Rather than start a new discussion, I appended Tuesday’s arbitration amounts for outfielders Rick Ankiel and Ryan Ludwick and my reaction to the earlier post where I had predicted the final salaries for the players. This post is simple a reminder to join the discussion there.
A brief summary of Tuesday’s news:
Ludwick: $4.25 million, Cardinals: $2.8 million (midpoint: $3.525 million)
My earlier estimate: $4 million (will probably end up too high if they settle pre-hearing)
Actual salary: TBDAnkiel: $3.3 million, Cardinals: $2.35 million (midpoint: $2.825 million)
My earlier estimate: $3.25 million (will probably end up too high if they settle pre-hearing)
Actual salary: TBD
Please click on the highlighted link to head over to the January 6 post entitled “What might Ludwick, Ankiel, Wellemeyer, Thompson and Duncan make via arbitration?” to read much more on the subject and comment there to keep the related discussion in one place. As always, your perspectives are encouraged.
In the arbitration process, the next steps are as follows:
- Each player may continue to negotiate with the club if both sides so choose.
- A hearing date for sometime during the first three weeks in February will be scheduled.
- If there is no resolution prior to that date, both sides will present their case to a three-person team of arbiters.
- The panel will select one amount or the other for a one-year contract – the amount the player submitted on Tuesday or the club’s amount – with no compromise allowed.
Looks to me like Ankiel is less likely to win his case than Ludwick, just given their relative performances last year. I like arbitration, generally, as a lower-cost means of settling disputes out of court. But I’m not sure I see why baseball has adopted the system it has. Why not allow the team and the player to select the number of years as well? If both sides agree on the term, then they can do a longer-term deal. Risk to both sides, sure. But going through this one-year-deal stuff year after year is kind of silly, too.
Very nice job on your estimates Brian.
Thanks, c13. The idea was to try to simulate the process rather than pull numbers out of the air.
A couple of thoughts, RedC.
If the two sides can’t agree on the amount for one year, the chances seem even lower they could agree on a longer term. What would the arbiters do if the club came in at one year and the player two? Seems it would excessively complicate the process.
In my book, it is really a moot point. Remember that there is nothing that precludes the two sides from signing a multi-year deal at any time – before or after the hearing. If both sides want to get that done, they can do it without the arbitration process. For example, the Cards locked up Molina for four or five years 12 months ago as he was preparing for first-time arbitration.
Regarding the one-year nature of the process, this is designed to ramp players’ salaries up from the $400K-ballpark minimums of the first three years up to the big free-agent bucks at six years. Some players (and clubs) don’t want to make long term commitments when there are still open questions about the player’s ultimate potential, injuries, etc., not to mention the economy, future market prices…
I think there is almost no chance Ankiel will sign for more than one year, but Ludwick is a possibility as he has three more seasons before becoming free-agent eligible. It depends on whether he thinks he is going to do even better in the future and whether the team wants to tie him up now or wait and see what he does and what some of the youngsters coming up can do. Not to mention the biggest question of all – do the sides agree on his value today? From the amounts submitted, the two seem to need to do some more work there.
Brian–
Actually, with a multi-year arbitration, both sides would have an incentive to present something closer to reality, since the cost of insulting the arbitrator and losing the case would be higher. Of course, you may have the “walk year” syndrome to contend with if players focused on it too much. Cuts both ways, though, and in the end probably evens out.
I am aware that you can always do a multi-year deal. I just think this process is set up to waste time three years in a row, rather than just once.
So would Ankiel be a one-year-for-$8 million-guy? What about three for $20? I know there are some lower-cost options on the farm, as well as the big club, but the team has historically spent significant dollars on the outfield. Locking up Ankiel or Ludwick would be a nice way to ensure significant 2-hole/4-hole production.
If I was Boras, I would want Ankiel to get one full season of production under his belt before free agency. That is a big reason he will have to settle for in the $3 million range in 2009 – never having a full year to point to. Boras doesn’t usually get guys signed early and buy up free agent years, but it is not unheard of either.
If I was the Cardinals, I would focus on trying to get Ludwick for three years. Because he has two years less service time and therefore two years further away from free agency, his three-year deal should be considerably cheaper than Ankiel’s at this point.