Markakis' Contract Renewed..Markakis annoyed

[davearm]

I don't think that's it at all. The teams have discretion to pay the player more than the minimum, and I don't think it is out of bounds for a player who has been one of the top ones in his class to feel they are entitled to get something more than someone who has equal service time but who has contributed a lot less. Not legally entitled but enititled as a matter of fairness.

If there's some fundamental issue of fairness being violated here, then these guys' gripe is with Donald Fehr, not with the owners, since the player's union apparently doesn't have a problem with every one of its members with less than three years of service time being paid around the league minimum. That's what they agreed to in the CBA.

You can be sure that when that CBA was negotiated, both sides gave some, and got some. Well one thing the players gave, and the owners got, was the pre-arb cost controls. Why should they turn around and give that back? Are the players giving something back too?

If I'm an owner, I'm not paying anyone more than I have to unless there's something in it for me. That may sound harsh, but you can be sure both sides have that same selfish viewpoint.

[Frobby]

If I'm an owner, I'm not paying anyone more than I have to unless there's something in it for me. That may sound harsh, but you can be sure both sides have that same selfish viewpoint.

In this case, the "something in it for me" is the goodwill it buys with the player. And you either believe that is worth something, or you don't.

[Mark Carver]

In this case, the "something in it for me" is the goodwill it buys with the player. And you either believe that is worth something, or you don't.

The "something in it for me" was the $1.85m signing bonus that Markakis received from the Orioles. As always, there are no guarantee that a player coming out of high school or college will make it to the big club, so a team is taking a gamble that the player will, when they give out these big signing bonuses.

That's part of the system that is today...

[Why Not?]

In this case, the "something in it for me" is the goodwill it buys with the player. And you either believe that is worth something, or you don't.

Do you think Markakis (and his agent) would reply in turn when arbitration/free agency comes around? I don't think that would happen. Markakis will make that $360K many times over in the next five years or so.

If the players routinely took less money than they were offered, it would make sense for the owners to routinely pay more money than they need to as a gesture of good will. But that's just not the reality of the situation.

[RShack]

In this case, the "something in it for me" is the goodwill it buys with the player. And you either believe that is worth something, or you don't.

That's right. But it's also not that simple.

You can renew the contract and make the guy feel like he's being used, or you can renew the contract but communicate in a way that still respects the guy. You can let him know he's special and it's just business, and let him know that you *want* to work out something good for him and the team long-term, but just not this year. I'm not saying the money doesn't count for anything, of course it does, but that doesn't mean that you're screwing something up and somehow tainting the whole relationship if you just put it off for a year or so. A lot of it depends on details that we'll probably never know much about.

[Frobby]

That's right. But it's also not that simple.

You can renew the contract and make the guy feel like he's being used, or you can renew the contract but communicate in a way that still respects the guy. You can let him know he's special and it's just business, and let him know that you *want* to work out something good for him and the team long-term, but just not this year. I'm not saying the money doesn't count for anything, of course it does, but that doesn't mean that you're screwing something up and somehow tainting the whole relationship if you just put it off for a year or so. A lot of it depends on details that we'll probably never know much about.

Good post, I agree with it.

[davearm]

In this case, the "something in it for me" is the goodwill it buys with the player. And you either believe that is worth something, or you don't.

That's fine. Throw the guy a $100K bone and write it off as a goodwill investment if you think it'll pay off down the road. That's certainly defensible as good business.

Still, IMO that's different than the players feeling some sense of entitlement in all of this, which I definitely sense a few do. That part I'm not sympathetic to.

[orayole]

I think Markakis needs to "suck it up." Though a $455k salary (or whatever the number is) is hardly sucking it up. Baseball is still a business. They have to make smart business decisions. Markakis will have his pay day. These guidelines are to protect teams. Soon Markakis will have the O's by the balls where as right now the O's have his. You could say, well if the O's give him what he wants now then when Markakis has the O's by the balls he'll go easier on them. But will he really? Do you think he will sign for less than he's worth later even though he's upset he didn't get it now? Even if he does sign for a little less later, is that difference more than the money the O's are saving by not giving him what he wants now? If not then what does it matter? If Markakis wants to continue to pout about this years from now then that shows a lot about him. If he doesn't then all this doesn't matter.

[RShack]

If Markakis wants to continue to pout about this years from now then that shows a lot about him.

Continue to pout? Where do people get this stuff?

Some sportswriter tries to turn something that's 100% normal into a huge catastrophe, and now some Oriole fans actually believe that Nick Markakis is pouting.

Unbelievable.

[cindyluvsbrady]

<img src=http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4787/jtreacx0.jpg></img>

AWWW:)

Looks like my cat!

[cindyluvsbrady]

Yesterday, he said he'd still embrace the opportunity to be the long-term face of the organization - assuming he was content with the overall situation.

"Absolutely. I think it would be something I would look forward to being," Markakis said. "It would be an honor to be looked at like that."

I love Nick!

[orayole]

Continue to pout? Where do people get this stuff?

Some sportswriter tries to turn something that's 100% normal into a huge catastrophe, and now some Oriole fans actually believe that Nick Markakis is pouting.

Unbelievable.

Nick Markakis chose his words carefully, making sure not to openly criticize the Orioles, but his disappointment was obvious.

I get it from right there.

Unbelievable indeed.

[DrungoHazewood]

Here's some snippets from Joe Sheehan's article today on this very topic:

The story of the week is that a bunch of players who are coming off of very good 2007 seasons, but who have less than the approximately two years and 120 days of service time necessary to go to arbitration, are unhappy about their 2008 salaries. Prince Fielder and Nick Markakis have been the most vocal, but others, such as Adam Wainwright, Cole Hamels and Jeff Francoeur have been renewed at numbers that represent a fraction of their market value.

...

That context is the first story. That context is the one that suppresses the salaries of Fielder, of Markakis, of Wainwright to a tenth, a twentieth, a thirtieth, of what they could get on the open market. The raises these players get in arbitration are as large as they are not because the system is broken or players are greedy or because there’s no payroll cap in baseball. The raises are that big because the players’ pre-arbitration salaries are a monopolistic fiction.

...

Understand that I’m not criticizing the teams for how they pay players in the pre-arbitration seasons. That’s the last remaining hammer they own to keep salaries down, and they’re right to use that leverage. There’s absolutely no evidence that “playing the nice guy” engenders a better relationship between player and team than hardball does; by the time a player is able to become a free agent, the early battles are long forgotten, for one, and what determines where a player signs tends to be money, perceived competitiveness and geography, in some order.

...

They’re making three percent of their market value before, and maybe 50 percent of it after. They have no leverage before, and they have some—but far from market leverage—after.

What would balance it out is if the following would appear on the wire once in a while:

"The Boston Red Sox made more than $10 million profit last year from the performance of Dustin Pedroia. Pedroia’s .317/.380/.442 performance was worth five wins above replacement to the Red Sox, who bank approximately $2 million in revenue for each additional win. Pedroia made $380,000 last year."

As usual, Sheehan has pretty well nailed the subject.

[Fan4Life]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Papelbon Gets $775K

Outspoken Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon signed a one-year deal for $775K for '08. That's significantly more than the Sox had to give him, so it seems they value his happiness. His new salary beats Mariano Rivera's two-year service time closer record of $750K.

Papelbon's salary will increase drastically a year from now, as he'll be arbitration-eligible for the first time. He probably won't get the $10MM Ryan Howard did, but something north of $5MM seems possible.

This can't be helpful....

[JTrea81]

Just like paying draftees more than slot money, the Red Sox are continuing to set the curve for salaries.

I'm not sure at this point if it's a good thing or bad thing as MLB players are overpaid anyway. I know MLB must hate this though...