THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Not 100% sure what you mean here.  Are you suggesting that salaries be normalized by some kind of moving average process, to smooth out fluctuations, and players should go up or down to that?

Something like that.

Basically, Orlando Hudson’s salary should be tied to his comparables, just like it works in arbitration.  It works great in arbitration because it’s a one-year deal.  Just like a consultant’s salary is tied to the marketplace.  A consultant wouldn’t typically sign a 3-yr contract at a fixed rate.

So, if Hudson should be in the, let’s say 75th percentile of middle-infielder salaries, then his salary should reflect that.  If what MLB comes back with is putting him in the 30th percentile, then his salary should be adjusted.  And the money should come as I’m suggesting.

Otherwise, what happens is what happens: in a market downturn, whoever happens to be out of the boat is the ones that are going to get hit by the waves the hardest.

The same applies in a market upswing: those players lucky enough to be in the water are those who are going to benefit from the extra cash owners are willing to spend.

Why are millionare athletes different than the rest of American workers? I had the misfortune to get a teaching degree the spring of the first recession in recent memory which effected even those wanting to teach in the toughest schools. Now, I’m slinging coffee for less than 20k.

At least he got a job in his field, and when I do get one, I don’t expect the other teachers to cover me for losing out on the “high needs” bonuses that have just been taken off the table due to budgetary concerns.

The point is that Hudson is part of the MLBPA and since the MLBPA is Hudson’s union they should be doing there part to look out for his best interest.  My analogy would be of a group of factory workers whose contract comes up for negotiation and due to recession need to take a pay cut, they dont say “Well everyone with 5 years seniority gets their wages cut but everyone over that gets to keep what they are making.” The teacher analogy doesnt work because a person would have to be part of the teachers union before the teachers union looked out for their rights.  The article does not state that the MLBPA should ensure job security for all baseball players just that compensation should be more equally divided between member of the MLBPA based on performance rather than circumstance of service years.  I’m not sure I agree with that idea entirely but I would be upset if I were in a similar position as Hudson, regardless of what payscale you were working on.

I’m for it if it means the players of today have to share the wealth with the retired players of the 60s and 70s. Orlando Hudson is doing just fine; it’s the guys who made 50K/yr you should be worried about, not the ones who make 5M. I remember when Kirby Puckett was the highest paid player in the league at 3M/yr, and that was in the 80s. Feel sorry for Rod Carew, or Lyman Bostock, or someone you never heard of who is peddling insurance.

I agree that part of the value of MLB is in its history. 

Players of today should be smart in allocating more of their money to their pensions, since they’ll be able to reap the benefit of future payrolls.  That is, while inflation is 3%, baseball inflation is 10%.  So, it would make sense that they try to tap into the future growth of baseball salaries by allocating a greater share of their current compensation to their pension.

Wow, I have no sympathy for players like Hudson who “only” make 5 mil per year rather than the 8 mil he would have made a few years ago.

And the difference between a union representing a factory worker, or many other workers, is that they generally negotiate the same or similar wages for everyone.  Obviously not so in baseball.  They negotiate some things, like minimum salaries, the collective bargaining agreement, etc.  But otherwise players and teams are free to negotiate whatever salaries they want, as long as they comport with the CBA.  That makes their union very different from that of the typical factory worker’s or teacher’s union.  The MLBPA is probably like the actor’s union (SAG?).  They have a minimum salary for all SAG members and probably some other rules and agreements regarding working conditions and perhaps negotiating rules, but other than that, actors are obviously free to negotiate whatever salaries they want with motion picture companies.

Now, the MLBPA is free to do whatever they want with its members assuming that it is not prohibited by the CBA.  If they wanted to share all salaries equally with all players, they could do so if they wanted I suppose (I assume that would be prohibited by the CBA - maybe not though).  If they wanted to share all salaries among tiers of players, they could do that too, say using the projected WAR database from Fangraphs.  But they don’t, and I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with that, if for NO other reason than players are already making ungodly amounts of money, and your (Tango’s) suggestion does not generally apply to the ones making the minimum, whom you MIGHT have some tiny amount of sympathy for…

"Feel sorry for Rod Carew, or Lyman Bostock, or someone you never heard of who is peddling insurance.”

I feel sorry for Lyman, but I don’t think he needs money where he is.  Guys like Carew still made a ton more than what the average worker makes today, even if much less than today’s player.  Plus they had a chance to make investments when assets were probably 10% of todays values.

Regardless of how much Hudson makes, why should he be guaranteed a certain level even when revenues are down? 50% of my department got laid off in 2009. Now we are told we are not going to get our annual revues until the end of the 1st quarter, when the suits have a chance to see if revenue is getting any better. Meanwhile, for at least the first three months of 2010, everyone continues to work at our 2009 salaries.

Brian: you missed my point.  It’s not that Hudson gets a guarantee in a vaccum, but that he gets a guarantee within his comparables, such that all the players take a paycut for him.

This is just like reducing the work week to 4 days, so that everyone keeps his job.

Sorry, I did miss that. I understand now, but I tend to view things more individually than collectively, which is likely why I didn’t pick up on it.