Donald Fehr Stepping Down

[RShack]

Just because ballplayers prior to abolishment of the reserve clause and the advent of free agency didn't receive the kinds of "obscene" salaries that today's players do, doesn't mean that they were "mistreated" like galley slaves, although that seems to be the popular misconception.

A top baseball player has always had considerable leverage. Even in the dark old days of the reserve clause, those bad old owners still had to pay their top players enough to keep them from holding out or switching careers. While the resulting compensation might not be "fair" in the context of today's bloated salaries, it was still pretty darned good when compared with all the alternatives, such as working on an automobile assembly line, itself a lot better than most menial occupations.

Their so-called "considerable leverage" amounted to giving up a profession in which they were among the best in the world if they didn't agree to work for peanuts. The idea that it is comparable to the situation of either skilled or unskilled labor is simply factually incorrect. My Dad has a HS education, and he worked at the phone company for 42 years. He wasn't the best in the world at any special ability, yet he had a career that was a hell of lot longer than 5 or 10 years. He also had a pension and other benefits that ballplayers didn't. In addition, his earnings per year were *higher* than what many MLB players made at the time. Saying that top MLB players like Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle could make good money is beside the point. Mickey Mantle was not the typical MLB ballplayer. *Every* MLB ballplayer is in the top zillionth of 1% of guys who play baseball, and most MLB players didn't make diddley. My Dad made as much or more than many of them did, made that money for decades longer, and his job was nothing special. It was a completely ordinary low-to-middle middle-class job. MLB players were the best in the world, had very short careers, and were told what salary to take. You can try to spin it however you want, but in actual fact it was a take-it-or-leave monopoly situation that was explicitly against the law throughout America. Baseball's goofy anti-trust exemption deprived ballplayers of the basic rights that other citizens of the country had. It made them exempt from the law of the land.

To say it was somehow just-and-fair because they weren't treated as "galley slaves" is a case study in being absurd. The entire rationale for that is a perfect example of a philosophy of "economic might makes right" that, IMO, is the antithesis of the whole point of our society, which is to find a reasonable balance between freedom and fairness. There is nothing principled about taking the essential principle of liberty and hijacking it to justify ignoring the essential principle of equality. The whole point of America is that we have 2 promises to honor, not one. It's not Liberty *or* Equality, it's Liberty *and* Equality. You can't arbitrarily just ignore one of them. Ballplayers were denied the same kind of basic rights that other citizens in other walks of life had. How anybody can think that was right is beyond me.

Next up: How Jim Crow laws really did make sense, and were in keeping with American principles, because nobody was pressed into service as a "galley slave"...

[mweb]

Not much to add except I totally agree with Drungo and RShack.

[DrungoHazewood]

Where is it a "basic employee right" for an employee to dictate his salary employment terms to his employer? Employment terms are negotiated between the employer and employee, with each having the option to terminate the discussions and employment contract if they can't agree upon mutually acceptable terms. Baseball teams and players have always had the same option.

If I walked into my employer tomorrow morning and demanded a 50% salary increase or that I be transferred to the Hawaii office, I'd be offered the option to leave my job. If no other employer had the same kind of job available, and was willing to hire me, then I'd have to switch careers/line of work. Baseball players have always had that option too. No one has ever chained them to the dugout bench.

The difference is that for the best baseball players there is no other job. It's MLB or no baseball.

The key part of your post is "If no other employer had the same kind of job available." There ARE NO OTHER EMPLOYERS. Major league baseball has a monopoly on high-level baseball. If Matt Albers walks into Peter Angelos' office and demands a 50% salary increase today, Angelos laughs at him, and tells him to get back to work. If Albers then asks to be traded, he gets the same response. Until he's worked in baseball for a set number of years he has no choices about where he plays or, to a large extent, what his compensation is.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm going out on a limb and saying that there is more than one company in the United States that you could do something very similar to your current job for. For very good baseball players there is just one company - Major League Baseball.

[geschinger]

The difference is that for the best baseball players there is no other job. It's MLB or no baseball.

The key part of your post is "If no other employer had the same kind of job available." There ARE NO OTHER EMPLOYERS. Major league baseball has a monopoly on high-level baseball. If Matt Albers walks into Peter Angelos' office and demands a 50% salary increase today, Angelos laughs at him, and tells him to get back to work. If Albers then asks to be traded, he gets the same response. Until he's worked in baseball for a set number of years he has no choices about where he plays or, to a large extent, what his compensation is.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm going out on a limb and saying that there is more than one company in the United States that you could do something very similar to your current job for. For very good baseball players there is just one company - Major League Baseball.

Are your issues with the current system not so much the system but rather that there isn't a viable alternative (as you see it) for individuals who want to play professional baseball?

Personally I would like to give players a choice of where to play much earlier on but I'd be suprised if players would jump at the chance to trade arbitration for FA years. I think they are smart enough to realize that the decreased supply of available talent increases the salaries that they can command. But you have to have some kind of structure where talent distribution is controlled and organizations get some years in exchange for the development required. If you were to get rid of it - eliminate the draft and eliminate players being under control you'd kill the minor league system. There would be a lot of unintended consequences in preventing MLB from running with the system in place (and hardly unique - many organization / institutions have the same kind of rules / restrictions) simply because noone has created an alternative league that you consider an option if a player didn't want to associate with MLB.

[DrungoHazewood]

Are your issues with the current system not so much the system but rather that there isn't a viable alternative (as you see it) for individuals who want to play professional baseball?

Personally I would like to give players a choice of where to play much earlier on but I'd be suprised if players would jump at the chance to trade arbitration for FA years. I think they are smart enough to realize that the decreased supply of available talent increases the salaries that they can command. But you have to have some kind of structure where talent distribution is controlled and organizations get some years in exchange for the development required. If you were to get rid of it - eliminate the draft and eliminate players being under control you'd kill the minor league system. There would be a lot of unintended consequences in preventing MLB from running with the system in place (and hardly unique - many organization / institutions have the same kind of rules / restrictions) simply because noone has created an alternative league that you consider an option if a player didn't want to associate with MLB.

I think the vast majority of the issues I have problems with would be resolved if the American and National Leagues were competing organizations that were only allowed to collaborate on a championship series. Like Chevy and Ford, or Mazda and Toyota, or IBM and Microsoft. They could still have drafts, but a player could choose which league to sign with. They could set minimum or maximum salaries or payrolls, but they'd have to do so with the other league in mind. They could charge $1250 for a seat behind the plate, but they'd have to keep in mind that the team across town could charge $12.50 for the same seat in their park.

So yea, competition and choice are the two things that make any market work like a market is supposed to. Baseball is no different.

[geschinger]

I think the vast majority of the issues I have problems with would be resolved if the American and National Leagues were competing organizations that were only allowed to collaborate on a championship series. Like Chevy and Ford, or Mazda and Toyota, or IBM and Microsoft. They could still have drafts, but a player could choose which league to sign with. They could set minimum or maximum salaries or payrolls, but they'd have to do so with the other league in mind. They could charge $1250 for a seat behind the plate, but they'd have to keep in mind that the team across town could charge $12.50 for the same seat in their park.

So yea, competition and choice are the two things that make any market work like a market is supposed to. Baseball is no different.

Fair enough, maybe someday some billionaires will get together and give the mistreated ballplayers of today an alternative to MLB and we'll have that competetion among leagues.

As for markets working like a market is supposed to... There are tradeoffs... Young players are restricted but at the other end of the spectrum the players at the top of the food chain benefit significantly from a market not working like a market is supposed to - i.e. the severe reduction of supply of available free agents. In the end if we had your alternative of separate leagues I doubt we'd see much difference in the amount of money that ends up in the hands of the players, we'd just see the pie split differently.

[Gurgi]

I've always thought the best way to pay ball players was to have an agreement with management to split the total pie 50% players, 50% owners.

Then the players would be graded after each season and paid at certain levels.

They could each recieve a nominal check. $500,000 perhaps. Then the rest of their pay would come as a bonus alloted on win/shares or someother statistic that attempts to grade a players value.

Thus a rookie who hits 60hrs and has 135 rbi gets the twenty million. A vet who hits .235 5 hrs 31 rbi ends up with $100,000 additional dollars.

[Migrant Redbird]

I've always thought the best way to pay ball players was to have an agreement with management to split the total pie 50% players, 50% owners.

How is that fair? Owners have considerable expenses, not to mention the investment of their capital, for which they should be entitled to a "reasonable" return.

Players invest their time and the value of their talent, but that doesn't make a 50-50 split equitable. It's a little easier to do that in football or basketball, where teams have fewer expenses -- no minor leagues and fewer play dates for which a stadium must be operated.

Then the players would be graded after each season and paid at certain levels.

Why grade and level them? Quantify their performance (which is already done) and assign a compensatory value to each element (which would require negotiation between MLB and the PA), then compensate each player for exactly what he contributed that was tangible. It's equivalent to the old factory system of "piece work", where more productive workers were better paid.

Thus a rookie who hits 60hrs and has 135 rbi gets the twenty million. A vet who hits .235 5 hrs 31 rbi ends up with $100,000 additional dollars.

A veteran has some intangible value to a team, over and above his measurable performance on the field, such as his "clubhouse leadership" and his name recognition with fans. I think the best way to acknowledge this would be to multiply the base compensation value for performance by bonus factors for major league experience and for longevity with the same team.

Over and above measurable performance, I think it also makes sense to provide bonus compensation for team record and for attendance, so that players aren't motivated solely towards achievement of personal stats.

[Migrant Redbird]

The difference is that for the best baseball players there is no other job. It's MLB or no baseball.

That is totally untrue! The alternatives may be unattractive and poorly compensated, but they exist. Also, why are baseball players as a group entitled to play in MLB? The answer is no, they're not. I played baseball as a kid; no scout offered me a contract. Those with greater ability are invited to play because they provide greater entertainment value to the paying customers, but no entitlement exists, except in the fevered minds of some fans, players, and their agents.

The key part of your post is "If no other employer had the same kind of job available." There ARE NO OTHER EMPLOYERS. Major league baseball has a monopoly on high-level baseball.

Major league baseball has no monopoly. Any group of players can get together and form their own leagues and teams. The only reason that they don't do it is because they wouldn't make nearly as much money as they can get from MLB. Why should I feel sorry for them because they aren't willing to give up their multi-million dollar salaries and risk trying to make a go of it for a couple of orders of magnitude less?

If Matt Albers walks into Peter Angelos' office and demands a 50% salary increase today, Angelos laughs at him, and tells him to get back to work. If Albers then asks to be traded, he gets the same response. Until he's worked in baseball for a set number of years he has no choices about where he plays or, to a large extent, what his compensation is.

The choices which Matt Albers has today are those which were negotiated for him by his predecessors, banding together into a group for the purposes of increasing their leverage. If they want something different, let them negotiate it.

The limitations based upon seniority were negotiated by the PA for the advantage of their veterans. The rationale was that teams make significant investments in player development, and forcing younger players to accept reduced salaries was a method of compensating teams for those investments. If younger players have a beef, they should take it up with their older compadres.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm going out on a limb and saying that there is more than one company in the United States that you could do something very similar to your current job for. For very good baseball players there is just one company - Major League Baseball.

You've gone out pretty far on a limb incapable of supporting your premise, but that's really irrelevant. Whether I could find another employer where I would perform similar duties for similar compensation affects my decision on whether to search or not (as does my age), but it doesn't change the employer's obligations to me. It merely affects our relative leverage. Individuals with unique skills, to the extent those skills are recognized and valued by current and prospective employers, have greater leverage in their negotiations with those employers. Portability is simply another factor affecting leverage. The lack of alternatives with similar obscene compensation doesn't mean that ballplayers should be entitled to any privileges beyond those of employees in any other industry.

[DrungoHazewood]

That is totally untrue! The alternatives may be unattractive and poorly compensated, but they exist. Also, why are baseball players as a group entitled to play in MLB? The answer is no, they're not. I played baseball as a kid; no scout offered me a contract. Those with greater ability are invited to play because they provide greater entertainment value to the paying customers, but no entitlement exists, except in the fevered minds of some fans, players, and their agents.

Major league baseball has no monopoly. Any group of players can get together and form their own leagues and teams. The only reason that they don't do it is because they wouldn't make nearly as much money as they can get from MLB. Why should I feel sorry for them because they aren't willing to give up their multi-million dollar salaries and risk trying to make a go of it for a couple of orders of magnitude less?

The choices which Matt Albers has today are those which were negotiated for him by his predecessors, banding together into a group for the purposes of increasing their leverage. If they want something different, let them negotiate it.

The limitations based upon seniority were negotiated by the PA for the advantage of their veterans. The rationale was that teams make significant investments in player development, and forcing younger players to accept reduced salaries was a method of compensating teams for those investments. If younger players have a beef, they should take it up with their older compadres.

You've gone out pretty far on a limb incapable of supporting your premise, but that's really irrelevant. Whether I could find another employer where I would perform similar duties for similar compensation affects my decision on whether to search or not (as does my age), but it doesn't change the employer's obligations to me. It merely affects our relative leverage. Individuals with unique skills, to the extent those skills are recognized and valued by current and prospective employers, have greater leverage in their negotiations with those employers. Portability is simply another factor affecting leverage. The lack of alternatives with similar obscene compensation doesn't mean that ballplayers should be entitled to any privileges beyond those of employees in any other industry.

Again, you're arguing that vastly inferior options are still options for the purposes of this exercise. I completely disagree. If you need to get from Baltimore to Chicago and your "options" are either driving or walking, you don't have any options: you drive. The "option" to set up a new league is laughable. It hasn't even been seriously tried in nearly 100 years because Major League Baseball is in bed with the government, who supplies their facilities, gives them massive subsidies, backs the anti-trust exemption, and allows them to divide up the world as they see fit. Starting a new league would be only slightly less difficult than starting a competing post office, or military, or interstate highway system.

Nobody is saying baseball players have an entitlement to play baseball. I'm saying that there is a demonstrated market for high-level baseball. One that we have real-life data showing that it's a multi-billion dollar industry. The reason that market exists is, in very large part, due to the skills of the best players. They are able to command vast salaries because the owners recognize that, and also recognize that paying Manny Ramirez $20M a year is a good investment, and a reasonable way to make a return on the money he paid to become an owner.

No one offered you a contract as a baseball player because you weren't any good. Just like 99.999% of the population, me and almost everyone else here included. Matt Albers and Nick Markakis and Oscar Salazar are in that 0.0001%. This means they should have enormous leverage from day one, but they don't because the only employer of high-level baseball players has set up a system where they have no leverage until they've been in the league a very long time. This simply wouldn't be tolerated for a minute in a non-sporting context.

[DrungoHazewood]

I've always thought the best way to pay ball players was to have an agreement with management to split the total pie 50% players, 50% owners.

Then the players would be graded after each season and paid at certain levels.

They could each recieve a nominal check. $500,000 perhaps. Then the rest of their pay would come as a bonus alloted on win/shares or someother statistic that attempts to grade a players value.

Thus a rookie who hits 60hrs and has 135 rbi gets the twenty million. A vet who hits .235 5 hrs 31 rbi ends up with $100,000 additional dollars.

Or, and I know this is a little crazy, maybe ballplayers could be compensated based on the market value of their services as negotiated between them and the teams and/or leagues that require those services to exist.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why should I feel sorry for them because they aren't willing to give up their multi-million dollar salaries and risk trying to make a go of it for a couple of orders of magnitude less?

This is where your argument really falls apart, and we get a glimpse into your motivations. All of your posts on this subject are riddled with words like "feel sorry for" and "wretchedly abused".

Our laws and our country have a firmly established tradition of equal protection. All people, no matter their race, gender, preferences, income, or whatever have the same basic rights, and are treated equally under the law.

Your contempt and dismissive attitude betrays the fact that you think well-compensated ballplayers shouldn't have the right to pick their employer or be compensated according to market forces because they're well-compensated ballplayers.

And that's crap.

[geschinger]

Our laws and our country have a firmly established tradition of equal protection. All people, no matter their race, gender, preferences, income, or whatever have the same basic rights, and are treated equally under the law.

Your contempt and dismissive attitude betrays the fact that you think well-compensated ballplayers shouldn't have the right to pick their employer or be compensated according to market forces because they're well-compensated ballplayers.

And that's crap.

I'm not sure how equal protection is an issue here considering the MLB system is no different than how many other organizations / conglomorates are run. I would probably agree with your take if was a situation where there was no relationship between the organizations that make up MLB. But if you look at it from the perspective of the teams being part of a larger whole it makes sense that the parent organization should/would have the ability to determine rules on how human resources are deployed to the member organizations.

[Migrant Redbird]

This is where your argument really falls apart, and we get a glimpse into your motivations. All of your posts on this subject are riddled with words like "feel sorry for" and "wretchedly abused".

Our laws and our country have a firmly established tradition of equal protection. All people, no matter their race, gender, preferences, income, or whatever have the same basic rights, and are treated equally under the law.

Your contempt and dismissive attitude betrays the fact that you think well-compensated ballplayers shouldn't have the right to pick their employer or be compensated according to market forces because they're well-compensated ballplayers.

And that's crap.

No, I simply do not feel that baseball players have been significantly abused. Your arguments are the ones that are crap.

[geschinger]

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the NFL's case which seems to me like it will address some of the issues discussed in this thread.

The case concerns whether the league is essentially a "single entity" that can act collectively or 32 distinct businesses that must be careful about running afoul of antitrust laws by working too closely together.

It's a case I think the NFL should and will win, but again I am no lawyer but it just seems like common sense. I know baseball has the antitrust exemption but it will be interesting to see if the idea of the league acting as a single entity would be acceptable even w/o the exemption if the court upholds it.