabrera jumped from 7.4 to 11.3 from his first to second year of arbitration.