 |
| Image from Twilight Dawning |
Very recently, Dellin Betances went to arbitration with the Yankees and lost. There was a bunch of verbal garbage thrown between each other, but the basic jist was that Betances lost a few million dollars (and may lose far more in the future). By the way, when I say verbal garbage, just take a look at this.
Simply put, stuff like this just shows how awkward and hurtful arbitration can be. Anyway, I got off point a little bit. The point is that most players have been to put it nicely, ripped off from the arbitration process. The old school arbitrators will keep overlooking the overall value of a player like Betances, and allow organizations to underpay those players through their prime years.Randy Levine said Dellin Betances' case was like "me saying I'm not the president of the #Yankees, I'm an astronaut."— Brendan Kuty (@BrendanKutyNJ) February 18, 2017
Once that player hits free agency looking for a well deserved payday, he will likely be older, and teams will rightfully not want to sign that player to a hefty contract that takes him well through his thirties. This has been a major problem for players in recent history, but that is why the players union should advocate for the system of restricted free agency. This system will assist the players toward getting paid a number that better represents their value.
If I'm on ownership side, I keep these old-school arbitrators in there for as loooong as possible. #Wins #Saves #BattingAverage— Brian Kenny (@MrBrianKenny) February 18, 2017
There are a few cons to this system of restricted free agency. The first thing to note is if a player of say, Mike Trout's caliber became a restricted free agent. If Trout became a restricted free agent, there's no way the Angels would be able to beat the offers of teams like the Yankees and even his hometown team Phillies. Simply put, small market teams like Tampa Bay would have little chance to keep a star player due to this system, and thus, put them in the abyss forever.
However, I think there would be a good way to get around this, and make the system fair for the organizations as well (because remember, if that can't happen, the owners would never agree to this). That can be accomplished by implementing a system where similar to the NBA, a team would be allowed to match the offer sheet from another team
That would mean for example, if Noah Syndergaard became a restricted free agent and he accepted a 4 year, $95 million contract from the Orioles, the Mets would be able to match that offer, and bring him back for that contract.
Travis Sawchik mentioned in his article how this system would almost completely eliminate the need for a player to sign an extension that would take up all his arbitration years (and a year or more of free agency). I believe that he is right, but I think that there needs to be a limit as to how much a player can sign for. That's because again, we'd need to make this system work for the owners as well in order to get them to agree to this.
I mentioned the Noah Syndergaard example before, and as much as the Mets should (I emphasize the should part) have no problem matching the offer sheet, and paying the man what he is worth. However, what if Oakland ran into this kind of problem with Sonny Gray? There is no chance they would be able to match the likely high offer from another club. That's why I am proposing the idea that the offer sheet can be matched at 75 percent of the total amount.
With a team only having to pay 75 percent of the amount, that would turn the 4, year $95 contract into a $71.25 million contract. Sure, on the surface the player is losing out on almost $20 million over the course of the deal, but the player would still be making perhaps tens of millions more than he would have from the slow build of the arbitration process.
The next order of business is to put a restriction on the amount of years a player can sign for. That will prevent players from signing gigantic 8 year contracts with another team while they're 22. Those contracts would cost the team likely tens (maybe hundreds?) of millions of dollars, and could very well become a sunk cost if a career ending injury occurs.
That is why I think that the eligibility for a player to become a restricted free agent should work the same as arbitration. I think that should still be when the player hits his third full year of service time (still calculated as cumulative days and years). Once the player is eligible to hit the free agent market that winter, he will have a hard years cap applied. The amount of years the player can sign for will have to expire at the winter the player has his sixth full year of service time, thus making him an unrestricted (traditional) free agent.
The next order of business is what if the player and team mutually want to agree to a contract extension? Well, restricted free agency won't interfere with that, as extensions can still take place at any time. The extension can be for any amount of years and money, just like it would now. Restricted free agency is just taking the place of arbitration, not anything else.
All in all, this system would certainly help both sides (probably siding with the players a bit more). That's because the player would get paid much closer to his true value, but the owners still won't have to shell out unreasonable amounts of money to keep their roster intact. The awkwardness of having to downplay a players accomplishments and the player having to witness that will be gone. Will this happen any time soon? Probably not, but if it ever does, hopefully the system will at least slightly resemble the one I just proposed.
However, I think there would be a good way to get around this, and make the system fair for the organizations as well (because remember, if that can't happen, the owners would never agree to this). That can be accomplished by implementing a system where similar to the NBA, a team would be allowed to match the offer sheet from another team
That would mean for example, if Noah Syndergaard became a restricted free agent and he accepted a 4 year, $95 million contract from the Orioles, the Mets would be able to match that offer, and bring him back for that contract.
 |
| Buster Posey easily missed out on tens of millions from his team friendly deal. Image from The Sports Quotient. |
I mentioned the Noah Syndergaard example before, and as much as the Mets should (I emphasize the should part) have no problem matching the offer sheet, and paying the man what he is worth. However, what if Oakland ran into this kind of problem with Sonny Gray? There is no chance they would be able to match the likely high offer from another club. That's why I am proposing the idea that the offer sheet can be matched at 75 percent of the total amount.
With a team only having to pay 75 percent of the amount, that would turn the 4, year $95 contract into a $71.25 million contract. Sure, on the surface the player is losing out on almost $20 million over the course of the deal, but the player would still be making perhaps tens of millions more than he would have from the slow build of the arbitration process.
The next order of business is to put a restriction on the amount of years a player can sign for. That will prevent players from signing gigantic 8 year contracts with another team while they're 22. Those contracts would cost the team likely tens (maybe hundreds?) of millions of dollars, and could very well become a sunk cost if a career ending injury occurs.
 |
| Image from CBS |
That is why I think that the eligibility for a player to become a restricted free agent should work the same as arbitration. I think that should still be when the player hits his third full year of service time (still calculated as cumulative days and years). Once the player is eligible to hit the free agent market that winter, he will have a hard years cap applied. The amount of years the player can sign for will have to expire at the winter the player has his sixth full year of service time, thus making him an unrestricted (traditional) free agent.
The next order of business is what if the player and team mutually want to agree to a contract extension? Well, restricted free agency won't interfere with that, as extensions can still take place at any time. The extension can be for any amount of years and money, just like it would now. Restricted free agency is just taking the place of arbitration, not anything else.
All in all, this system would certainly help both sides (probably siding with the players a bit more). That's because the player would get paid much closer to his true value, but the owners still won't have to shell out unreasonable amounts of money to keep their roster intact. The awkwardness of having to downplay a players accomplishments and the player having to witness that will be gone. Will this happen any time soon? Probably not, but if it ever does, hopefully the system will at least slightly resemble the one I just proposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment