Photo

Chicago Cubs


  • Please log in to reply
587 replies to this topic

#581 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 08:37 PM

I don't expect anything to happen. Perhaps the fact he was called up, thee, day after the deadline goes in his favor. But in these things, if it opens the flood gates for other players to grieve, I doubt they rule in Bryant's favor. 

 

I am in favor of any rule change that starts service time from signing day, not from call up to the bigs day. It's not fair for the fans who have to sit through what the Orioles are doing, not promoting their future stars. It's not fair to guys like Trey Mancini who won't be a free agent until he is 31. 

Messersmith would have opened the floodgates as well, yet an arbitrator still ruled in his favor.

 

Personally I think the two sides will agree to some sort of settlement--maybe the Cubs give Bryant a two-year extension that would pay considerably more than if he went to arbitration his final two years eligible. I agree that it would be a thorny precedent should there be a ruling in Bryant's favor--particularly since the CBA doesn't specifically address the issue--but at the same time, there's always the risk that an arbitrator could be sympathetic to Bryant.

 

Such a ruling would certainly impact strategic planning around baseball, and would also change how teams make promotion decisions. Those types of issues are typically not something you want to put at the mercy of an independent arbitrator.



#582 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,243 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 23 October 2019 - 08:48 PM

How can you prove it though?

End of the day, the Cubs can say we wanted him to accomplish these things and we felt he did it.

I get that the day after thing looks bad but they could call it a coincidence.

More importantly, why should they be penalized for doing something they are legally allowed to do?

It within the rules of the game to do this.

It’s like legal loopholes in your taxes. It stops you from paying your “fair share” (at least as the thieves define it) but it’s still legal.
  • Thirteen likes this
@BSLRobShields

#583 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 11:36 PM

How can you prove it though?

End of the day, the Cubs can say we wanted him to accomplish these things and we felt he did it.

I get that the day after thing looks bad but they could call it a coincidence.

More importantly, why should they be penalized for doing something they are legally allowed to do?

It within the rules of the game to do this.

It’s like legal loopholes in your taxes. It stops you from paying your “fair share” (at least as the thieves define it) but it’s still legal.

I agree it's difficult to overcome the presumption of "baseball decision."

 

Bryant was promoted that year after there were two injuries ahead of him on the big league roster. Further, every player the Cubs have promoted these past few seasons (or after they became good) were all in-season promotions. It's going to be difficult for the players to claim Bryant's promotion was handled differently than any of the others.

 

But, just like the collusion case of the 1980s, sometimes looks themselves can be damning. If something appears to be cooked, well, then it probably is. In Bryant's case, he fell one day short of the needed service time to qualify for a full season, as you referenced. The timing of this case isn't a coincidence, either. For the first few years, it didn't matter because Bryant was under team control regardless. Now it comes down to whether he'll be a free agent in two years or after next season. Those are some pretty significant stakes.



#584 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,934 posts

Posted 24 October 2019 - 09:55 AM

Messersmith would have opened the floodgates as well, yet an arbitrator still ruled in his favor.

Personally I think the two sides will agree to some sort of settlement--maybe the Cubs give Bryant a two-year extension that would pay considerably more than if he went to arbitration his final two years eligible. I agree that it would be a thorny precedent should there be a ruling in Bryant's favor--particularly since the CBA doesn't specifically address the issue--but at the same time, there's always the risk that an arbitrator could be sympathetic to Bryant.

Such a ruling would certainly impact strategic planning around baseball, and would also change how teams make promotion decisions. Those types of issues are typically not something you want to put at the mercy of an independent arbitrator.


Yeah but Messersmith and McNally found a loophole in the reserve clause by I think agreeing to play a season while not under contract. By not being contracted for the year the team didn’t own their rights anymore.

Players can’t control their service time or call up dates.
@BSLMikeRandall

#585 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 24 October 2019 - 11:59 PM

Yeah but Messersmith and McNally found a loophole in the reserve clause by I think agreeing to play a season while not under contract. By not being contracted for the year the team didn’t own their rights anymore.

Players can’t control their service time or call up dates.

Messersmith and McNally were under contract by terms of the reserve clause, but what they did was refuse to sign contracts for the 1975 season. The argument was that both had played out their options, and had thus fulfilled any contractual obligation with their respective clubs. The language in the reserve clause gave teams the right to renew a player's contract "for the period of one year." To the owners, that meant perpetual renewal rights; to the players, it meant what it said. A player could be renewed once, and then he could shop his services to the highest bidder.

 

Under the reserve clause, a player was always two years away from freedom. There was the contract year, followed by the option year, which permitted the club to "reserve" the player for that season. Until 1970, there was a little-known provision in the standard player contract which forbade a player to suit up without a signed contract--Section 3C, to be exact. It was, in fact, the enforcer of the reserve clause. The player was obliged to sign the contract, another link in the chain was created, and the player was captive for another two-year cycle. 

 

An independent arbitrator ruled against 3C, and now what was needed was a player willing to act as a test case. It took five years before Messersmith and McNally provided such a case in 1975. 

 

There are no such vagaries in the Bryant grievance since the CBA clearly states that players earn one year of service time after they accrue 172 days in a season. The Cubs promoted Bryant on April 17, 2015, to take the place of the injured Mike Olt. Bryant missed the cutoff by one day.

 

That alone looks suspicious, but the Cubs can argue that they followed the rules of the CBA. It's going to be hard for Bryant to prove that they had an ulterior motive, but arbitration hearings don't always produce the expected results. If by chance, the arbitrator finds for Bryant, it won't have the far-reaching effects of Messersmith, but it would impact every player within two years of free agency.


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this

#586 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 115,687 posts

Posted 07 November 2019 - 08:56 AM

CBS Sports: Cubs could make a hot stove splash, but they would likely have to deal a star to make it happen
https://www.cbssport...make-it-happen/



#587 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 115,687 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 07:08 PM

CBS Sports: Where will Kris Bryant play in 2020? Ranking the Cubs star's best landing spots as trade rumors swirl
https://www.cbssport...e-rumors-swirl/



#588 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 08:08 PM

CBS Sports: Where will Kris Bryant play in 2020? Ranking the Cubs star's best landing spots as trade rumors swirl
https://www.cbssport...e-rumors-swirl/

Sounds like typical hot-stove speculation which isn't likely to come to fruition.

I think more likely scenarios are the rumors surrounding both Mookie Betts and Francisco Lindor. Betts is a year away from free agency and the Red Sox reportedly want to try and get below the luxury tax (don't they all?). Lindor has two years until he can walk, but at a projected arbitration salary of $16.7 million for next season, he's certainly within the financial reach of a number of teams.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners