How many games will K-Rod finish next season?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I was wondering, can the Mets just release Frankie after his 54th finish? (Their status in the pennant race may make that impractical, so let's put that issue aside.)

There's nothing wrong with releasing a player to get out from his contract vesting, right? That's what happened last year with Alex Cora.

Doing that with Rodriguez would be more unorthodox, but it could be a way to save $17.5 million. It would suck for him, however, because any team that picks him up for the remainder of 2011 would get his last few months at the major league minimum, but as soon as he finishes one game for them, they'd be on the hook for 2012, wouldn't they?

Just a thought.

[Guest Edgy DC]

They would be on the hook for the remaining terms of the contract, but they wouldn't pick him up.

He would under almost any circumstances clear waivers and then be elibigle to sign with a new team, with the Mets responsible for the rest of his 2011 salary.

It's unclear whether the Mets can release him just to aviod the vest. I agree that Cora is a relevant precedent. Frayed Knot says knot so much.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You know that my opinion on this issue is with ownership. I'd think that managing payroll is a legitimate business purpose, and should qualify as grounds for cutting K-Rod right before his option were to vest.

If a team were to raise this defense in a grievance, it might have to open up its books though, in order to prove that defense. If I were in charge, I might not require evidence of the team's finances, because I'm of the opinion that a team may do as it wishes here, and that a player should have no legal expectation of the amount of playing time he's alotted.

I recently read some news articles, specifically on the K-Rod option situation, where Union reps stated that there is precedent within MLB that a team is obligated to use a player in ways that are consistent with a team's good faith effort to compete. But who knows how that rule, if it exists, would or should be interpreted. I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Assuming Grimm's hypothetical scenario plays out, what team would want to sign K-Rod, where signing K-Rod virtually guarantees a $17.5M contract for 2012?

Earlier in this thread, I wrote that I would manage K-Rod, not only to purposely avoid the vesting option, but also so that K-Rod would never be on pace to vest -- this would facilitate an in-season trade because the acquiring team won't necessarily be burdened with the option, either.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing.

Agreed here.

But as long as no team is willing to make that argument, each case in which they support the player's alleged rights to pursue his vesting numbers become precdent in favor of the players, with Cora a rare counterprecedent.

The one that drove me mad was Pedro Astacio. Valentine pitched him loyally every fifth day with the guy's arm falling off, only to trigger a vesting option that led to another season --- one in which Astacio gave the team 36 2/3 innings and a 7.36 ERA for $7 million.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing. Agreed here. But as long as no team is willing to make that argument, each case in which they support the player's alleged rights to pursue his vesting numbers become precedent in favor of the players, with Cora a rare counterprecedent.

You raise a question about baseball's arbitration procedure that' always interested me, but that I admit to not knowing the answer.

In baseball --- what counts as precedent? In the real world, a lower court is usually bound by the higher courts' rulings, but not by a court of equal jurisdiction. MLB may operate differently, but applying real-world dynamics to MLB's grievance process, the rulings from an earlier arbitrator of equal or coordinate jurisdiction, no matter how sound or persuasive, shouldn't bind the next arbitrator that is confronted with the same or similar issue.

So I always wondered if there is an appeals process in MLB available to the losing side in a grievance -- an opportunity for a higher court or panel of arbitrators to review the lower decision. I would assume that there has to be, but I don't know for sure. Otherwise, MLB would be bound by the incorrect or flawed or unreasonable decision of the first arbitrator that gets to decide the issue.

[batmagadanleadoff]

On second thought, I would assume that ultimately, the losing side would have the opportunity to have a Court of law review the issue after the arbitration procedure has been exhausted. That's how Curt Flood's case progressed. I should just google this to be sure. It should be in MLB's CBA, but I'm feeling lazy right now.

[metsmarathon]

if he were released and signed somewhere new, the new team would surely not be held to the vesting option as it is not part of their contract. at least, i can't imagine a scenario where that would not hold true.

but, how do vesting contracts work when you release the player prior to the vesting?

i know that if he gets released, the mets are on the hook for the remainder of his contract for that year, and that if he signs with a new team, he signs a new contract with them.

but what if he then finishes game 55. since the vesting option was a part of the contract with the mets, which they are still obligated to honor, must they not also honor the vest? i mean, if the mets released oliver perez last year, they'd be paying him his full due salary this year. would the same hold true for a vesting option?

is there any sort of precedence here?

could it be that releasing frankie could be the dumbest possible thing for the mets to do.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well... if they're responsible for the vesting even if game 55 comes with another team, then there would be no point at all to releasing him. They'd have to pay him $17.5 million to pitch for someone else.

I have no idea if there's any precedent. But if the new team is responsible for the vesting, then releasing him at game 54 (or earlier) could be a very wise move.

[Vic Sage]

without having read either the contract, the CBA, or precedents on the issue, i think:
1 - contracts are guaranteed in MLB, but a team can always release a player (watch Ollie and Luis walk away this year with big checks from NY);
2 - if another team picks up the player on waivers, they're taking on all the obligations of his contract; but
3 - if the player passes thru waivers without being claimed, the original team is on the hook for all guaranteed compensation, less whatever he's paid by the new team, but neither they or the new team are liable for the original deal's contingent compensation provisions (which by definition were not guaranteed);
4 - the player's union has no basis for challenging the release of a player for any reason whatsoever, as long as the player is then free to sign a new deal with another team

If the Mets keep exclusive control of F-Rod's services but manipulate his usage solely to avoid the vesting event, rather than either releasing him (as described above) or making a good faith use of the player as the parties intended when they both signed the deal, the union might have a claim. Of course, I'd argue that using a closer in "high leverage" late-inning situations (rather than exclusively in "closing" situations) was a good faith use of the player's services, and was forseeable usage when the deal was signed, so the Mets would have no liability.

But I don't think releasing a player (as long as guaranteed salaries are paid) gives the player or his union any colorable claim.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Vic Sage wrote: without having read either the contract, the CBA, or precedents on the issue, i think: 1 - contracts are guaranteed in MLB, but a team can always release a player (watch Ollie and Luis walk away this year with big checks from NY);

Article 7((2) of the Uniform Player Contract. It says something like "if in the opinion of management" a player fails to exhibit sufficient skill blah, blah, blah.

It's a low threshold but I'm skeptical they can apply it to somebody like Frankie if he's only blown say 2 saves by June.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Does the definition of "sufficient" include salary as a factor?

You'd have lower expectations from a guy who's earning $500,000 than you would from somebody who's going to earn $17.5 million.

You could argue, yeah, he's pitching well, but he's not pitching SEVENTEEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS well.

Releasing somebody so you don't have to pay his salary happens all the time. It's called a "layoff."

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Does the definition of "sufficient" include salary as a factor?

I doubt it unfortunately. It's sufficient skill to maintain his position on the roster, or something similar.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I recently read some news articles, specifically on the K-Rod option situation, where Union reps stated that there is precedent within MLB that a team is obligated to use a player in ways that are consistent with a team's good faith effort to compete. But who knows how that rule, if it exists, would or should be interpreted. I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing.

There was an article in the SABR circular in the late 90's comprehensively analysing vesting options, including the duties and obligations of ballclubs, in relation to them. I'll take a squiz to see if I can find it, but can you post your articles so I'm not looking for the same thing? .

I also recall an article in SI circa 1992.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: On second thought, I would assume that ultimately, the losing side would have the opportunity to have a Court of law review the issue after the arbitration procedure has been exhausted. That's how Curt Flood's case progressed. I should just google this to be sure. It should be in MLB's CBA, but I'm feeling lazy right now.

Flood's case was an anti-trust case -- it could not have possibly originated from the arbitration procedure. Also I'm fairly sure if you agree to arbitration in the US you lose grounds for substantive judicial review. The only appeal you make to a Court is on procedural grounds.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I recently read some news articles, specifically on the K-Rod option situation, where Union reps stated that there is precedent within MLB that a team is obligated to use a player in ways that are consistent with a team's good faith effort to compete. But who knows how that rule, if it exists, would or should be interpreted. I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing. There was an article in the SABR circular in the late 90's comprehensively analysing vesting options, including the duties and obligations of ballclubs, in relation to them. I'll take a squiz to see if I can find it, but can you post your articles so I'm not looking for the same thing? . I also recall an article in SI circa 1992. batmagadanleadoff wrote: On second thought, I would assume that ultimately, the losing side would have the opportunity to have a Court of law review the issue after the arbitration procedure has been exhausted. That's how Curt Flood's case progressed. I should just google this to be sure. It should be in MLB's CBA, but I'm feeling lazy right now. Flood's case was an anti-trust case -- it could not have possibly originated from the arbitration procedure. Also I'm fairly sure if you agree to arbitration in the US you lose grounds for substantive judicial review. The only appeal you make to a Court is on procedural grounds.

Of course it could have. MLB's rules back then, could have required that all grievances be initially arbitrated through a procedure designed by MLB, before the losing side (in that case, Flood, obviously) proceeds to a Court of Law. To this day, labor agreements in many industries routinely obligate the worker to arbitrate before trying his or her case in a court of law.

As to the specifics of the Flood case, I assumed that he arbitrated (and lost) before he took his case to the Federal courts. If Flood didn't first arbitrate, then it was because he didn't have to, not because he couldn't. I'll look it up to see what actually happened, but the idea that it was not possible for Flood to lose in arbitration as a prerequisite to litigating in the US courts is wrong.

[Guest Edgy DC]

In other woids, binding arbitration.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It appears that MLB did not have an arbitration system set in place when Curt Flood was traded. Back then, baseball's system for settling grievances was primitive and one-sided: The commissioner of baseball, Bowie Kuhn, --who was hand-picked by the owners-- had unilateral powers to settle player grievances. Before Flood could start his Federal suit against MLB, challenging the reserve clause, he was first required to take his case to the commissioner. It was only after Kuhn denied Flood's request to void the trade that he was eligible to litigate in the Federal courts, as per the then existing rules of MLB.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course it could have. MLB's rules back then, could have required that all grievances be initially arbitrated through a procedure designed by MLB, before the losing side (in that case, Flood, obviously) proceeds to a Court of Law. To this day, labor agreements in many industries routinely obligate the worker to arbitrate before trying his or her case in a court of law. As to the specifics of the Flood case, I assumed that he arbitrated (and lost) before he took his case to the Federal courts. If Flood didn't first arbitrate, then it was because he didn't have to, not because he couldn't. I'll look it up to see what actually happened, but the idea that it was not possible for Flood to lose in arbitration as a prerequisite to litigating in the US courts is wrong.

My point is that you don't bring a action based a violation on the Sherman Act to an MLB arbitration procedure, because clearly there's a lack of juridiction.

Because Flood could not appeal to a Court on substantive grounds from Arbitration, he needed to find another cause of action. Thus, he filed initated a seperate action in the District Court based on the Sherman Act.

Exactly the same thing in the Finley v Kuhn case (the one involving Rollie Fingers).

[Frayed Knot]

I was just starting to write that Flood's case, coming as it did during the nascent days of the union, probably preceded at least some if not most of the arbitration features built into the basic agreement as a remedy to disputes.
His was also a case where his argument was that baseball's basic set-up (players as property of a single club for life or until the club decided otherwise) was contrary to the laws of the U.S. as a whole.

KRod - assuming this all happens and he goes on to lose in arbitration - would have a much tougher time convincing a court that a collectively bargained arbitration procedure somehow denied him due process. He, unlike Flood, would neither be denied a right to make a living nor be told there was only one place where he had to do so.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: There was an article in the SABR circular in the late 90's comprehensively analysing vesting options, including the duties and obligations of ballclubs, in relation to them. I'll take a squiz to see if I can find it, but can you post your articles so I'm not looking for the same thing?

Your articles would be greatly appreciated. The articles I read appeared online very recently and quoted Union rep Michael Weiner in the context of discussing K-Rod's vesting option.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course it could have. MLB's rules back then, could have required that all grievances be initially arbitrated through a procedure designed by MLB, before the losing side (in that case, Flood, obviously) proceeds to a Court of Law. To this day, labor agreements in many industries routinely obligate the worker to arbitrate before trying his or her case in a court of law. As to the specifics of the Flood case, I assumed that he arbitrated (and lost) before he took his case to the Federal courts. If Flood didn't first arbitrate, then it was because he didn't have to, not because he couldn't. I'll look it up to see what actually happened, but the idea that it was not possible for Flood to lose in arbitration as a prerequisite to litigating in the US courts is wrong. My point is that you don't bring a action based a violation on the Sherman Act to an MLB arbitration procedure, because clearly there's a lack of juridiction. Because Flood could not appeal to a Court on substantive grounds from Arbitration, he need to find another cause of action. Thus, he filed initated a seperate action in the District Court based on the Sherman Act. Exactly the same thing in the Finley v Kuhn case (the one involving Rollie Fingers).

I don't know that Flood would've "been appealing" from his arbitration. Isn't the arbitration procedure insular and separate from a judicial proceeding. Had flood lost in an MLB arbitration, he would then have started a brand new case in the US Courts, raising whatever challenges he saw fit. Arbitration procedures are encouraged by the courts -- they ease the burden of litigation on the judicial system by often resolving matters before they're litigated.

Doesn't, for example, the SEC also require arbitration, even of issues that the US courts have exclusive jurisdiction over?

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Frayed Knot wrote: I was just starting to write that Flood's case, coming as it did during the nascent days of the union, probably preceded at least some if not most of the arbitration features built into the basic agreement as a remedy to disputes.

The arbitration procedure was intact. In Rollie Fingers' case, one of the procedural grounds appealed to the District Court was that Kuhn had it in for the A's and therefore the arbitration hearing lacked procedural fairness.

Frayed Knot wrote: KRod - assuming this all happens and he goes on to lose in arbitration - would have a much tougher time convincing a court that a collectively bargained arbitration procedure somehow denied him due process..

You cannot appeal against an arbitration ruling in the US on the grounds that it lacked substantive due process, in any case. I'm 99 per cent sure of this. But you can still appeal on procedural due process.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know that Flood would've "been appealing" from his arbitration. Isn't the arbitration procedure insular and separate from a judicial proceeding. Had flood lost in an MLB arbitration, he would then have started a brand new case in the US Courts, raising whatever challenges he saw fit.

Ok. It just sounded like you were speculating whether Flood appealed against arbitration ruling to the Courts, in continuance.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know that Flood would've "been appealing" from his arbitration. Isn't the arbitration procedure insular and separate from a judicial proceeding. Had flood lost in an MLB arbitration, he would then have started a brand new case in the US Courts, raising whatever challenges he saw fit. Ok. It just sounded like you were speculating whether Flood appealed against arbitration ruling to the Courts, in continuance.

If I was speculating, I would've been speculating on a hypothetical, since we now know that Flood didn't arbitrate his case. MLB decided Flood's case through a series of correspondence exchanges.

I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years.

The distinction is that Courts in the US cannot change an arbitrator's findings. They can only assess whether the arbitrator acted properly. The Court in Finley noted this on numerous occasions.

In any case, I had a quick look in the 1973 CBA and there was an arbitration procedure in place, very similar to the current one.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's amazing how much drama is built up around this vesting option. Really dramatic considering the team is counting change and doubling down to meet their debt obligations, and they have every incentive to make a $17 million dollar obligation go away, but counter incentives (1) to make their fans think they would never make a baseball move to make them less competitive, and (2) not incur any more legal trouble.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years. The distinction is that Courts in the US cannot change an arbitrator's findings. They can only assess whether the arbitrator acted properly. The Court in Finley noted this on numerous occasions.

Are the courts bound by all of the arbitrator's findings, or only the findings of fact?

The Second Spitter wrote: In any case, I had a quick look in the 1973 CBA and there was an arbitration procedure in place, very similar to the current one.

Well ... Flood's case preceded the 1973 CBA. But more to the point, what the hell are you doing with a copy of the 1973 CBA, and where did you get it from?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: It's amazing how much drama is built up around this vesting option. Really dramatic considering the team is counting change and doubling down to meet their debt obligations, and they have every incentive to make a $17 million dollar obligation go away, but counter incentives (1) to make their fans think they would never make a baseball move to make them less competitive, and (2) not incur any more legal trouble.

If K-Rod's option doesn't vest and a grievance is filed, the Mets may not be able to afford the legal fees to fight K-Rod, the way things are going.

Anyway ... my new theory on "the option" is that it was Jeff's handiwork. Jeff was coming into his own as a COO, was eager to erase the memory of the Mets bullpen calamity of 2008, thought that the family's money grew on trees, and targeted K-Rod as the solution at any cost. This was how Jeffy was going to splash onto the scene and make his mark as a smooth baseball operator ... and hence the idiotic K-Rod contract. In this scenario, Minaya is the loyal soldier falling on his sword to insulate ownership from the blame and ridicule they'd otherwise deserve.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years. The distinction is that Courts in the US cannot change an arbitrator's findings. They can only assess whether the arbitrator acted properly. The Court in Finley noted this on numerous occasions. Are the courts bound by all of the arbitrator's findings, or only the findings of fact?

Because otherwise, there would hardly be anything left to litigate.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Are the courts bound by all of the arbitrator's findings, or only the findings of fact?

I'm not sure, I always thought arbitration hearings can only rule on questions of fact. I should also mention there are some exceptions to Courts' review of arbitrator's rulings, but none apply to MLB. I must say, above any other area, US admin law mystifies me the most.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well ... Flood's case preceded the 1973 CBA. But more to the point, what the hell are you doing with a copy of the 1973 CBA, and where did you get it from?

There was a grievance procedure with final arbitration also in the original CBA in '68.

I have the whole set on my hd -- I once helped a SABR writer with research -- but I'm sure you can find them on the web. Check Doug Pappas' website. If not, I'm happy to send them to you.