The MLB Players Association has asked all agents to keep detailed accounts about their negotiations with MLB clubs regarding this year's drafted rookies, as bonuses paid to top draft picks have plummeted this year over last.
The memorandum, sent to all MLBPA-certified agents last week, states that several agents have told the union that there is "a great level of coordination among the clubs, widespread information sharing, and tight coordination between the clubs and the Commissioner's office."
 Chris Lubanski
Selected: No. 5 (2003)
From: Norristown, Pa. (high school)
Team: Kansas City
Bonus: $2.1 million |
| |
 Ryan Wagner
Selected: No. 14 (2003)
From: University of Houston
Team: Cincinnati
Bonus: $1.4 million |
| |
Clint Everts
Selected: No. 5 (2002)
From: Houston (high school)
Team: Montreal
Bonus: $2.5 million |
| |
Russ Adams
Selected: No. 14 (2002)
From: University of North Carolina
Team: Toronto
Bonus: $1.785 million |
A comparison of bonuses paid to draft picks shows that of 23 players signed this year, 18 received lower bonuses than were paid to the players in their respective slots in the 2002 draft. Three players received higher bonuses, and one player received the same bonus amount. One comparison could not be made because one player selected in the first round of the 2002 draft did not sign with the team that selected him (see
chart).
Other factors, besides slotting, affect a draftee's bonus. Notably, high school players generally get higher bonuses than college players because prep players have the option of playing in college instead of signing a pro contract if they don't deem the contract terms favorable, giving them more leverage in negotiations. But in 11 cases in which there exists an apples-to-apples comparison of high school-to-high school draftee or college-to-college draftee, the bonuses were lower in 10 comparisons this year over last year.
Bonuses traditionally are regarded as a critical component of rookie contracts.
MLBPA officials declined to comment for this story, but several baseball agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said club officials are making lower offers than last year and stubbornly refusing to move off those offers.
"There is no negotiating," one agent said. The agent added that club officials are telling draft picks, "Here's my number. I'm not going over it."
Frank Coonelly, MLB general labor counsel, said, "We have provided the same level of advice and counsel [to MLB clubs] as we have provided in the past four years."
Since 1999, MLB has had a support program for its clubs in which it provides a recommended amount of bonus money that each draft pick in the first five rounds should receive, Coonelly said. Clubs are free to make their own decision on what to offer the player, and many teams make offers above or below the recommended amounts, he said.
During a telephone interview last week, Coonelly said he did not have this year's recommended numbers immediately available and could not say if they were lower than last year's recommended bonus payments. But, he said, the bonus figures paid to players are a reflection of the current economy and the losses MLB clubs have suffered.
"It is quite possible the numbers this year reflect what we think should be a correction in the market," he said.
Rob Manfred, MLB executive vice president of labor and human resources, echoed that sentiment.
"Given the state of the economy and the leverage the clubs have in this area, if they paid less [in bonuses this year], it would not be a surprise," Manfred said.
Both Manfred and Coonelly noted that the MLBPA does not represent drafted rookies, and baseball's recently negotiated collective-bargaining agreement does not cover them. The union's members are players on MLB teams' 40-man rosters.
The union, in its memo to agents, states: "As you know, the draftees do not have the protection of the acting in concert prohibition contained in Article XX E of the Basic Agreement (which is the provision under which the collusion cases of the 1980s were tried); it remains to be seen whether the clubs' conduct here is inconsistent with any Basic Agreement provision.
"In any event, this is an area of concern to us, and the manner in which the clubs are behaving in this area is instructive as to how dedicated the clubs are to systematic information sharing and cooperation when it comes to player salaries."
Earlier this year, MLBPA officials asked agents to keep detailed records of their negotiations with free agents and then asked MLB for its records, the first step toward a possible collusion grievance.
The union won a collusion grievance against MLB in the 1980s. It ultimately was settled for $280 million.
Gary Roberts, director of the sports law program at Tulane Law School, said it is possible the union is gathering information on the draft in order to bolster a free-agent collusion grievance.
"If they can prove there is collusion or cooperation among the clubs with respect to the rookies ... that would establish a kind of pattern of behavior that would be relevant to whether they were also sharing information and colluding with respect to the major league free agents," he said.
Bill Gould, Stanford Law School professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, said that even though the union does not represent the draftees, it is possible that it could bring a grievance based on the league's conduct in negotiating their deals.
"If, in fact, they can show a conspiracy vis-à-vis the amateur draftees, they can make out a violation of the agreement. ... When you make a change with regard to the amateur players, it inevitably affects the free-agent market," Gould said.
Coonelly disputed the suggestion that MLB's conduct regarding the draftees could be used in any grievance.
"We haven't changed any draft rule, and the advice and counsel we are giving the clubs does not affect the market power of the major league free agents," he said.
Research director David Broughton contributed to this story.
