Kris Bryant Files a Grievance against the Cubs for keeping him in the minors

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The proposals I have seen would be based on when they sign, not age.  So if a Dominican prospect signs at 16, he would be controlled through, say, 26, while a college player who signs at age 22 might be controlled through age 29.  (Don't pick on my numbers, I just made them up here, feel free to adjust ages/years as you see fit, just trying to communicate the general concept.)

 

And an indy ball free agent signing at age 28, maybe he gets controlled through age 30 or something -- enough to encourage teams to sign him, but also short enough that he can work toward free agency at a reasonable age.

This makes much more sense, as it's similar to the current rule system, only going back to signing date. I have no problems with this idea, though I think the players will have to make some significant sacrifices to reach an agreement.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The proposals I have seen would be based on when they sign, not age.  So if a Dominican prospect signs at 16, he would be controlled through, say, 26, while a college player who signs at age 22 might be controlled through age 29.  (Don't pick on my numbers, I just made them up here, feel free to adjust ages/years as you see fit, just trying to communicate the general concept.)

 

And an indy ball free agent signing at age 28, maybe he gets controlled through age 30 or something -- enough to encourage teams to sign him, but also short enough that he can work toward free agency at a reasonable age.

 

Seems reasonable to me.....base it on when signed and age of signee.......but no one should be controlled past age 28 or 29 or so if they came in thru the draft.

[Don Walcott]

I agree that the way the system is set up, the Cubs may have been legally entitled to hold Kris Bryant back from being in the majors for several weeks, just so they could control him for another year.  Howver, I don't agree that this use of the system is in good faith by the Cubs.  There was absolutely no legitimate baseball-related reason for them to do this, and I hope it cost them the division and home field in the playoffs (who knows whether it actually did?).  I think it is a breach of their covenant of good faith and fair dealing with their player, and I would expect Kris Bryant will remember this when he's weighing his options of signing a contract with the Cubs or pursuing free agency at some point.  I also think it was a disservice to fans, especially Cubs fans, to not field their best team with their most exciting young player on the field.  So even though the Cubs may have been technically entitled to do what they did, I wouldn't applaud them for it.

[JustinCB]

 

Kris Bryant isn't a millionaire yet.

 

He got a $6.7 million signing bonus.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This makes much more sense, as it's similar to the current rule system, only going back to signing date. I have no problems with this idea, though I think the players will have to make some significant sacrifices to reach an agreement.

Depending on how you set it up, it may not be much of a concession to the players at all.  But it would be a massive change from the current system, so I don't think it has any chance of happening.

 

Will be interesting to see where the MLBPA pushes this grievance, though.

 

[USAFChief]

This makes much more sense, as it's similar to the current rule system, only going back to signing date. I have no problems with this idea, though I think the players will have to make some significant sacrifices to reach an agreement.

I think both sides would look at something like this favorably.

 

It gives the teams incentive to get players to the majors as quickly as possible, since the clock is ticking whether the player is in Rochester, Ft Myers, or Minneapolis, so the union will like it.

 

It removes disincentive from teams to not field their best roster, so teams should like it since they don't have to dance the service time clock dance any longer.

[Vanimal46]

There are several good ideas of how the MLB can revamp the current system they have for minor league players about to make it the big show. 

We haven't really touched on the Berrios angle that Dave mentioned in the opening post. Unless the current system is revamped this offseason, which is unlikely, the Twins are going to be in the same position with him this upcoming spring. I know the situation sucks for the players, but you can't ignore the financial benefit of keeping a player in the minor leagues for 2-3 weeks and gaining the extra year of control. 

I may be evil for wishing this, but I hope the Kris Bryant treatment happens with Berrios, to gain that extra year of control and get him in the majors ASAP. 

[Don Walcott]

If Berrios is good enough, they should start him in the rotation at the beginning of the season.  It would be what is best for a team that is only marginally contending, and needs a lot of things to go right to be in the pennant race in September.  If Berrios is good enough, a few years from now, we should be trying to lock him up to a long-term contract, rather than nickel and dime him because we can.  I hope the Twins treat him right, he's a top of the rotation starter for many years, and he wants to stay a Twin.

[Thrylos]

Sano should file one too

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I agree that the way the system is set up, the Cubs may have been legally entitled to hold Kris Bryant back from being in the majors for several weeks, just so they could control him for another year.  Howver, I don't agree that this use of the system is in good faith by the Cubs.  There was absolutely no legitimate baseball-related reason for them to do this, and I hope it cost them the division and home field in the playoffs (who knows whether it actually did?).  I think it is a breach of their covenant of good faith and fair dealing with their player, and I would expect Kris Bryant will remember this when he's weighing his options of signing a contract with the Cubs or pursuing free agency at some point.  I also think it was a disservice to fans, especially Cubs fans, to not field their best team with their most exciting young player on the field.  So even though the Cubs may have been technically entitled to do what they did, I wouldn't applaud them for it.

 

There was an immensely legitimate baseball-related reason for holding him down.  A few weeks in April at the beginning of a player's career, weighed against an entire extra year of control in a player's prime is so imbalanced the Cubs would be certifiably insane to bring him up for the first game.  Blame the system if you want, but the players agreed to it, and the Cubs used it exactly how it was intended to be used.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

It gives the teams incentive to get players to the majors as quickly as possible, since the clock is ticking whether the player is in Rochester, Ft Myers, or Minneapolis, so the union will like it.

 

The Union would actually probably have mixed feelings about it.  They'd like that it would help some players get to free agency easier, but it also makes it far more likely that careers will be shortened, as there's far less disincentive to bring up a player from the minors who may or may not be ready.  That means 26 or 27 year old players with 2 or 3 years of service can be much easier set to the side in favor of 23 or 24 year olds.  Additionally, if a player doesn't get to the majors until they're 25 (assuming a cut-off age of 28), they basically have 2 years to prove themselves.

 

Take Trevor Plouffe as an example.  Under this proposed system, the Twins would have had to make a free-agent offer to Trevor Plouffe after 2013, a season in which he slashed .254/.309/.392, struck out almost 19% of the time, and had negative defensive value.  He would either get a small offer or no offer, rather than an additional 3 or 4 seasons to build value.  Making Plouffe a free agent at 28 actually probably costs him money, rather than making him money.

[Mike Sixel]

so you think no other team signs Plouffe? You think he does not have good years after that, like he did here? I think you are leaping to some conclusions here.

[Don Walcott]

 

There was an immensely legitimate baseball-related reason for holding him down. 

 

You mean, a "money-related" reason.  Failing to put your best team on the field because you want "control" over an asset is not baseball-related.

[ashbury]

You mean, a "money-related" reason.  Failing to put your best team on the field because you want "control" over an asset is not baseball-related.

Or, long-term/strategic versus short-term/tactical baseball judgement.

[tobi0040]

 

I agree that the way the system is set up, the Cubs may have been legally entitled to hold Kris Bryant back from being in the majors for several weeks, just so they could control him for another year.  Howver, I don't agree that this use of the system is in good faith by the Cubs.  There was absolutely no legitimate baseball-related reason for them to do this, and I hope it cost them the division and home field in the playoffs (who knows whether it actually did?).  I think it is a breach of their covenant of good faith and fair dealing with their player, and I would expect Kris Bryant will remember this when he's weighing his options of signing a contract with the Cubs or pursuing free agency at some point.  I also think it was a disservice to fans, especially Cubs fans, to not field their best team with their most exciting young player on the field.  So even though the Cubs may have been technically entitled to do what they did, I wouldn't applaud them for it.

 

The only issue I see with moving the free agent age up is, does that help or hurt a guy that breaks through at 29?

 

I mean, he needed minor league reps and a job in the minors to showcase his talents and eventually break through.  A guy that breaks through at 28-29 is not differentiating himself from guys in the 21-25 range for a very long time. If a team has next to no upside in the guy because he is a FA soon, does that guy get the reps neccesary to impress the right guys, develop the pitch that helps him?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

The only issue I see with moving the free agent age up is, does that help or hurt a guy that breaks through at 29?

 

I mean, he needed minor league reps and a job in the minors to showcase his talents and eventually break through.  A guy that breaks through at 28-29 is not differentiating himself from guys in the 21-25 range for a very long time. If a team has next to no upside in the guy because he is a FA soon, does that guy get the reps neccesary to impress the right guys, develop the pitch that helps him?

 

That's just as true today. The key is, he'd be free to go to another org as a minor leaguer, where he feels he has a better shot, or he can become a FA sooner, so he can get some money for all that hard work.

[Don Walcott]

 

Or, long-term/strategic versus short-term/tactical baseball judgement.

No, I meant what I said.  The "long-term/strategic" is simply another way of saying you want "control" of an asset, to save you money.  It had nothing to do with baseball.  The Cubs played a replacement-level player who they promptly dumped instead of Kris Bryant.  Now, you might say that they saved themselves some money by doing so, but there's no way you can argue that they kept Kris Bryant in the minors because it made their team better.

 

And gaining the one extra year of control this way for a player of this caliber might not even end up being such a great long-term strategy.  If they've pissed off Bryant and his agent, he might not sign on for a long-term contract with the Cubs when he's reached superstar status.  Rather, he and his agent will play this out until free agency, and he'll leave the Cubs.  So the only thing the Cubs will be able to do is try to trade a Scott Boras client, who everyone knows will want to test the free agent market at some point, which will depress his trade value.

 

I hope the Twins don't make this mistake with Berrios.  We aren't going to win 97 games, like the Cubs did.  The margin for error for this team is slim, and winning a couple of extra games because we had Berrios pitching rather than Nolasco might be the difference between playing in the post-season or not.  How much money do you think just the one post-season game makes a team?  $5-10 million?  How much is that extra year of control worth?  Penny wise, pound foolish.

[nicksaviking]

How about if there is a second arbitration process, but for "grievance" type players. Players that have demonstrated enough success in the minors where they probably deserve a shot at MLB money. The process could influence their paycheck while their service time remains unchanged.

 

This would of course be in addition to paying minor leaguers a fair salary which aside from the owners, appears to be universally agreed needs to happen.

[Mike Sixel]

They don't care about the money, is the years to FA that matter. The teams aren't doing this to save money, but to CONTROL the player for another year.

[Hrbowski]

 

They don't care about the money, is the years to FA that matter. The teams aren't doing this to save money, but to CONTROL the player for another year.

Which is reasonable, wouldn't you want Bryant for an extra year if you could?

[Hrbowski]

 

so you think no other team signs Plouffe? You think he does not have good years after that, like he did here? I think you are leaping to some conclusions here.

He would get way less.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Which is reasonable, wouldn't you want Bryant for an extra year if you could?

 

Yes, given the model, it's what I would PROBABLY do.....I think it would be very contextual around the rest of the team, how good we might be, and if I was really convinced that player would be elite.

[drjim]

I always thought a better solution was to make free agency after 6 years, 45 days. This would make it less likely that a team would hold a player down on the front end, give teams a free September callup and no penalty for starting a player on the roster from day 1. Plus side is that more or less the best players play what they should, or at the very least less players would be manipulated.

 

Of course players won't do this for nothing - so could be potentially be traded for expanded roster or quicker arb.

[ashbury]

No, I meant what I said.  The "long-term/strategic" is simply another way of saying you want "control" of an asset, to save you money.  It had nothing to do with baseball.  Penny wise, pound foolish.

If you're going to define "baseball" one certain way, there isn't anything to discuss. Kinda dull. And since your definition is at odds with how general managers define it, it's not a realistic discussion either.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You mean, a "money-related" reason.  Failing to put your best team on the field because you want "control" over an asset is not baseball-related.

It is absolutely baseball-related. The Cubs swapped two weeks of a 23 year old Kris Bryant for a full season of a 29 year old Kris Bryant.

 

You can complain about the rules but that's a baseball decision, a long-term smart baseball decision at that.

[drjim]

Has anyone made the distinction that this is a smart move for the Cubs but bad for baseball.

 

Having a young player who is good, ready and has a open spot in the lineup but is still in the minors serves no one - team, player, fan or sport.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Has anyone made the distinction that this is a smart move for the Cubs but bad for baseball.

 

Having a young player who is good, ready and has a open spot in the lineup but is still in the minors serves no one - team, player, fan or sport.

Very true. I'm not saying the rules shouldn't be changed - I think they should - but claiming this wasn't a baseball decision is silly.

 

Who here doesn't think a full season of 29 year old Bryant will be worth more wins than two weeks of 23 year old Bryant?

 

That looks like a baseball decision to me.

[Vanimal46]

It's a smart move for any club to play the system the way it's set up right now. Maikel Franco of the Phillies is going through the same thing as Kris Bryant, but IMO the Bryant situation is in the news more because he's a Boras client. 

Boras I'm sure is trying to use his power to get this changed in the CBA for his clients. Until it's changed, every team will continue to do this with their great-to-elite prospects. 

[drjim]

 

Very true. I'm not saying the rules shouldn't be changed - I think they should - but claiming this wasn't a baseball decision is silly.

 

Who here doesn't think a full season of 29 year old Bryant will be worth more wins than two weeks of 23 year old Bryant?

 

That looks like a baseball decision to me.

 

I absolutely agree. Would never argue otherwise.

 

But I do think this is a situation where as fans we get caught up in the lesser details of what is good or bad move and miss the larger picture slamming us in the face. And I do think it is a situation that can be improved, if not exactly fixed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Very true. I'm not saying the rules shouldn't be changed - I think they should - but claiming this wasn't a baseball decision is silly.

 

Who here doesn't think a full season of 29 year old Bryant will be worth more wins than two weeks of 23 year old Bryant?

 

That looks like a baseball decision to me.

Semantics, but I wouldn't call that a "baseball decision", rather a "business of baseball decision" based precisely on the odd incentives that many of us are criticizing in this thread.  We'd like to see more overlap between "baseball" and the "business of baseball" in these high-profile moves.