Club wins Burnes' arbitration case (source)

[tmwiese55]

Seems to me a lot of these issues simply comes from the nature of being a small market who can't keep their guys, so you're always going to have to churn the roster including top end players.  Somehow Tampa seems to have been successfully doing this while keeping a good clubhouse, only one I can think of is Snell with an issue.  MKE seemingly had been great at maintaining positivity up until last year.  Anyone follow Tampa closely enough to know if they have similar issues?    This is kind of the first time MKE has had to go through the roster churn of top end players since their "perpetual competitiveness" type plan. Tampa has been doing it for like 15 years now. 

Have certainly heard plenty of grumbling from places like Oak, MIA over the years when they do it.  I guess I'm just saying it seems just like a tough situation or nature of the business and its not like the team is massively mismanaging it. Just seems like a situation forced onto everyone involved by MLBs financial landscape.   TB seems the exception moreso than the rule. 

 

Essentially, the players want money/stability and not to just be treated like cogs/assets.  The team can't provide it but the system forces them to be together for X amount of years. There's just an inevitable rift there. 

[SeaBass]

I am about as pro-player as it gets and I have no problem with how things played out during the arby process. Burnes is an adult, they could have come to a compromise and met in the middle before making it this far, he chose not to (along with the team of course). Too many people are accusing the Brewers of quibbling over "just $750k" well Burnes did the same.

Edited February 21, 2023 by SeaBass

[brewcrewdue80]

7 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

Yes, I said every team should give every good player what they want. 

Your idea ends baseball in 4 seasons?

You basically opened the door for Gasser to request 30mil come time for his 1st time in to Arbitration. With the idea giving what the player wants every Arbitration figure the players put down no matter their talent ought to be asking millions on top of millions more. The only defense the owners would have is not tendering to them. Immediately making Chourio or Frelick a FA after 3 seasons.  Large markets now field 26man roster all-stars and the Brewers and 15+teams now really are AAA producers for the markets that can run hundreds of millions in payroll.

Every new increase a player receives over what a similar history player earned increases the following seasons class of similar players and what they earn.  You are talking about pricing small markets quicker with the team controlled players since unable to afford them.

[KeithStone53151]

42 minutes ago, brewcrewdue80 said:

Your idea ends baseball in 4 seasons?

You basically opened the door for Gasser to request 30mil come time for his 1st time in to Arbitration. With the idea giving what the player wants every Arbitration figure the players put down no matter their talent ought to be asking millions on top of millions more. The only defense the owners would have is not tendering to them. Immediately making Chourio or Frelick a FA after 3 seasons.  Large markets now field 26man roster all-stars and the Brewers and 15+teams now really are AAA producers for the markets that can run hundreds of millions in payroll.

Every new increase a player receives over what a similar history player earned increases the following seasons class of similar players and what they earn.  You are talking about pricing small markets quicker with the team controlled players since unable to afford them.

I'm honestly at a loss.

Do you really think i, or anyone on this board, thinks players should be paid whatever they ask for in arbitration? Is this real life? Or is this a funny sarcastic response to my clear sarcasm? I really really hope for your sake it's the latter, though i really don't think so.

[rickh150]

8 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I'm honestly at a loss.

Do you really think i, or anyone on this board, thinks players should be paid whatever they ask for in arbitration? Is this real life? Or is this a funny sarcastic response to my clear sarcasm? I really really hope for your sake it's the latter, though i really don't think so.

Either use blue or actually be funny. 

[brewcrewdue80]

23 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I'm honestly at a loss.

Do you really think i, or anyone on this board, thinks players should be paid whatever they ask for in arbitration? Is this real life? Or is this a funny sarcastic response to my clear sarcasm? I really really hope for your sake it's the latter, though i really don't think so.

I guess I could have replied this practically word for word.

Nice cover up though. 

[KeithStone53151]

1 minute ago, rickh150 said:

Either use blue or actually be funny. 

Can you give me some more pointers on how to post on the forum? Or how to be funny? I'll return the favor by providing you some guidance on how to remove the stick from........

[KeithStone53151]

1 minute ago, brewcrewdue80 said:

I guess I could have replied this practically word for word.

Nice cover up though. 

Maybe you should try reading the entirety of my previous post along with the post I quoted in my reply. Or don't...and continue having quite possibly the worst take of all time on the bfnet forums.

[brewcrewdue80]

48 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

Maybe you should try reading the entirety of my previous post along with the post I quoted in my reply. Or don't...and continue having quite possibly the worst take of all time on the bfnet forums.

Pretty sure that was your take on paying what the players want in arb.

[PlayerHader]

9 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

Once a hearing goes to arbitration, it's one or the other. There's no middle ground. As far as the negotiations beforehand, most team at this point are file and trial...meaning if they don't come to an agreement before numbers are submit, they don't negotiate from that point forward and go to a hearing. I wouldn't have blamed the Brewers for not even negotiating at all, and from that point on throwing out team friendly proposals just to see if he'd bite is also fine...especially if they felt confident they had the better argument. I also don't have a problem with them going to a hearing. Going to a hearing doesn't require bashing the absolute best player on your team and blaming him for missing the postseason. That can't be the only way to win a hearing. You're talking about the most casual of fans who think "burnes is good, just pay him what he wants to keep him happy".

So your problem is simply based on how the Brewers went about presenting their case, based solely on the (upset) player’s personal recapitulation of what was said (and how it was said. Is that accurate?

[KeithStone53151]

1 hour ago, PlayerHader said:

So your problem is simply based on how the Brewers went about presenting their case, based solely on the (upset) player’s personal recapitulation of what was said (and how it was said. Is that accurate?

Specific to the thread, yes that's more or less it. You seem to be the first person to actually grasp and not misrepresent/shift my argument. Baseball is a game, winning is great but I'm not willing to do anything to win. How you win matters. For example, in soccer often when teams get a lead they will take their time to do ANYTHING, lay on the ground faking injuries, etc. I have a team I support, but I will criticize any team including the team I support for playing that way. Apply the same concept here. I'm not going to condone the brewers trashing their best player in an arbitration hearing. You can go into that room with honor and present your case without going negative/the dishonorable route.

All that said, my bigger issue in this thread is the whole misrepresentation thing. 3 or 4 people have done it. I didn't really start replying in such a pointed manner until that started happening. I took a pretty long break from replying on these forums and I've very quickly been reminded why

[MVP2110]

A super interesting behind the scenes account from Ray's Reliever Ryan Thompson on what arbitration hearings are like

 

 

[KeithStone53151]

2 hours ago, MVP2110 said:

A super interesting behind the scenes account from Ray's Reliever Ryan Thompson on what arbitration hearings are like

 

 

There are quite a few reasons this process is flawed assuming this information is accurate. Why would they use arbiters that potentially call runs "points" or basically don't know the game? How can someone that doesn't have at least moderate knowledge of baseball make an informed decision about baseball? That person doesn't know which stats are good and which aren't, they could value holds over ERA/WHIP because they are ignorant and don't know any better. Someone like that is going to rule in favor of whoever makes the best presentation, not necessarily the best argument. He also certainly gives the impression at least his arbiters didn't really take the process seriously. I would think the players should know how many arbiters voted in which direction and they should be required to provide an opinion, which would generally be helpful to see what information is valued by certain arbiters. I suspect MLB knows these things, but players/agents don't...which gives MLB side an advantage heading to hearings.

Super interesting though, thanks for sharing.

[MrTPlush]

28 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

There are quite a few reasons this process is flawed assuming this information is accurate. Why would they use arbiters that potentially call runs "points" or basically don't know the game? How can someone that doesn't have at least moderate knowledge of baseball make an informed decision about baseball?

I mean that's a pretty big assumption on his part that he provides no input on why he believes they don't know anything about baseball. The whole 'calling runs points' looks like he just pulled it out of his back end.

The rest of it that was actually factual, and he had information to back up was pretty interesting though.

[KeithStone53151]

44 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

I mean that's a pretty big assumption on his part that he provides no input on why he believes they don't know anything about baseball. The whole 'calling runs points' looks like he just pulled it out of his back end.

The rest of it that was actually factual, and he had information to back up was pretty interesting though.

That did seem like an assumption on the players part. I believe I've seen people say these arbiters tend to value stuff like holds/saves moreso than even the most basic of advanced metrics. Imagine going in there and arguing a hitters value based on RBI's. It seemed interesting that a team can opt to use a right handed reliever against only right handed hitters, or as much as possible, and then use that against them in an arbitration hearing. Especially if data doesn't exist that he has strong splits. It's like they tied his right hand behind his back and said "look he's not good with his right hand". This would be especially interesting if Hiura ever went to a hearing, because in his case the Brewers horrifically misused him by having him hit mostly against lefties despite him being one of the better hitters in baseball for most of the season against right-handed pitchers. At the end of the day, I think all sides would be better off if arbitration was formula driven based on a combined variety of advanced metrics and service time.

[MrTPlush]

29 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

That did seem like an assumption on the players part. I believe I've seen people say these arbiters tend to value stuff like holds/saves moreso than even the most basic of advanced metrics. Imagine going in there and arguing a hitters value based on RBI's. It seemed interesting that a team can opt to use a right handed reliever against only right handed hitters, or as much as possible, and then use that against them in an arbitration hearing. Especially if data doesn't exist that he has strong splits. It's like they tied his right hand behind his back and said "look he's not good with his right hand". This would be especially interesting if Hiura ever went to a hearing, because in his case the Brewers horrifically misused him by having him hit mostly against lefties despite him being one of the better hitters in baseball for most of the season against right-handed pitchers. At the end of the day, I think all sides would be better off if arbitration was formula driven based on a combined variety of advanced metrics and service time.

But to some extent those basic stats are what value is based on. Hader, and many others, can complain about arbitration trashing them because it is based on saves, but what about free agency? Saves and closers get paid. Arbitration is largely based on what similar players get in arbitration, what guys are getting in free agency, and what those guys are getting paid for. 

Now...these days there is a bigger push for advanced metrics getting paid, so I do think the system is starting to get outdated a bit. Sucks for the player if the team uses them in a way that doesn't maximize their value (not using them against LHH or not getting saves), but that is what it is. If you have a problem you got to go to the team like Hader seemingly did. 

[owbc]

That Ryan Thompson thread is an instant classic. 

After several "WTFs" while reading that, the thing it reminded me most of is real estate assessments. Which are objective in theory (e.g. the use of 'Comps'), but ends up being all sorts of subjective in practice. 

It also explains why the Brewers would have tried to "blame" Burnes for missing the playoffs, since the arbitrators are not necessarily baseball experts. 

I'm sure someone has answered this, but why do the arbitrators have to pick a winner? Couldn't they be given the option to suggest any salary between the two sides? 

[KeithStone53151]

1 hour ago, owbc said:

I'm sure someone has answered this, but why do the arbitrators have to pick a winner? Couldn't they be given the option to suggest any salary between the two sides? 

If they went with a midpoint, sides would be incentivized to be more aggressive in the number they pick to try and settle at a higher midpoint. The one or the other option kinda forces both sides to be as fair as possible. Being too aggressive would be tougher to defend at a hearing and more likely lead to losing.