|
Post by dcsoxfan on Mar 18, 2015 5:59:44 GMT -5
Boras interjecting himself directly into front office decisions. He's must believe that's part of his role, I guess. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/03/boras-challenges-cubs-regarding-kris-bryant.html
In response, club president of baseball operations Theo Epstein said that the decision whether to include Bryant on the active roster to start the year was his alone, upon consultation with his front office team. “Comments from agents, media members, and anybody outside our organization will be ignored,” he said.
Shades of George Bush right there. "I am the decider." Right on Theo! Right on. In typically cool fashion, he essentially told the fat melon head to "have another donut."
Epstein's decision? What about Jed "the Incredible Shrinking GM" Hoyer?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Mar 18, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5
Boras interjecting himself directly into front office decisions. He's must believe that's part of his role, I guess. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I don't think he believes it is part of his role, he is trying to get his client to free agent a year earlier and in his 20s instead of in his 30s given there really is no 'baseball' reason to keep him out of the big leagues. Simply it is to delay service time as part of the politics of Super 2 status. By trying to put as much public attention on the matter as possible he thinks that could make the Cubs rethink their decision, it won't. At the end of the day if Boras took an Evan Longoria-esque contract extension buying Bryant out of his arbitration years and first few years of free agency there is no chance Bryant is starting the year in the minors 'refining' his defensive ability. However that won't happen, much like the Cubs starting him in the majors likely won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 18, 2015 9:18:29 GMT -5
I wonder if the owners will concede fixing the service time loophole somehow in the next CBA negotiation in exchange for an International Draft.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 18, 2015 9:24:30 GMT -5
I wonder if the owners will concede fixing the service time loophole somehow in the next CBA negotiation in exchange for an International Draft. Petriello mentioned this as a possibity here. He proposed setting a number of games, rather than days, to represent a "qualified season." Here's an excerpt on the potential bartering to make it happen:
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 18, 2015 9:38:51 GMT -5
An easy fix would be free agency after 6 years and 1 day service time. That would allow basically the same agreement except that teams would now feel free to have rookies start on opening day.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 10:00:32 GMT -5
Or maybe make it an either/or thing with service time and age. Or get rid of the two week thing and only make anything over a half season count as a full season so the Cubs would have to keep Bryant down until July if they want to play the control game. That's a much harder decision than it would be now, though teams that aren't contending would still abuse it.
Part of me thinks they need to scrap the entire thing and come up with something creative so that the best players are making the most money now instead of paying someone like Josh Hamilton almost $90 million over the next three seasons (minus suspension).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 11:47:41 GMT -5
An easy fix would be free agency after 6 years and 1 day service time. That would allow basically the same agreement except that teams would now feel free to have rookies start on opening day. That "easy fix" would come at the expense of the owners giving up approximately 2/3-3/4 of a season worth of minimum salary control over each player. That's not going to happen without a tremendous fight.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 18, 2015 12:31:26 GMT -5
Wieters shut down due to elbow tendinitis
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 18, 2015 14:08:10 GMT -5
Or maybe make it an either/or thing with service time and age. Or get rid of the two week thing and only make anything over a half season count as a full season so the Cubs would have to keep Bryant down until July if they want to play the control game. That's a much harder decision than it would be now, though teams that aren't contending would still abuse it. Part of me thinks they need to scrap the entire thing and come up with something creative so that the best players are making the most money now instead of paying someone like Josh Hamilton almost $90 million over the next three seasons (minus suspension). Age should be the last thing they use to determine anything. It already causes all kinds of issues because they use it to determine Rule 5 eligibility in such a stupid way. You're also going to affect decisions to hold a player in the minors or call him up no matter which direction you slide the service time scale - it'll just be when the player is held down, be it the end of the year or the start or the middle. If it were the end of the year teams were worried about, then yes, teams in contention would be less likely to hold a guy back, but teams out of contention would be more likely to do so, which kind of balances that off. Just make it from the season the player debuts before September 1 or something. Although this probably contradicts what I just said, come to think of it...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 14:19:22 GMT -5
Or maybe make it an either/or thing with service time and age. Or get rid of the two week thing and only make anything over a half season count as a full season so the Cubs would have to keep Bryant down until July if they want to play the control game. That's a much harder decision than it would be now, though teams that aren't contending would still abuse it. Part of me thinks they need to scrap the entire thing and come up with something creative so that the best players are making the most money now instead of paying someone like Josh Hamilton almost $90 million over the next three seasons (minus suspension). Age should be the last thing they use to determine anything. It already causes all kinds of issues because they use it to determine Rule 5 eligibility in such a stupid way. You're also going to affect decisions to hold a player in the minors or call him up no matter which direction you slide the service time scale - it'll just be when the player is held down, be it the end of the year or the start or the middle. If it were the end of the year teams were worried about, then yes, teams in contention would be less likely to hold a guy back, but teams out of contention would be more likely to do so, which kind of balances that off. Just make it from the season the player debuts before September 1 or something. Although this probably contradicts what I just said, come to think of it... Get rid of major league service time and make it years of being on the 40-man roster? Maybe add a 7th year?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 18, 2015 14:37:06 GMT -5
Get rid of major league service time and make it years of being on the 40-man roster? Maybe add a 7th year? This idea has merit ... it encourages teams to get players up to MLB (where they make MLB minimum at least) and gets rid of the perverse incentives of the current system. I think MLB would need more than one year added on, but as a general rule, getting rid of MLB service time makes the most sense, I think. I doubt they'd go for it, but instituting an international draft is a big get for them, so maybe ...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 18, 2015 15:09:41 GMT -5
Get rid of major league service time and make it years of being on the 40-man roster? Maybe add a 7th year? This idea has merit ... it encourages teams to get players up to MLB (where they make MLB minimum at least) and gets rid of the perverse incentives of the current system. I think MLB would need more than one year added on, but as a general rule, getting rid of MLB service time makes the most sense, I think. I doubt they'd go for it, but instituting an international draft is a big get for them, so maybe ... Concur, especially if it comes with fixing the issues they have with the rules for adding players to the 40-man roster, specifically IFAs who sign at 16.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 18, 2015 15:14:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 15:15:57 GMT -5
It's really complicated when you think about all of the unintended consequences. You're going to have more kids rushed with that change. And you'd have to figure out new arb rules.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2015 18:54:11 GMT -5
It's really complicated when you think about all of the unintended consequences. You're going to have more kids rushed with that change. And you'd have to figure out new arb rules. As long as their are rules that tie player control and compensation to service time, there's going to be some way and some reason for teams to manipulate service time. Just make everyone a free agent every year. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 18, 2015 19:00:22 GMT -5
This is like the only thing not in the players favor. I have a hard time thinking it's that bad. Yes it's a year the player could be a free agent but that year he'll be compensated close to market rate since he'll most likely be a super two. Don't see why so much fuss is being made of this.
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Mar 18, 2015 21:19:36 GMT -5
Don't this this has been brought up yet, but the Marlins signed Christian Yelich to an extension today. It's for 49.75M over 7 years, with a 15M club option on the 8th. With 2 years at the minimum, they basically bought out his arbitration years and 2/3 years of free agency.
Seems like a really, really good deal for the Marlins. I wonder if we could see a similar deal for Betts after this season.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 18, 2015 21:51:52 GMT -5
Yelich was good for 3.5 wins last year according to BP. As a 22-year-old rookie, he was worth somewhere between 20 and 25 million. So yes, I'd say the Marlins got the best of the deal.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 18, 2015 21:56:12 GMT -5
Counting from the 40-man roster addition date rather than MLB service time does seem a bit more fair. But it should be noted that in the specific Kris Bryant case, it wouldn't make a lick of difference - he's not on the 40-man yet. So the Cubs would be getting the same benefit by waiting two weeks to purchase his contract.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2015 9:30:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 9:40:29 GMT -5
Yikes, someone needs to start talking about why they're not shopping Cueto.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 19, 2015 9:59:20 GMT -5
Don't this this has been brought up yet, but the Marlins signed Christian Yelich to an extension today. It's for 49.75M over 7 years, with a 15M club option on the 8th. With 2 years at the minimum, they basically bought out his arbitration years and 2/3 years of free agency. Seems like a really, really good deal for the Marlins. I wonder if we could see a similar deal for Betts after this season. B-I-N-G-O but before this season ? ? ? www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/03/red-sox-considering-extension-for-mookie-betts.html
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 10:08:32 GMT -5
Don't this this has been brought up yet, but the Marlins signed Christian Yelich to an extension today. It's for 49.75M over 7 years, with a 15M club option on the 8th. With 2 years at the minimum, they basically bought out his arbitration years and 2/3 years of free agency. Seems like a really, really good deal for the Marlins. I wonder if we could see a similar deal for Betts after this season. B-I-N-G-O but before this season ? ? ? www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/03/red-sox-considering-extension-for-mookie-betts.htmlWas Yelich going to be a Super 2? I assume Mookie would be.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Mar 19, 2015 10:18:48 GMT -5
Was Yelich going to be a Super 2? I assume Mookie would be. Mookie only accrued 70 days of service time last year and the cutoff is usually around 120-140, so he won't end up Super 2.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 19, 2015 10:22:56 GMT -5
Mookie won't be a super 2.
He has 70 days service.
Polanco who is pretty much the super2 benchmark has 103 days and he won't be a super2.
I've never seen the Sox even rumored to be thinking about extending a player with 6 years control. Hope they go for 6+ 2 options.
Yelich isn't either, 1 year and 69 days.
|
|