Luis Robert and Nick Madrigal

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The Cubs, the Astros, the Braves. 

The Cubs wouldn't do it now that they're competing.

Astros and Braves aren't "wealthy."

[Jack Parkman]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The Cubs wouldn't do it now that they're competing.

Astros and Braves aren't "wealthy."

The Astros should be, they play in one of the most populous metro areas in Baseball. Houston is now the 4th most populous city in the US, after NYC, LA, and Chicago. It wouldn't shock me if they pass Chicago for #3 in the 2020 census. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[pcq]

Perhaps there could be a rule that 81 games in the first mlb year counts as a full year of service time. It would be more difficult to bury a Luis Robert for a half year plus to gain an extra year and not as rewarding. 

[mqr]

2 minutes ago, pcq said:

Perhaps there could be a rule that 81 games in the first mlb year counts as a full year of service time. It would be more difficult to bury a Luis Robert for a half year plus to gain an extra year and not as rewarding. 

Honestly anything before September should count. 

[Jack Parkman]

10 minutes ago, mqr said:

Honestly anything before September should count. 

That doesn't help enough. I think anything before the ASB should count. Instead of gaining the extra year on the back end it should be on the front end. But, knowing the Sox they'd hold them down until next July. There should be some sort of grievance system created so that a player doesn't spend an extra season in the minors if they don't have to. It should be based on the combination of age, level, and performance. If someone is tearing up AA or AAA they should have some way to get them to the majors. There should be some rule that once a player reaches AAA if they are performing at a certain level they have to be called up.  Something like a 140 wRC+ or something like that forces a callup, based on age, where a player is on prospect lists, etc. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[BamaDoc]

7 hours ago, bighurt574 said:

The problem is that if an organization doesn't take advantage of service time rules when everyone else is doing it, you're putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage, especially for an organization with payroll limitations who would likely lose a guy to FA when his control is up.  Yeah, you can say "everyone else is doing it" isn't an excuse for treating employees poorly, but this is ultimately the system that the players' union signed off on in the CBA.  And the way teams have acted was hardly unforeseeable, so don't give me that.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  

Exactly.  This is not an employer crushing an employee.  The employees had representation.  In an agreement both sides "exploit" the agreement to their advantage.  The players signed off to what now in retrospect is an advantage for the owners.  Teams that operate best within the rules of the system will have an advantage over those teams who don't.  I am not pro owner.  I am pro honoring your deal.  MLB has the advantage of guaranteed contracts.  Do any of these players give back the money when they do not perform to the level of their contract....of course not.  I would actually like a system where players are totally(or mainly) rewarded for performance.  All you would argue about is what portion of the pie goes to players and then let the players union figure out who gets what.  That would actually be the most fair.  The rookie who is great would be paid fairly.  Have a floor for a guy who gets hurt but should any player in a truly fair system be paid massively for not playing?  If you say it is because he has earned that by his past performance, in my system  he would have been paid then when he deserved it.  I get that there isn't a totally fair system for measuring defense, clubhouse, productive outs but with all the computers out there and the money we are talking about it could be done.  It sure as hell would eliminate a lack of effort as you wouldn't get paid. 

[Soxfest]

Hahn saying service time not a factor is hilarious 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, BamaDoc said:

Exactly.  This is not an employer crushing an employee.  The employees had representation.  In an agreement both sides "exploit" the agreement to their advantage.  The players signed off to what now in retrospect is an advantage for the owners.  Teams that operate best within the rules of the system will have an advantage over those teams who don't.  I am not pro owner.  I am pro honoring your deal.  MLB has the advantage of guaranteed contracts.  Do any of these players give back the money when they do not perform to the level of their contract....of course not.  I would actually like a system where players are totally(or mainly) rewarded for performance.  All you would argue about is what portion of the pie goes to players and then let the players union figure out who gets what.  That would actually be the most fair.  The rookie who is great would be paid fairly.  Have a floor for a guy who gets hurt but should any player in a truly fair system be paid massively for not playing?  If you say it is because he has earned that by his past performance, in my system  he would have been paid then when he deserved it.  I get that there isn't a totally fair system for measuring defense, clubhouse, productive outs but with all the computers out there and the money we are talking about it could be done.  It sure as hell would eliminate a lack of effort as you wouldn't get paid. 

I hate this comparison... have teams ever paid a guy more than he was guaranteed because he performed better than paid? No.

And one more time, it is not within the rules as defined. They are skirting it on a the fact that readiness is subjective. In regards of that part of the CBA, they are not acting within good faith.

[BamaDoc]

You don't like the comparison?  The teams are finally wising up to not paying for past performance on aging players.  The vast majority of big money contracts were terrible for the teams.  If you went with my proposal every player would be paid what they were worth/earned each year.  Why can't they do that?  

[Moan4Yoan]

1 hour ago, Soxfest said:

Hahn saying service time not a factor is hilarious 

The ultimate proof will be if they don’t make the opening day roster and get called up after the “Kris Bryant” deadline expires.  But what can Hahn say?  We all know what the deal is.  If neither guy signs a long term deal in the offseason, they will be up in a couple weeks into next season.

[ptatc]

On 8/30/2019 at 11:13 AM, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes, and I have stated numerous times that service time exploitation is a load of garbage, and fans that support it are supporting the exploitation of workers. It is against the rules but IMPOSSIBLE to prove - I'm not sure why people continually state it's not. It is very clearly against the rules as you can file a grevience against it. It's just impossible to prove when a player is "ready" because that is subjective and not universally defined.

 

The players still have the ultimate control. Look at Bryant. He was and is angry with the Cubs for treating him this way and won't sign an extension with them. He has 2 years left but it looks like the Cubs gained a year of service time but lost are really good player for the long term.

[Moan4Yoan]

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The players still have the ultimate control. Look at Bryant. He was and is angry with the Cubs for treating him this way and won't sign an extension with them. He has 2 years left but it looks like the Cubs gained a year of service time but lost are really good player for the long term.

Eh, with Boras as his agent from the beginning and going year to year with one year arbitration deals, he likely had this path chosen from the beginning regardless of the Cubs manipulating his service time.  He was likely always hitting the free agent market regardless.  It’s what Boras clients usually do.  But I agree with your premise that he is in the driver’s seat now.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Moan4Yoan

[Moan4Yoan]

9 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The Cubs wouldn't do it now that they're competing.

Astros and Braves aren't "wealthy."

The Astros started the 2019 season with the 8th highest payroll in baseball.  The fact is that all teams will consider manipulating service time if it fits their best interests.  The Cubs intentionally manipulated Bryant’s service time because they knew how good he would be and unfortunately who his agent was from the start of the draft but they simply couldn’t pass on his talent regardless of the future struggle to sign him long-term.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Moan4Yoan

[poppysox]

10 hours ago, Moan4Yoan said:

The ultimate proof will be if they don’t make the opening day roster and get called up after the “Kris Bryant” deadline expires.  But what can Hahn say?  We all know what the deal is.  If neither guy signs a long term deal in the offseason, they will be up in a couple weeks into next season.

Hard to argue with the need to do some final fine tuning before being brought up.?

[Bob Sacamano]

7 hours ago, ptatc said:

The players still have the ultimate control. Look at Bryant. He was and is angry with the Cubs for treating him this way and won't sign an extension with them. He has 2 years left but it looks like the Cubs gained a year of service time but lost are really good player for the long term.

You don't think he'd sign an extension if they offered the most money? Bryant was never going to take a discount.

Edited September 4, 2019 by soxfan2014

[ptatc]

33 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

You don't think he'd sign an extension if they offered the most money? Bryant was never going to take a discount.

Doesn't sound like it. He has refused to even discuss an extension over the last 2 years according to reports. That could just be Boras and wanting to go to FA but it doesn't sound very amicable.

Edited September 4, 2019 by ptatc

[Bob Sacamano]

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Doesn't sound like it. He has refused to even discuss an extension over the last 2 years according to reports. That could just be Boras and wanting to go to FA but it doesn't sound very amicable.

Definitely sounds like a Boras client.

[Hatchetman]

36 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

You don't think he'd sign an extension if they offered the most money? Bryant was never going to take a discount.

Were I Bryant, the Cubs would have premium of $20MM or so to cover the year I wasted in the minors. But that's me.

[poppysox]

7 minutes ago, Hatchetman said:

Were I Bryant, the Cubs would have premium of $20MM or so to cover the year I wasted in the minors. But that's me.

The Cubs will turn him into prospects in another year.  This is where you end up anytime Boras is your agent.

[Bob Sacamano]

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

The Cubs will turn him into prospects in another year.  This is where you end up anytime Boras is your agent.

I kinda think this will happen too since they have Baez, Rizzo, and Bryant free agents in the same year. Can't lock up everyone.

[pcq]

2 hours ago, Hatchetman said:

Were I Bryant, the Cubs would have premium of $20MM or so to cover the year I wasted in the minors. But that's me.

He is barely a competent 3B and could end up in LF. Some times defense is the lingering good faith issue. I do not take sides though. Nice 3.2 WAR but not quite the run production they would like to see this year. Their offense has sputtered.

[bighurt574]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 6:21 PM, BamaDoc said:

Exactly.  This is not an employer crushing an employee.  The employees had representation.  In an agreement both sides "exploit" the agreement to their advantage.  The players signed off to what now in retrospect is an advantage for the owners.  Teams that operate best within the rules of the system will have an advantage over those teams who don't.  I am not pro owner.  I am pro honoring your deal.  MLB has the advantage of guaranteed contracts.  Do any of these players give back the money when they do not perform to the level of their contract....of course not.  I would actually like a system where players are totally(or mainly) rewarded for performance.  All you would argue about is what portion of the pie goes to players and then let the players union figure out who gets what.  That would actually be the most fair.  The rookie who is great would be paid fairly.  Have a floor for a guy who gets hurt but should any player in a truly fair system be paid massively for not playing?  If you say it is because he has earned that by his past performance, in my system  he would have been paid then when he deserved it.  I get that there isn't a totally fair system for measuring defense, clubhouse, productive outs but with all the computers out there and the money we are talking about it could be done.  It sure as hell would eliminate a lack of effort as you wouldn't get paid. 

It will never happen, but interesting comp idea.  There are all sorts of large law, accounting, and consulting firms that manage to divvy up their profits every year among partners based on a variety of performance-based factors (e.g., billing, business generation, etc.).  There's really no reason MLB players couldn't collectively do the same.    

Edited September 5, 2019 by bighurt574

[caulfield12]

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-white-sox-luis-robert-004635095.html

"Luis had a tremendous year. Playing at three levels, and he didn't slow down. With every challenge we gave him, he seemed to perform even better," Getz said Tuesday. "There's some wow in the numbers, but you dive in a little bit deeper, there's some things he does still need to refine.

"He's such an aggressive athlete, which works in his favor, but when it comes to making decisions at the plate, he's going to have to refine that a bit. Because we know when you get up here that pitchers are going to attack you a little bit different and see if you'll chase pitches out of the zone or swing at pitches that you prefer not to.

"He's a young player who can square up a lot of different types of pitches and drive it a long way, so I certainly get the excitement when he walks to the box. But it's about putting together a professional at-bat, which we feel like he's getting closer to.”

 

Getz on Madrigal

"He's got elite batted-ball skills. We knew that going in. He's been able to continue to do that," Getz said about the 2018 first-round pick. "It's really about continuing and being consistent with the approach. There are times where pitchers are going to challenge you a certain way. You don't want to take the bait.

"He goes up there, because he can hit so many different types of pitches, sometimes he can get overly aggressive. He knows what his bread and butter is, and he needs to stick to that and be disciplined. He's starting to understand that himself. He's positioned himself pretty well to come up here and be successful right out of the gate."

[caulfield12]

https://sports.yahoo.com/charlotte-knights-hitting-coach-frank-224327464.html

[poppysox]

With Robert, Madrigal and Kopech joining the big club next year...we will be competitive with average players filling our RF and DH positions.  2 WAR type of players improve us by leaps and bounds.  The big money should be spent on pitching both starters and relievers.  Pick 2 of Cole, Wheeler, Strasburg or Bumgarner.

wit