Jose Bautista's arbitration hearing will be won by:
| The Club |  62 (35.84%) |
| The Player | 35 (20.23%) |
| They'll settle | 54 (31.21%) |
| He'll be traded before the hearing | 8 (4.62%) |
| No clue | 14 (8.09%) |
173 votes | 14 featured comments
Just for appearances sake I really doubt AA settles - he'll probably figure it's worth the extra 1.5m or so risk to uphold his integrity when dealing with agents.
I think the Jays will win but then again, the Pirates Ross Ohlendorf won his arby case despite going 1-11 last season.
I'm the only one who thinks Buatista will win?
Not only do I think he will win, I don't think it is a particularily hard decision for the arbitrators. For a one year deal the Jays shoudl take that in a shot. (Not that I would sign him for multiple years for that money... but for one year, he has already earned it...)
Just for appearances sake I really doubt AA settles - he'll probably
figure it's worth the extra 1.5m or so risk to uphold his integrity
when dealing with agents.
So if he argues for the team's submitted value and wins, AA loses integrity with agents?
I voted for Bautista winning. Just simplistically, you look at leading the league in HRs with 54 and you have a pretty good case. I think that's going to override anything else presented.
So if he argues for the team's submitted value and wins, AA loses integrity with agents?
I voted for Bautista winning. Just simplistically, you look at leading the league in HRs with 54 and you have a pretty good case. I think that's going to override anything else presented.
As I have said before, if it goes to a hearing, I anticipate that Bautista will win and the arbitrator will give whoever is arguing for the club a very hard time. We shall see.
I wonder how the voting would differ if we replaced one word in the question -- "will" with "should."
Given the current lead by "The Club," I think many people are answering the "should" version. If they don't settle -- which I think they should AND will -- I think it's bautista in a quick TKO.
So if he argues for the team's submitted value and wins, AA loses integrity with agents?
You must have missed the part where I said if AA settles, which is strange considering you quoted me.
Bautista's agent made the mistake of asking for over 10 million. I don't think the arb panel will agree with him.
As I have said before, if it goes to a hearing, I anticipate that Bautista will win and the arbitrator will give whoever is arguing for the club a very hard time. We shall see.
I think it highly unlikely the arbitrator gives anybody in this situation a hard time. From the team's perspective, the team is being asked to pay more than $10 million, which is a threshold level that only a few major stars exceed in arbitration. I doubt very much the team will be castigated by the arbitrator for not jumping willingly over the $10 million barrier for a player who has a total of one very good year in his 7 or so year career. Similarly, I doubt the player will be castigated when he set a franchise record last year in home runs while leading the majors.
I'd put some money on the club winning. Here's why:
The factors that can be considered by an arbitrator are as follows:
(1) player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;
(2) club’s record and its attendance;
(3) all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;
(4) salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.
Nothing in the criteria states that the only performance year an arbitrator can look at is the most recent year. Nor is salary arbitration a mechanism for redoing last year's contract and paying him for his contribution the previous year. It's a determination of an appropriate salary for the upcoming year.
Looking at Bautista's performance overall as a major league player, Bautista is a 30 year old in salary arbitration, with 7 years of service. Overall, his performance has been mediocre. With last year included, his career OPS+ is 109. In only
one season, 2010, has he had an OPS+ of 100. In only one season has he hit more than 16 homeruns or had more than 63 rbi's. In fact, in only two seasons has he played enough to register an official batting average. In the majority of seasons, he's been nothing more than a semi-regular player.
Looking at the salaries of other players with 5 years. Prince Fielder is in the same service class as Bautista. He makes slightly more that Bautista is asking ($11 million). But comparing Bautista to Fielder highlights the problems with Bautista's case. Fielder was a first round draft pick, who came 7th in the ROY voting, when he hit 28 homeruns his first year. That's the fewest he's ever hit, and Bautista never came close until his 7th season in the majors. Fielder hit 50 his second year in the majors, has had an OBP over .400 twice, an OPS over 1.000 twice, and has never had an OPS year as bad as Bautista's career average. He's received MVP votes (coming 3rd, 4th, 20th) in three different years, been an all-star in two different years, and has had between 648 - 719 PA's during the years when Bautista was largely a semi-regular player with the Pirates and Jays. The only thing that can be said about Bautista is that he has 1 Fielder-like season in an otherwise undistinguished career.
Bautista's claim to 8 digits is based entirely on one year. In only one year has he done anything which remotely favours him in the criteria which the arbitrator looks at. In almost every other year, not only did he not win awards, he didn't even play well enough to warrant regular playing time on second-tier clubs.
Aaron HIll is also in the same service class. Hill makes $5 million this year, and the Blue Jays are proposing 50% more than that for Bautista. Bautista is asking for twice as much. Hill also had one very good year in an otherwise undistinguished career. Bautista's career OPS+ of 109 is better than Hill's career 0PS+ of 97, but the difference is nowhere near the 137 vs 109 difference between Fielder and Bautista. Hill also won awards - in his only strong year. He was an all-star, received MVP votes and won a Silver Slugger, all in his good year. The next year he was one of the worst regular players in major league baseball. True, Hill's one very good year wasn't as good as Bautista's great one, but Bautista has to convince an arbitrator that his one great year in 7 makes him the same caliber of player as Prince Fielder, not a guy who's going to flop next year like Hill did. And the Jays are already offering him more than Hill.
Putting it all a different way - one of the things that guides an arbitrator is that he doesn't want to look absolutely foolish and never be used again. The reason that the Blue Jays are opposing $10.5 for Bautista isn't because they're unreasonable - it's because nothing that Bautista has ever done in his several seasons before last year signals anything remotely like an 8 digit salary. The Blue Jays know that, the arbitrator knows that, and the arbitrator knows Bautista's camp knows that. If the arbitrator sides with Bautista, and Bautista turns in a season like any of his 6 seasons prior to 2010, the arbitrator will be the guy who awarded 8 digits to a career semi-regular player who had one great year then went back to his norm. If he favours the Jays, Bautista gets a salary three times his previous one. The mid-point between the two proposals is 9.05, and he'd have to convince himself that there's a better than even chance $9 million is too little for a 5 year service guy with Bautista's career performance to be making for Bautista to win. I don't know how he'd convince himself of that.
There are a couple of more points I'd otherwise make, but I've droned on long enough already.
I think it highly unlikely the arbitrator gives anybody in this situation a hard time. From the team's perspective, the team is being asked to pay more than $10 million, which is a threshold level that only a few major stars exceed in arbitration. I doubt very much the team will be castigated by the arbitrator for not jumping willingly over the $10 million barrier for a player who has a total of one very good year in his 7 or so year career. Similarly, I doubt the player will be castigated when he set a franchise record last year in home runs while leading the majors.
I'd put some money on the club winning. Here's why:
The factors that can be considered by an arbitrator are as follows:
(1) player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;
(2) club’s record and its attendance;
(3) all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;
(4) salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.
Nothing in the criteria states that the only performance year an arbitrator can look at is the most recent year. Nor is salary arbitration a mechanism for redoing last year's contract and paying him for his contribution the previous year. It's a determination of an appropriate salary for the upcoming year.
Looking at Bautista's performance overall as a major league player, Bautista is a 30 year old in salary arbitration, with 7 years of service. Overall, his performance has been mediocre. With last year included, his career OPS+ is 109. In only
one season, 2010, has he had an OPS+ of 100. In only one season has he hit more than 16 homeruns or had more than 63 rbi's. In fact, in only two seasons has he played enough to register an official batting average. In the majority of seasons, he's been nothing more than a semi-regular player.
Looking at the salaries of other players with 5 years. Prince Fielder is in the same service class as Bautista. He makes slightly more that Bautista is asking ($11 million). But comparing Bautista to Fielder highlights the problems with Bautista's case. Fielder was a first round draft pick, who came 7th in the ROY voting, when he hit 28 homeruns his first year. That's the fewest he's ever hit, and Bautista never came close until his 7th season in the majors. Fielder hit 50 his second year in the majors, has had an OBP over .400 twice, an OPS over 1.000 twice, and has never had an OPS year as bad as Bautista's career average. He's received MVP votes (coming 3rd, 4th, 20th) in three different years, been an all-star in two different years, and has had between 648 - 719 PA's during the years when Bautista was largely a semi-regular player with the Pirates and Jays. The only thing that can be said about Bautista is that he has 1 Fielder-like season in an otherwise undistinguished career.
Bautista's claim to 8 digits is based entirely on one year. In only one year has he done anything which remotely favours him in the criteria which the arbitrator looks at. In almost every other year, not only did he not win awards, he didn't even play well enough to warrant regular playing time on second-tier clubs.
Aaron HIll is also in the same service class. Hill makes $5 million this year, and the Blue Jays are proposing 50% more than that for Bautista. Bautista is asking for twice as much. Hill also had one very good year in an otherwise undistinguished career. Bautista's career OPS+ of 109 is better than Hill's career 0PS+ of 97, but the difference is nowhere near the 137 vs 109 difference between Fielder and Bautista. Hill also won awards - in his only strong year. He was an all-star, received MVP votes and won a Silver Slugger, all in his good year. The next year he was one of the worst regular players in major league baseball. True, Hill's one very good year wasn't as good as Bautista's great one, but Bautista has to convince an arbitrator that his one great year in 7 makes him the same caliber of player as Prince Fielder, not a guy who's going to flop next year like Hill did. And the Jays are already offering him more than Hill.
Putting it all a different way - one of the things that guides an arbitrator is that he doesn't want to look absolutely foolish and never be used again. The reason that the Blue Jays are opposing $10.5 for Bautista isn't because they're unreasonable - it's because nothing that Bautista has ever done in his several seasons before last year signals anything remotely like an 8 digit salary. The Blue Jays know that, the arbitrator knows that, and the arbitrator knows Bautista's camp knows that. If the arbitrator sides with Bautista, and Bautista turns in a season like any of his 6 seasons prior to 2010, the arbitrator will be the guy who awarded 8 digits to a career semi-regular player who had one great year then went back to his norm. If he favours the Jays, Bautista gets a salary three times his previous one. The mid-point between the two proposals is 9.05, and he'd have to convince himself that there's a better than even chance $9 million is too little for a 5 year service guy with Bautista's career performance to be making for Bautista to win. I don't know how he'd convince himself of that.
There are a couple of more points I'd otherwise make, but I've droned on long enough already.
I take Bautista's side because we're evaluating his 2011 salary, not his 2004 salary. This is a one year contract, there is little risk for the team. I mean, if his career was to end in 2011, he'd be the big loser, not the Blue Jays. It should be a no brainer.
AA knows what he is doing when it comes to these sorts of things..
The Jays and Toronto media have sort of bragged about how AA has such a strong understanding of how arbitration works. If i recall correctly, this was part of the reason they brought in Dana Brown...
It would like kind of bad if AA we're to lose this... The difference is pretty insignificant, 3 million in todays marketplace seems to be small potatoes..... But after talking about arbitration valuation's as a strength, to lose your first case would look A LITTLE bad... And if AA we're JPR, Griffin and Elliot would talk about it for years to come...
The Jays and Toronto media have sort of bragged about how AA has such a strong understanding of how arbitration works. If i recall correctly, this was part of the reason they brought in Dana Brown...
It would like kind of bad if AA we're to lose this... The difference is pretty insignificant, 3 million in todays marketplace seems to be small potatoes..... But after talking about arbitration valuation's as a strength, to lose your first case would look A LITTLE bad... And if AA we're JPR, Griffin and Elliot would talk about it for years to come...
The arbitrator from what I understand is someone that is not a baseball fan and vaguely familiar with baseball. Would it be incorrect to think the use of advanced statistics and metrics may confuse the arbitrator? Home runs for even the least of baseball fans is a fairly understandable event and easy to gauge how important home runs are--so I'd have to think that that will be Bautista's main leverage. That he was the player who caused the most meaningful events an offensive player can contribute, and he did this 54 times, more than any other player. And that only a few players in history have accomplished this.
This, on top of the service time Bautista has already accumulated is why I think he will win arbitration. I don't think it's the arbitrators decision to decide how likely Bautista is to repeat his performance--simply what he has done up to this point and what kinds of players have done this as well and how much they made.
And it's Jay Sartori that's the arbitration/salary whiz.
Great comments and analysis on the situation and why people voted the way they did.
I voted for a trade before the hearing. As everyone knows the hearing has been postponed. The postponement has been confirmed by AA and as far as I KNOW AA has not said why and when. So all the votes before the knowledge of the postponement were cast with incomplete information. It seems something is a foot. I enjoyed saying that.
Its possible that AA & JB's camp are having difficulty interpreting the submitted amounts and the complexities of the Arb process. Then again maybe not.
So it is possible that a trade is in the works. The trade option has been proposed by many Bauxites. If that is the case then:-
1) AA has his price which IMO he probably set at the winter meetings.
2) JB has his price $ & #yrs for a long term deal.
3) Both AA & JB have given their deadlines regarding the contract & policy factors.
4) Important final details are probably what the extension is for.
Well that is my take on this. I am probably completely wrong. Again!!!
I voted for a trade before the hearing. As everyone knows the hearing has been postponed. The postponement has been confirmed by AA and as far as I KNOW AA has not said why and when. So all the votes before the knowledge of the postponement were cast with incomplete information. It seems something is a foot. I enjoyed saying that.
Its possible that AA & JB's camp are having difficulty interpreting the submitted amounts and the complexities of the Arb process. Then again maybe not.
So it is possible that a trade is in the works. The trade option has been proposed by many Bauxites. If that is the case then:-
1) AA has his price which IMO he probably set at the winter meetings.
2) JB has his price $ & #yrs for a long term deal.
3) Both AA & JB have given their deadlines regarding the contract & policy factors.
4) Important final details are probably what the extension is for.
Well that is my take on this. I am probably completely wrong. Again!!!