So what’s your take on the MLBPA’s decision to nix the proposed trade of A-Rod to Boston for Manny Ramirez, on the grounds that the restructuring of A-Rod’s contract that was proposed would have been contrary to provisions in the CBA that prevent players from “restructuring” or “revising” contracts that would result in a reduction of the tangible benefits due to the player? As usual, Doug Pappas’ Business of Baseball pages have a lot of useful info and analysis, including a guest article by another law professor who disagrees with Pappas’s position that the MLBPA was right. Shayna Sigman argues that even though the MLBPA was legally justified in its action, it committed a public relations blunder in taking the stance it did.
I tend to agree with Sigman – no one wants to see players compelled to agree with “restructuring” deals that are to their detriment every time management gets a wild hair, but in this case the player in question was actively seeking the proposed restructuring. Moreover, as Sigman points out, A-Rod’s deal is increasingly obviously sui generis – there’s been no flood of additional $25 mil/year deals since his, and the market has stabilized at a going rate for a top-shelf superstar of about $15mil/year, so there’s not much chance that changing A-Rod’s deal would result a downward shift in the market. Merely approving the A-Rod deal would not necessarily preclude the MLBPA from rejecting other proposed restructurings in the future, either, if they were contrary to the best interest of either the player(s) involved or the MLBPA.
I was a staunch defender of the MLBPA and critic of ownership throughout the last labor dispute, but I really think the MLBPA has stepped on its organs of generation in golf spikes. The way this plays with the average fan, in so far as they understand it, will be that the player’s union told the highest paid team sports athlete in the world that he can’t agree to take less money to play somewhere other than for his current team. That’s bad enough, but it’s going to really stick in the craw of the fan when teams can’t resign homegrown players who may be only utility or role players but are fan favorites, simply because the going rate for a journeyman utility infielder with four years service time is $1.5 mil, but the team can only afford $1 mil, and the players’ union won’t let the player sign for that. It seems like there ought to be some way to prevent coercive restructurings of the sort the MLBPA is (rightly) worried about without unduly limiting the freedom of a player to choose which team to play for, even if doing so means accepting less money.
It’s tough when you can understand both sides of the argument. Who’s to say that some moron owner in the future (ala Hicks) won’t want to pay the next Labron James of the MLB some ridiculous amount of money for too many years?
More than that, players learn that there is more VALUE in winning, (or playing somewhere you want to be) than there is in dollar amounts in a contract. You only live once, and the span of time when a player is in peak performance is usually short, so 10 year contracts are just completely insane, and hopefully this will serve as a lesson.
MBLPA is just doing their jobs, and you can see why they don’t want to set this precedent by allowing a restructuring that significantly alters the parameters of the initial contract (ie, what’s a contract worth if it can just be changed because somebody (or somebodies) made a mistake originally. Of course they want to maintain the integrity of the original contract.
All that said, I’d like to see MLB make an example of how VALUE isn’t always determined by the almightly dollar. THOSE benefits would probably outweigh any future problem that isn’t likely to occur again . . .I’ll read the Pappas stuff now (and the attorney link).
How about the tangible benefit of playing in games that matter after the All-Star break?
As mentioned before, I can actually see both sides of this. The union is right to be concerned about coercive restructuring, but as you mentioned, A-Rod was actively pursuing this deal himself.
I don’t know what the answer is. Maybe some sort of sliding scale where the union has less say over what you do as your contract goes up. I know there is NO way the union would ever agree to this, but honestly the A Rods and Sosa and Manny Ramirez’s of the world don’t need the union looking out for them anymore.
I agree witgh the MLBPA. I think Sigman (and, with all due respect, jk1245) really misses the central point; the MLBPA didn’t veto the deal to prevent ALEX RODRIGUEZ from losing money. They veteoed the deal to prevent the precedent of players giving up money so that OTHER players wouldn’t be pressured into the same thing. The union is acting in the interests of the majority of the union, even if A-Rod doesn’t like it. Though he’s said he supports the union.
Sigman never really addresses this, simply saying “well, they don’t have to allow other reductions in the future.” I don’t think Sigman fully appreciates the history of owner-player relations; the track record of the owners very clearly indicates that they will take any possible route around the CBA they can, sometimes even illegal ones. The MLBPA is, I think, VERY justified in fearing that marginal players will end up having to “Restructure” their contracts if the precedent is allowed to take hold. Sigman also fails to note that the purpose of “restructure” is solely to give more more to Tom Hicks and/or John Henry, whoever ends up owning him; there’s a marginal non-cash benefit to Rodriguez, but for the union overall nothing good can possibly come of this.
The PR issue is a separate matter. To be honest I don’t think it makes a damned bit of difference; people have been complaining about greedy players for longer than my Dad has been alive. They still buy tickets.
Remember, there’s nothing that prevents the Rangers and Rodriguez from mutually agreeing to tear up their contract and letting Rodriguez walk as a free agent. The Rangers don’t want to do that because then they can’t get trade value for him, and Rodriguez doesn’t want to do that because it’s unlikely he’ll get $25 million a year anywhere else. But they DO have a legal outlet.
I understand why the MLBPA would be concerned and why it believes this action to be in the best interests of its membership. Indeed, I don’t think there’s any question that the MLBPA position is the most defensible, least risky one for it to take. I just don’t see why this particular case would necessarily establish a precedent, since it’d still be up to the MLBPA whether or not to approve or reject any future proposed contract restructurings. Any whiff of coercion on the part the owners and they just say no. But I guess I do know the answer – do it once, and you open yourself up to a lawsuit from the next owner that does want to force a player to take a restructuring, claiming that the MLBPA is treating them unfairly. While I’d hope that judges and juries would be able to see the difference between A-Rod volunteering to knock $10mil-$20 mil off a $252 mil contract and a mid-level guy making $7 mil a year for five years being pressured to take a $3mil/yr cut after year two just to save the owner some money, I can see why the MLBPA wouldn’t want to run that risk.
You generally know tons more about this stuff than I do, but is that the case? If so, why don’t A-Rod and Hicks do just that: tear up his current contract, renegotiate to a deal that the Red Sox are willing to accept, then make the trade? Wouldn’t the practical effect be the same? And wouldn’t the MLBPA have to approve, and wouldn’t the same issues exist under that scenario, namely that it’d serve as a precedent for other players to be forced to do the same thing? Granted that A-Rod would have to trust Hicks to actually make the trade, of course.