What Can the MLBPA Do About Ozzie Albies’ Deal?
Earlier this month, Braves franchise building block Ozzie Albies agreed to an eyebrow-raising extension that was widely considered to be among the most team-friendly in recent baseball history.
There was already speculation that the deteriorating state of free agency appeared to be incentivizing extensions, but Albies’ deal was shocking even given those concerns. Veteran baseball scribe Jeff Passan went so far as to say that the deal was being considered in major league circles as “among the worst ever for a player.” That leads to a number of uncomfortable questions about how these deals are to be handled in the future – by players, by the league, and by the Major League Baseball Players’ Association.
Let’s start with Albies’ representation, an agency called SportsMeter. According to MLB Trade Rumors’ Agency Database, Albies is among the agency’s more marquee clients, with the firm also representing Craig Kimbrel, Nicholas Castellanos, and Francisco Lindor, among others. (According to some reports, SportsMeter also represents Cleveland ace Corey Kluber.)
SportsMeter hasn’t had a great offseason. Not only did they negotiate the much-maligned Albies deal, but they have been unable to broker a contract for their biggest pitcher client, Kimbrel, despite entering the offseason with dreams of a nine-figure contract. That’s led to some speculation from former Brave Eric O’Flaherty that the Albies deal was part of an effort to land a deal for Kimbrel with the savings. Other players certainly haven’t been shy in expressing their feelings about it. Castellanos, who is headed for free agency, may have had similar feelings when he switched his representation to Scott Boras last week. Other baseball writers like Passan and Evan Altman have suggested that SportsMeter may have negotiated the deal now so as to obtain a commission before Albies decided to sign with a bigger agency. As Passan explained:
About a dozen large agencies are employed by a majority of players. These agencies, because of their size, do not depend on single commissions for the health of their businesses and thus are inured from the moral hazard that can influence those with fewer clients. At 5 percent commission, a $20 million extension means $1 million for an agent. The incentive, then, to do an extension can be strong for smaller shops — Albies employs one in agent David Meter — which also fear client-poaching from larger agencies. Even among the larger agencies, the concern over losing a client — and a commission — can compel extensions.
Executives know this. When considering players to draft, a number of teams bake into their valuation a player’s agent — and the openness to a potential extension. It’s a small factor. It’s a very real one, too.
But while that kind of speculation is natural given Albies’ deal, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the agency from a legal perspective. That’s because negotiating an under-market deal for Albies just to land Kimbrel a contract, or to obtain a commission, would be wildly unethical and almost certainly illegal, as we’ve discussed before.
In fact, SportsMeter is a fairly well regarded agency, even if it is small. How small? Their Twitter isn’t verified and has fewer followers than I do. Their website is, shall we say, sparse. But despite this, the agency has an impressive record, most notably with respect to endorsement deals. The agency is helmed from Florida by David Meter, an attorney who is no neophyte in the MLB contract game.
Let’s assume that SportsMeter didn’t do anything intentionally untoward; that doesn’t change the fact that they negotiated a really bad deal for Albies. Now, Albies may well be happy with the deal – after all, he’s the client, and (at least in theory) had to approve the contract. He certainly had to sign it after it was agreed upon. So even if Meter recommended against signing it, Albies could well have ordered him to accept it. But the fact remains that Albies appears positioned to make substantially less over the course of his career than he might have had he waited for free agency, or for the raises he would like have enjoyed in arbitration.
The biggest wild card here is the MLBPA, the entity that authorizes and accredits agencies. In response to your questions, no, the MLBPA doesn’t have authority to cancel a player’s contract; that kind of power would have to be negotiated into the Collective Bargaining Agreement. But agents of major league players have to follow regulations in order to maintain their licensures, and those regulations do include some rules potentially applicable here. For instance, we have Rule 5(D), which governs the quality of representation that agents are required to provide.
The MLBPA expects each Player Agent and Expert Agent Advisor who has been granted certification to represent or assist in representing Players and each Applicant seeking certification, to carry out Player representation services with the highest degree of professional competence and integrity. Toward that end, Player Agents, Expert Agent Advisors, and Applicants seeking Certification must take the necessary steps to become knowledgeable about the history and business of Major League Baseball and the MLBPA, including their collective bargaining agreements, the Major League Rules affecting Players, these Regulations, data relating to Player salaries and benefits, negotiating techniques, and all relevant legal requirements.
That all makes perfect sense – an agent is supposed to represent their client competently and in good faith. And yet the regulations do make clear that agents have a duty to the MLBPA as well:
To provide the MLBPA, upon request, with all documents, information and materials the MLBPA deems relevant with respect to any inquiry concerning these Regulations or the Basic Agreement and in all other respects to cooperate fully with the MLBPA in its representation of Players, and to consent to arbitration under Section 7 of any dispute with the MLBPA concerning the production of such documents, information and materials, including any claim of privilege;
If the MLBPA’s representation of players is intended to increase salaries, then theoretically Rule 5(B)(11) bars an agent from cooperating with a team to “undermine” a player. And Rule 5(B)(13) adds that an agent can’t agree to a provision which would undermine the CBA.
No Player Agent, Expert Agent Advisor or Applicant shall negotiate or agree to, or attempt to negotiate or agree to, any provision that purports to have the effect of eliminating or reducing any Player right or benefit contained either in any collectively bargained agreement between the Major League Baseball Clubs and the MLBPA, or in the Uniform Player’s Contract of a Player.
What all of this means is that an agent isn’t allowed to negotiate a contract on his client’s behalf that is bad for players’ rights. If Scott Boras negotiated a contract wherein Bryce Harper agreed to sign with the Dodgers for the league minimum, that would violate the Rules even if Harper was just fine with it. And the Rules allow the MLBPA to suspend or strip an agent of their certification at the union’s sole discretion for any violation of the rules, including everything from a lack of competence to undermining the union. (It’s also worth noting that agents are covered by a variety of state laws, and attorney agents are governed by legal ethics rules.)
So no – the MLBPA can’t nix the Albies contract, even if it wanted to do so. But what the union could do is nix SportsMeter – or, more precisely, nix Meter’s certification. Certifications and licensures follow individuals, not companies. It’s worth noting, because it’s a powerful tool the union has yet to utilize. There is nothing preventing the union from terminating or suspending the license of an agent who negotiates a deal that is detrimental to players as a whole, because that would – technically speaking – violate the rules.
But that’s the type of expansive application we’ve not yet seen from the MLBPA, for a few reasons. For one thing, there’s the problem of how you make the determination that a contract has damaged players overall. For those who argue that Meter should lose his agent certification as a result of the Albies deal, the question is what the ramifications would be. What, exactly, makes a deal “undermining” to players’ rights as a whole? Would we be imputing a requirement that all players must always seek the most money in a contract? If so, how do we differentiate between total value and average salaries? Are we eliminating the ability of players to give hometown discounts? If not, are we saying only egregious cases merit this kind of discipline? And if so, what makes a case egregious? Not every case will be as cut-and-dried as Albies’ is. And yet, even here, it seems Albies is satisfied with his contract. Is it really the place of the union to substitute its own judgment for that of its players?
None of these questions have easy answers, and I won’t hazard guesses to them here. Until and unless we have a clear, cut-and-dried case of self-dealing or the like, merely agreeing to an under-market deal isn’t the kind of thing that merits the loss of agent certification without opening a pretty big can of gagh. It’s just one more thing that contributes to the disparity in bargaining power between the league and the players.
Sheryl Ring is a litigation attorney and General Counsel at Open Communities, a non-profit legal aid agency in the Chicago suburbs. You can reach her on twitter at @Ring_Sheryl. The opinions expressed here are solely the author's. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
When I learned that Meter was the agent for both Albies and Kimbrel, I nearly did a spit-take. How can a single agent screw up so badly with two players in such short succession? And in such different ways? Are there other deals he’s signed that indicate he is a competent agent?
I think the original Kimbrel extension was pretty good:
“The Braves have signed Kimbrel to a four-year, $42 million contract that includes a $13 million option for the 2018 season. If the option is exercised and all of the potential bonuses are earned, the package has a maximum value of $58.5 million.
Kimbrel’s contract is the largest ever given to a closer who has not yet become a free agent. It also provides him the largest guarantee and average annual value ever given to any first-year arbitration-eligible pitcher.”
https://www.mlb.com/news/closer-craig-kimbrel-and-braves-agree-to-four-year-contract/c-67832212
That was signed when Kimbrel still had 2 years of Arbitration left too.
What can mlbpa do about the albie’s deal?
What can mlb do about all the awful long term, over payments to useless players?
The market is correcting itself. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody’s head. The kid is happy because he and his family is set for life.
Let’s see if Ozzie is still as happy in 6 years time.
The market is not correcting itself. The inefficient veteran deals was the price the owners had to pay to get young players during their prime super cheap. The “market correction” means that now both young and old players can’t get paid with the exception of a few elite guys with hall of fame talent in their mid to late 20s.
Yes those veteran deals were not efficient but that’s a price you have to pay if you want artificially low young player salaries. I mean MLB owners can have their free market, make it like soccer where anyone is a free agent and 19 yo superstar prospects can make 15 mil a year…
That doesn’t really make sense. Old players were overpaid for three reasons: (1) dumb GMs, (2) owners lacking impulse control, (3) the PED era badly skewed expectations for how players would perform past age 30.
I have no idea where people get the idea the league is balancing out. These players give 6 whole years of being unable to sign big, long-term deals because of renewable contracts and arbitration.
I wonder if this is a product of teams being more sabermetric-aware and realizing how valuable youth is. If this is the new norm, I’d say allow these players to be free agents sooner so they can make what the market will bear. This feels like the teams are taking advantage of an old system that needs readjusting.
For instance, I don’t disagree that Keuchel is overrating himself a bit today based on the past couple years, but he couldn’t take advantage of his cy young form a few years ago.
What are the total player costs paid to pre-arb and arb players as a percentage of total player costs and how has it changed over time?
Your comment simply begs the question without that information.
Anecdotally, there have been a slew of record-setting pre-arb and arb extensions, as well as arb records. That is some evidence for the point that the “league is balancing out,” though a comprehensive calculation would be more helpful.
As for Keuchel, he did in fact have the opportunity to take advantage of his 2015 Cy Young form – the Astros offered him a 5-year, $90MM deal in 2016. He turned it down, and instead took his chances (his 2016 salary, $7.25MM, was a record for a first-year arb player).
“No Player Agent, Expert Agent Advisor or Applicant shall negotiate or agree to, or attempt to negotiate or agree to, any provision that purports to have the effect of eliminating or reducing any Player right or benefit contained either in any collectively bargained agreement between the Major League Baseball Clubs and the MLBPA, or in the Uniform Player’s Contract of a Player.”
Your Bryce Harper example seems to interpret this language much more broadly than the language can bear. The particular salary that Harper agrees to as a free agent isn’t a right or benefit “contained” in the CBA or the Uniform Player’s Contract, so I don’t see how your Harper example would actually violate this clause. The interpretation that agents can’t “undermine” the CBA also seems overly broad. The language above says only that agents can’t bargain away any right or benefit that the CBA or Uniform Player’s Contract specifically contains; they’re still free to negotiate deals that, in others’ opinions, might be contrary to the implicit policies inherent in the CBA.
It makes me wonder if there were just words missing, because if it had said “Bryce Harper agreed to sign with the Dodgers for less than the league minimum” it would make sense.
It’s almost as if Ring really does not understand law..
That can happen when one confuses feeling with thinking.
Ah yes, the random Fangraphs commenter vs. the person with the actual law degree. Who to choose?
For this post, I really don’t see any reason to use Ring’s law degree as a meaningful appeal to authority. There aren’t any references to statutes or case law or established legal principles.
Interpreting the language of a contract isn’t necessarily some mystical exercise that requires a formal legal background. Ring’s arguments – and counterarguments from some commenters as to why they don’t make sense, which I find far more persuasive – are all based on parsing of language and dictionary definitions of words.
That said, I’m not inclined to go so far as to say that she “doesn’t understand the law”. In a lot of her posts, it’s never clear to me whether she’s claiming “I think this argument would probably prevail” or “here’s how I’d argue this position if I was tasked to do so.” Clarity on that would be helpful, and my advice would be that she write posts here from the first point of view, since it’s largely a non-legal audience.
I do think, though, that a significant minority of her legal analysis articles here – I’d hazard a guess of about 20% – rely heavily on arguments that are somewhere between “extremely aggressive” and “bizarrely incorrect”. I put her argument in this article as an egregious example of the latter.
Yeah, Sheryl’s argument really didn’t hold water there. That rule clearly applies to explicit provisions. The key is a specific “fair” salary is not a “right or benefit” contained in either the CBA or Uniform Player Contract. I’m always interested in reading creative legal interpretations made in good faith (and I’m a practicing attorney), but that was definitely a bridge too far.
I suppose what the union could’ve done was not bargain away the earning power of younger players by giving up the right of draftees and international amateurs to sign major league contracts. Agreeing to cap signing bonuses worsened this situation and now they’re stuck in a mess of their own making.
What they can do, when the current CBA expires, is negotiate not just for a few veterans but for everyone who is and will be in the union for once.
Anyone that has ever had experience as a member of a union pretty much experience the same thing. Compensation isn’t so much performance based, but based on seniority. Members with less seniority and retirees quite frequently get the shaft during contract re-negotiations.
Can’t say for your state, but in my state, unions cannot negotiate on behalf of retirees.
I’ve never heard of a union bargaining for the benefit of potential future members at the expense of current ones.
And that’s how management beats the union, divide and conquer. Sacrifice future and past members to get yours now.
Except that pre arb players are current members. I understand why they don’t stand for minor league players but pre arb guys are union members even if they are not the most powerful group.
Btw the underpay young guys and overpay veteran model did work. However the issue is that the GMs broke that “contract” by stopping overpayment of veterans, esepcially non elite ones. This is smart becauee aging curves show that veterans are not that productive but it is endangering labor peace.
Now a new solution must come because the owners can’t decide to not pay BOTH young and old guys.
lt’s a misconception to say that was ever the bargain.
Nobody ever agreed to overpay anyone. That was never a thing.
They’re probably legally prohibited from doing so *at the expense* of future members, since they have duties to their members.
But I think the way to frame it is: we’re bargaining for benefits that future members will receive *upon becoming union members.* Like, there are no identifiable persons who will receive these benefits, but they are benefits that accrue to the union’s membership. They aren’t negotiating for a benefit that someone will receive today simply by virtue of being a potential future member.
Surely, a union can bargain for an entry level salary that new employees will receive?
As they have, every time. Minimum salaries go up in every CBA and pretty much every season.
Right. And so certainly the MLBPA can also bargain to eliminate arbitration, change service time calculation issues, etc. — issues that will impact future members. The question is will, not capacity.
Do you understand how this came about? I imagine you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t make such sweeping, uninformed and binary statements. The CBA evolved over the course of 60 years and in response to the original reserve clause, not taking this into account loses the context of why this has developed.
I’m an attorney and you have a wildly bizarre interpretation of what would constitute a violation of 5(B)(13). Your belief that taking a below market deal is a violation is misguided and not supported by anything other than your own opinion. That provision clearly deals with not diminishing or relinquishing any rights that the MLBPA have already acquired for the individual player in the standard and clauses of the Form contract. For instance if an agent agreed to a contract that removed the fringe benefits clause(s) or agreed to accept a clause that contradicted the terms of something that was collectively bargained for like health care benefits that would be a violation. Taking a salary that the Union believed was low is not, and would never be considered a violation, unless the agent tried to get the player to accept a salary below the league minimum. There may be good reasons to look more deeply into what happened but you’re literally making up arguments and misinterpreting pretty basic contract clauses to make a point that isn’t there. But that’s nothing new for you.
I thought this critique was completely valid and productive to the conversation… up until the last sentence, in which you made it personally disparaging. That felt uncalled for and undermines the objectivity of your argument (in my eyes).
Agree. But the last sentence does provide evidence that he is actually an asshole – therefore highly likely to be an attorney. Admittedly correlation is not causation.
There are many, many more assholes than attorneys, which means that someone who is an asshole is by definition not highly likely to be an attorney. I suppose I am theoretically biased because I am technically an attorney but I feel like few would argue with this idea.
Ok let move to set theory. If some people are assholes, and all attorneys are assholes, are any attorneys people?
Bayes Theorem!
I was gonna say, p (asshole|lawyer)= 1
No no no…
95% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
He/she is simply noting a troubling pattern in Ring’s behavior. Bad lawyers deserve to be called out just as much as bad agents do.
The Sheryl Ring Defender has logged on
She also had a post last year based on her belief about the old joke of a judge deciding that a horse with a pillow on its back was legally a small bird was a real court decision (that’s badly written: she believed the joke was an actual legal opinion), and another on how that Braves announcer could likely successfully be sued for saying of Juan Soto “He is — if he’s 19, he has certainly got his man-growth”
There was at least a third terrible legal opinion from her last summer I’m blanking on now.
Might as well link to the joke http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Interpretation/regina.pdf
Perhaps the one that confused “but for” causation with “sole” causation?
I too am a lawyer and in Sheryl’s defense most of what she writes is newsworthy and contains good analysis.
But if you are talking about one terrible legal opinion from last year that you can’t recall, that is undoubtedly the Lenny Dykstra article.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lenny-dykstra-was-indicted-again/
As you can see from my comment under the name Bat in that particular article, there were at least four major mistakes in the article…including but not limited to the assumption that Dykstra had committed the crime (the word “alleged” was never used in the article) and the citation of the criminal code of a state that had no relevance (Linden is located in New Jersey, not Pennsylvania).
Perhaps the problem is that Meg, the managing editor, and the other FanGraphs editors are not lawyers? If that is true, no one is qualified to review Sheryl’s legal analysis so she is flying solo on these articles (other than a review for typos, sentence structure, etc.) whereas FanGraphs has a more thorough review process in place when a writer is preparing to post (for example) statistical analysis of a hitter’s recent hot streak and the editors have experience with these topics.
FanGraphs may wish to employ – even if just as a part-time contractor – someone solely to review Sheryl’s articles that contain legal analysis to ensure the accuracy of the content. And that is not a criticism of Sheryl but rather a statement that quality is ensured when multiple people knowledgeable about a particular subject write and subsequently review an article prior to dissemination.
I mean, the point of employing a lawyer here to write articles is that she’s supposed to be the specialist. If you need an actual competent lawyer to do that, she’s superfluous
Well, I remember one article where she completely misunderstood the meaning of “protected class” and when called out on it, doubled down and insisted that it was a definition she dealt with regularly in her day job.
“The opinions expressed here are solely the author’s. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.”
Read the small print.
I am not a lawyer but I’d be annoyed as an economist if people around here made basic mathematical errors or inferential errors all the time, regardless of normative intent. That doesn’t happen often (hasn’t in the 5 years or so I’ve read this place?). I can imagine lawyers feeling vexed about basic mistakes about contract law or first amendment jurisprudence.
I get annoyed enough when people mischaracterize the discipline of economics.
I get annoyed when people characterize economics as a discipline at all.
Ok I’ll bite. Do you have a a problem with the core? I agree, Mas Collel leaves a little bit to be desired with regard to information theory but there’s plenty of specialized texts that fill in the gaps, and the proofs around noise and market clearing are good (my field). Those proofs have made people insanely wealthy as well, so the markets have spoken as well as the derivations.
Is your problem with axiomatic crutches in macro? Overaggressive clustering of standard errors and arbitrary lag terms with weak counterfactuals and omitted robustness checks (my current windmill in review)? Or do you have problems with the error specification process in structural models and the 8 people who can teach them and NO they won’t tell you how they got there?
or is this just a drive by by someone who got annoyed in an econ 101 course.
I think you have made my point. Thank you. But I will start with the self referential quasi scientific (but absolutely not) sounding jargon. Then move to the proof offered that some people became insanely wealthy, another non rigorous and retoactively applied proof of the soundness of your pseudo science and then end with the condescension and self important attack on anyone who isn’t an economist. Yeah that pretty much covers it.
you didn’t quite specify quite WHAT your problem was. Econ has a lot going on. Some things (Savage’s Theorems) are more defensible than others (clustered standard errors, again)
didn’t think that was quite fair so I expanded the comment a bit.
You haven’t even defined your terms. A discipline is “a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education.” This is a pretty broad definition which easily satisfied by the practice of economics. I’d go further and propose economics is a coherent discipline founded on axiomatic theorems that not only possess flexibility that allows vast application to fields of massive importance to society(I confess information theory and asset pricing are not one of those fields, but my mother thinks I’m important, as does my dean!), but also possess strength that allow construction of theory creating a relatively unified corpus of common knowledge with clear expectations and rules of evidence (unlike, say, social psychology, where there’s less unified theory).
What I get from your argument so far is that you don’t know the discipline of economics is (you’re not alone on the internet) and therefore lack focus to your critique. There are plenty of fair critiques of econ, you just haven’t outlined one. I gave you some free weaknesses with the goal for you to outline what, precisely your problem is, and then we could talk. There are a whole host of empirical results that classical and unorthodox economics have predicted (ie: CAPM, BAB, Sentiment and returns, Tirole and regulated dupolies, theory of the firm), but I just threw the “people use these models and make a ton of money doing so” as a classic means testing shorthand.
For this site, in particular, applying economic theory, particularly IO theory, and its statistical descendants (I think that’s Dave’s background?) allows us to gain insight into what firms should value in players. I’d argue, given the employment record this site has, that such theory has incredible value to the firms we care about. Indeed, applying some more advanced bargaining work (like in healthcare) could bring anomalies like the Albies contract into focus and create policy proposals that avoid these sorts of outcomes.
What a bizarre thing to say.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I do get disgusted when someone puffs up and calls someone else’s opinion wildly bizarre right off the bat and devolves from there.
So I thought I’d make a joke about attorneys, opinions, and small print. Clearly it wasn’t well received. *shrug*
“but you’re literally making up arguments and misinterpreting pretty basic contract clauses to make a point that isn’t there. But that’s nothing new for you.”
This. I cannot even imagine the author trying a case.
I think your analysis is right, but you’re being unfair. Sheryl is pretty clear here (and in most of her other similar posts) that there is probably no legal angle here for the MLBPA but 5(B) is one potentially interesting provision that could conceivably come into play. If MLBPA was your client and asked you, “Can I do anything about this,” you wouldn’t be doing your job well if you just said “no” without exploring this angle (though, certainly you’d want to be more precise than Sheryl was here in concluding that it’s probably not availing).
I miss Grow and Thurm.
We’re stuck watching Low-A now.
The question is what under market means. Albies was definitely under market but even the best first year player extensions are only about 10m more than what albies got.
So his agency did a bad job but even the best early extensions aren’t that much better. He shouldn’t have signed for that many years and that money but if a player wants money in his first two years of playing mlb the deal is always going to be team friendly.
This is a much bigger issue than this agents failure, the amount of team control simply incentivises players to take guaranteed money now signing away future earning potential.
Blaming agents (albeit this particular agent deserves blame) won’t solve that, the problem is the mix out of long team control and teams unwillingness to give away money to older free agents leaving only a short window to make money. If you miss that window you end up with nothing which is way many players especially from poorer backgrounds prefer 30-40m guaranteed right now.
If mlbpa wants to truely change anything they need to tackle team control but owners are not going to give up that easily if at all.
Nothing. Nor should they.
If the MLBPA wants to “fix” free agency and the early career extension boom that it’s causing, then they should better plan their next round of CBA negotiations.
While there might be concern among other players and the chattering class of the sports punditry about such a well regarded young player signing such an apparently awful deal, the appropriate action is to look forward at solutions, not backward at retribution.
“…And Rule 5(B)(13) adds that an agent can’t agree to a provision which would undermine the CBA.”
No Player Agent, Expert Agent Advisor or Applicant shall negotiate or agree to, or attempt to negotiate or agree to, any provision that purports to have the effect of eliminating or reducing any Player right or benefit contained either in any collectively bargained agreement between the Major League Baseball Clubs and the MLBPA, or in the Uniform Player’s Contract of a Player.
What all of this means is that an agent isn’t allowed to negotiate a contract on his client’s behalf that is bad for players’ rights.”
I’m not sure if I agree with this interpretation. I take “eliminating or reducing” to reference the rights of *that player*, and not its effects on the underlying politics surrounding the rights of *all players*. That is, that the terms of any agreement cant be on direct violation of the minimum standards set by the CBA. Seems to me that the second meaning would require a more direct language.
As per rules 2(A) and 2(B), player with a lowercase “p” refers to players as a group, and Player with a capitalized “P” refers to an individual.
I may be wrong in my interpretation though, my legal degree is not valid on the USA!
Everybody always wants to blame the agent, but crazy decisions in contract negotiations really are pretty much always about the client. I don’t think we have to look too far to see what happened here: Albies feels an intense sense of (apparently misguided) loyalty to the Braves, and told his agent not to argue. Any of these other nefarious actions the agent is accused of would be the stupidest possible thing in the world for them to do, and it just doesn’t make sense that THIS is the contract you’d be willing to destroy your agency and reputation and lose your license over.
And stuff like this: ‘he’s the client, and (at least in theory) had to approve the contract” is verging toward conspiracy theory land. Uh, yes, Albies approved the contract. What are the contracts you’ve worked on in which the client didn’t approve the deal?
There’s a difference between bad negotiating and malfeasance. If Meter just misjudged the market on Kimbrel, he’s not the only agent out there who got caught flat-footed. But if he dangled Albies on the cheap to score a bigger deal for Kimbrel, that would almost certainly be actionable by his client, and would set up a possible disciplinary action. But it doesn’t really make sense. Given how much Albies left on the table, why would the agent do that? Why not go for full value? There are two more realistic scenarios here…either the Braves successfully used their leverage to get a below-market contract and the player went along with it for the guaranteed cash, or the Agent really messed up.
Try this:
Albie asked his agent to look into a long term deal.
Atlanta wasn’t interested but to say “no” outright would be bad form. So they drafted a bad deal, sure to get rejected.
Instead, it was accepted.
Not every bad deal is a matter of malice or incompetence.
Different people have different value systems.
That’s fine as a hypothetical, but I don’t see why the Braves would not be interested in signing Albies to an extension, given his age, projections, and the fact that they just signed Acuña to a deal of similar length.
Of course it’s just a hypothetical.
Everything said about this case is just hypothetical and speculation.
Just pointing out that odd things happen in negotiations.
Unless someone comes forward to detail what happened during the negotiations all anybody on the outside can do is speculate…and scratch their head.
That hypothetical might well be incompetence, though.
Albies is coming off a serious elbow injury. Likely (I don’t know any specifics) the cost to insure Albies from a career ending injury is higher than a similar level player without his injury history. Because his current pre-arbitration salary is too low to buy insurance, Albies signs a long term contract and transfers this risk to the Braves. Presumably, both Albies and the Braves understand these risks. Perhaps this has contributed to the structure of the contract.
The Kimbrel non contract is likely the result of Kimbrel being a hard headed – this is what Im worth type of client, rather than what the agent wanted. Who knows if Meter advised him he was worth it, or just went along with it, or tried to talk him out of it. Ultimately, you are representing the client and his interests, you can advise but can’t make someone do something (nor should you). I generally think someone who is in the sports agent business and has had some success with it, is a savvy and capable person.
It’s not just Kimbrel’s demands in terms of monetary value, either. Teams want flexibility in their bullpens now, but he sees himself as strictly a closer. He won’t “set-up,” and thinks he’s going to be the single best option in any bullpen he’s in.
Pair that with the money he wants and the loss of a draft pick and many teams would rather not have the headache. Internal options may not be as good but at least they’re flexible enough that you can use them where they fit.
Kimbrel proooobably isn’t thinking this way but his per game option value is much higher the later into the season he waits to put pen to paper. There’s probably some optimal waiting period (and hey, maybe he should have signed already I don’t know), but it doesn’t seem too crazy that there’s a world where he makes more money by not signing until later in the season and then goes year to year, from playoff team that needs a closer to playoff team that needs a closer. I’m actually curious now if players can get more our of waiting to sign from teams that know they need help.
His per game pay is higher but it’s not like he gets extra opportunities for games later in his career in return for bypassing some now. Every day he waits is a part of a baseball season that he will never play in/get paid for.
There’s maybe a little adjustment for injury risk to be gained by waiting until later in the season but I can’t imagine it makes up for all the potential work time he’s missing.
This was shared in the first thread about this, and in my opinion, is worth looking into: Albies literally doesn’t understand what he signed. He doesn’t. He thinks he can get more money in ‘four or five years,’ because he left money on the table now. He specifically says it’s ‘good to know’ he can get more money during years covered by this contract. Look:
https://www.savannahnow.com/sports/20190411/ozzie-albies-atlanta-braves-agree-to-35m-7-year-contract
Albies’ complete misunderstanding of his own contact is worth consideration. Did he just not listen? Is he dumb? Was he intentionally misled by the Braves or his agent? Were these quotes just him misspeaking? Those are all questions that should be asked, and could get to the heart of this (and, for me personally, are worth talking about from a legal standpoint – is a contract binding if one side legitimately didn’t understand what they were signing? When does that become an issue, if ever?).
This is the most helpful comment here. Albies doesn’t understand that if he does well (which is the only way he would ever “make back money later”), he’s stuck for 9 years, not the 5 he thinks.
That’s … kind of a big thing. Has no enterprising young sports journalist followed up for clarification on what he meant?
That comment does seem concerning. Perhaps he meant that, if he performs well, the Braves might be willing to renegotiate the remaining years of his contract to add some additional guarantees at a higher AAV, in much the same way that Salvador Perez and the Royals renegotiated Perez’s contract a few years ago. That seems like the most benign reading of the comment, though I admit it doesn’t strike me as an entirely plausible one.
I didn’t even consider that reading! But it might be the most interesting one – is Albies under the impression the Braves will tear up his contract in a few years and give him a better one? And if so, is that something his agent or the Braves told him? And is THAT legal?
Maybe Albies just misspoke. But it sure seems like there are a lot of possible bad things from these comments.
It’s not completely out of the question if he performs well that he could work out another extension in 6-7 years that paid him more for the current option years by (again) giving a discount on some additional years at the end.
That’s my read as well. The problem is that it’s a pretty huge assumption, and even if it occurs will probably only replace a year or two of the deal … and only that if Albies is performing like a stud they want to keep well into his 30s. Perez’s deal tacked on two extra years that will take him up to age 30. The deal Albies just signed already takes him to 31. For him to get an extension that tears up years implies a situation in which the Braves would be wanting to extend him into his mid-30s.
Which hey, maybe they will. Who knows, maybe 8+ years from now pricey extensions for veterans in their 30s will be all the rage again. In reality of course probably not. And even so, none of that prevents you from simply getting FMV now rather than having to go through all the hoops he’s laid out for himself.
It’s just crazy to me that the agent couldn’t have even gotten Albies the same deal that Kingery got.
Just because the Phillies offered an asinine contract to an unproven talent, does not mean we all should have to.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Ozzie’s deal is comparable to Kingery’s for the first 6-7 years.
Albies: 7 year $35M (With club option for 8-9 years maxing out at $45M)
Kingery: 6 years $24 M (with club option for 7-8-9 maxing out at $65M)
Through 6 years, Ozzie will make more. If Phil picks up the option for Kingery in year 7, he will be owed $13M, bringing him to a 7 year total of $37M. $2M more than Ozzie. Since everyone’s argument on why Ozzie is underpaid is based on their opinion of how his career will pan out, I will give my opinion on Kingery. Kingery is a bust and won’t get that 7th year option, much less the 8&9 years. Kingery will make much less than Ozzie and will serve as a great example of why Ozzie’s contract was good for both the player and the team.
What would prevent the MLBPA from providing loans to players with the backing of a private insurance company? The teams are free to take out such policies to mitigate risk, why not the players?
For example the union loans the player up to one million per year, conditioned upon the player signing an insurance policy. Perhaps for 5% or 10% of Ozzie’s lifetime MLB earnings Lloyds would be willing to guarantee some minimum lifetime MLB earnings, say 20 or 40 million in Ozzie’s case. If the player retires without meeting that minimum, due to injury or lack of market, then they collect the residual and use that money to pay off any loans to MLBPA and maintain a very comfortable lifestyle. Of course the details and numbers would vary by how the insurance market values the players risk/reward potential.
The player gets the benefit of signing (financial security and additional cash upfront), with the potential for more lifetime earnings.
The MLBPA takes on no risk and more players opt for FA, increasing player share of revenue.
The insurance companies make fat profits.
The teams don’t get to continue extracting ever greater value from their 6 years of indentured servitude.
“Perhaps for 5% or 10% of Ozzie’s lifetime MLB earnings Lloyds would be willing to guarantee some minimum lifetime MLB earnings, say 20 or 40 million in Ozzie’s case. ”
These would be critical figures. Who would decide them — the insurer? MLBPA?
There are already private companies that do just that. Ms. Ring has written various posts regarding a lawsuit involving one such company.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/francisco-mejia-and-the-legal-limits-of-brand-contracts/
When is the article coming as to “What the Orioles can do about Chris Davis’ contract?”
Or how about “What the Angels can do about Albert Pujols’ contract?” Another typical labor-focused article here on Fangraphs pushing the “owners are evil and everyone just takes advantage of the players” card. It’s getting old.
Fangraphs literally wrote one of those not one year ago: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/how-the-angels-could-get-out-of-paying-albert-pujols/
But, please, continue on tilting at windmills. You are the hero that we need in these dark days.
He’s not the hero we need… he’s the hero we deserve.
Won’t somebody think of the Billionaires?!?!
Fangraphs does excellent work with baseball stats, but their pro pay the player anything bias permeates through most of their articles.
Can MLB revoke the “license” of a GM or owner for destroying a franchise?
Not in those terms but, yes.
Marge Schott quute publicly, for one.
Others, more quietly.
MLB is a effectively a limited partnership. They have factional disagreements in private and even in public but when somebody embarrasses the whole they can and will pressure “problem” owners.
Can do: Nothing.
Should do: Nothing.
Will do: Nothing.
If you want a free market environment then this sort of thing is necessarily going to be a part of it, as will players getting guaranteed paychecks while wildly under-performing.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand that MLB has nothing to do with a “free market”.
“Is it really the place of the union to substitute its own judgment for that of its players?
None of these questions have easy answers,”
Actually, that is an extremely easy question to answer. No, the union should not substitute its judgment for that of its players. Never. No. Wrong.
Yes, only someone with implicit faith in the wisdom of central planners would think this is a complicated question. Why we would think that the MLBPA is better able to look after Albies interests than Albies can is beyond me. Unless, of course, you thought that there was something anti-competitive going on like kickbacks from teams to agents.
What if the calculus is that he should just take the deal and then hold out if he dramatically outperforms it?
I know MLB players don’t typically hold out, but Albies’ and Acuna’s contracts seem prepped for it.
How do we know Albies didn’t demand this deal? This kind of money just guaranteed Albies and his family enough money for the rest of their lives, and several generations.
Yes, he could have held out for more money–money that would make no difference to how he lives his life.
Or, he could have risked getting nothing–for example, due to injury. Or perhaps only having one good season as past performance does not guarantee a superstar’s salary in 3 years? I don’t think the probability of failure is that close to zero.
He could have enough money for many generations signing away only 5 or 6 years, not NINE
What’s so odd about this deal though is it seems amazing that if this is what the Braves offered, that Albies’ camp couldn’t have come back and said fine, but we want those option years to be 14 million, not 7 million, and the Braves would’ve jumped on it, and/or had the 7 years be 45 million, and the Braves would’ve still jumped on it.
As noted elsewhere, you could double the money in this deal and it’s still a good one for the Braves.
My late father was a sharecropper in the 1950s and early 1960s when I was 21 years old my father still had a heavy influence in my life. If I would have been a 20-year kid with Albies talent and was offered 35 million the pressure from my dad to sign the deal would have been intense. I can hear him now, “boy, it is f##%#G 35 million dollars.” I would have signed the deal. The reason I bring this up is Albies came from an even poorer background. My dad got a job at a Michigan auto plant in 1967 and I had a great middle-class childhood. The point I am making though is I would have signed that deal, and I can’t blame Albies for signing the deal.
“Albies came from an even poorer background”
Did he? He comes from Curacao (roughly, Mexico in terms of development) but I haven’t seen anything about his particular circumstances.
My perspective as a lawyer and judge.
Imagine the following scenario, keeping in mind that his agent is bound to take all offers to his client, even if he disagrees with them.
Agent – Ozzie, the Braves made an extension offer, it’s way low, though.
Albies – I’m fine with that, tell them I’ll sign.
Agent – But Ozzie, I can probably get you an extra $25M, at least let me take a counter offer back to them.
Albies – No, I just want to sign it because (X).
The number of possible answers for X that make all of this make sense are essentially infinite…
– My relative has cancer, I need money immediately
– I’ve been worried my (injury the public isn’t aware of) is finally about to go and don’t want to risk it.
– Contract negotiations make me anxious, this is giving me a panic attack, make it go away.
– I’m worried about a relapse.
– All the men in my family die of heart attacks at age 27.
– My religious beliefs make being rich unimportant to me, I just want to be loyal.
And so on. As noted earlier, crazy decisions in contract negotiations are typically not the result of the lawyer. If this is the contract Albies wanted, I’m fine with it so long as his agent negotiated in good faith.
When you said “(injury the public isn’t aware of)”, you nailed it. It’s public knowledge, but nobody seems to realize Ozzie had a severe injury very recently.
Before I comment on this let me introduce my background: I am Austrian and have been following baseball very closely for the last five years. It took me almost a season to understand how the draft system, trades and waivers work, because here in Europe the professional sports system is quite different: it is not as school- or university focuses as it is in the US. If you want to practice soccer or basketball, you join a team. If you are good at your sports, a professional team might offer you a contract. The team that comes first or meets the player´s demands, gets the player – at whatever contract they agree on. There is no cartell or restrictions like in US sports, players can sign with whatever they want to sign. So they are free agents from the moment they start their career. When a player´s contract ends, he can sign with any other team. If Team A wants to sign player B from Team C and player B wants to join team A, then Team C can ask for compensation – whatever they ask for. This is how smaller teams make lots of revenues – they develop players and “sell” them to bigger teams.
No my point: many people here think that players who sign 45 million dollar deals are underpaid. While it seems almost obscene to me that a person making that amount of money could consider himself underpaid, there is evidence to believe so. If Ozzie Albies stays healthy and performs well, he might make double or even more. IF he stays healthy and IF he performs well. He might also just slump after 2 seasons or get severely injured. In both cases Mr Albies would leave the Show with his earning of 2 years of minimum wage.
So in my opinion players like Albies are forced by the circumstances of the CBA to sign such deals. I would certainly take 45 million guaranteed right now, if my options were to MAYBE get double in 2 years or MAYBE nothing at all (if I slumped, if I suffered an injury). And I strongly think almost anybody who does not come from a terribly rich family would do the same. Why risk life-changing money?
Players should make their peak money at their peak performances and the CBA and the draft system make this almost impossible for them. And this system is not only loopsided for the players – teams take huge gambles on draft day on the future performance of some talented players.
If you want to talk about a fair CBA, you have to talk about the draft system. The US are a free country, freer than most other countries in the world. Anyone can sign a labor contract with anyone. Except if you are a talented baseball player. The Bryce Harpers and Kris Bryants had to perform very well for 3 years in order to get somehow paid in arbitration – if Kris Bryant had suffered from a broken leg in year three, he would have never made more than minimum wage, despite having won a World Series with his team.
The CBA does not honor performance, it honors seniority. And I don´t think this goes very well with the big American value of freedom.
So what would happen if the draft slave market and minimum wages and arbitration system would be completely abolished?
1. The wages of minor leaguers would go up: as it takes a lot of at bats to turn a good college or highschool player into a MLB player, MLB teams would not sign players directly from school or college. Minor league teams would sign those players. The MLB teams would scout the minors and whenever they consider a player ready, they would pay a minor league team a compensation in order to sign the player. Minor league teams would therefore compete to sign the best college or high school players – these players would be an investment for the minor league teams. If they develop skillful players, they receive a lot of money from the MLB teams who actually sign them.
2. Players would make money in their prime and not past their prime. Younger players would earn more, veterans would earn less – their actual earnings would be a lot closer to their performance.
3. Teams would pay for performance, not for past performance. Albatros contracts would become very rare.
4. Service time manipulating would completely disappear, because service time would not matter anymore. Vlad Guerrero Jr. would be playing for the Blue Jays now and not for their farm team. Wei Yin-Chen would have never received a 80 million dollar deal when he became a free agent, he would have made the money earlier in his career. In both cases, teams, players and fans would profit.
5. There is a chance that only the big market teams would be able to compete for a World Series, because they would always outbid the smaller teams in the war for talent. On the other hand small market teams have always found ways to beat the odds – better scouting, developing new statistics, new strategies…
So why not think big and abolish this system completely for a free market system? It seems ridiculous to me that the MLPA does not represent minor leaguers – an union that represents a small amount of established millionaires instead of a big amount of minor leaguers who live mostly under the poverty level does not exist very often on this planet.
I understand that there are certain laws in the US that allow MLB teams to act legally as a cartell. But do these laws still fit into the 21st century?
Please excuse my not so perfect English. I really hope a discussion about a free labor market will start.
This contract is lower than his floor, with the exception of career-ending injuries like paralysis. If he got injured every year he’d still make this money through arbitration. As an example, Jonathan Schoop just got $7.5 million in free agency coming off a year with a .266 OBP.
This is a fantastic comment in better than normal English, and I have been saying much of the same. All of these rules manipulating the free market have served only to do just that, muddy the otherwise clear and efficient waters of supply and demand.
I largely agree with you, but at the same time it’s not double but maybe 5x as much that he should be making, and he would probably make about as much even if he gets severely injured or underperforms for a few years.
It does not matter if he could MAYBE make 5 times more – the fact is that it is not guaranteed until he signs it.
Career ending injuries definitely do exists, if this happens to him in his pre-arbitration years, he will likely walk away with almost nothing compared to the deal he signed. And didn´t he already have a severe injury?
If he gets severely injured AND/OR underperforms he might become a AAAA player – constantly being sent down and called up. If he ever reaches arbitration eligibility, he might be non-tendered. Then he gets invited to spring training and may sign a minor league contract which rewards him for being called up with half of what he would have made in arbitration.
His numbers do not say that he is a sure lock
Ozzie Albies second half stats from 2018: .226 BA, 4 HR, 31 R, 17 RBI
Miguel Rojas second half stats from 2018: .249 BA, 4 HR, 17 R, 19 RBI
Is Ozzie Albies a better player than Miguel Rojas? Of course!
Does Ozzie Albies have a higher ceiling and floor than Miguel Rojas? Of course!
Is Ozzie Albies a lock to be a Hall of Famer, multi-year all-star, or even to outperform this contract? Of course NOT!
Everyone panning the deal should take a look at Ozzie’s second half stats above from last year and keep in mind that he has exactly ONE full season under his belt, so he is far from a proven commodity. He’s also 5′ 8″ and 155 pounds. He’s also NOT Ronald Acuna.
I’m a big Braves fan, and Ozzie is one of my favorite players. I love the energy he brings to the game and am glad he signed the extension. He has a chance to be great.
But he’s not a lock, and everyone panning him and his agent needs to turn the volume down. He gave up the POTENTIAL to earn more in arbitration and/or free agency in exchange for guaranteed money to hedge the risk that he performs more like Miguel Rojas in the future and/or his small frame doesn’t hold up long-term. He did so of his own free will and on the advice of counsel.
He doesn’t need anyone, including the MLBPA and the author of this poorly written piece, to save him from himself or $35 million guaranteed.
I made a similar argument below, but also included he had a severe injury less than 2 years ago. Everyone’s argument seems to be coming from the notion that Ozzie is a lock to be a HOFer. Funny how your comment was downvoted, even though you seem to be one of the only people on here that knows Ozzie as a player and not as just a name and a number on a contract. Well I upvoted you to get you back to even.
Thanks! I see you’re comment now, and that’s a very good point as well. I love Ozzie, but everyone is acting like he’s the second coming of Joe Morgan. I hope that proves to be the case, but he is by no means a proven commodity or a lock to become one.
I mentioned your comment was down-voted when I got on here, but looks like it is gaining some support now haha. Makes my comment look silly.
There’s also the component that The Braves are projected to increase revenue dramatically over the coming years due to the Battery Development and hopefully a better TV Deal down the line. They would likely be able to rework the contract and offer more money once that comes to fruition.
actually caring about IFA and minor league wages and support structure so players are not stuck in terrifyingly bad leverage situations having to take this kind of deals.
All of these arguments are based on the notion that Ozzie must be a generational talent. He is a very physically gifted athlete with a lot of upside. But from watching this kid in every game he has played in MLB and some of his Minor League career, that upside has not been realized as much as you guys seem to think. First, many of you don’t seem to realize that Ozzie had a severe injury where he broke his elbow less than 2 years ago. Another injury to the same elbow could potential stifle or end his career. Also, though Ozzie had an All-Star first half last year, he was statistically one of the worst hitters in Baseball in the 2nd half. This season has been a microcosm of that. One week he is stellar, the next he can’t buy a hit and is swinging early in counts giving easy outs without driving up pitch counts to opposing pitchers. His defense does consistently show up, as well as his speed on the basepaths, but even when he is hitting well the speed on the basepaths is only so effective because his OBP is not elite due to inability to work counts and draw walks. Plate Discipline comes with time, about the same amount of time as his next contract. Or he could just hold out for a re-worked contract.
I suppose another argument that could support him wanting the guaranteed money is that he plays an aggressive style of baseball that could also lead to overexerting himself or re-injuring his elbow from short-sighted, aggressive attempts at making game-changing plays.
Actually, none of these arguments are based on the notion that Ozzie must be a generational talent.
The argument that he is underpaid is inherently an assumption that he will pan out to be a bona fide stud year in and year out. Based on his numbers spanning his MLB career, this contract is not beneath him. Since facts don’t support the argument that he is underpaid, the only thing that does support that argument is conjecture.
This is simply not true. Even as just an average major league regular, he would probably make about $15M-$20M in arbitration, and $10M-$15M/year in free agency, for a total of $55M-$80M over the life of this contract. Since Albies has already established himself as a well-above-average regular (6.1 fWAR in 239 games, or 3.8 fWAR per 150 games) at a very young age, I think it’s fair to say that the “facts” support the conclusion that he is not only underpaid by this contract, but massively so.
It’s touched on in the lower comments, but Albies is at a 97 WRC+ this season, following up a 100 last season. Perhaps he thought, “Before I get hurt or turn out to be just another decent IF, I’ll grab an amazing amount of money”? The contract is not commensurate with those signed by similar players, but the Braves might view him as nothing more than a mildly-worthwhile player, and were unwilling to offer more, no? The owners are winning these past few years, but can we blame Albies for grabbing a boatload of cash? I would have taken it, were I in his position (assuming there wasn’t more to be offered).
Are we getting a correction on this article? This seems like the kind of article that should be corrected… A note from the author at least? Surely the readers (some of them paying!) deserve more than a tweet about “comment sections”.
I commented on an obvious (and key) error/misrepresentation on a prior article by this author. No correction ever made.
For those of us who don’t use Twitter, what the heck are you talking about?
Well take a look at the true cost of players:
https://baseballanalyzed.com/2018/12/21/the-average-cost-of-the-best-pitching-performances-over-the-last-10-years/