Hershiser Slips to 1-1 in Arbitration : $200,000 Pay Cut Drops Pitcher Below Millionaire Status

Orel Hershiser, who became a member of the Dodgers’ exclusive millionaire’s club last spring after a lucrative arbitration victory, had his membership revoked Saturday morning when an arbitrator ruled that the pitcher will have to accept a $200,000 pay cut.

Hershiser, 14-14 with a 3.85 earned-run average last season, had sought $1.1 million--a $100,000 increase--for 1987. The Dodgers, unhappy losers in last year’s arbitration case with Hershiser, submitted an $800,000 proposal, the maximum decrease a team can offer in a contract under collective bargaining rules.

Arbitrator Ray Goetz met with the sides for more than five hours Thursday in Los Angeles, and those in attendance described the hearing as intense and competitive. Goetz, who heard two other arbitration hearings on Friday, waited almost 48 hours before announcing his decision.

“We’re not upset, just disappointed,” said Hershiser, celebrating his wedding anniversary with his wife in Santa Barbara. “It’s not going to affect me in the least bit. If I make $800,000 or $1.1 million, I still have the same right arm and the same brain out there on the field. It doesn’t matter how much you get paid when you step between the white lines.”

Now that his salary has been slashed to $800,000, Hershiser, 28, is the fifth-highest paid Dodger pitcher behind Fernando Valenzuela, Jerry Reuss, Bob Welch and Rick Honeycutt.

The loss for Hershiser was not only a major victory for the Dodgers, trying to curb their escalating arms race, but it may set a precedent for similar cases in which clubs are seeking pay cuts for high-salary players who have had average or below average seasons.

Before management’s victory against Hershiser, the only noteworthy player ever to receive a cut in pay through the arbitration system was Aurelio Lopez, whose salary with Detroit was reduced from $285,000 to $250,000 in 1983.

Al Campanis, Dodger vice president of player personnel, called Goetz’s decision a “fair judgment” and said he doesn’t think there will be hard feelings with his top right-handed starting pitcher.

Redemption from last spring’s arbitration loss also was on the mind of Campanis, who represented the Dodgers in Thursday’s meeting alongside Dodger attorney Bob Walker. Hershiser, who went 19-3 in 1985, was present with Robert Fraley, his agent.

“Last year was a disappointing decision for us,” Campanis said. “It is significant (this year). When you lost a case concerning a big contract the previous year, and if you don’t win the following year, it’s significant. We are pleased with this year’s ruling.

“In our opinion, he just didn’t have a good year (in 1986). That was just one year. We expect (Hershiser) to come back to pitch well for us. (But) there isn’t that kind of money floating around to give a player a raise even though he didn’t have a good year.”

Hershiser and Fraley said they don’t believe that Goetz’s decision will have a major impact throughout the major leagues.

“I don’t ascribe to that theory at all,” Fraley said. “The arbitrators take each case on an individual basis.”

The Dodgers’ bid to reduce Hershiser’s salary has drawn considerable interest from other executives in the industry. Perhaps because of that, Goetz issued a statement to the Major League Players’ Assn. and the Player Relations Committee, the negotiating arm of the owners.

“(Goetz) said in that preliminary statement that he did not determine his role to be that of a precedent setter or one that will affect other players’ cases,” Fraley said. “He said his role was just to determine what this particular player deserves.”

Yet, Hershiser said that he figures the results of his arbitration will most likely be brought up in other arbitration hearings this spring.

“Being the only cut since Lopez has to be some type of precedent,” Hershiser said. “Really, every case is a precedent-setting case. If you take into consideration comparable salaries, then every decision sets some precedent.”

It is Hershiser’s belief that Goetz, a law professor at the University of Kansas, did not comparison shop. His impression was that Goetz made Hershiser’s 1986 performance the major criterion in his decision.

Much of Hershiser’s presentation centered on the apparent precedent the Dodgers set in recent years with their pitchers.

Hershiser said he and Fraley brought up the fact that the Dodgers gave Valenzuela a raise, from $1 million to $1.1 million, in 1985 after Valenzuela posted a 12-17 record. Valenzuela, however, had a 2.45 ERA. Another example Hershiser used in the hearing was the two-year guaranteed contract and raise that Bob Welch received during the off-season. Welch’s record (7-13) was worse than Hershiser’s.

Fraley said he pointed out to Goetz that the Dodgers had an 18-8 record last season when the club scored two or more runs for Hershiser.

“It’s all in your perspective,” Hershiser said. “Mr. Goetz put a stronger weight on what happened in the ’86 season than what other players received.

“We (he and Fraley) felt fine about it the whole way. We did not choose a (salary) number out of greed but out of what we thought I am worth. And the Dodgers had their number for what they thought I’m worth. We thought Mr. Goetz handled it with the highest integrity. That does not mean you enjoy the decision.”

What was included in the Dodgers’ presentation?

“We just presented the (1986) season,” Campanis said. “I can’t go into details.”

Said Fraley: “You can assume in a 5 1/2-hour hearing that every bit of statistics and evidence will be presented. Anything that was in the Dodgers’ favor, of course, was brought up. They also said they didn’t think last year’s ($1-million arbitration) decision was fair.” Although the sides had disparaging views, all involved said it was not a bitter or acrimonious hearing. “It was very aggressive,” Fraley said. “I don’t think anyone in an adversary role is going to back down in a hearing. But Orel is a uniquely mature man, and anything that was said has not been taken personally.”

Campanis, who was not present at last spring’s Hershiser arbitration but played a minor role in this year’s hearing, said that Hershiser approached him after Thursday’s hearing and put an arm around his shoulder.

“He said we were still friends,” Campanis said. “He’s a fine young man and a good pitcher. Like I told him, I just had to tell our side of the story.”

Hershiser said he will have no problem accepting his cut in pay. In fact, he suggested that it might inspire him.

“As an athlete, something like this you can use either way,” Hershiser said. “You can go out there and prove that you should have gotten a better salary or prove to people that you deserve the salary you received.

“I’m just glad to have the opportunity to go through the arbitration process. It gives you a chance to get a raise in salary without the clubs unilaterally deciding on it.”