Mailbag: Salary arbitration 101

看板Astros作者mysunny (Geo. is everywhere)時間17年前 (2007/01/23 18:25)推噓3(3推 0噓 3→)

留言6則, 2人參與討論串1/1

01/22/2007 12:52 PM ET Mailbag: Salary arbitration 101 Astros beat reporter Alyson Footer answers fans' questions By Alyson Footer / MLB.com From http://tinyurl.com/338uoc =============== The baseball world lost a good friend on Saturday, when Vern Ruhle passed away after a nearly year-long battle with cancer. He impacted hundreds during his three decades as a player and coach, and his contributions to the Astros in both capacities have never been forgotten. I had the privilege of spending ample time with Ruhle from 1997-2000 when he was the Astros pitching coach, and I appreciated his candor, wit and willingness to share his vast pitching knowledge with anyone who asked. He was loved in Houston, and he'll be greatly missed. 在上星期六，棒球界失去了一名重要的夥伴， Vern Ruhle與癌症病魔搏鬥多年後，與世長辭。在他30年的球員與教練生涯中，他影響無數人們，他過去在太空人隊的貢獻會被大家緬懷。我有幸在 1997-2000年與當時擔任太空人投手教練的 Ruhle 共事一段期間，我很欣賞他向請教的後進分享自己淵廣的投球學問時，表現出來的坦率、風趣、與樂意。他被休士頓的大家所熱愛，會被永遠緬念。 While I do understand the basic principles of salary arbitration, I do wonder how it's possible that someone such as Brad Lidge, who had such a bad year in 2006, can still get a raise? What happened to earning what you're worth? -- Joshua C., Brimfield, Ill. 問︰我雖然知道薪資仲裁的基本原則，但是我想知道像 Lidge 這樣在2006年投得七零八落的球員也有可能加薪的可能？賺多少不是要符合身價嗎？ Judging from the e-mails I've received after Lidge's contract was announced, I sense there is some confusion regarding what arbitration is and how the process works. So, in the simplest terms possible, let's review the basics. 答︰在 Lidge合約對外公佈後，根據我所收到的 e-mails判斷，我覺得對於何謂仲裁以及箇中運作過程，大家有些許困惑。因此，我儘可能用簡單的說法解釋，接下來我們一起復習基本原則。 For the first three years of a player's Major League career, the club essentially dictates his salary. The player has little-to-no leverage, and if he chooses not to sign a contract, the club would just renew it and pay him what it wanted to anyway. The player has no choice but to accept whatever dollars the club gives him. 球員在大聯盟的前三年，所屬球團掌有他薪水的生殺大權。球員只有微乎其微的影響力，如果球員選擇不簽約，球團可以改變合約並照自己所開價碼支付薪水。對此球員別無選擇，除非答應球團的開價。 Years four through six are much more fruitful. These players, now arbitration-eligible, are paid based somewhat on past performances, but also on how they compare to other players with similar numbers and Major League service time. 然而從第四~第六年，就是成果大豐收的時刻。這些球員就會有薪資仲裁資格，賺取的薪水不只以過去表現為導向，也以他們跟其他相似成績的球員與大聯盟資歷作比較。 They can also be compared to other players going as far back as three or four years, as well to their contemporaries. 他們也可以被拿來跟過去三四年同期的球員一同比較。 So, let's use Lidge as the example. Based on what he has done in his career, back to 2003, he's considered to be in the upper echelon of big-league closers. You can compare him to current elite closers, like the Angels' Frankie Rodriguez, who, like Lidge, is in his second year of arbitration. 所以我們現在拿 Lidge當例子談。以他生涯表現為基礎，回到 2003年，他被認為是大聯盟的頂級救援投手。你可以拿他跟現今傑出的王牌救援，像是天使隊的 Rodriguez來做比較，他跟 Lidge挺像的，都是仲裁的第二年。 Rodriguez recently signed a one-year deal worth $7 million. In 2006, he made slightly less than Lidge -- $3.7 million compared to Lidge's $3.9, which is pretty much in line with how they performed in '05. Last season, Rodriguez saved 47 games and had a 1.73 ERA. Lidge didn't have such a great year, and he's going to make less than Rodriguez -- $5.35 million. Had Lidge had a year like he did in '04 or '05, he would probably be making more than Rodriguez. But Rodriguez surpassed him in performance, and, as a result, his salary is higher by more than $1.5 million. Rodriguez最近簽下一年＄7M的合約。在2006年它的薪資稍微少於 Lidge-- ＄3.7M比上 Lidge的＄3.9M，跟他們在05年的表現大有關聯。去年 Rodriguez 獲得47次救援成功，自責分率 1.73。而 Lidge表現沒他優異，所以他所獲＄5.35M的薪水當然比 Rodriguez少。要是 Lidge表現像他04或05年一樣，他的薪資可能會比 Rodriguez高。但是因為 Rodriguez表現勝過他，所以他薪水當然高了 Lidge＄1.5M以上。 Lidge and Rodriguez are also compared to the Mariano Riveras and Eric Gagnes of the world. What were they making heading into their fifth season in the Majors? Taking into consideration the escalation of time, how would that translate in present economic terms? Lidge跟 Rodriguez也會被拿來跟當今世上無數個 Mariano Riveras與 Eric Gagnes作比較。他們進入大聯盟第五年球季後，會獲取取多少薪資呢？考慮到薪資逐年升高，這該如何轉換成合乎經濟效應的價格呢？ So, in that respect, Lidge's raise of $1.375 million isn't as drastic as it would have been had he had a better year. If he had, then that's where it gets a little murky. Is he worth a half-million more than the next guy? More than that? Less than that? These are the issues that keep general managers and agents at odds for much of the offseason, and that's why it seems to take so long to get some of these guys signed. 因此 Lidge獲加薪＄1.375M的幅度並非如同表現良好年份後，變化的大。假使他當初投的好，那麼這其中就讓人模糊了。他身價真的比表現次一級的球員多＄0.5M嗎？或是更多？或是更少？在球季結束後，在總管與經紀人之間總是有薪資差額的問題，這也是為何會花這麼多時間與球員簽約。 I don't think the Astros will have to go to an arbitration hearing with any of the three remaining unsigned players: Morgan Ensberg, Adam Everett and Jason Lane. But Ensberg's case is interesting. Should he be paid for his All-Star performance in '05 or his .235 average in '06? Again, players from the past will be used to compare and contrast. Is there a player who had a similar dropoff in performance? Did he make a million more the next year? Half-million? 我想太空人不會跟剩下還未搞定合約的幾名球員︰ Ensberg、Everett、與Lane上仲裁聽證會。不過 Ensberg的合約相當耐人尋味。應該支付他 05年明星級身手的薪水，還是看 06年 .235打擊率的成績？再者，過去的球員常會被拿來比較與對照。有沒有類似球員前一年陷入低潮的例子？而隔年反而薪水多了＄1M以上？或是說多了＄0.5M？ And surely, there were players in the past who have had poor years but were generously compensated the following season. I guarantee that Lane's agent has a list of anyone who has fallen into that category, although I doubt it'll be enough to convince the Astros to pay him $1.375 million. 當然，也有球員過去表現不佳，但在下一年度反而獲球團慷慨加薪的例子。我保證 Lane的經紀人手中有一長串名單，屬於這一類型，雖然我認為太空人不會被說服付給他＄1.375M。 In Everett's case, arbitration is much more offensively based, so he may not have much leverage. He's going to be compared to shortstops who hit well and will therefore make significantly less than any of the elite shortstops before him i.e., Cal Ripken Jr., Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. 在 Everett的案例中，仲裁基本上是以他的打擊表現為基礎，所以他不會有太多影響力。因為他要跟那些打擊優異的游擊手做比較，在他之上有許多打擊比他強太多了的頂尖游擊手。例如像 Cal Ripken Jr.、 Derek Jeter、 Alex Rodriguez。 If a contract cannot be agreed upon, the case goes to an arbitration panel, who will listen to both sides and have to pick one number or the other. There's no middle ground -- it's either the player's proposed figure or the club's. The panel will base its decision on which side of the midpoint is the right salary. So in Lane's case, the midpoint between his offer and the club's offer is $1.1375 million. If the panel decides that he's actually worth $1.1376 million, Lane will win his case. If the panel thinks he's worth no more than 1.1374 million, the club wins. 如果合約不獲雙方協議，那麼案子就要送到仲裁陪審團，陪審團會聽取雙方的說法，並且選擇其中一方。不可以站在中間的立場上。不是選擇球員開出的價碼，就是球團開出的。陪審團會以其中一方作為合理薪水根據。因此拿 Lane來說，跟球團雙方提出的報價，平均起來為＄1.1375M。如果陪審團覺得他的確值$1.1376M，那麼 Lane就獲得勝訴。如果陪審團認為他身價不到＄1.1374M，就由球團獲得勝訴。 No one wants to go as far as a hearing. It's uncomfortable. Essentially, a team is saying, "We need you, we're counting on you, but you're not worth what you're asking for and here's why." It's not fun for anyone, and that's partly why the Astros have managed to avoid arbitration hearings for 10 years. 沒人願意讓事情拖到聽證會上見。那種感覺很不自在。基本上，會聽到球隊說，〝我們需要你的才能，我們也依賴你的球技，但你根本不值你開出的價碼，這就是為什麼。〞對任何人來說，這並不有趣，這也是太空人隊已有十年避免上仲裁法庭的部分原因。 I agree with what you said in your last mailbag about how if the Astros have any chance whatsoever to get Roger Clemens, they need to jump on the idea ASAP and push as hard as they can. Besides Clemens, are the Astros looking at any other starting or relief pitcher to help their rotation and bullpen? -- Jason H., Houston 問︰我認同你上週 mailbag所說，如果有機會，太空人務必要簽下 Clemens，他們得儘快進行該計畫並加把勁實行。除了極力簽下 Clemens外，太空人隊還有要找其他的先發或後援投手來補強戰力嗎？ The Astros are up to their limit of 40 on the 40-man roster, so it's unlikely that they'll be adding any free agents at this point. They signed Brian Moehler to a Minor League deal and could be looking at other pitchers of the same ilk -- veterans who have had success in the past but have dealt with injury or surgery issues and are looking to make a comeback. 答︰目前太空人的40人名單已經飽和，所以他們不可能再簽下任何自由球員。太空人跟 Brian Moehler簽的是小聯盟合約，接下來簽下其他的投手也會依此模式--球團著眼於過去成績亮眼，但是有傷痛困擾，或動過手術，準備東山再起的老將。 At this point, the club can't afford to remove any of the players currently on the 40-man roster, so acquiring a Major League-ready player through free agency probably isn't going to happen right now. Trades are still a possibility, however. 現在球團無法移除40人名單中的任何一員，所以不能和自由球員簽下大聯盟約。不過做球員交易是可行的方法。 Every national article I read on the Clemens saga mentions his lack of run support in Houston. But surely with Houston's free-agent signings -- Carlos Lee and Mark Loretta -- Clemens must realize the Astros will score more runs in 2007. Why do the national media writers always conveniently forget this fact? -- Brian T., Rochester, Minn. 問︰從我閱讀的關於 Clemens傳奇故事的文章中，每篇都談到他在休士頓投球，都缺乏隊友的火力支援。可是這些作者無疑都忘了今年休士頓簽下了兩名自由球員-- Lee 跟 Loretta-- Clemens應該清楚2007年太空人會打下更多分數。為什麼國內的媒體記者卻一直忽略這個事實呢？ I don't think they've forgotten about Houston's offseason moves, but you can't ignore the fact that the Astros seem to completely forget how to score runs whenever Clemens is on the mound. In my opinion, it wasn't just a weird coincidence. I think that after a few games of giving Clemens no run support, it affected the lineup from a mental standpoint. I don't know if they froze or tried to hard, but the lack of offensive production had to be something more than just a bizarre phenomenon. 答︰我想他們並沒有忽略休士頓今年球季之後的補強動作，但你實在無法忘記 Clemens先發時，太空人好像不知該如何得分的窘境。我認為那並非難以解釋的巧合。我想在幾場沒給 Clemens火力支援的的比賽後，給了打線心理上的影響。我不知道他們到底是整個給凍結了還是有盡力，不過缺乏火力攻擊可是比異常情況還來的嚴重。 That said, I would not expect the same to happen in 2007. The offense is just better, and players like Lee and Loretta, as you pointed out, weren't here for the past Clemens' droughts. 不過我可不希望窘況在2007年又重蹈覆轍。打線有變強了，像你所說的 Lee跟 Loretta都不是 Clemens過去出賽，未給他火力支援的人。 Even if Clemens is bothered by the lack of run support, he'll have the first part of the season to keep his eye on how the team is doing without having to make a commitment. Of course, that's what he did in 2006, and with the Astros off to their best start ever in April, he probably thought the team was headed for great things. Little did anyone know they'd play sub-.500 ball for the next 4 1/2 months. 雖然 Clemens為缺乏隊友火力支援而苦，然而不需先簽下合約，他還是可以先觀察球隊在上半季的表現。當然那是他在2006年的決定，太空人在四月份球季之初表現異常的好，他可能以為這支球隊會有所作為。很少人知道在接下來四個半月他們的勝率都在 .500以下。 I feel that the signing of Richard Hidalgo to a Minor League contract could work out to be a great deal for the Astros. Do you think he could return to form and make this team? -- J.D., Nixa, Mo. 問︰我認為對太空人來說，和 Hidalgo簽下小聯盟約，會物超所值。你認為他可以回到過往的身手並回到太空人隊嗎？ I'd say he has a moderate-to-good chance to make the team. I doubt he'll overtake Luke Scott and win the right-field job outright, but if Hildago has a decent enough showing during Spring Training, he could make the team as the fifth outfielder. 答︰我會認為他有持續上升的可能成為隊上一員。我認為他不能馬上擊敗 Scott並贏得右外野手的位置，不過如果 Hildago在春訓期間有不錯表現，他會成為隊中第五號外野手。 That said, I'll reserve my judgement until I see Hidalgo face, and do well against, Major League pitching. And by Major League pitching, I mean the pitchers who are starting Spring Training games in the last two weeks of March, when the Minor Leaguers have been shipped back. The latter half of Spring Training is crucial when evaluating players. It's when the pitchers who had no chance to make the team have been sent down, and the legitimate Major League pitchers are getting their arm strength back and are stretched out a bit, allowing them to log four or five innings per start. 不過我要先保留我的看法，一直到我見到 Hidalgo面對大聯盟等級投手打的不錯後，我指的是在小聯盟球員都已被送回所屬球隊，在三月份最後兩週春訓的球員。在春訓末期評估一個球員具決定性。沒機會的投手都已經被送回小聯盟了，有實力的大聯盟投手這時正持續強化與伸展他們的手臂，以期在每次先發中負擔四或五局。 I know that Lane was in Venezuela, but he seems to have dropped out of sight. What happened to him, if anything? -- Ted S., Dripping Springs, Texas 問︰我知道 Lane目前在委內瑞拉打冬季聯盟，不過他好像銷聲匿跡了。他最近過的如何？有任何消息嗎？ Lane played in Venezuela for the length that he had planned. He wanted to go there for just a few weeks and get some extra at-bats. Lane did so and now he's home. He's been working out in the Astros' clubhouse the entire offseason, with the exception of the few weeks he was playing in winter ball. 答︰ Lane照自己預定計畫在委內瑞拉的冬季聯盟打球。他要在那邊待個幾週，獲得一些上場機會。 Lane已達成計畫目前也回家了。整個球季結束後，他一直在太空人的會所練習，除了他到冬季聯盟打球那幾週。 I've seen this discussed on several blogs and maybe you can answer. Why hasn't Chris Sampson been given a real shot yet? Manager Phil Garner seems to have little faith in him, but why? His numbers in the Minors have been good, and he pitched very well in his limited time. I think one day he could be a good No. 3 starter, yet Garner seems willing to try everybody but him. Why? -- Melissa L., Houston 問︰我從幾個部落格看到這個討論，或許你可以回答我這個疑慮。為什麼到現在 Sampson沒有獲得真正的機會呢？總教練 Garner似乎不太信任他，這是為什麼？他在小聯盟所表現的數據相當好，而他在有限的時機中也投的可圈可點。我認為有朝一日他會是個合適的第三號先發，那為什麼 Garner可以給人人機會，就是沒給他？ Sampson absolutely will have every opportunity to make the rotation. I've received a lot of inquiries as to why Sampson isn't getting much of an endorsement from management, but I think that's somewhat of a misconception. There are two players who could not have done more in terms of making an indelible impression on management in 2006 -- Scott and Sampson. Both are going to have their chances in '07. 答︰ Sampson絕對有機會成為先發輪值的一員。我也收到很多詢問 Sampson為何沒獲得管理階層垂青的質疑，可是我認為這些都有點誤會了。有兩個球員在2006年表現優異讓球隊管理階層驚為天人，分別為 Scott和 Sampson。他倆在 07年會擁有機會上場。 But when it comes to pitching, it would be shortsighted for the Astros to hand Sampson a starting role based on a short stint on the Major League level last season. He made two starts and was phenomenally great in one of them, shutting out the Cubs over seven innings. His only other start arrived toward the end of '06 in Philadelphia, and he was again very good in an abbreviated 3 2/3 innings. 不過提到投手方面，上一季讓 Sampson在大聯盟層級短暫扮演先發，對太空人來說，觀察到的還太少。他先發兩次，而且其中最亮眼的一次是他對小熊投七局無失分。他另一次的先發是06年季末對上費費城人，在極短的3 2/3投球局數中，表現再度讓人滿意。 Sampson was great in all but one of his eight relief appearances, too. But the team isn't going to look at his 32 innings of work and say, "OK, you earned it, you're our No. 3 or 4 starter." He's an option. But good teams need other options in case those options don't work out. If Sampson shows this spring that he can handle a starting job, he'll get his chance. If the club thinks he'd be better as a long reliever or spot starter, that's what he'll be. Sampson先發表現極佳，而八次上場後援也不賴。但是球隊不能只看他 32局﹙按︰可是，我很無聊，查了官網，是34局，反正也沒差多少。﹚ 的出賽就說︰〝好，你的表現足以成為先發輪值的一員。你就擔任第三或四號先發。〞讓他擔任先發是個不錯的選擇。不過一支好球隊需要有其他備案以防當初的作法不如預期。如果 Sampson今年春訓展現自己能擔綱先發的能耐，他絕對可以獲得該有的機會。假使球團認為他當長中繼或者偶爾頂替先發，較恰當，那這就是他未來一年的定位。 Is our pitching rotation finalized? It seems to be two arms shy, with one maybe being Fernando Nieve. Is the front office sweating? -- Scott L., League City, Texas 問︰我們未來的先發投手輪值就照這樣安排了嗎？只有兩名堪用的投手，戰力應該不足，也許頂多再加一個 Nieve。太空人官方現在是不是為了這個焦躁不安？ Sweating? Probably not. Mildly perspiring? Well, maybe. I would feel much better if the Astros had one more veteran arm in the rotation to slide into the No. 3 or 4 role. But their roster is at 40, which is the limit, and to add someone would mean someone else would have to come off the roster. They don't have anyone that they can afford to eliminate at this point. 答︰焦躁不安？或許沒有。是稍為擔憂嗎？嗯，也許。如果太空人先發輪值中有個老將擔任第三或四號先發投手的話，我心裡應該會好過些。但是他們的球員名單已經達到40人，已經是上限了，要再加某些人進來代表有些人必須被移出於名單之外。他們不想把堪用的球員排除於名單外。 I'm not thrilled with the makeup of the rotation, but you never know who's going to emerge and really break through. Matt Albers, Nieve, Sampson and Rodriguez have terrific opportunities in front of them. Moehler is also a candidate to slide into a starting role. It's up to them to take it and run with it. Some pitchers "on the bubble" in the past have had the same chances and made the most of it. Pete Munro and Brandon Backe come to mind. Others such as Tim Redding and Brandon Duckworth fit that category. 對於先發投手的組成我一點不感到興奮，但你實在不知道誰到時會出頭並嶄露頭角。在 Albers、Nieve、Sampson和 Rodriguez眼前有非同小可的機會等待著他們。 Moehler也是擔任先發投手的考量人選。機會由他們自個兒獲得並掌握。一些過去像氣泡般，夢想會幻滅的球員也有機會去卡位。我現在想到的就是 Pete Munro、 Brandon Backe。其他像 Tim Redding、Brandon Duckworth 也適用。 Alyson Footer is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs. ==================== 弄得有點亂，如果有哪裡翻錯的，我再修，謝謝 -- ~ 你對世界如何發問，世界就如何回答你 ~ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.172.209.76

推

Onassis

01/24 01:56, , 1^F

01/24 01:56, 1^F

推

FreeFly

01/24 02:29, , 2^F

01/24 02:29, 2^F

→

FreeFly

01/24 02:29, , 3^F

01/24 02:29, 3^F