Via BBTF, the Cubs provide the latest example of the unfairness of using service time to decide free agency:
If the Cubs postpone Bryant’s major-league arrival for at least 12 days, it will enable them to gain an additional year of control over the player before he becomes a free agent, according to baseball’s collective-bargaining agreement.
Why won’t Epstein simply acknowledge service-time considerations with Bryant? Presumably for the same reason that other executives follow the same script when dealing with the same situation: Concern that the union would use such remarks as grounds for a grievance.
So, the explanation for the act might trigger a grievance, but the actual act wouldn’t?
Makes no sense.The refusal of executives to discuss the service-time question indicates that management has some degree of doubt about the legality of its position. The union’s argument would be that the Cubs are operating outside the spirit of the CBA, demoting Bryant not because he needs to improve as a player, but because they want control over him for an additional year.
The case law overwhelmingly favors the clubs, according to one source — as long as there is a reasonable basis for the decision, even if it is wrong, the club will prevail. No matter. A grievance would demonstrate to both the players and owners — louder than any verbal threats — that the new union leadership will not be a pushover come 2016.
If you make a rule complicated, someone will game the system to their benefit. If the union is serious about fixing this, they should make any appearance prior to September roster expansion count as a full season. That way, it doesn’t matter if a player starts his season on April 1 or Aug. 1. That’s his first season. Once he appears in three of those, he’s eligible for arbitration, and after six, he’s a free agent.
I don’t know why teams wouldn’t go for that. It makes this kind of decision about Kris Bryant much easier for them.
By the way, I don’t think the union has a leg to stand on with a grievance. Plenty of rookies had great springs and then flopped in the majors.
Update: The Cubs are thinking of moving Bryant to the outfield, which may give them the excuse they need to send him to the minors.
This would all be solved if they started a player’s “clock” when he signs his first contract with the organization and ALL service time counted – even in the minors. Make it eight years of control, or nine, or whatever. Then promotion to the Majors would be based entirely on skill and team need.
These are the rules set forth in the CBA, which the player’s union agreed to. Why wouldn’t the owners play by the rules of the CBA? The better question is why the player’s union didn’t bargain for some change? Easy answer, those affected are not members of the union, they’re minor league players. The union didn’t care because it left that much more money available for the Union’s members…major league ballplayers. Now if I was Cubs ownership I’d let the Cub fans hold a fundraiser and if they raised $10-15 million for a donation to the Bryant salary pool, I’d bring him up now, but to expect the owners to pay millions more for no reason is ?????? insane.
A very minor tweak would be making the rule about getting major league service time for any option down to the minors lasting fewer than 20 days apply from opening day rather than whenever in spring the player is sent down. That would force a team to keep a guy in the minors for at least three weeks instead of two, which is the tiniest bit more plausible.
Also @robert, I’d argue that Cubs ownership already have their fans hold fundraisers, it’s just called paying for cable and ticket prices at Wrigley to watch the team.
@Theron, I certainly agree with your reply to me. There’s no love lost with Cub ownership, they have fielded a AA or AAA team the last few years all the while raising ticket prices and watching attendance decline.
Scott’s idea listed above seems like a perfect solution.
Eh, Bryant needs to work on his grammar or something.
I remember the Red Sox had a Chris Carter who hit 10 HR in ST. He is out of baseball after 206 PA.
MLBPA really needs to get out of their complacent rut though. They are really losing ground in terms of payroll/revenue and seem to pretty much go along with everything that benefits MLB but does not stand up for its players. Why is that Arod arbitrator still keeping his job, why concede on drug testing or penalties w/o receiving anything in return, how do you accept revenue sharing rebates, a stagnant LT threshold, low minor league pay and bonus restructions (I know only 40 man roster players are represented), QO system. etc…
MLB senses weakness over the last 8 years or so and is exploiting it, as they should. Players a generation from today will not be pleased with those of this generation who threw them under the bus while they enjoyed the good times. It will be harder to earn gains when MLB’s bubble pops with the demise of the baby boomers.