$700K+ is a very good figure for an everyday shortstop who ought to provide a .750+ OPS and at least average defence. Good work by JP and friends.

During a fascinating lunch yesterday with some very knowledegable baseball friends and co-bloggers, the question was raised: will arbitration hearings result in lower awards now that the market is in a slump? For those unaware, baseball's arbitration system works something like this: the team rep and the player rep meet in a room with an arbitrator, who may or may not know a fastball from an eephus pitch. The team's rep says the player should make $X because of his disappointing performance, and the player rep says no, he should make $Z because of his breakout season. (Sidebar: would you really want your salary determined this way? You and your boss go before a third party, and your boss lists off all the reasons why you shouldn't get a raise: poor productivity, lousy financial returns, questionable hygiene. Then at the end of the day, win or lose, you have to go out and work hard for this guy. Can't be fun.)

You might expect that the arbitrator could saw off the two amounts and award $Y, as is the case with other sports and in many industries. Not so, however: the arbitrator has only two choices, $X and $Z, and if they're both unreasonable, well, c'est la guerre. It sounds silly, but as was pointed out to me yesterday, it's actually a mechanism designed to encourage settlement before arbitration, as each side could be motivated to avoid a potential disaster if the other side's figure is chosen. It's a big ol' game of chicken, basically.

Some have blamed arbitration in the past for contributing to salary escalation, since arbitrators can only consider the salaries of five-year players with similar stats, and with the market constantly spiralling upwards, every big free-agent signing just gets confirmed and consolidated in other players' arbitration hearings (one of the reasons the union loves big free-agent contracts). So if arbitration lifts salaries higher during boom times for players, shouldn't it also act as an anchor when the market sags? Well, maybe, but consider that many of the current contracts that will be used for comparison by the arbitrators are leftovers from the old free-spending days, and that the deflation hasn't fully penetrated the market yet. Moreover, there are still teams doing dumb things like giving Tony Alfonseca $4 million to be a mediocre closer. And as mentioned earlier, it's not like many of these arbitrators are the brightest bulbs in the chandelier anyway. So it may be a little while longer yet before the arbitration system catches up with industry reality. We'll find out in two ways: when the first results come back from the hearings, and even before that, if the player agents accept smaller deals to avoid arbitration. It oughta be interesting.

I think a few more agents are going to push their clients into hearings this year, as a last resort to get paid by the "old" scale instead of the more reasonable "new" one. The earliest settlements suggest being arb-eligible is still great leverage -- Kerry Wood ($6.19 MM), Jarrod Washburn ($3.75 MM) and Scott Spezio ($4.25 MM) all seemed to do OK, and Juan Encarnacion ($3.45 MM) hit the lottery.

The high number, and surprising calibre, of non-tendered players was a result of teams wanting to avoid the process, local Exhibit A being Jose Cruz Jr., and nowhere (yet) has that strategy worked better than for Anaheim in the case of Brad Fullmer. In a hearing, most arbitrators would have awarded him a raise over his $3.75 MM 2002 salary; he was a decent hitter on a championship club. Instead, the Angels let him walk, then got him "back" for about 25 cents on the dollar.

The Braves are not so lucky. Greg Maddux is going to ask for an outrageous amount, perhaps as much as $20 million, and he just might get it. The team will need to submit a bid of $15 MM or more to have a chance of "winning" that one. Meanwhile, two choices remain for the vast majority of free agents without the arbitration hammer: accept a disappointing contract, in terms of salary and/or length, or find a new line of work.

For those unaware, baseball's arbitration system works something like this: the team rep and the player rep meet in a room with an arbitrator, who may or may not know a fastball from an eephus pitch. The team's rep says the player should make $X because of his disappointing performance, and the player rep says no, he should make $Z because of his breakout season. (Sidebar: would you really want your salary determined this way? You and your boss go before a third party, and your boss lists off all the reasons why you shouldn't get a raise: poor productivity, lousy financial returns, questionable hygiene. Then at the end of the day, win or lose, you have to go out and work hard for this guy. Can't be fun.)

Don't the players have to or have the choice of attending ? I am sure I have heard in the past of clubs avoiding arbitration with young players because they didn't want to ruin his confidence by making him hear the clubs 'case' of why he should be paid so little.

Gwyn, even if the player doesn't attend, pre-hearing rhetoric can bruise egos. Last year, the Jays narrowly avoided going to a hearing with Chris Carpenter, and there had been a lot of public mudslinging, as Carp's agent decided to "negotiate" throught the media, and team spokesmen responded to unfair allegations about broken promises.

Some clubs hire outside specialists to present their cases, to keep any hard feelings on the part of the player (and his representatives) from becoming "personal" problems with the GM or his staff.

"You and your boss go before a third party, and your boss lists off all the reasons why you shouldn't get a raise: poor productivity, lousy financial returns, questionable hygiene. Then at the end of the day, win or lose, you have to go out and work hard for this guy. Can't be fun."

My understanding is that (the smarter) teams avoid doing this kind of thing in arbitration hearings precisely because they know that it's not in their best interest to alienate the player. There are ways to make your case without slamming the guy.