I always wonder if a guy like Strasburg has a cause of action against the Nats for sending him to the minors like this. Violation of the implied covenant of fair dealing? Something in tort?

I guess b/c of the CBA he'd have to file a grievance and go through an arbitrator, but I can't see the downside to doing so, or at least threatening to do so, in order to encourage the team to avoid sending you down.

It creates an environment in which your bosses don't like you and your peers view you as an entitled ass who doesn't understand the processes of the game?

It creates an environment in which your bosses don't like you and your peers view you as an entitled ass who doesn't understand the processes of the game?

I don't think any other player begrudges a guy who's trying to keep management from screwing him. At this point, the sending-down-to-minors-to-avoid-arbitration-clock thing isn't even hush-hush, you have team officials giving quotes to reporters on background indicating that its the primary motivation for many of these demotions.

If a Strasburg fights the demotion, that helps the next guys down the line as much as it helps him. It's not a selfish act. And I don't think any modern athletes care about that stuff anyways so long as it stays off the field. What, you think Adam Dunn is going to be pissed about playing behind a pitcher who throws 98 and Ked 12 in 9 ST innings?

That's good for me, because I get up to the Harrisburg area several times in the spring and summer. Maybe I'll get to see him overwhelm the AA hitters. Nice little ballpark, too, on an island in the Susquehanna River

IANAL, but this is all governed by the CBA. If the union doesn't like it, they can negotiate something else during the next bargaining session. Sure, it's sort of a loophole but they've closed these kind of loopholes before with things like super-2's.

I would think that they would have gotten a decent amount of increased receipts in DC for those starts Strasburg will now not be making.

IANAL, but this is all governed by the CBA. If the union doesn't like it, they can negotiate something else during the next bargaining session.

IANAL either, but the CBA provides for a grievance procedure in front of an arbitrator for bad-faith acts by teams, right? If a team releases a player to avoid triggering a playing-time clause in a contract, or puts a player on the DL to free up a spot on the 40-man without exposing the player to waivers, etc etc, then the union can file a grievance and an arbitrator determines if the team acted in bad faith.

Sending Strasburg to the minors in order to delay his arbitration rights by one year is a bad faith act. It's no different.

I think the team can argue at least two good baseball reasons for doing this though.

It's easier to keep an eye on his workload in the minors, and teams quite clearly have been trying to limit increases in workload for young pitchers.

Also, while he's good enough to make the team, that doesn't mean he couldn't use additional work on one or more of his pitches, and it's allegedly easier to provide that in the minors.

Even if one of the reasons is the delaying of arbitration, if there are other reasons too then the Nationals would win any arbitration case.

IANAL, but

This is by far my favorite Internet acronym.

On an entirely unrelated (but more topical!) note, as good as Strasburg has looked in the AFL and ST, is there not a decent argument for starting him in the minors? Sure, he throws 117mph with a 105mph breaking ball*, but there's something to be said for "knowing how to pitch", rather than overwhelming hitters with pure stuff, although Strasburg has demonstrated good command thus far.

*numbers may be slightly exaggerated

This is most upsetting to the Potomac Nationals who built their season ticket plan on getting a few starts out of Strasburg in Woodbridge, Virginia.

It's easier to keep an eye on his workload in the minors, and teams quite clearly have been trying to limit increases in workload for young pitchers.

This is all they need to justify it.

All they have to say is we don't want him going over 125 IP this year, or over 85 pitches for his first 10 outings. It's hard to do this in MLB when you're trying to win games, so they're sending him down for 2 months.

So Strasburg will make his pro debut in Altoona, where I attend most of the games and track games for BIS.

Except I'm going to be in Tennessee the first two weeks of April.

Damn it all.

Strasburg's getting paid $2 million this year. If I were running the Nationals I wouldn't be willing to pay this kind of money to a minor league pitcher unless he agrees in advance not to raise a stink about service clocks.

I don't think any other player begrudges a guy who's trying to keep management from screwing him.

Maybe or maybe not. If a player who is well liked by others on the team gets cut because of a perceived arrogance by Strasburg, I suppose it might have a negative impact on how he is viewed by other players. Of course, I don't know much about his personality or how other players react to him.

I guess they don't normally start guys off in AAA for whatever reason, but man, is Strasburg gonna carve the hell out of AA hitters for those two months. He won't learn a damn thing ;)

Spring training stats: 9 IP, 2 ER, 1 BB, 12 H. 13 groundouts, 1 popout, 0 flyouts

The tinge of tartness in his response reveals not alKaline, but going to minors.
Pitching every 5th game for 162 games != college. Hopefully, he'll have a long career, why possibly screw it up by starting him in the majors?

ZOP: "I always wonder if a guy like Strasburg has a cause of action against the Nats for sending him to the minors like this."

G'BACK: "Strasburg's getting paid $2 million this year."

I am thoroughly confused by all the prejudice expressed by people who always favor the players over the owners (or team management). I have no bias, because I have no dog in the fight. My sense is that the other commenters, too, have no dog in the fight. Yet they don't look at these questions with any reason. They have blinded themselves with prejudice.

If someone is working for the players or a player, fine, express a biased view. Same thing if someone is making a living representing the ownership.

In this case, you have a player who has never done anything in professional baseball. Nothing. Yet because he has promise and because he has a good agent and because he played the system to his advantage, he was signed to a contract of $15.1 million. He very well may never pan out. He might get hurt and never win a game in the major leagues. Most guys who make the majors will never make anywhere near as much money in their lifetimes as Strasburg is making for having done nothing in professional baseball.

Yet I don't begrudge Strasburg at all*. He was drafted with the first draft pick and because of the context (that is, all of the money in pro baseball) and the system (having no limits on how much he can ask for) and the team's circumstances (the Nats being the Nats) and the rules of the game, he got a great deal for himself. He played the system, just as he should.

Right now, the system allows the team to hold him in the minors in order to delay the start of his arbitration clock. They are doing just what Strasburg did--playing the system.

It was not wrong of Strasburg to try to do everything to his advantage once he got drafted. And it is equally not wrong of the Nats to do everything they can to their advantage now that he is in their organization. It's a business on both sides. The Nats may be badly run in some respects. But don't expect them to not try to do everything they can within the rules to make their franchise better and more profitable.

*It may sound like I have a pro-owner bias, because 90% of the commenters on these issues on Primer are so strongly biased in favor of the players, for no logical reason, that a neutral party comes acrosss on a relative basis as a shill for the owners.

I always wonder if a guy like Strasburg has a cause of action against the Nats for sending him to the minors like this.

Oh for crying out loud, the guy signed the biggest contract in baseball history for a draftee. What is it about some people that they have to make a f*cking federal case out of every damn thing?

I can see it both ways. #11 is right, putting Strasburg in AA is the best way of limiting his innings for 2010 and getting him used to a major-league workload. This, on the other hand, doesn't mean he wouldn't be capable of contributing to the major league team right now if he was needed. But, instead, they're saving contract time and signing innings-eaters to fill that slot.

It's Drew Storen who should really have a problem with this (it's been obvious for months that Strasburg was going to start at high-A or AA, but Storen's status was far more unclear,) but it's not as if the Nats really need a closer.

And it is equally not wrong of the Nats to do everything they can to their advantage now that he is in their organization. It's a business on both sides.

If the National want to control innings or let him work on secondary pitchers blah blah blah, then that's fine. OTOH "it's a business" is a piss-poor excuse for thuggish behavior. IANAL and IANA law student, plus these fellows are hardly oppressed, so I don't have any great concern about Strasburg's or Lerner's rights. However the various service time metrics rest on the foundation that teams will put their best players on the field. Gaming the system isn't in the fans' interest, and arguably not in the long-term interests of the sport, and it's annoying that neoliberal America is willing to ignore that aspect, or even celebrates it, because "it's a business."

Is there a website that lists minor league pitching probables with a high degree of accuracy? I live half an hour away from Harrisburg, but the local sources for pitching probables are wrong so often that I stopped paying attention to them. But I'd love to see Strasburg, and there's a pretty good chance that his games could sell out if you don't get tickets early enough. (I believe the rehab game Mike Mussina was supposed to pitch in Harrisburg was sold out. Then the Yankees moved his rehab start to AAA because rain was being forecast in Pennsylvania and the Senators probably set a team record for no shows when the game still happened.)

By the way, the ballpark is indeed a nice one, but be carefull if you go to a night game. Because it's in the Sesquahana river there comes a time (usually around the sixth inning) where the bugs attracted to the lights start to rain down dead or dying on the stands.

Not that's super accurate, no. The best way is to read the local paper, look at who's pitched recently, etc...

"Gaming the system isn't in the fans' interest ..."

So you are saying you object to Mr. Strasburg's negotiating tactics to get a $15.1 million contract, even if he never pitches an inning in the majors?

"Gaming the system isn't in the fans' interest ..."

It is if it allows the Nats to keep Strasburg an extra year than they would have had he made the Opening Day roster. I think most Nats fans would give up a month of Stras this year to get a full season of him in 2016.

Gaming the system isn't in the fans' interest

How is it not in the Nationals' fans interest to have Strasburg pitching a 7th season in Washington when he's 29, and hopefully a superstar, rather than starting on Opening Day, and being shut down in August when he hits his IP cap?

Edit: Coke to AG#1F!

So you are saying you object to Mr. Strasburg's negotiating tactics to get a $15.1 million contract, even if he never pitches an inning in the majors?

Any contract is always paying for (predicted) future performance. Paying for past performance is idiotic.

A class action lawsuit over service time manipulation? WTF.

What objective evidence can you provide that says, unequivocally, that the Nationals are intentionally acting against their best interest as an organization (strictly from a baseball perspective) by sending Strasburg to AA? Now of course, I suspect Stephen Strasburg is probably the best pitcher on the team right now, but that's a guess... He's never thrown a pitch professionally and, as cited above, there are compelling baseball reasons to leave him in the minors, service time notwithstanding.

Stephen Strasburg, on his own accord, signed a contract to play professional baseball for the Washington Nationals organization. They have every right to assign him as they see fit, within the rules of Major League Baseball and the CBA. The service time manipulation isn't going to change... you can't dictate to an organization when and how they should promote players.

So you are saying you object to Mr. Strasburg's negotiating tactics to get a $15.1 million contract, even if he never pitches an inning in the majors?

Balance that out against numerous guys who play like MVP's early, then quickly fall apart before they ever gat paid what they were worth. I'm thinking Morgan Ensberg for example, who was damned good in 2003 (and made $300K) played like an MVP in 2005 (and made $450K), was pretty good in 2006 (first year of arb, $3.8 mil), then fell off the earth. He made $11 mil in his career, which isn't nothing, but according to fangraphs, the Astros got $55 mil worth of value from him.

Stephen Strasburg, on his own accord, signed a contract to play professional baseball for the Washington Nationals organization. They have every right to assign him as they see fit, within the rules of Major League Baseball and the CBA. The service time manipulation isn't going to change... you can't dictate to an organization when and how they should promote players.

Obviously, the Nats in isolation have a plausible argument that they're sending Stasburg to the minors for good-faith reasons. We know that they're not, but they can at least reasonably argue that their motives are clean.

But taking the behavior of all teams in aggregate, its clear that at least the majority of teams have been acting in bad faith. Has there been a top prospect in recent years who WASNT Evan Longoriaed? Since a player's career is of finite length regardless of when he's brought up, all these wink-nudge demotions are depriving a whole bunch of stars of a year of free-agency. The aggregate loss of compensation to the players as a whole over the life of this CBA has to be in the tens of millions of dollars at this point.

Is there a procedure for the union to file a grievance against the collective action of all teams? It seems curious that we can be 90% certain that each team which has demoted a top prospect till Memorial Day was acting in bad faith, yet because of that 10% uncertainty there's no grievance against any individual team, but even when the same events transpire 5, 6, 7, 8 times, untill the odds of malfeasance are basically 100%, there's still nothing the union can do.

Separately, I don't see how people can argue that "Strasburg was already paid a lot, so how can he complain". If Strasburg is deprived of a year of arbitration or FA, he'll be losing at minimum several million dollars as a result of the National's actions. Its not insignificant dollars, even to a guy who just cashed a $15m check. Especially for a pitcher, where the specter of major injury always lurks, losing a year is incredibly damaging. (Remember when Madison Bumgarner was one of the 5 best pitching prospects in baseball? Who's to say that's not Strasburg's fate in year 3?)

Since a player's career is of finite length regardless of when he's brought up, all these wink-nudge demotions are depriving a whole bunch of stars of a year of free-agency. The aggregate loss of compensation to the players as a whole over the life of this CBA has to be in the tens of millions of dollars at this point.

Of course you realize that if this was changed, teams would be willing to pay less to draftees/int'l signees, knowing they'd only have 6, rather than ~6.7 yrs. of control?

So, a few guys who make it to the 7th year (and will makes tens of millions anyway) would get a few million more, and a lot of draftees (most of whom won't have any meaningful careers) will get less.

But taking the behavior of all teams in aggregate, its clear that at least the majority of teams have been acting in bad faith. Has there been a top prospect in recent years who WASNT Evan Longoriaed? Since a player's career is of finite length regardless of when he's brought up, all these wink-nudge demotions are depriving a whole bunch of stars of a year of free-agency. The aggregate loss of compensation to the players as a whole over the life of this CBA has to be in the tens of millions of dollars at this point.

They haven't been deprived anything; the union negotiated the current rules for service time. If they don't like it, for the next CBA ask for five year free agency or have a lower threshold for the number of days counted as a full year. Regardless of where you draw the line in the sand, teams are going to maximize their ROI by keeping the player under club control for as long as possible.

They haven't been deprived anything; the union negotiated the current rules for service time. If they don't like it, for the next CBA ask for five year free agency or have a lower threshold for the number of days counted as a full year. Regardless of where you draw the line in the sand, teams are going to maximize their ROI by keeping the player under club control for as long as possible.

And, the players will have to give something up to get that. I think they'd be better off negotiating for a higher minimum salary.

Of course you realize that if this was changed, teams would be willing to pay less to draftees/int'l signees, knowing they'd only have 6, rather than ~6.7 yrs. of control?

So, a few guys who make it to the 7th year (and will makes tens of millions anyway) would get a few million more, and a lot of draftees (most of whom won't have any meaningful careers) will get less.

That's not true for US players because the draft is NOT a free bargaining market for the player. (It is true for international signees.) All players would rather have a greater portion of their career under free-agency where they can keep a larger share of the revenue they generate.

Because teams have exclusive bargaining rights over their draftees, they can increase draft bonuses by a smaller fraction to "compensate" players for that extra 0.7 years of control than they would have to increase the total pool of free agent compensation.

Because teams have exclusive bargaining rights over their draftees, they can increase draft bonuses by a smaller fraction to "compensate" players for that extra 0.7 years of control than they would have to increase the total pool of free agent compensation.

Sure. But, they have to increase it for hundreds of draftees, vs. a handful of players for whom the 7th year has any real value.

They certainly included that 7th year in their calculation when giving Strasburg $15M. Without it, maybe they only give him $13M.

So, if he's great, maybe it costs him several million, but if he gets hurt, he comes out better.

Sure. But, they have to increase it for hundreds of draftees, vs. a handful of players for whom the 7th year has any real value.


Because teams have exclusive bargaining rights over their draftees, they can increase the total pool of draft bonuses by a smaller amount than they'd have to increase the total pool of free agent compensation for those same years.

The teams always want to maximize the amount of years they control the players or have exclusive negotiating rights; the players want to maximize the years of free agency. Any act that extends the length of team control over players takes money out of the players' pockets as a whole and puts it into the owners'. The increase in draft bonus compensation wont come close to making up for the loss in FA compensation. As a whole. For everyone. In total.

The teams always want to maximize the amount of years they control the players or have exclusive negotiating rights; the players want to maximize the years of free agency. Any act that extends the length of team control over players takes money out of the players' pockets as a whole and puts it into the owners'. The increase in draft bonus compensation wont come close to making up for the loss in FA compensation. As a whole. For everyone. In total.

Not clear at all, especially given arbitration. Arbitration often leads to players making more than their market value, otherwise we wouldn't see so many non-tenders.

If players only cared about reaching FA faster, they'd negotiate away arbitration. We don't see this.

And, the players will have to give something up to get that. I think they'd be better off negotiating for a higher minimum salary.

This. Also higher pay for minor leaguers on the 40 man roster. This would benefit the majority of players who ever are union members.

Not clear at all, especially given arbitration. Arbitration often leads to players making more than their market value, otherwise we wouldn't see so many non-tenders.

We don't see non-tenders for pre-free agency players. The non-tenders occur with late career players who "deserve" paycuts greater than the limit set out in the CBA.

Arbitration for pre-FA players almost universally leads to salaries lower than those the player would earn as an FA. I think Tango has discussed this on his blog in the relatively recent past.

#15 should read 12 K, not 12 H, obv.

Arbitration for pre-FA players almost universally leads to salaries lower than those the player would earn as an FA. I think Tango has discussed this on his blog in the relatively recent past.

Sure. But, if the players wanted earlier FA, say 5 yrs, they'd have to give up some or all of arbitration. They'd make minimum or near minimum longer.

This might be good for super-stars, but it's not clear that the players as a whole would do better.

This might be good for super-stars, but it's not clear that the players as a whole would do better.

It is clear. They would. My understanding is that arbitration was incorporated into the CBA in order to reduce player turnover while giving players something that approximates market salary.

I'm pretty sure I'm arguing the consensus opinion and you're making an off-beat argument. If you can find any source that supports the idea that arbitration doesn't hurt the players on the whole, I'd be happy to consider it.

I'm pretty sure I'm arguing the consensus opinion and you're making an off-beat argument. If you can find any source that supports the idea that arbitration doesn't hurt the players on the whole, I'd be happy to consider it.

Arbitration vs. what? Instead of being FA's after 3 years? Well sure.

But that will never happen. The teams can't afford to pay bonuses, development costs, etc. for the ten players that never make it if they only get 3 years of below market service from those that do.

If abolishing arbitration meant players had 5 reserve clause years at the minimum, I doubt that's an improvement over the current system.

My understanding was that arbitration was a mechanism devised by the MLBPA to escalate salaries, b/c they knew they could do better in front of an arbitrator than in the market. Arbitration almost always benefits labor vs. management.

I'm sure the owners would be all for eliminating the draft, reserve clause, etc. completely and going to complete free agency. Every top prospect would be signed to a contract controlling him through age 32.

A guy like Strasburg would be stupid to turn down a 10-year $20M contract.

But that will never happen. The teams can't afford to pay bonuses, development costs, etc. for the ten players that never make it if they only get 3 years of below market service from those that do.

No, that's not true. Teams could afford to pay those development costs if FA salaries were sufficiently low. The reason FA salaries are so inflated now is because the below market salaries earned during years under team control subsidize the salaries earned by FAs.

Arbitration was a compromise devised by both parties to allow for team control for a longish period while providing for an approximation of FMV to arb-eligible players. Because of the way that arb is structured in baseball (with comparables and whatnot), players are always undercompensated in arb compared to FA. Arbitration on the whole favors the owner and allows them to control players for below "complete free agency" cost.

There's nothing barring a team from offering Strasburg a 10-year, $20m contract (or, to make the example more realistic, a 7 year deal) , and there's nothing preventing Stasburg from accepting that offer. And yet, top prospects don't sign those deals, and even pre-arb pitchers rarely (if ever?) sign deals that buy out more than one or two of their FA years.

he played the system to his advantage

Without that system, Strasburg (on the open market) likely signs for around $25 M. I don't see how losing out on $10 M should be seen as a great advantage to him.

My understanding was that arbitration was a mechanism devised by the MLBPA to escalate salaries, b/c they knew they could do better in front of an arbitrator than in the market.

This couldn't be more wrong. Quite clearly, arb-eligible players make less than they would on the open market (well, 98% of them). Players proposed arb because they didn't feel they could reduce the pre-FA service time -- it's a compromise between the old reserve system and a completely open market.

And, as we see year after year after year, there is virtually no uncertainty in the arb process. Team and player proposals are almost always close and usually settled before arb. If teams were getting stuck with over-market arb awards, they'd be non-tendering everybody.

Walt, the arbitration process allows a player to greatly increase their salary from one year to the next. I doubt the MLBPA would want a fixed escalating salary scale because then it gets into an issue on how to determine which young players should earn the most. You can't based it on the draft like other major sports do since the draft goes for 50 rounds, plus there's international signees as well. Plus, teams will not give up their control of service time without a fight, yet won't play say, $4 million for a utility man just because that's what the escalating fixed salary demands.

It is the Nats right to assign Strasburg and any other player under contract to the minors.

Delaying his service time maybe a real valid reason for doing so, but by the time Strasburg's service time begins to matter, won't a potential superstar like him either sign a super-duper big contract that will cement him as the face of the Nats franchise for the next decade or so?

If not, then he just walks and signs with the highest bidder.

Pardon my ignorance, but why the big fuss [from the fans point of view] over a team potentially delaying service time, particularly with these future all-star / superstar prospects [when they will get paid one way or the other].