Todd Walker Wins Arbitration Hearing

[98navigator]

Stay tuned...

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

 

 

San Diego Union Tribune

[CUBZ99]

It appears that many expect the Players Association to file a grievance if Walker is released.

 

Link.

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

Walker is a career .289 hitter whose best position is second base, where Marcus Giles is the projected starter and Geoff Blum is among the backups. At third base, the Padres have rookie Kevin Kouzmanoff, Russell Branyan and Blum. A left-handed hitter, Walker also has played first, but the starter there, Adrian Gonzalez, also is left-handed.

 

 

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

 

The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause.

 

I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing.

[CubinNY]

It appears that many expect the Players Association to file a grievance if Walker is released.

 

Link.

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

Walker is a career .289 hitter whose best position is second base, where Marcus Giles is the projected starter and Geoff Blum is among the backups. At third base, the Padres have rookie Kevin Kouzmanoff, Russell Branyan and Blum. A left-handed hitter, Walker also has played first, but the starter there, Adrian Gonzalez, also is left-handed.

 

 

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

 

The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause.

 

I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing.

 

How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you?

[CubColtPacer]

It appears that many expect the Players Association to file a grievance if Walker is released.

 

Link.

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

Walker is a career .289 hitter whose best position is second base, where Marcus Giles is the projected starter and Geoff Blum is among the backups. At third base, the Padres have rookie Kevin Kouzmanoff, Russell Branyan and Blum. A left-handed hitter, Walker also has played first, but the starter there, Adrian Gonzalez, also is left-handed.

 

 

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

 

The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause.

 

I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing.

 

How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you?

 

Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA.

[CubinNY]

It appears that many expect the Players Association to file a grievance if Walker is released.

 

Link.

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

Walker is a career .289 hitter whose best position is second base, where Marcus Giles is the projected starter and Geoff Blum is among the backups. At third base, the Padres have rookie Kevin Kouzmanoff, Russell Branyan and Blum. A left-handed hitter, Walker also has played first, but the starter there, Adrian Gonzalez, also is left-handed.

 

 

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

 

The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause.

 

I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing.

 

How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you?

 

Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA.

 

The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It appears that many expect the Players Association to file a grievance if Walker is released.

 

Link.

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

Walker is a career .289 hitter whose best position is second base, where Marcus Giles is the projected starter and Geoff Blum is among the backups. At third base, the Padres have rookie Kevin Kouzmanoff, Russell Branyan and Blum. A left-handed hitter, Walker also has played first, but the starter there, Adrian Gonzalez, also is left-handed.

 

 

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

 

The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause.

 

I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing.

 

How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you?

 

Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA.

 

The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith.

 

I agree. If the Padres didn't want Walker, they didn't have to offer him arbitration. By offering, the Padres hurt his chances of signing since he was a Type A FA. Walker accepted because teams were not wanting to meet the draft pick price of signing him. The Padres took the risk also knowing the consequences.

 

Whether or not the grievance has a legal standing, I don't know. I don't know the nuiances of the CBA nor am I lawyer capable of commenting on them. However, I can clearly see if Walker is released as early as March 15 where he could argue that arbitration was not entered in good faith.

[CubColtPacer]

It appears that many expect the Players Association to file a grievance if Walker is released.

 

Link.

 

Player agents and major league executives said that if the Padres release utility man Todd Walker, they wouldn't be surprised to see the players' union file a grievance. The Padres would owe the utility man $658,000 of his $3.95 million arbitration-set salary if they release him by March 15.

Walker is a career .289 hitter whose best position is second base, where Marcus Giles is the projected starter and Geoff Blum is among the backups. At third base, the Padres have rookie Kevin Kouzmanoff, Russell Branyan and Blum. A left-handed hitter, Walker also has played first, but the starter there, Adrian Gonzalez, also is left-handed.

 

 

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance?

 

The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause.

 

I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing.

 

How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you?

 

Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA.

 

The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith.

 

There are plenty of things in the CBA that allow for things that would violate "good faith". For example, looking in the old CBA (2003-2006) there is a provision that a player can back out of arbitration after receiving the club's offer-effectively declining arbitration after agreeing to it. I'd hardly call that "good faith". So good faith gets violated by agreements like these all the time on both sides, but the key is that both sides agree.

 

I do understand what Walker would be challenging though. In the old CBA (which I am assuming this language has not changed) the club can release the player and pay only 1/6 of the salary for what is deemed "failure to exhibit sufficient skill and competitive ability." Walker's people would be challenging that saying that the club has no reasonable basis for making that claim without an injury because the contract he has was just deemed fair for his production level by the league a short time ago, and that there has been nothing that has changed since then.

 

Here is a copy of the old CBA (sorry that I couldn't find the new one, but I have no idea if it's even out there right now):

 

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf

[davearm]

The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith.

As I see it, the question of good faith is irrelevant.

 

All the Padres are doing is exercising a right that Walker's union granted them through the collective bargaining process.

 

Bottom line, if the players don't like the clubs' "out" clause, then they shouldn't have agreed to it when they negotiated the CBA.

[Amazing_Grace]

I can't see the Padres being able to get out of this gracefully, and I don't blame Walker for being upset. The Padres, if they do this, are really undermining the spirit of, if not the letter of, the arbritration process.

 

On a more selfish note, I'd love to see Walker get an invite to Cubs camp and get that 4M to play supersub for the Cubs. Wouldn't that be an awesome bench, with Theriot, Walker, Floyd, and Ward?

[oldcubsfan]

I really think the Padres only offered him arbitration to get the draft picks, counting on him to go the free agency route. They had no plans for him and got stuck. However, if the CBA calls for that payout on non guaranteed contracts, then Todd will get his 650 and that will be it. If he files a complaint, then there is the possiblilty of him getting unofficially "blackballed" and no team will pick him up. He isn't a "must have" kind of player, although he is a decent bench/part time player.

[BigbadB]

I really think the Padres only offered him arbitration to get the draft picks, counting on him to go the free agency route. They had no plans for him and got stuck. However, if the CBA calls for that payout on non guaranteed contracts, then Todd will get his 650 and that will be it. If he files a complaint, then there is the possiblilty of him getting unofficially "blackballed" and no team will pick him up. He isn't a "must have" kind of player, although he is a decent bench/part time player.

 

I think the Padres used him as insurance at 2b. The Padres had no guarantee of getting Marcus Giles. In fact, they waited until the Braves non-tendered him. At that point, Walker became nothing more than a spare part to the Padres.

 

The Padres gambled on Walker by offering arbitration. They lost. They should pay him. The Padres are in the wrong here.

[CubColtPacer]

I really think the Padres only offered him arbitration to get the draft picks, counting on him to go the free agency route. They had no plans for him and got stuck. However, if the CBA calls for that payout on non guaranteed contracts, then Todd will get his 650 and that will be it. If he files a complaint, then there is the possiblilty of him getting unofficially "blackballed" and no team will pick him up. He isn't a "must have" kind of player, although he is a decent bench/part time player.

 

I think the Padres used him as insurance at 2b. The Padres had no guarantee of getting Marcus Giles. In fact, they waited until the Braves non-tendered him. At that point, Walker became nothing more than a spare part to the Padres.

 

The Padres gambled on Walker by offering arbitration. They lost. They should pay him. The Padres are in the wrong here.

 

So if Walker accepted arbitration, and then realized he wasn't going to be a starter, then declined to go to arbitration after the club gave them their offer and became a free agent again (which is his right in the CBA even after he accepts arbitration) you would say that he would be in the wrong?

[treebird]

if the cba really allows this type of thing (trying to get draft picks by offering arbitration and then just cutting the guy if you end up getting stuck with him), it should be changed. pretty unfair.

[BigbadB]

So if Walker accepted arbitration, and then realized he wasn't going to be a starter, then declined to go to arbitration after the club gave them their offer and became a free agent again (which is his right in the CBA even after he accepts arbitration) you would say that he would be in the wrong?

 

I don't think that would be as wrong as what the Padres did, but yeah, probably wrong for Walker to do that. But, you are assuming Walker would have done that. His past history doesn't really reflect that kind of attitude.

 

The Padres gambled that by offering arbitration they could get compensation in return for a half season rental of their utility infielder. Walker accepted their offer and they couldn't reach an agreement on an amount, so it went to arbitration. They lost that gamble. Pay up.

[BigbadB]

If Walker was an "A" player, the Padres had no business offering arbitration if they didn't want to keep him. No team, and I mean NO team was going to give up compensation to sign Todd Walker away from the Padres. If the Padres assumed that some team would, they really are pretty stupid.