SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Kris Bryant files grievance over service time manipulation
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Dec 9, 2015 11:29:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 9, 2015 11:41:06 GMT -5
The thing that sticks out in the Bryant situation is that they sent him down and called him up when the starting 3b went on the DL; Looks like it happened to be in a time frame that he was just short on required service time. If they had simply just called him up on that date without the injury, it'd be impossible to point to real baseball reasons since you don't improve your defense in 2 weeks. However, that injury is key to their case.
The Phillies, have less of a case. The guy played the previous year. They sent down their starter and didn't call him up until the service time had passed and then called him up immediately. It's clear what they did.
If Bryant wins his case, I think that's a dangerous precedence for players. Teams may be reluctant to call a guy up due to injury if they are in that situation. Not good. Bryant can say all he wants that he should have made the team out of Spring, and he probably should have, but he did have a big hole in his game.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 9, 2015 11:46:00 GMT -5
It's really hard to win a case like this where the player can only point to circumstantial evidence regarding the motivation of a transaction. I'd be surprised if the players win, and I think they know that, but it's nice to see that the players' union is starting to be concerned about stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 9, 2015 12:36:00 GMT -5
It's really hard to win a case like this where the player can only point to circumstantial evidence regarding the motivation of a transaction. I'd be surprised if the players win, and I think they know that, but it's nice to see that the players' union is starting to be concerned about stuff like this. I don't know how circumstantial it is when your are 1 or 2 days form getting a full year of service time...it's pretty obvious what was goin on. Not sure what the burden of proof is here, but I don't think they have a leg to stand on. More of a shot across the bow to the impending CBA. That said, as a pro-union guy, they should be asking themselves why they agreed to it. Could have been a concession for other points of negotiation. |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 9, 2015 12:46:11 GMT -5
I wonder if the shortening of the "peak" of careers is going to force a general renegotiation of the FA eligibility rules. The whole system really distorts the market significantly, and these kinds of games are just one part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 9, 2015 13:25:08 GMT -5
It's really hard to win a case like this where the player can only point to circumstantial evidence regarding the motivation of a transaction. I'd be surprised if the players win, and I think they know that, but it's nice to see that the players' union is starting to be concerned about stuff like this. I don't know how circumstantial it is when your are 1 or 2 days form getting a full year of service time...it's pretty obvious what was goin on. Not sure what the burden of proof is here, but I don't think they have a leg to stand on. More of a shot across the bow to the impending CBA. That said, as a pro-union guy, they should be asking themselves why they agreed to it. Could have been a concession for other points of negotiation. It's circumstantial when a guy went down with an injury and you were called up to replace him. |
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 9, 2015 13:36:55 GMT -5
The grievance is symbolic and quite frankly a non-issue. If the players want a change in the service time rules, they'll have to negotiate for it in the next CBA. Until then, it's just a couple of players and their agents crying over spilt milk.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Dec 9, 2015 13:43:57 GMT -5
MLBPA was obviously going to make sure this got filed. They'll lose and nothing will change until the next CBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 9, 2015 13:57:09 GMT -5
MLBPA was obviously going to make sure this got filed. They'll lose and nothing will change until the next CBA. Right, because they only care about making sure Bryce Harper gets $400 million instead of only $300 million. The players who aren't making much money need their own union. Minor league players should be a part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 9, 2015 13:57:12 GMT -5
MLBPA was obviously going to make sure this got filed. They'll lose and nothing will change until the next CBA. Obviously. Which is why it's hard to take these matters with any degree of seriousness.  |
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 9, 2015 15:35:19 GMT -5
The grievance is symbolic and quite frankly a non-issue. If the players want a change in the service time rules, they'll have to negotiate for it in the next CBA. Until then, it's just a couple of players and their agents crying over spilt milk. Yes! BorASS has got to stick up for his clients, but his clients helped create the current CBA. Does it need some changes? Probably, but these agents and players would "run" a team the same way under this version. It doesn't matter, but Kris Bryant and his employer (the Cubs) need to have a respectable relationship. I'm sure Scott Boras is behind this, but there are times I doubt he cares about forging good relationships. |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 9, 2015 15:46:56 GMT -5
MILB pay is probably the biggest thing that should come out of the next CBA from the minor league side, but I have no idea if it will improve. It's god awful for an absurd amount of hours. They get away with it, but upping MILB salaries would not make much of a dent on teams' bottom line, that's how bad salaries are, especially in the lower minors
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 9, 2015 15:48:47 GMT -5
MILB pay is probably the biggest thing that should come out of the next CBA from the minor league side, but I have no idea if it will improve. It's god awful for an absurd amount of hours. They get away with it, but upping MILB salaries would not make much of a dent on teams' bottom line, that's how bad salaries are, especially in the lower minors They won't have a seat at the CBA table. They aren't a part of the union. And even if they were, the union wouldn't prioritize it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 9, 2015 15:52:05 GMT -5
MILB pay is probably the biggest thing that should come out of the next CBA from the minor league side, but I have no idea if it will improve. It's god awful for an absurd amount of hours. They get away with it, but upping MILB salaries would not make much of a dent on teams' bottom line, that's how bad salaries are, especially in the lower minors They won't have a seat at the CBA table. They aren't a part of the union. And even if they were, the union wouldn't prioritize it at all. I know, and it sucks. That's why I went with "that should come out of it" rather than "will come out of it". It's ludicrous. They get treated like crap in most places and barely make ends meet with the slim chance of ever making enough $ to actually change their life. They could double MILB salaries and guys still wouldn't be banking much after housing, dues, etc., but at least they'd have the ability to have something come out of it |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 9, 2015 16:33:41 GMT -5
I know there's a roughly 0% chance of him winning the grievance but it is fun to think about what he would get as a free agent (until you realize he'd undoubtedly end up a Yankee).
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 9, 2015 17:13:03 GMT -5
It's circumstantial when a guy went down with an injury and you were called up to replace him. Yes...and it was also very fortuitous to comlete the plan they were going to execute anyway. I don't disagree. I also don't blame the owners at all here. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 9, 2015 17:17:32 GMT -5
I wonder if the shortening of the "peak" of careers is going to force a general renegotiation of the FA eligibility rules. The whole system really distorts the market significantly, and these kinds of games are just one part of it. Agree. I wonder if the owners will see the benefit from their side, which i view as not as much diminished money risk to sign FA's when their prime years are more in play. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2015 1:45:25 GMT -5
First shots fired in the next CBA negotiations. As stated above, the MLBPA will lose, but that's not the point here. It's to take this issue and gain traction on it before the negotiations so that they don't need to give up as much to get that changed.
Frankly though, I'm not quite sure how you fix this without completely changing the structure of baseball contracts. Do you get rid of Super 2s? Do you split the season up into thirds or something and base a player's arb eligibility on that or something? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 10, 2015 2:38:27 GMT -5
First shots fired in the next CBA negotiations. As stated above, the MLBPA will lose, but that's not the point here. It's to take this issue and gain traction on it before the negotiations so that they don't need to give up as much to get that changed. Frankly though, I'm not quite sure how you fix this without completely changing the structure of baseball contracts. Do you get rid of Super 2s? Do you split the season up into thirds or something and base a player's arb eligibility on that or something? I'm not sure. That was going to be my question. What can really be done? My proposal would be to change the super 2 system so instead of those players getting an extra arbitration year the top percent get free agency, but I don't think that is very realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 10, 2015 3:48:03 GMT -5
First shots fired in the next CBA negotiations. As stated above, the MLBPA will lose, but that's not the point here. It's to take this issue and gain traction on it before the negotiations so that they don't need to give up as much to get that changed. Frankly though, I'm not quite sure how you fix this without completely changing the structure of baseball contracts. Do you get rid of Super 2s? Do you split the season up into thirds or something and base a player's arb eligibility on that or something? I'm not sure. It's not rocket science. You grant Super Two status for anyone who has 2 years and 90 days of service time or more. The fourth year of arbitration eligibility will be a steep enough price to pay for only getting a 1/2 year out of a guy that you'll have teams trying to maximize their return on investment by bringing guys up earlier rather than later. Yes, some knucklehead GM will still have the option of waiting until 1/2 the year has passed to bring up his version of Kris Bryant. But, that's a heck of an opportunity cost, especially if you have any hope at all of reaching the playoffs. The 90 days is just a suggestion, by the way. The point here is that what currently is a disincentive to promote a player actually becomes an incentive once you grant Super Two status for anything less than 2 1/2 years of service time. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Dec 10, 2015 10:57:08 GMT -5
It doesn't seem simple to me, as there will always be guys who fall on one side of the cusp or another, and therefore ways to game the system. The current system, with a moving target is about the best the MLBPA can do to disincentivize the teams. Perhaps there's a way of making the target less certain, maybe tie the super-two status to wins somehow as well?
I think the teams would sooner see more arbitration years, rather than fewer years of control though. And if I'm a player, I'd rather fight on restricted free agency (the QO) than on super-two status. Perhaps they can compromise with something like replacing a min salary year with an arb year and another MiL option. Remember too that options can be good for players as they keep marginal players around longer.
Regarding MiLB pay, I actually think that the owners have suggested it's a priority. It's really about the bigger teams and the league wanting higher pay, while the small-market teams scrounge for every penny at the expense of the league/top talent. It's not a union vs team thing even though some would frame it that way. The league can still note that it's a way of further compensating younger players at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 10, 2015 11:24:00 GMT -5
First shots fired in the next CBA negotiations. As stated above, the MLBPA will lose, but that's not the point here. It's to take this issue and gain traction on it before the negotiations so that they don't need to give up as much to get that changed. Frankly though, I'm not quite sure how you fix this without completely changing the structure of baseball contracts. Do you get rid of Super 2s? Do you split the season up into thirds or something and base a player's arb eligibility on that or something? I'm not sure. Well, instead of trying to find a different defined line (rule) that can be gamed, you could set up a standards base system that mimicked what we have now but then just said that teams must make service time decisions "for on field baseball reasons" (or whatever). Then you can introduce stiff penalties for failing to make service time decisions based on baseball (non contract) considerations. Both systems introduce gamesmanship, but the line drawing (the rule based system) just tells management how to game the system without reprocusions, while a standard based system with strong penalties disincents teams from operating in a gray area on their own, thereby incenting rule following behavior if the cost for standard breaking is not worth operating in the gray area. Its a classic rule/standard issue - which do you think would create a better system. Here, lack of knowledge re outcomes for failure could properly incent (with the appropriate frame work and a strong union) teams to police themselves. But, most people (esp lawyers) dislike standards and favor rules b/c we like to know ahead of time when we can get away with cheating each other =) |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 10, 2015 17:32:11 GMT -5
They won't have a seat at the CBA table. They aren't a part of the union. And even if they were, the union wouldn't prioritize it at all. I know, and it sucks. That's why I went with "that should come out of it" rather than "will come out of it". It's ludicrous. They get treated like crap in most places and barely make ends meet with the slim chance of ever making enough $ to actually change their life. They could double MILB salaries and guys still wouldn't be banking much after housing, dues, etc., but at least they'd have the ability to have something come out of it Maybe they should think about that and get a college education rather than sign out of high school. Or maybe they should set up a system where all players earn college education money with service time. I don't feel bad for someone who's choosing to play a game and hang out with their friends rather than working for a living. The vast majority of these guys aren't chasing a dream after a couple years they are delaying real life and hanging out. Nava is the exception not the rule and while it's a good story it's the choice he made. Playing baseball is not a job. If you are good enough to make a living off of it that's awesome for you. If you aren't and choose to slack off or not use your time wisely while playing then I don't feel bad you aren't making enough money to save for a house. |
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Dec 10, 2015 18:47:19 GMT -5
I don't care about legalize. I just know if I was Kris I would hold a grudge. I don't care if every other team would have done the same thing. But then I take things personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Dec 10, 2015 18:47:31 GMT -5
The bottom line is that the Cubs did nothing wrong. Did they make sure not to call him up until it postponed service time one year? Of course they did, and anything they say about "improving his defense" is obviously hot air. But unless Bryant/Boras can cite the specific clause in the CBA that prevents them from doing that it's a moot point. If you don't like the CBA, negotiate a better one next time. You made a deal, live up to it. Unless there actually IS a clause in the CBA that prevents what the Cubs did, in which case it's the Cubs that need to live up to it.
The worst part though is that the hot air from Boras will dwarf anything the Cubs FO puts out. Already he's talking about not being committed to winning and such. A bunch of ridiculous rhetoric when we all know it's just about the money. Nothing wrong with it being about the money; it's a business after all. But can we please stop the pretense?
|
|
|
