Signing contractually secure players to multi year

[UK Tribe]

I'm talking about the deals for Ramirez, Colon, Wright and Sabathia. I think Diaz has one too.

It goes one of three ways:

- Wright; The player (for whatever reason) delivers very little value and the money is wasted.

- Colon, Ramirez; The player is everything anyone hoped and more (which Colon IS this year). His trade value in the last years of the deal is sky high but (and it's a big but) - the player feels he has been massively underpaid and then shoots for the sky as free agent. This makes signing him impossible for a team like the Indians.

- The player delivers value for money without overperforming and signs an extention. I think Diaz will end up in this category.

Where will CC end up ?

I think it would be better (and probably no more expensive) to go down the arbitration route until FA is 2 years away. Colon and Ramirez would then be more minded to sign extentions as they dont feel underpaid. Wright could have been cut and paid about $6m less than the Indians have handed over.

Thoughts ?

[Alex]

You're on deep intellectual ground here. Well thought out.

Are you sure you're an Indians fan?

The theory you propose is by us paying more in the middle years before a player is elegible for free-agency, there is less sticker shock later on should we try and resign them to a long contract again, or perhaps even a short contract.

What you are saying is A ballplayer has to serve X amount of time before they are elegible to become a free-agent. By allowing for arbitration to occur while the player is still tethered to their original team, the players will probably get a bump in and may be more inclined to stay with the team even after they become elegible for free-agency.

The only problem I see with this approach is if a younger player gets his contract "elevated" too much, too soon, then those who have been in the league longer with similar numbers will expect a raise so that they stay ahead of the younger players.

A trickle-up effect.

Also, the Indians claim to hate arbitration because they hate to say unkind things to offset the glowing account given by the ballplayer when both sides are in front of the arbitrator.

Some ballplayers never forget the stinging descriptions used by management to make sure the arbitrator doesn't side with the ballplayer.

The other problem with arbitration is the arbitrator picks either managements offer, or the players demand, no in between compromise is allowed. That all or nothing environment usually means one side walks out very unhappy.

Perhaps the compromise is to re-do a contract...although that can lead to ill feelings if other ballplayers have great years and are not similarly rewarded.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 29, 2002 04:27 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[UK Tribe]

Hey - I thought you might like this one !!

The main reason i thought that the club would be no worse off is that for every good player that gets more (Colon) there would be a bad / injured player (Wright) that gets less and could be cut. Combined with an increasing chance of signing a free agent I think this strategy is a winner.

I'm convinced that this is the reason we miss out on the peak years of the Tribes home produced great players (Colon, Ramirez, Sabathia ?)

Colon could win a Cy Young this year or next year. Sabathia could win one in 6 years time. Its very unlikely that one of them will still be wearing a Tribe hat if they are ever in the Cy category. Due to the the almost inevitable Colon trade. If they could sign Colon to an extention NOW he might get thet Cy in Tribe hat and would STILL be tradeable. Whoever votes the Cy would be deeply sympathetic to a man that pitches his heart out with no run support rather than the Clemens situation of going up against other teams #4 starters with a loaded offense.

Your response has given me the following additional ideas.

- You are right that the all or nothing nature of arbitration is unpleasant. Talking down the skill of your players is also unconstructive. Most potential arbitration cases, however, get settled "out of court" when one year contracts are agreed for a figure between the two proposals shortly before the case. This would happen for the Tribe like it does for other teams.

- I like your point on renegotiating multi year deals as an alternative. They effectively did this for Omar when there was no need to get him signed. Colon would be more likely to sign an extention NOW if they gave him a $10m signing bonus and declined next years option in favour of the first year of a multi year deal at $12m per. That brings forward his payday by 18 months which is a great deal for a pitcher whose arm could (in theory) fall off any day.

- I'm not sure about the "upward ripple" point but the cornerstone of the model I describe is that the good players get the money they deserve and the poor and injured get nothing.

- The obsession with avoiding arbitration is a legacy of John Hart's ego. You have to look at why our great players walk away

[Alex]

In terms of rewarding those who play well, and not paying those who are hurt...

That cannot pass.

Players tend to have two modes of thought when it comes to contracts. Get all you can for as long as you can...

and if someone is getting more than you who isn't as good as you, demand more money or to be traded.

Frankly, players could make the most money if they signed yearly contracts, unless they have something to hide.

[UK Tribe]

PS - I'm a big Indians fan. Does anyone have a Sabathia bobblehead that they can send to UK ? All the eBay ones are US only. I can pay you via Paypal etc.