Edition: U.S. / Global

NOTEBOOK; Some Baseball Salaries Really Do Decline

Published: January 17, 1993

Then there is the other side of the dollar.

Not every player, free agent or otherwise, who has signed a contract this winter has received Barry Bonds's $43.75 million or Cecil Fielder's $36 million or Fielder's $10 million signing bonus or David Cone's $9 million signing bonus or Ken Griffey's $24 million at the age of 23.

Richard Ravitch, the owners' chief labor executive, projects that 13 percent of the players will earn 50 percent of the total major league payroll this year. Many of the remaining 87 percent are those on the other side of the dollar. They have become the chorus to the Pavarottis and Domingos of the baseball stage.

The homeless, the unemployed and the minimum-wage earners will not feel sorry for these players, but some have suffered economic shock as a result of this relatively recent development that has reached a new level this winter.

The Houston Astros, for example, earlier this month signed Kevin Bass and Jose Uribe as free agents. Three years ago, Bass signed a three-year contract with the Giants for $5.25 million, and Uribe a three-year deal with the same team for $3.85 million. Negotiating with the Astros, Bass accepted $500,000 for this year, and Uribe $400,000. Fighting for a Job

They at least signed major league contracts. Tim Burke, after completing a three-year, $6.3 million contract, signed a minor league contract with Cincinnati. That means he has to win a job with the Reds to get his $500,000 major league salary.

Dave Smith of the Chicago Cubs, like Burke a veteran relief pitcher, is in a similar position. He earned $4.95 million from his contract the last two years, but he signed a minor league contract with the Cubs and has to make the team to get a $250,000 major league salary.

Lance Parrish, long one of the best catchers in the majors, came off a three-year contract that brought him $6,825,000 and signed a minor league contract with Los Angeles that guarantees him nothing and will pay him $600,000 if he wins a spot on the Dodgers' roster.

The Mets signed Joe Orsulak for half of the $1.3 million he earned last year. Mark Eichhorn re-signed with Toronto for $700,000, not even half of the $1,805,000 he earned last year. Juan Samuel will have a $700,000 salary if he gains a spot on the Reds' roster, but that's less than a third of his 1992 salary of $2,325,000.

Tom Reich, the veteran agent who negotiated some of these contracts, calls these players the "haircuts."

"You have to take a haircut to get employment," Reich said, lamenting, not making fun of, the situation. "A player has two alternatives when he gets to that position: retirement or haircut. I view it as the hardest, most important job we have: to protect the jobs of guys who are vulnerable, to keep them alive in the system."

The clubs, of course, show no sympathy for the many players in the job-seeking position. Most of the 153 players who filed for free agency last November have been in that position and have been joined by the 39 players who were not tendered contracts last month and others who became free agents when they were released last October.

After signing their stars or putting aside the millions they know they will have to pay arbitration-eligible players, the clubs check their budgets and see how much they have left to sign the relief pitcher they need to fill out their bullpen or the veteran who will be their backup catcher or platooned third baseman or fourth outfielder.

It is those players the clubs will pay as little as possible. It doesn't matter that the average salary will be over $1 million; only by giving these "haircuts" well under that level can they prevent the average from soaring well beyond $1 million.

"It's a matter of trying to fit guys in with what you can afford," said Bill Wood, the Astros' general manager. "You know the prime guys at the top are going to get the big money. Now we're seeing what's happening at the other end of the spectrum. We're trying to get the message across that everyone can't jump in at the $4-$5 million range. A ball club can't afford too many of those guys." 'A Supply-and-Demand-Game'

The players plummeting to the lower end of the scale, Reich emphasized, are not finished as players.

"Unfortunately, the salary system makes them vulnerable, but vulnerable means they're not in demand," Reich said. "It's a supply-and-demand game. If they're not in demand, it doesn't mean they can't play. If they're not in demand, you have to do everything you can to get them a job and keep them in the system. Some of them will recover."

Some players in that classification don't deserve to be there, the agent added, "but that doesn't matter."

"Nobody said the system is fair," he added.

The owners want to change the salary system in negotiations that have begun with the players. The clubs desperately prefer a salary cap, but meanwhile, they have adopted the strategy now in full force.

Wood said the Astros are a classic example of what is happening.

"Last year, we were at a budget of about $14 million," he said, discussing the club's payroll. "Obviously, we made a big jump into the free-agent market with Doug Drabek and Greg Swindell, so that ate up a chunk of dough right there."

Adding up other salaries and projected salaries, Wood said he came up with a possible payroll of $31 million. A New Class System