Yankees & The Arbitration Process: A Flawed System (Part Two)

The Yankees have learned the hard way how destructive the arbitration process can be. It is a flawed system that either needs to be tweaked or just thrown out. And here’s why.

The Yankees, over the years, have had a checkered experience with the arbitration process. Reviewing some of the highlights reveals that in 1999, the Yankees lost to Derek Jeter, giving him $5 million when they proposed $3.2 million. In the same year, the team lost to Mariano Rivera, giving him $4.2 million when they offered $3 million but came back the following year to beat Rivera giving him $7.2 million when he asked for $9 million. Those are some of the high-profile arbitration cases the Yankees have been involved in, but there are countless others where the difference in money amounted to no more than $100,000.

For instance, in 1974: Yankees beat Gene Michael, giving him $55,000 when he asked for $65,000. And in 1974: Yankees lost to Bill Sudakis, giving him $30,000 when they proposed $25,000.

But nothing ever transpired that comes close to the events we witnessed this past weekend when the Yankees beat Dellin Betances out of $2 million. And through the auspices of their president, Randy Levine, chose to brag about it, sending their Spring Training camp into a tailspin of negativity about the franchise, and for some, about baseball in general.

Whether or not it was designed to be that way, the arbitration system breeds contention and disharmony between teams and players. But before we expand on that and get into ways in which the system can be reformed or, if necessary, even discarded, let’s take a minute to look back at how and why the system came into being.

A Brief History Of The Arbitration Process

Before 1973, players were all but bound to accept the contracts set in front of them because the constraints of the reserve clause prevented free agency. Unable to get what they wanted which was a full free agency clause in the bargaining agreement, the players fought long and hard for arbitration to decide a player’s salary. In 1973, the owners finally succumbed to the players, citing numerous holdouts as the central reason, and arbitration was born by a vote of 25-2.

The lone dissenting votes were cast by Charlie Finley and Dick Meyer, an expert on baseball labor issues and a consultant to the owners, voted against adding the process. I’m not sure how Meyer warranted a vote, but the two men were outspoken in their insistence that arbitration would become a liability for baseball.

Maury Brown, wrote brilliantly on the subject in 2010 quoting both men:

"Meyers said at the time, “This will be baseball’s ruin.”Finley said something more colorful: “We’ll be the biggest [fools] if we do this.”"

In a nutshell, the salary arbitration process has changed little since it was put into practice in 1974. In a nutshell, players with three to five years of Major League service are eligible for arbitration. Minor clauses have been added covering the situations of other player types, but the main impact has allowed players like Betances to earn more than their team would likely pay them if the process were not in place.

Consider this, for example, in the case of Betances. How likely is it that the Yankees would have proposed paying him $3 million, which represents a 600 percent raise over what Betances made in 2016? Not very likely if the arbitration process hadn’t forced the team to come close to what their player would ask for.

More from Yanks Go Yard

At times, the system has been hilariously skewed such as when Tim Lincecum wanted a salary increase from $650,000 to $13 million in 2010, a 1,900 percent increase. Demands like that haven’t helped, but luckily Lincecum and the Giants were able to reach agreement on a two-year deal in which Lincecum received a $2 million signing bonus, $8 million this year, $13 million in 2011.

In a situation like what occurred with Betances and the Yankees, the two sides were not able to come to an agreement before the hearing date. In fact, it is not known if they ever even met to discuss a compromise. In a situation like that, with both sides dug in, only the worst can be expected. And as the saying goes, if anything can go wrong, it will. And it did.

Can The System Be Tweaked, And If So, How?

To begin, we need to recognize the reality that baseball is a business. And if allowed to, owners will pay their employees as little as possible for as long as possible to maximize profits. Therefore, the players, who provide the entertainment that reaps those same profits, need to be protected from such practice.

MLB doesn’t have to kick the arbitration can down the road. There are viable solutions that can fix the problem

The arbitration process was manufactured as a way to protect the players, but in many cases, it has morphed into a Gunfight at the OK Corral that often results in the bitterness that prevails following the arbiter’s decision. Here are two ways that the system could be altered, which might benefit everyone:

Give The Arbiters More Leeway

Presently, the judges face only an either-or choice in making a decision. In Betances case, for example, they could award either three or five million dollars. One proposal is to amend the current bargaining agreement, which by the way, did not address the problem when the last minute agreement was reached back in the Fall. The amendment would allow the arbiters to come to a decision for an amount between the ones put forth by the player and the team.

Unless one of the arbiters is willing to speak publicly, it is not known if the decision in Betances case would have been different, with say $4 million indicated instead of either the 3 or 5 million dollar choice. But, at least the option would have been present for the arbiters in making their decision.

Do Away With The Hearing

Oral arguments from both sides need not be necessary. What good can one expect out of a system that requires a team to trash one of their players to get a favorable decision? Dellin Betances, for instance, had to sit there for a full hour and a half listening to the Yankees present a litany of reasons why he is not worth the money he is asking for. And, to add insult to injury, be called Dylan instead of his given name, Dellin.

Do it as the courts do. Each side submits a written brief containing all the elements of their “case,” and leave it to the arbiters to decide from there. If they have a question or two, a conference call can be arranged to get the answer with one person from each designated in advance to field the questions.

No drama. No gunfight. Finally, require that the arbiters submit a written report substantiating their decision for public consumption.

The trouble is that it’s more likely that both sides will kick the can down the road and nothing will be done because it’s too difficult and it’s easier to say that Betances was an aberration and it’ll never happen again. Pity the poor player who feels the pain next time, though. He could, for instance, be one of the Baby Bombers the Yankees are trying to develop. And maybe Greg Bird, Clint Frazier, or Gleyber Torres are wondering the same thing themselves now.

Next: Yankees & A-Rod: There's Something To be Said For Redemption

How can that be good for anyone?

Home/Yankees News