The Astros have defeated catcher Jason Castro in their arbitration hearing, Jon Heyman reports on Twitter. He’ll earn $5MM for the coming season after filing at $5.25MM.
This dispute seemed to be one of principle, as practicalities would have suggested a compromise with just $250K at issue. Castro had been projected by MLBTR to earn only $4.6MM in his final season of arb eligibility, and Houston seemingly felt it had already gone high enough in its negotiations. Indeed, the team reportedly took a “file and trial” stance with respect to his case.
Castro earned $4MM last year but turned in a disappointing overall campaign. Despite carrying a rare left-handed bat for a backstop, and receiving near-regular playing time in the prior two seasons, he only took 375 plate appearances. Already coming off of a down 2014, Castro did not post the hoped-for turnaround. All told, since his breakout 2013 campaign, he owns a .217/.284/.365 slash with 25 home runs.
There’s cause to think there could be more in the tank, of course. Castro has shown an average to above-average bat in prior campaigns, and did manage a useful .219/.299/.408 batting line against right-handed pitching last year. His strikeout rate remains a concern, but he’s succeeded with big K numbers before, and might be in line for some positive regression after posting a .280 BABIP.
Castro has also turned himself into a highly-regarded defender — see here for one recent evaluation from a statistical perspective, and read this on his framing. As a defensively-proficient, lefty-swinging receiver, he doesn’t need to do much with the bat to justify a prominent role, and the glove gives him a nice floor. Castro should still more than justify his salary, and his good power (.154 ISO in 2015) leaves some room for upside.
A point of rhetorical order: mediation and arbitration is normally done with another party, not against them.
Arbitration is an adversarial proceeding with binding legal results, unless specifically designated as non-binding. It can be, but is not always (by any stretch, or here), voluntary. Mediation is generally voluntary, and never involves binding results. (I.e., a mediator cannot dictate the outcome of the dispute, as an arbitrator generally can, with the force of federal law backing the decision.)
I am not suggesting that one side or the other “brought” the arbitration, but it is a process that squares one side against the other, so I’m comfortable with the phrasing.
Oh, and I’m always happy to engage in friendly banter over matters of legalese : )
It’s adversarial in that both sides get to make their case, and binding in that the player’s contracts require them to abide by it (they don’t get to play ball otherwise). We all sign so many binding arbitration contracts these days — you basically can’t get a doctor to see you anymore if you won’t. Voluntary or not? Kind of a distinction without a difference. My point is it isn’t really a legal process and in arbitration not structured in the peculiar way it is in baseball, the arbitrators don’t have to pick a winner, they could split the difference.
It’s voluntary in the sense that most all legal or arbitral proceedings are — if you want to just go along with the other side’s request, you can avoid the dispute.
It is an adversarial process, though, and it is backed by laws that enforce it. It comes about through contract, and contract rights generally are enforced by law. Arbitration is an alternative method of dispute resolution backed by law, which decides other matters of contract which are also fundamentally structured by law (generally, common law, with an overlay of any number of statutes and, in this case, the CBA).
You are correct that we are all party to many such agreements. If a player doesn’t like the result, or if you don’t like the result, and you go to court to seek a different one, the court will enforce the arb decision unless there was a significant problem with the process. (In that regard, it is roughly analogous to the standard of review that appellate courts apply to trial courts.)
Baseball’s unique version of it – submit a number, panel picks one or the other – could be (and probably has been) adopted in other forums. It’s all a matter of what the contract says (and, then, whether that is enforceable).
Bottom line is, I think it is appropriate to say that it pits one side “against” another. Really, it arose and is supported by law because it avoids strain on the courts and is a cheaper/more efficient way to resolve contract matters. Quite different from mediation, which is more like sitting down in front of someone who tries to help you work things out to avoid an adversarial proceeding (arbitration and/or trial).
By voluntary I was referring to the binding arbitration agreements we find in virtually every contract or agreement we sign these days. They aren’t truly voluntary when you have no choice but to waive legal redress you would otherwise have before obtaining some pretty basic service such as medical care. That’s a lot different than the situation for ball players, who are signing standard contracts under terms negotiated between the owners and the MLBPA. The players and owners have agreed to a very specific system of salary setting in its entirety, so the portion of this process that is genuinely “adversarial” is very limited and tightly defined, much more so it seems to me than the kinds of binding arbitrary clauses we in the general population are exposed to routinely.
Man, that is a loaded response. I’ll stick to your example of Arb clauses in medical care agreements vis a vi contracts balls players sign agreeing to Arb. (And I am assuming that you are referring to the types of contracts that hs and college players sign after the draft). First off, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract for medical care. (As an aside, ive had a few similar clauses asserted against my clients, and never has one been enforced – in my time doing biz transactions, I’ve only been able to enforce the provision one time). If you don’t like the Arb clause, you can go to another medical facility – which is located in your county, state, or country). Ball players do not have that ability. They must agree to terms that they did not negotiate. The mlbpa does not represent non members and until you sign a contract with an mlb team, they do not represent you. Ball players can’t find a reasonable alternative platform in their county, state, or country.
Just because the rules are agreed upon doesn’t mean it’s any less adversarial. Differences of 250k matters to these players, and are far more substantial. Last.y, the types of Arb clauses you see in your daily transactions are probably a very different bird (especially if they concern medical care) than player arbitration clause.
If you are worried about those clauses in your med care agreements, don’t be. Any, even if only fairly seasoned, attorney can drive a truck through those clauses.
I prefer not to hire attorneys for anything let alone for my everyday business, but thanks for the professional sales pitch anyway.
More than a decent raise for a player that didn’t have a very good year.
I think you meant principle, but principal sort of works, too.
Yikes. Fixed.
Not true. This process, in baseball anyway, is not a mediation it is an arbitration where each side presents its argument to the arbiter (or panel of arbiters) who then decide which side is right. If the team is at $5milion and the player was at $5.25M, the arbiter does not pick a mid-point, it’s either the low figure or the high figure. The problem with high value arbitration with wide dollar margin in what the team is offering versus what the player wants, is the player has to sit there and listen to the team tell the arbiter how ‘bad’ he is and why he is not entitled to the higher figure. It doesn’t sit well with most players and can sour a players view of the organization. That’s why some GM’s and organizations try to avoid arbitration with players they hope to keep around for a while.
A response to my post, I guess. Arbitration is a form of mediation. The rules for salary arbitration in MLB are a little peculiar given that the arbitrator can’t split any differences, yet it is still the case that nobody is the plaintiff or the defendant. The player and his team submit their number and arguments to the arbitrator, who makes a decision. The process is not for or against either party.
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution – not a form of mediation.
Arbitration can be either binding or non-binding. (Even though non binging are isn’t considered by most professionals to be arbitration, but rather a mock bench trial). The role of the arbitrator is to weigh the evidence and arguments presented by each party and render a decision based thereupon. mediation is non-binding. The mediators role is to work with each party to find a common ground for resolution. Mediators will work with each party to come up with a settlement, arbitrators render a decision and call it a day.
Arbitration is most definitely adversarial. The parties presenting the arguments to the Arb have conflicting interests and the arbs role in the proceeding is to render a finding for one party and against the other.
Jeff has a J.D. after his name, I do too.
I do understand these distinctions but my point is you don’t generally get binding arbitration unless it’s contractually required, and if it isn’t binding then either party can walk away from any proposed ruling or resolution. In that case how is arbitration different than mediation? I’ve had a bit of experience with mediation, and from what I’ve seen, if both parties to the mediation don’t agree before they start to accept the mediator’s solution after hearing both sides, then they are better off not even starting (and mediator will tell you so).
You are correct in that arbitration, binding or non, must be agreed upon by the parties – unless statutorily required of course. Arbitration, even non binding, is still vastly different than mediation. Arbs render a decision and go home, and even in non binding cases, they let the parties work it out afterwards. (As a civil trial attorney, I think non-binding Arb is a huge waste of money and only should be entertained in very specific cases) Mediators work with both parties for a mutually acceptable resolution/settlement. It’s a vastly different process and approached very differently by both parties.
Further, any mediator that’s worth their salt, knows full well that the parties do not agree to be bound by the outcome. The mediators role isn’t to decide a case, their role is to resolve it.
That’s not correct either. The arbitrator does come up with their own number. If what the arbitrator comes up with is below the midpoint, the salary is the team filing number. If the arbitrator’s number is above the midpoint, the player gets their filing number.
The reason why it’s a “winner take all system” is because the more each party stands to lose, the more likely the parties are to settle.
“In mid-January, each side to the dispute submits a salary figure to a panel of independent arbitrators. After a few hours of hearings, held in early February, the arbitrators pick one figure or the other.” — Baseball Prospectus
“During the salary arbitration hearing, both the player and the team will present their case before the arbitration panel. Following the hearing, the panel will choose between the player’s and the team’s salary offer. Because the panel has to choose between one of the two offers, the player and team are both forced to present reasonable offers as the panel will choose the offer that is closer to what they believe is the player’s true arbitration value.” — Sporting News
Well that’s not correct. Sorry Sporting News
Sporting news is actually correct. The arbitrator is going to choose in favor of the player or the organization. Depending on which bid is the closest to what they feel is fair. This is why the club and the player submit what they feel they deserve. If the club bids too low and the player is a little high but fair then they rule for the player. The same goes if the players bid is ridiculous they would rule for the club.
Imagine that.
As an attorney (and author of the best arbitration prediction model on the internet to plug myself), I deal with this on a fairly regular basis. What happens in these situations is that the panel decides what the player’s “real” salary should be. If that number is at least a penny over the midpoint, the player gets his filing number. If it’s a penny under, the team gets their filing number.
This is how final arbitration works. You’re not arguing that the player is worth the filing number, you’re arguing he is worth something above/below the midpoint. A minor difference, but very important in practice.
Wrong
You belabor the fact that jason. Is a good study for pitchers but as much as like him i am not so foolish as to think he is worth thAt kind of money
Astros could have let him go and done something else behind the plate, so they obviously disagree. We saw several backup/platoon types sign for 3-4 mil this winter, and it’s plenty arguable he’s better than all of them.
The whole file and trial strategy needs to be abandoned. The whole purpose of pendulum (winner take all) arbitration is to induce settlements.
Now for this case it really doesn’t matter as the money on the line is minimal, but someone like Chapman should, in theory, never be going to trial as either party stands to lose millions.
I’ve read what you posted above, and generally, I think we agree on most. Maybe I’m not entirely clear on your position. You state that the File and trial needs to be abandoned. And that the purpose of having the resolution be governed by binding Arb is to endure settlements. To that I agree in part and disagree on part. I agree that the specter of Arb is intended to induce settlements – and most cases do settle. If your position is that settlement is a good thing (generally speaking of course), then I agree. I would also agree that if a teams position is solely to file and trial, then they need to seriously reconsider that position.
But practically speaking, both the team and agent should have done their due diligence in substantiating their Arb claims – and should be done prior to negotiation. So the data to support each sides claim has already been compiled. The question comes down to whether or not they should take the file and trial approach in that particular case. I think my rule of thumb would be: if 4x the cost of going to Arb less than 40% of the cumulative disputed amount, then we go to Arb.
I agree with you that a case like chapman, should prob never see arbitration.