Tom, while I really enjoyed your letter and agreed with a majority of it, I did not agree completely.

First, you state that the Teams aren't protected. Why would the MLBPA protect the teams? They are there to protect the Players. It's a UNION. The Teams/Owners are the Bosses of the Company (MLB). Unions don't work to make sure that the company is protected against their Union members, that goes against why Unions were formed in the first place. If you were simply referring to the RULE ITSELF not protecting the Teams/Owners, then that is something that the Owners should have thought about while negotiating the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement). If the Players out negotiated them on this point, good for them. The Owners could always bring it up again in the next agreement.

Second, while I DO think that there is something strange about the MLBPA protecting A-Rod from himself in this situation, they're not so much protecting HIM as they are protecting their right to protect ALL of their members (I think it was Doug Pappas who mentioned that for possible arbitration hearings in the future, if you've never allowed it, there are no exceptions).

A-Rod has the power (read: ability, name recognition, salary, performance, etc.) to move forward either way in this situation, but lesser-knowns don't have the same pull as the superstars.

Manny can go out and say what he wants . . . chances are that he'll still be in the starting OF (even if he gets a slap on the wrist for a few games). The same applies to Barry, Sammy, etc. . . . but what about the Toby Halls or even the Drew Hensens?

For that matter, what about the guys toiling in the minors hoping for their ONE CHANCE at the show. Do you think they'd risk saying no to a pay cut if it meant losing possibly their ONLY chance to stick in the major leagues?

The MLBPA is making sure that this doesn't become a standard negotiation tactic between Owners and Players. If it's allowed once, then chances are it will be allowed again. You say that is should be OK as long as EVERYONE agrees, but what if a Player feels that they have to agree, even reluctantly? For a real-world analogy: given the choice of a layoff or a paycut, most people would take the paycut. They don't WANT to, but they sure like getting having a job, so they "agree".

The one thing that I completely agree with is that it's far from perfect.

Matthew,

I hear what you are saying, but I disagree to some extent. Firstly, I was talking about the Rule itself and not that the MLBPA was supposed to protect the teams. I don't think that the argument that if the players out negotiated the teams that's a bonus for them. What if some loophole was found that the owners had a leg up on the players? Should we say, well good for the teams, they out negotiated the players? I feel that it should be fixed rather than just chalking it up to negotiation tactics. And as I mentioned, I do agree that they should not bend the rules in the A-Rod case as to set a precedent. I stated that I feel the MLBPA did what was correct.

Also, I'm glad you brought up Drew Henson. That's a perfect example. Drew Henson, stuck in the minor leagues. Why? Because no one will take on the contract he has signed. Has his value decreased? I would say it has. He has not performed up to what was expected. So the kid has two options, wait until the end of the contract and go play football, or try to sign on elsewhere after his contract is over with the Yankees.

I'm positive that someone would pick him up if he were a cheaper, or priced more to his current value than what he was signed for. But due to this rule in place, he feels now he's going to have to play football. The question is, would he rather be playing baseball? If yes, then he should be able to renegotiate a contract somewhere else worth his value if someone wants to pick him up.

Henson has a fallback, he can play football. Others don't. So, they ride out their time in the minors and then are never heard from again, when another team may, or would pick them up if they were more priced to their value.

I think that maybe the rule needs to be changed to reflect a certain level in salary. Obviously the higher it would be set, the less it would hurt the "smaller contract" guys. If a guy is making 3 mill and wants to negotiate to 2 mill, that's not nearly as bad as the guy making just above league minimum stuck somewhere and not getting his shot that he could get elsewhere.

I don't know, I get brainsmoke coming out of my ears the more I think about it. Definitely though, I strongly feel that a downward shift in salary should be allowed somehow provided all parties agree. There are players that this would actually benefit. A-Rod's situation has brought this to the forefront.

My take on the MLBPA's action in blocking the re-negotiation of A-Rod's contract:
The MLBPA did the right thing. But I'm not sure they did it for the right reason.

When a club signs a player to a big $$, long-term deal, and that player doesn't perform, there is little sympathy for the club. And there shouldn't be (unless there was an unfortunate injury, perhaps). The team didn't do their homework, and now they're stuck.
Now for some reason the opposite doesn't seem to hold. A player should get no sympathy if he didn't do HIS homework and gets stuck in a bad situation after signing a contract. It doesn't matter what management told him at the time. Scott Rolen did not believe the Phillies when they told him they would commit to a competitive team, and he turned down a lucrative longterm deal.

In A-Rod's case, he should have known two things when he signed that contract: He would be virtually untradeable, and that his salary would most likely hamper the Rangers' ability to pay for other top quality players (although the Rangers have not spent wisely in any case. In fact, his own contract should have been a signal to A-Rod about the Rangers' spending habits).
So when things haven't worked out, why should we or the MLBPA feel that A-Rod should be allowed to bend the rules to leave a bad situation?

Re: Drew Henson. He's still getting paid more than he's worth, so one's sympathy for his situation is qualified.
But no matter the level of player, when it comes to being able to change teams they need to understand one thing: When you sign a contract, you should be able to estimate the performance level you need to maintain to justify that $$ in the baseball marketplace. If you don't perform to that level, you will be considered overpriced, and perhaps untradeable (or stuck on the bench or in the minors).

So, A-Rod should not be allowed to change his contract to let him leave a bad situation. Both sides sign the deal, and both sides should be responsible for knowing what they are agreeing to.
Smart players often take less $$ to go to a good organization, and that's one reason why some clubs seem to be able to attract free agents while others don't. It's not just $$. It's the caliber of the organization. A-Rod took the $$.

Thanks,

p.s. One question I do have: Is the value of a contract in the eyes of the MLBPA the per annum value, or the overall $$ value? If it's the overall value, couldn't a club simply add years to a contract at no change to the overall $$? From a budget standpoint at least, it makes A-Rod less expensive.