There Is No Cryihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifng In Baseball: A Closer Look At Salary Arbitration

Just like any other company, Major League Baseball is a business. The only difference is rather than dealing with thousands, we are constantly dealing with millions. How would one feel if during a review the boss pointed out every flaw, just so he or she would not have to pay you a certain salary that you felt you deserved? Welcome to the big leagues. During their third through sixth years in the league, players or clubs are allowed to submit a dispute over a players earnings. Once this dispute has been placed, the player and team have begun the process of "Salary Arbitration". The way that is works is the player and team executives will both submit a salary that each believes the player should earn, to a panel of three impartial arbitrators. The team executives and their lawyer will then engage in a gruesome process against the player's agent and lawyer that somewhat resembles a trial. Each side will make their case based on previous seasons statistics that go into every detail possible. Management will not hesitate to point out any and every flaw committed by the athlete. It is then left up to the impartial arbitrators to choose one salary that they believe is the "fairer" of the two options. Salary Arbitration involves no compromising between the player and the team. By doing this, the team executives and players are prevented from going either too high or too low with their offer. Most of the time the team and players will settle on a long term contract before they actually have to go through the ugly process. Doing this helps preserve a solid relationship, without battling one another. However, sometimes the teams are just unable to agree.

There is a long history behind the creation of Salary Arbitration, and many people who are responsible for its beginning. However, I do not wish to merely explain it, but instead to understand its concept. Is "Final Offer Arbitration" the best solution? Isn't it possible that holding an appearance between the executives and players bashing one another could be damaging to future relations? The answer is yes, but in my opinion salary arbitration is still the most viable option. Of course settling on a long term contract before arbitration is necessary is the best route to take. Most of the time this is case, but like I said before it is not always easy to agree. The reason that I feel salary arbitration is the best option, lies with the impartial judge. So many times you will see absurdly large contracts given to players who just are not performing. The best example I can give is Andruw Jones of the Dodgers. He is making $18 million a year and hardly ever played. The simple fact that there is no compromise in arbitration, really gives control to the players. It is a fair process. Most of the time when a case is taken to final offer arbitration, the ending result is fair. Both sides will honestly put what they feel is the proper amount to pay that player.

The most useful of example of salary arbitrations legitimacy is the recent case of Ryan Howard. Ryan Howard and the Philadelphia Phillies are currently one game away from winning the World Series, and Howard who has turned it on late is the favorite for series MVP. In 2006 Howard won the league MVP award. He belted 58 home runs, had 149 RBI's and still hit with an impressive .313 batting average. In that incredible season, only Howard's second year in the league, he earned $355,000. The following season he put up huge numbers once again, and received in compensation just $900,000. Finally, after serving three years of service, Howard was arbitration eligible. After being unable to settle on a long term deal, the process was taken to final offer arbitration. The Phillies offered $7 million and Howard desired $10 million. After 5 hours of listening to each sides case, the impartial arbitrators ruled in favor of Howard. The way I look at it is pay back for the service he provided the previous two years. While he was out producing huge numbers, there were players sitting on the bench making 20 times more than him. It only made sense that he is compensated fully now. Apparently Howard is worth it because he has led to Phillies to within one game of the World Series title, and will possibly be receiving his second MVP award in the last 4 years. After the contract was settled Assistant General Manager of the Phillies Ruben Amaro Jr. explained " I'm sure he's very pleased...This negotiation has been very amicable and very professional. It's just part of the process".

The players and management both know that baseball is a business, and this is just part of it. Although there is a chance that someone gets there feelings hurt, neither side tries to take it personally. Salary Arbitration is a very important aspect to the business of baseball. It helps the athletes earn the money they deserve, rather than let is all go to the older washed up players. Ryan Howard's $10 million victory in arbitration tied Alfonso Soriano for the most ever earned in arbitration. The difference is that Howard won his trial, Soriano wanted $12 million. I think that over time this process have proven to be fair and is essential to the functionality of baseball.