Reese Kaplan -- Use the Rules to Secure the Mets Future

Under the Wilpon regime and the ownership teams that preceded them it became standard practice for them to play out the string with the contractually minimal salary increases.  When Curt Flood, Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith initiated the concept of free agency for baseball players, then the motivation for keeping your players went from a lifetime to roughly six major league seasons after which the player in question was free to sell his services to the highest bidder.

For a quick refresher on the history, Curt Flood was a multiple NL All Star and Gold Glove winner who was traded from his home team the St. Louis Cardinals to the cellar dwelling Philiadelphia Phillies after having put in 12 years into the game.  He engaged legal representation and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court to decide if baseball was indeed a test of players as assets for a ballclub or the equivalent of slavery since ballplayers were obligated for their playing lives to whomever paid their salary.

The case didn’t get to the decision making stage until 1972 during which time there were former players who enthusiastically supported Flood’s contention while others were divided based upon the uncertainty of what eliminating the reserve clause would do to the game itself.  It wasn’t purely a racial divide but that variable led to a great deal of consternation among the people who took the strongest positions on one side or the other.

Not surprisingly the court sided with Major League Baseball citing both a 1922 case during which the reserve clause was previously developed and the contract Flood signed obligating him to play for his employer and to follow the source of his paycheck to whomever the current owner engaged in a baseball trade. 

That unpopular decision only lasted three more years as players Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith raised similar concerns when they were being underpaid by their employers and were not freely able to change their circumstances to find a more equitable level of compensation. 

Arbitrator Peter Seitz issued a ruling in December of 1975 stating that a ballplayer who went a full year without a contract from his employer would become a free agent and able to sell his services on the open market.  Needless to say, Major League Baseball was not at all happy with this ruling and fought back to escalate the case to get this change nullified.

This time around instead of going through the courts, the opposing parties faced a committee comprised of Mr. Seitz who both sides felt was an impartial member, Marvin Miller who was the MLBPA Executive Director and John Gaherin who was the MLB Player Relations Committee’s Chief Negotiator. 

Again Seitz sided with the players’ request, reaffirming his earlier judgment.  MLB then took the case to court who concurred with the Seitz ruling.  The owners then pushed it to an appeals court and then lost there as well.  After realizing they had nowhere else to go the owners and MLBPA sat down to negotiate the framework for free agency through which a ballplayer who served six seasons in the Major Leagues was then eligible to declare himself a free agent.  In 1976 Andy Messersmith was the very first player to execute this strategy moving to the Atlanta Braves where he finished his career. McNally had already retired.

This look at history was necessary to understand how the game and front office operations have changed.  Most of us are old enough to remember when players were not operating on a finite deadline for use during his first six years in baseball.  As a result, there has been a proliferation of midyear July trade deadline deals to dump expiring contract players as rentals for the contenders to use on their rosters as they worked towards playing postseason ball. 

For the Mets, while the discussions of who to sign and who not to sign can be debated and spun in many disparate directions, there’s another aspect that teams need to consider to prevent those 6th year decision points from happening.  The Atlanta Braves and Houston Astros seem to be the primary practitioners of securing younger players to long term contracts long prior to the 6th year deadline happening.  Here is where the Mets need to consider changing  their previous strategy.

The illustrative player in question is catcher Francisco Alvarez.  When he was forced to become a major leaguer in 2023 due to multiple MLB catcher injuries, everyone expected he’d hit the occasional long ball but was not really ready to call games.  It was certainly evident that as the season progressed this 20 year old player was learning quickly on the job and the guy who finished with the team in September was a markedly better receiver than the one who debuted when the season began.  He finished 2023 with a modest .209 average but in only 382 ABs he hit 25 HRs and drove in 63.  That is major league run production from anyone, particularly for a lower part of the order rookie.

Come 2024 and the defense improved by another magnitude.  However, it is what he’s doing with the bat that is stunning.  Right now he is hitting .313 with 4 HRs and 19 RBIs while playing through the recovery of a thumb injury.  He is showing maturity and an ability to adapt to the cards that are dealt which is rare in any player, particularly one who is just now legally able to buy a beer. 

So if I am the POBO, the team owner or simply a fan looking to secure the future, I would be putting more attention into a preemptive long term contract for Alvarez in the mold of what other clubs have done successfully with their youngest high performing players.  Getting him to sign on the bottom line now is going to cost way less than the arbitration process once he is eligible and the bid to stave off free agency.  It is simply good business.