If MLB rules apply the bonus evenly over the contract, then those same rules apply the average salary as each year’s salary. That is, MLB does not distinguish a $66M/6y contract structured as $60M bonus paid on day one, and $1M/year for 6 years from a $66M/6y contract paid at $11M a year for 6 years.

You are choosing to divorce the terms of the deal on the bonus, but then not divorcing the terms of the deal as to annual salary. By doing so you have created a worst possible scenario for Either. You either need to view this as an $11/year deal in 2009 or view it as a $3M + payable portion of bonus in 2009 deal for 2009.

Even done your way, however, I don’t see the Markakis comparison nearly so bad as you do for Ethier. Firstly, you are using WAR, an offense only Stat unlikely to be considered by arbitrators. They have nearly identical career and 2008 BA and are very close on OPS. Defensively, Ethier can make a decent case for being a wash. The best case for Markakis being significantly better is that Ethier is apx. 1.5 years older.

I am not saying this is a slam dunk for Ethier by any means, but I think given that the midpoint is below Markakis also adds to Ethier’s chances.

If what you are saying is that Ethier has a hard case to make, I agree. But there is a case there and I don’t see Markakis as hurting it. It would still benefit both parties to settle this.

… WAR, an offense only Stat… was a combination of two thoughts. WAR DOES consider defense. I’ll suggest both that arbitration likely focuses mostly on offense and uses more traditional statistics not requiring defining replacement level nor requiring quantification of defense into runs.