Schilling vs. BBWAA

[Guest Edgy DC]

This has pretty much gone mstly the radar but Curt Schilling may have inadvertanttly changed the future of post-season awards.

Schilling had a clause in his contract giving him a fat bonus if he got a single Cy Young vote. Such clauses are common, and they've been used as a way of protecting players from being underpaid in breakout seasons. They're not allowed to get bonuses based on actual accomplishments --- wins, homers, RBI --- only appearances. These awards-based bonuses have been a way around that, allowing players to negotiate for bonuses based the impression of their accomplishments. Even some of the most modest players tend to negotiate these in.

Anyhow, a clause awarding a player for a single vote is pretty rare --- expecially such a large bonus --- as a single vote can come from anybody for any stupid reason. Schilling, realizing this, made a joking reference in his blog offering a hefty bribe to a BBWAA member who would give him a vote.

Anyhow, the writers realize tihs puts them in a bad position, having their votes deciding who gets large paydays, when they get a miniscule fraction of what the players get. It's what my dad used to call an environment conducive to corruption. So the body voted --- while we were paying attention to the winter meetings --- that they'll consider any player with such a clause in his contract ineligible for any of its awards (Cy Young, Rookie of the Year, and MVP) starting in 2013, with all current contracts grandfathered in.

Obviously, that would discredit the awards completely. It seems like a bluff --- designed to force MLB to outlaw such clauses --- (what with the five-year warning) but this could lead to MLB removing voting priveleges from the writers. And, for all their mistakes, I think they're a far more responsible body than MLB itself.

Schilling responds.

[Gwreck]

I'm sure there can be some other type of contract incentive worked out. How long until a player gets incentives and escalators based upon win shares?

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's not in an agent's interest to pin his client's salary to actual performance, but merely an optimistic projection of his performance. Pinning it to awards is a good compromise because, by definition, anybody who gets award consideration has already done good.

Rewarding a guy for posting thirty win shares opens up the possibiility of screwing him for posting only three win shares.

Somebody has to win the game. Somebody has to lose. The union wants both those guys to be well paid.

[metirish]

I think Schilling makes some good points although he comes off as a bit of a martyr, love the backhanded compliment to Gammons.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Take the vote away from the writers and you solve two problems.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Depends on who you give it to. The Hank Aaron Award has been a monostrosity.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: It's not in an agent's interest to pin his client's salary to actual performance, but merely an optimistic projection of his performance. Pinning it to awards is a good compromise because, by definition, anybody who gets award consideration has already done good. Rewarding a guy for posting thirty win shares opens up the possibiility of screwing him for posting only three win shares. Somebody has to win the game. Somebody has to lose. The union wants both those guys to be well paid.

if management wants to agree to a "single vote = 1 million" clause then let them, its their money if a dumbass writer decided to vote for a guy who doesnt deserve it.

[Valadius]

I think the writers were right on this in general, but it is somewhat of a conundrum. I think the right move is to allow incentives for WINNING the awards, but not for getting a certain number of votes.

[Guest Edgy DC]

That's not the issue for the writers. It's their repuation on the line if readers and fans start thinking their votes are for sale.

Some outlets, the New York Times included, already won't let their writers vote because the compromising position that power puts them in.

[Gwreck]

Nymr83 wrote: if management wants to agree to a "single vote = 1 million" clause then let them, its their money if a dumbass writer decided to vote for a guy who doesnt deserve it.

Can't believe I actually agree with Nymr83 about something, but he's totally right. Most award bonuses are tied to winning, or first through 3rd places.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Curt Schilling taking shots at Bill Conlin to defend Bill James and Kevin Youkilis was just outstanding.

Especially since Conlin has also said something about the one positive aspect of Hitler's regime is that he would've eliminated bloggers. Seriously.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Schilling needs an editor -- the post is long and rambles -- but I liked that he called out certain writers and could do so armed with facts.

And knowing some people who had a HOF vote, and in my eyes abused it, I think he makes some valid points.

What he doesn't do is offer up a better system.

[metirish]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: What he doesn't do is offer up a better system.

No but he gives his bonuses to charity so he's a super guy.

[Valadius]

BBWAA decided to postpone implementation of this policy indefinitely.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

More nonsense from the BBWAA.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/12/bbwaa_opens_up.php

]The Baseball Writers Association of America voted yesterday to open up its membership for the first time to web-based baseball writers. Qualified candidates were required to be "full-time baseball writers who work for websites that are credentialed by MLB for post-season coverage." Sixteen of the 18 nominations were recommended for approval: Scott Miller from CBS Sportsline; Jim Caple, Jerry Crasnick, Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkjian, Amy Nelson, Buster Olney, and Jayson Stark from ESPN; Ken Rosenthal from FoxSports; John Donovan, Jon Heyman, and Tom Verducci from SI; and Tim Brown, Steve Henson, Jeff Passan, and Dan Wetzel from Yahoo. After combing through the list, my first reaction was "what about Rob Neyer?" Well, as it turns out, Rob's nomination was one of two that were turned down. How can that be? Isn't Rob full time? Is he not a baseball writer? Is ESPN not "credentialed" for the post-season? I don't get it.

The other one to get turned down was Keith Law, who's also one of the more forward-thinking and reasonable writers out there.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

OlerudOwned wrote: More nonsense from the BBWAA. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/12/bbwaa_opens_up.php ]The Baseball Writers Association of America voted yesterday to open up its membership for the first time to web-based baseball writers. Qualified candidates were required to be "full-time baseball writers who work for websites that are credentialed by MLB for post-season coverage." Sixteen of the 18 nominations were recommended for approval: Scott Miller from CBS Sportsline; Jim Caple, Jerry Crasnick, Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkjian, Amy Nelson, Buster Olney, and Jayson Stark from ESPN; Ken Rosenthal from FoxSports; John Donovan, Jon Heyman, and Tom Verducci from SI; and Tim Brown, Steve Henson, Jeff Passan, and Dan Wetzel from Yahoo. After combing through the list, my first reaction was "what about Rob Neyer?" Well, as it turns out, Rob's nomination was one of two that were turned down. How can that be? Isn't Rob full time? Is he not a baseball writer? Is ESPN not "credentialed" for the post-season? I don't get it. The other one to get turned down was Keith Law, who's also one of the more forward-thinking and reasonable writers out there.

They get turned down, and a Yankee-lovin' slug like Verducci and goofball like Heyman get votes?

As my buddy said last week, the Hall is jumping the shark.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Did they get votes?

It's no surprise that they first generation of web writers to get consideraton are going to be gray-maned veterans of print. If they don't hold writers to the a time standard as a rule, like they do players, I'm sure they do in spirit.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Looking through the comments section, people repping the Writers Assoc. defended the decision saying that Neyer and Law don't attend enough games.

So the decision makes sense in the context of rules, but the rules are outdated.