How much pressure does the MLBPA put on FA to accept top $$$

[etv78]

Cliff Lee is the top free agent. How much pressure is the union able to exert to force him to take teh most $, even if it's from a team he'd rather not play for? For example, consider these offers:

Rangers: 7yrs/$140m
Yankees: 6yrs/$150m

Would the union force him to become a Yankee, despite the LCS incident?

[Ellis Dee]

Yeah, probably. The union hates hometown discounts with good reason, especially when it's someone who's at the very top and thus sets the market for the entire league.

"Oh, Mr. BigBoy Pants wants more money than Cliff Lee? Don't we have a high opinion of ourself?"
"Lee signed at a discount to play for the team he wanted..."
"You are not better than Lee, you get less money than him. Period."

In the NFL, this kind of dynamic caused Michael Crabtree to hold out on the 49ers for half his rookie year last year. Al Davis stupidly (as was his MO) signed the fastest WR in the draft instead of the best prospect, then Crabtree went one or two picks later. Crabtree wanted more money than Al's guy (Heyward-Bey) because Crabtree is objectively better than him, but because the other guy was drafted first they refused.

Same deal with Darrelle Revis this year, again because of Al Davis way overpaying Nnamdi Asomugha. The highest paid corners in the league make around $9-10 million, Jets offered something like $12 million a year, but because Al Davis stupidly paid Nnamdi $16 million a year (double market value!) they had an impasse. Revis wanted to be the highest paid guy, the Jets wanted to make him the highest sanely paid guy. Revis eventually caved but his on-field value was greatly reduced by the holdout.

[An Arky]

So much for free agency, then.

[Cheesesteak]

The union does not have any real authority to "force" free agents to accept particular deals. There's a long history of excellent players avoiding free agency altogether by signing with their current club, and plenty of players quickly sign for their hometown team without protracted competitive bids.

Frankly, I'm surprised that people think Lee is going to give a "hometown" discount to a team he joined 4 months ago. If these are the two deals, he gets $10 million more with the Yankees, with a shorter contract. Why wouldn't you take the deal that's worth $10 million dollars more?

[An Arky]

Because it's with the Yankees!

[RealityChuck]

I doubt the union cares. They only get involved if the owners are trying to reduce an existing contract, or if there's a sign of collusion. As far as they are concerned, player can sign with any team he wants, at any amount he wants.

[Marley23]

Most players are happy to accept top dollar. Cheesesteak make a good point: if a player takes a hometown discount, he'll often do it before he becomes a free agent.

[RickJay]

One would assume that if Cliff Lee were to take a hometwn discount it'd be with the Indians.

I have been following baseball for a long time and I have never heard a reliable story, ever, about a player being pressured by the MLBPA to accept one contract over a cheaper "home town discount" contract. I have never heard, not once, of players being criticized or pressured by the MLBPA to hold off on signing extensions with their current teams. Aside from the fact that the MLBPA wouldn't even have reliable info about the details of competing offers before one was signed, I find it simply impossible to believe that pressure tactics of that sort wouldn't leak into the press and cause a shitstorm of epic proportions.

The MLBPA simply doesn't need to do this, because no sane player would turn down a contract offer that was significantly superior to another. "Home town discounts" will generally be given when the team offers an extension before the player becomes a free agent - which, from the player's perspective, is economically rational, since it means he might make slightly less money, but in exchange receives immediate security and doesn't incur the risk of being or losing his skills before he gets to be a free agent.

[Jas09]

I'm with RickJay - I've followed MLB for awhile and haven't heard of any reputable story of a player being pressured out of a hometown deal.

Many players have signed for slightly under market value to stay in a comfortable situation, but others are very willing to leave for even one dollar more. MLBPA is unnecessary in this regard.

MLBPA has weighed in on trades, however, IIRC. In particular I think the A-Rod trade involved him forgoing some salary initially, and that was considered a no-go by the union.

[gonzomax]

Al Kaline pissed off the Detroit Tigers when he refused to take a contract over 100 K a year. He thought no pro player was worth that much. But that put a top level on the rest of the players. How could they ask for a bigger contract when their best player made 90K. It caused some resentment. It was also long ago.

[Jas09]

Heh, your post reminds of Stan Musial demanding a pay CUT because he had a bad season... not sure that would fly with the MLBPA.

[Ellis Dee]

I distinctly remember Mike & Mike going on and on about a player being pressured by the MLBPA to not accept a lower contract from a different team because that sets the market for the rest of the league. This was probably around 4 years ago.

[RickJay]

I distinctly remember Mike & Mike going on and on about a player being pressured by the MLBPA to not accept a lower contract from a different team because that sets the market for the rest of the league. This was probably around 4 years ago.
Well, that settles that. These two guys on the radio, maybe it was four years ago, said the MLBPA pressured that guy from that team. I'm sold.

[wolfman]

Yeah Ellis, what are you doing giving credibility to people who work for an organization that has the largest MLB information gathering network in the world, and who daily talk to people who spend their entire lives being as informed as is possible about the game of baseball, an origination that has revenue depending on reliability, and is has a great deal on the line behind their reports.
I mean there is a guy on a message board "Who has been following baseball for a long time" who hasn't heard of it, what more do you want?

[Jas09]

I mean there is a guy on a message board "Who has been following baseball for a long time" who hasn't heard of it, what more do you want?Well, speaking for myself, I'd like a name and a year, at the least...

My guess is the reference is to the A-Rod trade to the Red Sox that was nixed by MLBPA because it involved a pay cut.

[mhendo]

I mean there is a guy on a message board "Who has been following baseball for a long time" who hasn't heard of it, what more do you want?The difference is that it's very hard—often impossible—to easily demonstrate an absence, to show that something has never happened. What do you do? Go scouring the newspapers for articles that don't exist? A claim that something does not happen, or that it happens very rarely, necessarily relies on a broad familiarity with the subject in question.

A claim that something did happen, on the other hand, is amenable to a much more specific type of support. In this particular case, the name of the team and the player concerned and the year it happened would, i think, be the minimum necessary to convince me of Ellis Dee's claim.

Also, even in the absence of evidence, we can make evaluations based on what we know about our sources of information. I've been talking baseball on these boards for almost a decade, and i reckon that RickJay knows more about the sport than just about anyone here. In a conversation about the NFL, i would defer to Ellis Dee in a heartbeat, but when it comes to baseball, in the absence of independent evidence, i'll take RickJay's assessment most of the time.

[Peremensoe]

Yes, I'm pretty sure the case Ellis Dee is thinking of (unless he can recall it better) is A-Rod's. It involved an existing contract, not a new one, in line with what RealityChuck said.

[wolfman]

IF you are going to appeal to your own authority as a long time watcher, then ridicule(in a third grade manner) some one for believing an ESPN broadcast(Who is among probably among the greatest actual authority on the behind the scenes of baseball) Then you had damn well better bring your own evidence of their ignorance.

[gonzomax]

Players have the right to play with a team for less money if they choose . The players league has no authority and is not involved in the negotiations. It has happened .

[mhendo]

IF you are going to appeal to your own authority as a long time watcher, then ridicule(in a third grade manner) some one for believing an ESPN broadcast(Who is among probably among the greatest actual authority on the behind the scenes of baseball) Then you had damn well better bring your own evidence of their ignorance.What would the evidence be? That the radio show in question does not exist? How do you establish an absence such as this? Should we listen to every ESPN radio show for the last five years, just to make sure?

The general rule is that the person making a positive claim about the existence of something is the person responsible for supporting that claim. We are not responsible for proving him wrong; if he wants the claim to be believed, he is responsible for providing evidence of it.

I don't doubt Ellis Dee's sincerity, but it's easy to misremember a news item from years ago, so it could be that the details are not exactly as he recalls them. Or it could be that he's exactly right, in which case finding the incident that he's referring to will serve as proof of the fact.

[mhendo]

...some one for believing an ESPN broadcast(Who is among probably among the greatest actual authority on the behind the scenes of baseball).Just to add:

I'm not questioning the accuracy of ESPN (although they're not always right). Nor am i saying that the person in question shouldn't have believed ESPN. If anything, i'm simply questioning his memory of what he says he heard, and would like to see the story for myself to determine whether his recollection coincides with the facts.

Pretty simple, really.

[RealityChuck]

Players have the right to play with a team for less money if they choose . The players league has no authority and is not involved in the negotiations. It has happened .Exactly. The Player's Association only gets involved if the player gives up money under an existing contract. A new contract is a new contract and if a player is willing to play for less than a previous contract, that's the player's business.

For instance, the Mets signed Mike Jacobs this year for $900K; the previous year he had earned $3.275 million with Kansas City. The Players Association didn't care, because they were separate contracts.

Sometimes, they will allow a contract to be restructured, as long as the player doesn't give up any money. Bobby Bonilla contract with the Mets, for instance: they had him agree to defer payment for ten years. Since he was getting the same amount of money (plus interest), the Players Association let it happen.

[etv78]

The other reason (i.e. more likely) is htat hte average fan couldn't pick Mike Jacobs out of a line-up.

[RickJay]

IF you are going to appeal to your own authority as a long time watcher,
I was stating my observations, not reporting them as gospel fact. That's why I stated that it was my observation as a long term baseball follower, and what I believed, rather than just saying "This has never happened." As has been pointed out, I cannot prove a negative in a case like this.

If someone wants to make the claim that union pressure happens, it's up to him to bring the evidence, not make a vague claim that he heard it once on a radio show at some unspecified time. I wasn't taking a shot at ESPN; since I've not been provided with any evidence of what their commentators said, it's impossible for me to comment on ESPN's accuracy.

The other reason (i.e. more likely) is htat hte average fan couldn't pick Mike Jacobs out of a line-up.
Well, the main reason is Jacobs's market value was also legitimately a hell of a lot lower. When he signed with Kansas City for over $3 million a year he was coming off a 32-homer season. When he signed with the Mets he was coming off a 19-homer season and his future potential was clearly not what the Royals had thought.

[Yookeroo]

Yeah Ellis, what are you doing giving credibility to people who work for an organization that has the largest MLB information gathering network in the world, and who daily talk to people who spend their entire lives being as informed as is possible about the game of baseball, an origination that has revenue depending on reliability, and is has a great deal on the line behind their reports.
I mean there is a guy on a message board "Who has been following baseball for a long time" who hasn't heard of it, what more do you want?

I trust an anonymous guy on a message board far more than I trust sports talk radio idiots.

[Ellis Dee]

I clearly remember them talking at length about union pressure in regards to a free agent contract. However, it could very well have been a hypothetical debate that got sparked by the A-Rod trade thing. I don't remember any specifics largely because I'm not a baseball fan.

I think we could prove a negative in this case. Is there any example from the last decade or two of a market-setting (highest paid at his position) free agent taking less money than was offered somewhere else? All we need is one example to disprove my hazy memory...

[Ellis Dee]

To put a cherry on this thread, looks like Cliff Lee gave us a definitive answer: The union puts zero pressure on players to take the most money.

[Carmady]

From what I've read, the Phillies offered more money per year than any other team. So while Lee isn't helping other players argue for more years, he is helping them argue for a higher salary per year.

Perhaps Lee plans to get another contract or an extension when this one ends, which could give him both the highest amount of total money and the most money per year.

[markdash]

To put a cherry on this thread, looks like Cliff Lee gave us a definitive answer: The union puts zero pressure on players to take the most money.

If the 6th year of the contract vests, I believe Lee will actually make more money per-season with the Phillies than he would have with the Yankees.

[Skammer]

If the 6th year of the contract vests, I believe Lee will actually make more money per-season with the Phillies than he would have with the Yankees.
Plus, he doesn't have to play for the Yankees.

[RickJay]

To put a cherry on this thread, looks like Cliff Lee gave us a definitive answer: The union puts zero pressure on players to take the most money.
Assuming Lee accepted less money, this proves nothing either way. Lee's decision doesn't prove or disprove that he received pressure from the MLBPA. Perhaps he received just a little bit of pressure but told them to go to hell. Without primary evidence we do not really know.

Perhaps Lee plans to get another contract or an extension when this one ends, which could give him both the highest amount of total money and the most money per year.
Lee is 32, so that's unlikely; he is exceedingly unlikely to be nearly as good a pitcher when this contract is up. Of course that doesn't mean he might not have a lot of self-confidence and whatnot.

Unless Lee publicly explains his thought process in detail, and I don't believe he has, we can't really know why he signed with the Phillies. Maybe he thinks they're the best of the teams that made him an offer. Maybe he wanted the most money from any city where the fans did not spit on his wife. Maybe he wanted to play somewhere he had played before, which includes Philadelphia but not New York. Maybe he really does think he'll still be great six years from now.

[Marley23]

If the 6th year of the contract vests, I believe Lee will actually make more money per-season with the Phillies than he would have with the Yankees.
Here's how it works: (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5920625)

Lee, 32, turned down substantial offers from the New York Yankees and Texas Rangers to reach agreement with the Phillies. His contract includes a $12.5 million buyout along with a $27.5 million option that vests if he pitches 200 innings in 2015 or 400 innings during the 2014-2015 seasons, sources said. If Lee pitches the maximum six years, he will earn a total of $135 million.
The Yankees were supposedly offering $132 million over six years, with an option that could have taken their deal to $148 million over seven. The Rangers offered six years for $138 million, with a seventh year that could have taken it to $161 million, but some of that money was deferred.

[pricciar]

Here's a relevant quote from the MLBPA chief that makes it pretty clear that the union's job is not to put pressure on players, but to make sure they have all the information they need to make an informed choice.

from Jon Heyman's column in SI (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/12/17/remaining.free.agents/index.html?eref=writers#):

The players union put zero pressure on Lee to choose or even consider the highest bidder (the Yankees). "Absolutely not,'' players union chief Michael Weiner said. "That's just not our approach. We want players to make the best use of their right under the Basic Agreement ... As long as a player makes an informed decision, we're happy. There are non-economic considerations. The fact that Cliff took a deal that wasn't top dollar isn't a problem for us.'' Good for them. Their approach is 100 percent right.

[gonzomax]

Ordonez signed with the Tigers., 1 year 10 mill. He was reportedly offered more money and longer contract by others.

[DxZero]

Kerry Wood evidently took significant less money to return to the Cubs. Like absurdly less money according to reports (http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/15897523046588418).

If the MLBPA was gonna make a stink about a player taking less money, I assume it would be in this situation.

[etv78]

Thanks Pricciar! Lee definitely was making a "quality of life" decision (i.e. his son's illness)

[Ellis Dee]

Mike & Mike revisited the issue this morning, refreshing my memory about the time they devoted practically an entire show to the topic. It was indeed the A-Rod deal to Boston.

This morning they were talking about Antonio Cromartie's comments regarding the NFL's labor negotiation, and Greeny was saying how the union should impose a gag order on the players. A lawyer emailed in to explain that unions aren't allowed to do that by law, and Greeny was confused because, as he said today, the MLBPA forced A-Rod to not take a lesser deal.

After the break they read from an article I can't specifically find, but it gave me plenty of search terms to find other articles about the same thing. Some disregard anything by ESPN as all hype, so here's a relevant article from Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/baseball/mlb/12/17/arod.contract.ap/):NEW YORK (AP) -- The baseball players' union got in the middle of the proposed Alex Rodriguez trade Wednesday, forcing the Red Sox and Rangers to seek another way to complete the blockbuster deal they had already agreed on.

Boston and Texas said they settled on all the players involved in the trade. The Red Sox and A-Rod agreed to restructure the shortstop's $252 million contract, Rangers owner Tom Hicks said.

But in a rare move, the union intervened and rejected the agreement, changes that were needed before Texas could send the AL MVP to the Red Sox for Manny Ramirez.

Commissioner Bud Selig set a 5 p.m. Thursday deadline for the trade to be completed. He might also go against the union and approve the restructuring, likely forcing the matter to arbitration.Specifically, A-Rod had agreed with the Red Sox to restructure his contract downward so that he'd be making less money. That's what the union balked at.

[Hawkeyeop]

After the break they read from an article I can't specifically find, but it gave me plenty of search terms to find other articles about the same thing. Some disregard anything by ESPN as all hype, so here's a relevant article from Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/baseball/mlb/12/17/arod.contract.ap/):Specifically, A-Rod had agreed with the Red Sox to restructure his contract downward so that he'd be making less money. That's what the union balked at.

That is distinctly different from pressuring a player to take a better monetary deal. They didn't force Arod to take a lesser deal. They objected to him changing a deal that he already had agreed to. They didn't want to start a precedent where teams would be able to renegotiate contracts with players who were say underperforming

[Ellis Dee]

That's picking the nittiest of nits. He agreed with another team to be traded to them with a restructuring of his deal. That's quite a different thing than what you're talking about, as it is functionally equivalent to a free agent deal.

You wrote that they didn't force him to take a lesser deal, but I think you meant better deal. But that's exactly what they did by rejecting the trade to Boston. A-Rod never went to the Red Sox, but instead took better money with the Yankees. That seems to be exactly what the OP is asking about even though the "hometown discount" aspect wasn't in play.

[pricciar]

It's not picking nits in the eyes of the union, though. In baseball contracts are guaranteed. Usually, this helps out the player. If the union said yes to the A Rod deal it would have set a precedent that contracts can be negotiable. That's not good for the players in general, even if it would have been good for one player.

As said previously, the union does not care what a player does on the open market. The only time they would say anything is when a contract is already in force. They didn't say anything to Cliff Lee for taking slightly less, they didn't say anything to Kerry Wood for taking a lot less. But, they did say something to A Rod for trying to change an already agreed upon contract.

[Hawkeyeop]

You wrote that they didn't force him to take a lesser deal, but I think you meant better deal. But that's exactly what they did by rejecting the trade to Boston. A-Rod never went to the Red Sox, but instead took better money with the Yankees. That seems to be exactly what the OP is asking about even though the "hometown discount" aspect wasn't in play.

No he got the same money from the Yankees as he agreed to with Texas. Eventually he was able to opt out his deal, per a clause in the contract, and become a free agent. At that point the was able to negotiate a new one.

Here is an article from that time talking about why there is a significant difference between agreeing to a lower contract and agreeing to a pay cut (http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/18/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz)

[Marley23]

Bumping this thread because Tony La Russa weighed in on the issue today in regard to Albert Pujols (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2011/news/story?id=6124272). Of course La Russa isn't a neutral party here, but it may be of interest.

[astorian]

Tony Gwynn has said that, the first few times he had a chance to become a free agent, the union leaned on him heavily to play out his option and get big bucks elsewhere. But after he'd signed his second renewal with the Padrres, the union got the message that he was very happy in San Diego, and didn't want to leave. They didn't bother him after that.

My sense is, the union only cares about a handful of superstar free agents. If a good-but-not-great player loves Kansas City and is willing to take a pay cut to stay with the Royals, the union won't care. But a guy like Tony Gwynn had the potential to get the kind of HUGE contract that would eventually trickle down and elevate salaries for EVERYBODY.

A star with THAT kind of clout can't give a "hometown discount" without getting an earful from Don Fehr.

Albert Pujols, as the best player in MLB, COULD change the prevailing salary structure if he breaks the bank with his next contract. The union would LOVE for that to happen, even if Albert really wants to stay in St. Louis.

[mhendo]

Albert Pujols, as the best player in MLB, COULD change the prevailing salary structure if he breaks the bank with his next contract. The union would LOVE for that to happen, even if Albert really wants to stay in St. Louis.I don't quite understand this reasoning. If i'm going to pay Albert north of $30 million a year (or whatever his value might be), i'm doing it precisely because he's Albert Pujols, and not Adam LaRoche.

I guess i understand that a huge contract might place upward pressure on all salaries, but it seems to me that giving too much money to a mediocre player could have just as much effect. If i were a journeyman who could steal bases, but had no power and average on-base ability, i wouldn't be pointing to Alex Rodriguez or Albert Pujols in order to support my claims for a big salary; i'd be asking why i shouldn't get the same $40m/5yr contract that Juan Pierre managed to get with a career OPS+ of 86.

[etv78]

mhendo-I think the Werth deal is an example of what you're talking about, though I agree wholeheartedly with astorian.

[Yookeroo]

Tony Gwynn has said that, the first few times he had a chance to become a free agent, the union leaned on him heavily to play out his option and get big bucks elsewhere.

You have a cite for this?

[QUOTE=astorian;13470474]A star with THAT kind of clout can't give a "hometown discount" without getting an earful from Don Fehr.

Well, maybe an NHL star.