- This topic has 195 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Burnes v. Milwaukee: How to alienate your ace for $740,000
Let us examine the curious case of the current ace of the Milwaukee Brewers, Corbin Burnes, entering his second year of arbitration. Per our counterparts at Brew Crew Ball, Burnes was the lone member of Milwaukee’s large arbitration class not to reach an agreement with the team on a new contract.Upon January 13’s deadline for exchanging figures, the Brewers filed for $10.01 million and $10.75 million, a difference of $740,000, slightly more than the cost of the minimum salary in 2023.
Considering that Burnes is entering free agency in 2025 and the difference in proposed salary was so relatively minor, one would think that the Brewers would try to work it out. After all, if barring a trade, Burnes was going to a Brewer for the next two years, why antagonize the man? The efforts to try and work it out was the narrative being pushed by the Brewers’ front office prior to the hearing.
On February 15, the hearing took place and the Brewers prevailed…and saved $740,000. Needless to say, Corbin Burnes was not happy and he made that fact publicly clear the following day to local and national media, after outright publicly denying that the team tried to make a long-term deal to avoid the hearing.
The following is four minutes of raw, justified umbrage that is well worth your time.
“You kind of find out your true value,” Burnes said. “You work hard for seven years in the organization and five years with the big league team, and you get in there and basically they value you much different than what you thought you’d contributed to the organization. Obviously, it’s tough to hear, tough to take, but they’re trying to do what they can to win a hearing.
“I think there were other ways that they could have gone about it and probably been a little more respectful with the way they went about it. At the end of day, here we are. They won it. But when it came down to winning or losing the hearing, it was more than that for me.”
Ouch. But the capper to this mess is Burnes’ assertion that the Brewers blamed him for not making the playoffs in 2022.
“[The team] basically put me in the forefront of the reason why [the Brewers] didn’t make the postseason last year.”
(Emphasis added.)
I do not know what is more shocking: that the Brewers would say that sentence out loud to anyone, or that an arbitrator would hear said sentence and think it was persuasive to deny Burnes his likely justified raise. We are talking about perennial Cy Young candidate Corbin Burnes, here?
After checking in with some in Milwaukee who would know more than I would, Burnes is the last person one would reasonably blame for the Brewers not making the postseason. Spoiler alert: the 2022 Brewers’ offense was about as potent as a pop gun and was quite middling against their own division.
I hope the damage control from that statement is worth the $740,000 in savings to the team’s payroll.
In a very real sense, I get what Burnes is going through. I am currently in the middle of salary negotiations myself at my day job. If you truly want to know your value to an organization, try to increase your pay and/or benefits, especially when you have leverage. My general moral is the following: If they say no, then it’s time to go! — which might be Burnes’ fate after the 2024 season.
In the interview, Burnes commits to being a pro and that he will go out there and do his best while having arbitration years to go. But he acknowledges that the Brewers’ conduct is a bitter pill to swallow when compared with his perceived loyalty to the organization.
If I were a Brewers fan, I would be absolutely seething at this outcome. Imagine if the Dodgers treated Walker Buehler like this or Clayton Kershaw like Burnes was just treated. It is utterly inconceivable.
Needless to say, I do not expect the Brewers to trade Burnes during the season unless the bottom goes out on that team. But based on what has transpired here, I would be genuinely shocked if Burnes suits up in mustard yellow and cobalt blue after Burnes reaches free agency. There will be plenty of teams lining up to try and sign Burnes in 2025.
Even before this arb hearing, it depends on whether or not one thinks the Brewers would be able to sign Burnes long term. Based on their history, I doubt it.
If he was ready to be a career Brewer, but this ruined it, ok. But does anyone really think that?
If one believes he is going to test the market, the Brewers might be better served to trade him anyway and get more in return than waiting for him to walk as a free agent in two years. That loyalty to the organization would disappear anyway when he is offered $300 million to pitch elsewhere. (And I wouldn’t blame him for it.)
It is too bad that some players get so worked up over losing an arbitration hearing. It was their choice to go that route. No one made them do it. The arbitrator reviewed the cases and decided one way vs. the other. That is the way the system works. They need to be able to deal with it.
I’d be interested to know the pct. of arb cases that are decided in favor of each side for the past 5 or so years and if there’s been any sort of detectable pattern. Anyone know?
Don’t know about your specific question, but read a while back that over the history of arbitration, the owners win more often, maybe close to 60-40. But the system has been a winner for even the players who lose their specific cases. The owners wouldn’t have been offering the salaries they do for non-free agent players if they weren’t bound to present something “reasonable” to the arbitrators.
Marvin Miller was a genius and played the owners…or got very lucky. To limit the supply of free agents entering the market in any given year like he did is a powerful economic force. Then getting arbitration for many of those not entering free agency was kind of like….eating your cake and having it too. Those were big wins from the very beginning. The system has remained top heavy though, favoring the good and very best. That’s not unlike all other sports and the entertainment industry in general.
Regardless of Burnes pending free agency in 2025, why would the Brewers antagonize arguably their best player over $740k? That sum is less than 1% of their payroll. I am assuming they would like to win some games in 2023 and 2024. To do that they need their co-ace at his best physically and mentally.
The alternative would be for teams to give some players whatever they want just to keep them happy. I guess players only like the arb process when they win. Some player is whining every spring. If they don’t like it, why don’t they change the rules?
In this case, was Burnes worth the additional money? Why didn’t the arbitrator think so? Did Burnes’ side put together a bad case? Was the arbitrator biased or incompetent?
Or what if the amount the team offered is fair? That sure seems like what happened.
No question that the arbitration process fosters a sense of accountability on the part of management prior to submitting an offer. Without the process, owners and management are entirely empowered to offer up an amount of compensation that could easily be recognized as unfair and I’m a blatant supporter of the process, Euro. However, when it’s claimed that the labor portion of the process is unhappy or that “their feelings have been hurt,” after the process has run it’s due course and a final decision has been made by a fair and impartial abitrator after careful examination of the entire body of facts submitted by both sides, I have more than a little bit of trouble conjuring up any sympathy for the labor portion of the process. If I willingly sign up to participate in an arbitration process that will decide a dispute and a decision doesn’t go my way, I’ll eat ’em and smile, so to speak, before I complain about the decision.
It works both ways. That’s what you sign up for when you go to arbitration. Burnes can cut his nose off to spite his face, but is that professional? If he carries a grudge, pouts all year long and has a bad year, he’ll dwindle away his market value. Who wants to invest big in a guy like that?
“But when it came down to winning or losing the hearing, it was more than that for me.” Sure, pal. Big boys need to be big boys.
Edit and PS: just read your last post, 1td. Agree 100%.
The Andrew Miller narrative needs a little context. As I remember it, Carlos Martinez signed a big contract and then couldn’t hold up as a starter. So, to salvage that contract, he transitioned from starter to closer. So in 2019 he was the closer making $12M and still dripping with hype, which trumped Millers $12M, so he was the 8th inning set up guy.
Of course, Miller’s career quickly turned into a crater with a pile of smoldering cash at the bottom and Martinez was not far behind.
The alternative would be for teams to give some players whatever they want just to keep them happy. I guess players only like the arb process when they win. Some player is whining every spring. If they don’t like it, why don’t they change the rules?
In this case, was Burnes worth the additional money? Why didn’t the arbitrator think so? Did Burnes’ side put together a bad case? Was the arbitrator biased or incompetent?
Or what if the amount the team offered is fair? That sure seems like what happened.
I am not disputing any of that. I am saying that if I am the Brewers I would conclude that giving a player the stature of Burnes the extra $740k would be well worth avoiding the inevitable fallout. If the gap between the two parties were several million dollars that would be different. If this was a middle reliever or a backup infielder that would be different. But this is one of their best players, if not their best player. This is a case of pistol meet foot.
And teams give players more than they are worth all the time because they feel that they bring things to the team that the statistics don’t account for. Molina? Wainwright? Carpenter? Those weren’t arbitration cases but each of those players received more than they would have gotten on the free market IMO.
It’s possible and probably likely that the Brewers thought their offer was already an overpay by $500,000-$750,000. I think that’s usually the way it works in negotiations- both sides end up at a number they aren’t thrilled with but can live with. But sometimes the sides are just further apart. The Brewers may feel Burnes was asking for a $1.5 million overpay according to market and they were only willing to part with half that. I’m sure they don’t want hard feelings with their ace. But they also don’t want to unnecessarily drive up the cost of salaries because they are running a business. I believe the arbitration process is the fairest way to do this. I don’t feel sorry for either players or owners that “lose”. It’s a system that works pretty well.
From what I’ve read in the local StL. paper, Helsley also harbors some bad feelings about the final decision made in his case. That’s okay, and it’s a perfectly natural reaction when anything doesn’t go in one’s favor. Especially when it’s something that concerns money or pride. However in my view, he should keep those feelings under wraps now that the decision has been made and not voice them to the press. He reportedly said, “You think you do some good things, but they still find ways to tell you that you’re not good”…If he indeed said that, I’d like to know who is they? The arbitrator or the team? Maybe after carefully examining his case the impartial third party came to the conclusion that Helsley’s perception of the good things he did weren’t as good as he thought they were? Moreover, he and the team both agreed to allow an impartial arbitrator make a final decision concerning the dispute. Now that the dispute’s been settled, simply take the baseball when it’s placed in your hand and go to work. And oh, one more thing… Not only were both of them very good ballplayers, but I’ll also maintain that both “Silent” George Hendrick and Steve Carlton are very smart men…
Haha! Way off topic, but if you want to get some perspective of how big and strong of a man Scott Rolen was in his playing days, there’s a photo of him in today’s StL. paper patting Albert Pujols on the chest as they’re both smiling and greeting one another on the field and in uniform during ST’ing in 2007. Rolen in close proximity to Albert in the photo makes the big, strong Pujols look almost the size of David Eckstein…
The Cards won the Cabrera arb hearing today. He gets $950K vs $1.15M. No report of whining and crying yet.
Hopefully he and PDJ will both play well enough to stay out of Memphis this year.
I am anxious to see that 100 mph guy from the Mexican League. Name escapes me, the Rule 5 guy.
Wilking Rodriguez, whom the Cards will have to keep on the 26 man roster all year to keep him. Who does he bump off the roster if he makes the team?
I see autocorrect changed Wilking to Wilfredo in my above post!
Who does Rodriguez bump out? Gallegos, Helsley, and Hicks are probably locks. And so are 2 of the lefties (2 of the 4 candidates). So that leaves 3 other pitchers. Stratton and VerHagen are both going to make it if they look at least serviceable in ST due to their contracts. So if Wilking makes it too, then I guess he’s pushing out Pallante and Woodford and Hudson to all head to Memphis as starters. But that will be too many starters at the upper levels blocking other guys. So one of 3 things is going to have to happen:
Scenario 1) We will have injuries. This is always quite likely. This creates opportunities for those 3 I just mentioned.
Scenario 2). One of (or more than one of) VerHagan, Wilking Rodriguez, or Stratton will just look bad and be cut. I think Stratton is the least likely to be cut of the 3 and Rodriguez would be most likely. Rodriguez is easy to cut because he’s the least expensive since he just goes back to the Yankees and they give us $50,000 for him. VerHagan is the most expensive to cut, but I feel that since he was bad last year, if he looks bad again the Cardinals will just lose hope and move on.
Scenario 3) Someone will be traded. We really do have too many pitchers on the 40 man who are all in the “usable but not great” category (yes Packy and JoJo, I’m looking directly at both of you!). Perhaps we find a trade partner who could swap us for a young prospect not on the 40 man with some potential but a long ways out. We’ve seen that kind of trade a few times before.
On scenario 3, I see it a little differently. As long as the “usable but not great” guys have minor league options, which they do, there is benefit in keeping them around. Most of the 40-man spots get used over a long season. Some of them do multiple times.
So if and when a better pitcher comes along, the next James Naile (last guy on the 40-man) gets bumped off. That could end up being Packy or JoJo. But unless they are no longer usable or their roster spot is needed, there is no reason to get rid of them.
But unless they are no longer usable or their roster spot is needed, there is no reason to get rid of them.
A chance to get something that we’d rather have is a reason to get rid of them.
Just want to mention that Wilking Rodriguez is not a Rule 5 pickup. The Yankees waived him. He’s 32 years old and has only pitched two innings at the MLB level, and that was for the Royals in 2014. I’m guessing that the Cardinals picked him up to throw what amounts to batting practice during spring training while the real bullpen candidates are still conditioning.
One other comment… Does anybody know of a player who passed up a lucrative contract from another team because the team he has been playing for was nice to him and always gave him what he wanted rather than taking him to arbitration? If Burnes keeps on pitching like he has been, the Brewers have very little chance of coming up with the money that it will take to sign him anyway. So, the Brewers might as well take care of their own business in the meantime.
mud said:
Just want to mention that Wilking Rodriguez is not a Rule 5 pickup. The Yankees waived him.
No and yes, but not in the last decade. Rodriguez was selected by the Cardinals in the December Rule 5 Draft. The Yankees had outrighted him way back in 2012 but had re-acquired his services last August. There was a lot in between.
I wrote about it here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.