Salary Arbitration: A Blue Jays History (and Poll!)

by Minor Leaguer on Jan 19, 2011 1:34 AM EST

"Un-Break My Heart". Toni Braxton's signature song was the #1 single on the Billboard Hot 100 list when our Toronto Blue Jays last met up with a player in front of a MLB salary arbitration panel. A week or so after reliever Bill Risley's arbitration ruling, Braxton's two-month reign on the top of the Billboard list was supplanted by a new British female quintet called Spice Girls, with their first single "Wannabe".

Now that you are back from Youtube, let's just say that it's been a while since the Jays have had to appear in front of three non-baseball experts to bash their own player for 60 minutes. I imagine that the hearing would be something like a Kramer vs. Kramer-type character assassination, except that Kramer will have to live with Kramer for an at least one more season and may actually want to hook up for several more years.

As we segway from pop culture references to actual baseball history, it is worth noting that the Blue Jays franchise had their first salary arbitration hearings in early 1980, just several weeks after the theatrical release of the above-mentioned movie. Only eight players (not counting the two from this year) have ever gone through this process with the Jays. Bookended by an Academy Award Best Picture and the incredibly annoying yet catchy pop song, let's see how these eight have done:

1980: Dave Lemanczyk (RHP) LOST in arbitration. Club offered $130k, he asked for $165k.
1980: Roy Howell (3B) WON in arbitration. Club offered $110k, he asked for $133k.
1982: Dave Stieb (RHP) LOST in arbitration. Club offered $250k, he asked for $325k.
1983: Damaso Garcia (2B) WON in arbitration. Club offered $300k, he asked for $400k.
1983: Roy Lee Jackson (RHP) LOST in arbitration. Club offered $155k, he asked for $225k.
1988: Tom Henke (RHP) LOST in arbitration. Club offered $725k, he asked for $1.025MM.
1991: Roberto Alomar (2B) WON in arbitration. Club offered $825k, he asked for $1.25MM.
1997: Bill Risley (RHP) LOST in arbitration. Club offered $380k, he asked for $550k.

Seems like a few good players made that arbitration list, with the Jays' all time arbitration record (from the club's perspective) sitting at 5-3, a healthy .625 winning percentage. The source was my copy of the Toronto Blue Jays Official Guide 2000--this part of the book will still be up-to-date for another couple of weeks or so!

Now it's your turn to be the arbitrator. Now, most of you have more baseball knowledge than any of the arbiters chosen by MLB, so pretend that the two sides had just presented their case to you.

Remember that you are only allowed to consider the following criteria:

1. The contribution of the player during the previous season
2. The length and consistency of the player’s career
3. The record of the player’s previous compensation
4. The performance of the player’s club (and attendance) during the previous season
5. Any physical or mental defects the player may have
6. Comparable baseball salaries (of players in a similar class/MLB experience level)

If you need to brush up on the arbitration process, you can read my previous post.

Poll

How would you rule on the two pending arbitration cases?

Give Jose Bautista $10.5MM and Jason Frasor $3.725MM

7 votes

Give Jose Bautista $10.5MM and Jason Frasor $3.25MM

36 votes

Give Jose Bautista $7.6MM and Jason Frasor $3.725MM

39 votes

Give Jose Bautista $7.6MM and Jason Frasor $3.25MM

26 votes

108 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great Post

I think ultimately Frasor is going to lose the Jays number is still a 600k raise which is about a 23% raise. Maybe my memory is clouded but I don’t remember anything really working for him all that great last season, And without the saves that help get relievers paid he is kinda stuck.

Bautista could go either way, but the sticking point is going to be the length and consistency of his career.

I think the Jays win both.

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 19, 2011 9:13 AM EST reply actions

Imagine this time last year

Asking if JoBau would be worth $10MM or $7.6MM.
Crazy year.

Trapped in the past, Craig finds himself leaping from blog to blog, putting things right that once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home.

by craig in calgary on Jan 20, 2011 6:47 PM EST reply actions

Can the two sides still come to an agreement prior to arbitration? What about after?

The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go

by Justin Azevedo on Jan 22, 2011 12:10 AM EST reply actions

They can before.
After the arbitrator rules its final.

That being said, AA said he wouldn’t come to terms on a one year deal after both sides submitted their arbitration numbers (which has been done)

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 22, 2011 12:53 AM EST up reply actions

I don’t know if AA will make an exception for Mike Napoli. He asked for $6.1 million and the Angels offered $5.3 million. He made $3.6 million last year and is in his first year of arbitration. even with good power numbers from 2010, I doubt that Napoli would win in arbitration, so he may wish to settle with AA or perhaps sign to a longer term contract.

by Minor Leaguer on Jan 22, 2011 1:27 AM EST up reply actions

He said that he is

willing to break the rule for Napoli as it isn’t fair for him since he wasn’t here at the deadline

by jaysfan100 on Jan 22, 2011 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the clarification.

The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go

by Justin Azevedo on Jan 22, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions

I don't see how it's final

You could still sign the player to a longer-term contract, couldn’t you? So, if you could agree with the player on it, couldn’t you just sign the player to a one-year deal with an option for a second year that you could just buy out? Or would the longer-term contract necessarily have to begin in 2012?

I would think the reason that it’s typically final is more of a “Why bother going to arbitration if we’re going to hammer out another deal?” issue. I don’t know that it’s final; what if the player held out? according to it being “final,” the team wouldn’t be able to re-negotiate. Is that really true?

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Jan 22, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

I was under the impression it was final, that after it was decided the losing party could technical walk away but that wouldn’t benefit a player as the team would still own their rights.

Sure you could work out an extension afterwards, I was more thinking once it was done you couldn’t say ok Arbitrator said 2.3M but we want you to sign 1.5 now.

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 22, 2011 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

no

you can’t just “walk away”, only in hockey can that happen, if the case gets in front of the arbitrator his dissension is what must be on that contract that is signed

by jaysfan100 on Jan 22, 2011 8:23 PM EST up reply actions

Ah sorry I was confused with the whole cutting the player vs walking away.

The panel, without opinion, awards the player a one-year, non-guaranteed contract at one salary or the other. If the player is cut within 16 days before the season begins, he is entitled only to 30 days’ termination pay. If the player is cut during spring training but after the 16th day before the season begins, he is entitled only to 45 days’ termination pay.

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 22, 2011 8:49 PM EST up reply actions

But then I guess doesn’t the original point still stand. Once the contract is established then its done, sure the team can back to the board and work out a new deal but wouild it replace the current deal?

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 22, 2011 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

no

it wouldn’t replace it would be for the next year, unless they release them and then sign them again, paying them both salaries for the first month. Other than that a new deal reached after the hearing would be for the year after the one they went for the hearing for (2012 in our case)

by jaysfan100 on Jan 22, 2011 9:01 PM EST up reply actions