That avatar is some serious nightmare fuel Timby.
MLB Offseason 2014-15: Wait, pitchers and catchers report WHEN?
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
That avatar is some serious nightmare fuel Timby.
Everyone does it and the players know it, the Reds did it with Jay Bruce and he signed a long term deal with them.
Cubs officially send Bryant down to the minors (along with Baez and Russell).
A part of me is surprised that Epstein actually went through with it; he's generally very good at playing these to avoid the bad PR inflection point. But this is probably the most blatant case of service time manipulation in recent memory outside of maybe George Springer last year. But in any event I fully expect this to be brought up in the next CBA negotiations.
I have no idea if Bryant will grieve this -- Boras has certainly been laying the foundation for it, but so was Springer's camp and it settled -- but there are no currently set bounds for what teams can and can't do. The assumption is that teams can do it for baseball stuff but not for punitive or service time reasons, which is why the Cubs are making up bullshit about his defense and "pressure." I hope the Cubs get hit with a grievance, though (and they almost certainly will if Bryant is up in two weeks).
I don't feel like changing the date would do anything. Teams that want to manipulate the game, and by "teams" I mean the handful of bottom-feeders who are obsessed with cost efficiency (Cubs, Astros, Mets, Rays) will still do so.
A part of me is surprised that Epstein actually went through with it; he's generally very good at playing these to avoid the bad PR inflection point. But this is probably the most blatant case of service time manipulation in recent memory outside of maybe George Springer last year. But in any event I fully expect this to be brought up in the next CBA negotiations.
I have no idea if Bryant will grieve this -- Boras has certainly been laying the foundation for it, but so was Springer's camp and it settled -- but there are no currently set bounds for what teams can and can't do. The assumption is that teams can do it for baseball stuff but not for punitive or service time reasons, which is why the Cubs are making up bullshit about his defense and "pressure." I hope the Cubs get hit with a grievance, though (and they almost certainly will if Bryant is up in two weeks).
I don't feel like changing the date would do anything. Teams that want to manipulate the game, and by "teams" I mean the handful of bottom-feeders who are obsessed with cost efficiency (Cubs, Astros, Mets, Rays) will still do so.
They don't want him playing 3rd for the big league club.
They want him in the outfield.
He has no resume when it comes to playing pro-ball in the outfield.
Bring on the grievance. I imagine Theo and Jed will be laughing too.
Hell, exhibits A and B when it comes to "pressure" are Rizzo and Baez. How did their first calls up go?
I do like how you say it's one of the most blatant cases besides something that happened just last year.
They don't want him playing 3rd for the big league club.
They want him in the outfield.
He has no resume when it comes to playing pro-ball in the outfield.
Yes, buy into the "he needs to work on his defense" bullshit, because clearly Mike Olt and his seeing-eye dog are the answer at third.
The only teams that would keep Bryant in the minors at this point are the ones seeking to exploit every monetary edge in sight, everything else be damned.
I wouldn't be so sure, because in this particular context of agent, player and history, it's entirely possible the Cubs get hammered. Of all the major sports leagues, baseball in particular has a bad history with trying to get sham reasoning upheld in the labor processes, and this is basically the textbook definition of a sham.
I think what bugs me the most on this whole mess is the idea that ownership is entitled to anything not explicitly banned, and even going a step further, that they can do things that are outside the bounds so long as a minimally relevant horseshit reason can be found. This isn't just wrong as a matter of labor law, it's deeply pernicious in the framing of the whole thing.
I strongly suspect that the Baez call-up was timed very strategically (remember, his first game was in Coors) in the hopes of him having a hot two months and then flipping him for pitching in the offseason -- he doesn't have the peripheral skills that Epstein likes in his players, and defensively he's an absolute butcher. I don't think the team expected him to faceplant so badly.
Rizzo is an apples-to-oranges comparison, because his first major league time wasn't in Chicago.
Yes, "one of," as in this is a growing problem. If I had said it was the most blatant case, then you might have a point against me.
They don't want him playing 3rd for the big league club.
They want him in the outfield.
He has no resume when it comes to playing pro-ball in the outfield.
Yes, buy into the "he needs to work on his defense" bullshit, because clearly Mike Olt and his seeing-eye dog are the answer at third.
Keith Law rates Olt 70-80 defensively which is gold-glove level. I understand that doesn't fit your narrative though.
You're seeing what you want to see, which is fine, because the Cubs don't care.
There's no chance whatsoever the Cubs get hammered. The CBA was negotiated. The end.
I think you're underrating Baez defensively and what you're saying has the airiness of being impossible to disprove. Of course they didn't expect him to hash out the way it has though he has struggled initially at every level. (usually he adjusts quicker, though)
How does that figure? Because Chicago is a high-pressure situation due to their winning environment? Please.
And agents will continue to complain as is their nature. It's sad to see some people lap it up though.
If they truly want a change work it out in the next CBA.
Somebody posted a pic of an MiLB player eating an ice sandwich since he hadn't gotten his food money yet. Let's focus on how that guy is getting screwed rather than millionaires.
They don't want him playing 3rd for the big league club.
They want him in the outfield.
He has no resume when it comes to playing pro-ball in the outfield.
Yes, buy into the "he needs to work on his defense" bullshit, because clearly Mike Olt and his seeing-eye dog are the answer at third.
Keith Law rates Olt 70-80 defensively which is gold-glove level. I understand that doesn't fit your narrative though.
Olt also can't hit worth a shit.
The point that you're missing is that this isn't covered by the CBA. The Cubs aren't acting within the constraints of the agreement. They're acting in the absence of a clearly written rule and doing so in a way that may or may not be legal.
If a grievance is filed, I have no idea if Bryant would win or not. Perhaps the Cubs sham argument holds, maybe it doesn't. Whenever this showdown happens, whether now or at the table in two years, it's a first impression. But if the Cubs admitted this was a service time matter, based on the MLBPA's history, I think they'd lose. And that's why they're coming up with increasingly hilarious excuses for why he was sent down. Bryant was ready last year; this situation is as absurd as if the White Sox held Jose Abreu down in AA and said he needed to work on his bunting.
Broadly speaking, the MLBPA has the obligation to protect Bryant's interests in this matter and any possible adversarial process. But he isn't a member, and his interests were really not represented at the collective bargaining stage, though this was also essentially a non-issue at that time. So when we say the union made this deal and he should live with it or whatever, that's neither factually nor spiritually true.
Baez has never had success as an actual shortstop fielding the position. He had 44 errors in 120 games in 2013. He is not a major-league shortstop. Unless he goes on a quest for the Holy Grail and comes back with the ability to recognize anything coming out of a pitcher's hand besides a fastball, he isn't a major-league hitter, either. If anything, he's the candidate to move to the outfield because of his arm -- not Bryant. But he's a pretty classic Cubs sell-high prospect.
It's apples to oranges because Epstein wasn't the guy who made the call on Rizzo.
This is nothing more than a naked attempt to move money from a player's pocket to an owner's. Whether you find that problematic or not is up to you.
It's not the CBA, it's the people abusing the CBA at the margins. Change the CBA and they just change the abuse.
Did you read what Law said? His fielding is enough to make up for it and he had a nice Spring at the bat.
Acting in absence of a rule is acting in the constraints of the agreement. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that. They can't measure your angst and thankfully don't care.
They want him to get outside MLB playing time in the outfield. Your wishing doesn't make it so about it being a sham.
Ok, so what about the current member of the MLBPA who gets bounced off the 40-man in favor of Bryant? Screw that guy, I guess?
He'll sell really high now that they bounced him back to Iowa.
No, it was probably Jed Hoyer who was the GM in San Diego at the time and the *current* GM of the Cubs, in case you'd forgotten.
I'd say that's a good point for the next CBA - but it's certainly nothing new.
Oh, so you'll never be happy with what they do. Ok. This has been a useful conversation.
I read what Law said, and I absolutely understand the value of a world-class glove (see my evaluations of Didi Gregorius in this thread), but even a world-class glove doesn't make up for offense that doesn't even sniff replacement-level. Not at third base, anyway.
If they cared about Bryant getting time in the outfield, they'd have been playing him there all spring, or they would have had him spend time in the outfield at the tail-end of last season. This talk about him needing time in the outfield only popped up in the last week or so.
In a tightly contested NL Central in a season I've been openly talking about contending in, I'd want my best team out there from Opening Day, and worry about paying Bryant later since I'm in an organization whose worth is $1.8 billion. But this is nothing more than the Cubs brazenly coming up with a lame excuse so they can save a few extra bucks.
That was the attitude you took with Rick Renteria, so...
When I said "classic Cubs sell-high prospect," I was referring to the long, sad, pathetic history of Cubs prospects who were highly regarded but should have been traded before they were exposed as one-dimensional: Patterson, Pie, Montanez, Vitters, Jackson...
And based on Epstein's statements, Hoyer isn't the one making the call on Bryant, nor was Rizzo ever as highly regarded as Bryant to the point that the Padres considered service time manipulation (nor would they, because their ownership isn't concerned with ~cost certainty~ and ~process uber alles~. You're still comparing apples to oranges.
The fact of the matter is that it's impossible to make an airtight contract, let alone when the other side of the table is a bunch of oligarchs who are openly trying to screw you. No CBA will ever be immune to parties who are willing to openly operate in bad faith in an attempt to exploit loopholes, especially when the party is the one that enjoys a prohibitive advantage in social, political, legal and financial power.
Being penny-wise and pound-foolish is stupid for a team with as much money and resources as the Ricketts-owned Cubs. Best case scenario is you save a few million bucks in his controlled years, and worst case is you piss off a Boras client enough to bolt the first chance he gets.
"It's a smart business strategy" is never a valid defense against the claim that you did something immoral (and potentially illegal, given that it has never been litigated by this point).
To be illegal, doesn't there have to be a rule against it? Worst you can say is that it's not the spirit of the rules. Who knows what a stud 3B will be making in his first FA year, but have to imagine they are saving 20-25M (without whatever inflation another 6 years of salaries brings), so not exactly "a couple bucks". And for that windfall, they lose exactly 2 weeks of his services. So 1/10th of a season gets you 10/10ths tacked onto the end of the deal. If he's half as good as anyone says, you'd be stupid NOT to do that.
Other way to go is like the Rays did with Longoria, and buy it all out upfront. But since it's Boras and he won't do that, you do it this way and at least get every drop of value before he runs off to cash in on the FA market.
It should definitely be taken up at the CBA rehash, but nothing stopping them from doing what they are doing, and probably the right way to go from a baseball ops standpoint. If 30-40 ABs from a rookie 3B means you can't win the NL Central, you were probably already screwed.
Other way to go is like the Rays did with Longoria, and buy it all out upfront. But since it's Boras and he won't do that, you do it this way and at least get every drop of value before he runs off to cash in on the FA market.
It should definitely be taken up at the CBA rehash, but nothing stopping them from doing what they are doing, and probably the right way to go from a baseball ops standpoint. If 30-40 ABs from a rookie 3B means you can't win the NL Central, you were probably already screwed.
Well, that's the thing. It isn't absolutely against the rules, nor is it absolutely allowable -- if it were absolutely allowable, the Cubs wouldn't be coming up with increasingly less plausible reasons to hold back a player who was ready for the majors last season.
When it's a franchise that has tons of money and doesn't need to worry about payroll flexibility, like the Cubs, holding a player down in AAA for a few weeks isn't worth it. You basically have a ton to lose and almost nothing to gain. And if they call him up in two weeks, then a grievance will almost certainly be filed, because if you say you're sending a guy down to work on his defense and then you yank him back up, then how much defense did he really work on?
Basically, it's generally believed that you can send a player down to the minors for baseball reasons, but you can't do it as punishment, nor can you do it for service time. But it hasn't been litigated yet -- but teams are getting more and more brazen with this, and it's going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
Keith Law disagrees. I'll go with him.
He's been talked about being in the outfield for a while. Certainly more than the last week. And even if he'd been there all spring those aren't real games and everybody knows it.
It's more than a few. It's not your money so you don't care, but it's more than a few. And if his WAR for whatever he misses this season ends up being able to be derived from whatever his big league WAR is at the end of the year and the Cubs end up missing the playoffs by that many games I suppose you'll be right in some way. But his WAR would have to be ridiculously high for that to be apparent in a tightly contested race.
That was the attitude you took with Rick Renteria, so...
Another case where you had a fit because the Cubs stuck to the letter of a contract or agreement. Still waiting for the outcome of that tampering case, eh?
- everybody who ends up being a bust should have been traded. Great hindsight there. Where'd you see that Hoyer was not making the call? Epstein said he'd never started a player on the big league roster opening day as their first call-up. That's what he said.
Both sides are trying to screw each other, just FYI. Hell, these are guaranteed contracts, too. If Bryant cracks his head open the day after singning a 150M extension what do you think'll happen?
One, it's far more than a few million. Two, you think a Boras client isn't going to test free agency? You're being naive.
Don't expect too many MLB players to fight for Bryant, either.
Potentially illegal? What a joke.
So you're with us that it's not illegal, then. Good.
Other than the obvious, pretty simple math. If you lose 2-3 weeks now, at the outset of his career, you gain a YEAR of his time when he should be in his theoretical prime. 2 weeks < 28 weeks. And yes, you could just arrange to pay Boras to get him to play for you again after that, but factor in the 7 years at 30M/season that will cost you in 2022 or whatever.
So sitting him 2 weeks gains you 26 weeks of service time, and saves you 30M dollars. Why would they be rushing to make sure he gets into an April game, again?
If 3B was the only hole on your team, maybe there's something, but it's not. So that imaginary money may come in useful down the road. And you can probably hold down the fort for 2 weeks while they wait for him. If not, you're screwed anyway, because it means if anyone hits the DL, you already think you're too up against it to survive, so surely you can't lose 2 weeks of anyone or you won't make it.
I think we're all solidly entrenched in our positions here (Scout, at least you admit that the Cubs are blatantly playing service time games, as opposed to Corran who thinks that there are legitimate defensive concerns for Bryant), so here's something that will happen this year that will make some people -- like Yanks -- cry:
Well, there are two things, probably, but I circled the one I thought of first.
Well, there are two things, probably, but I circled the one I thought of first.
Hanigan will be decent enough to get the Red Sox by until Swihart is ready. He's nothing amazing, but he's not horrible.
Agreed that this means we'll probably be seeing Swihart a bit sooner. I'm looking forward to his debut, especially if he turns out to be as good as he's hyped up to be. I just don't want the Red Sox to rush him.
How Wrigley Field looks today, no bleachers but hey they have a JumboTron. With 3 days before opening, not looking too good.
I figure the work time restrictions wouldn't apply to the jumbotron. They could go 24/3 to get that working.
The 2 side-boards I've seen in the drawings & the extra light would come later.
But hey, at least Wrigley has caught up with the late 20th century in this respect.
The 2 side-boards I've seen in the drawings & the extra light would come later.
But hey, at least Wrigley has caught up with the late 20th century in this respect.
So what happens to all the bleacher season ticket holders? Do they get their money back?
- Status
