Kris Bryant loses grievance

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

They don't just agree on a single statistic there, it's literally left up to a human to make the call taking everything into account that is presented. 

Sure, they take a combination of a bunch of metrics (some trash and others not) and grade you vs your peers to determine your value. I'm simply replacing the slow moving arb process that scales poorly with a valuation progress that pays you what your worth once you hit year 3.

[poppysox]

10 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

You literally said trade them with 2 years of control which would be 2021/2022.

You're literally comparing 2 teams that couldn't be farther apart.

Perhaps I am not clear.  In most cases a player will join his team for 3 pre-arb years where he is only owed league minimum and 3 years of arbitration eligibility.  A total of 6 years where his team has control of his services.  He can then become a FA after serving those 6 years of team control.  An agreement can be reached between team and player at any time to extend the years of team control for whatever the two parties agree to.

What I have been trying to say...if we have been unable to reach that agreement by the time we complete 4 of the 6 years years of control... it's time to trade him while still getting back top value.  If you wait until you have two months of control as was the case with Machado...you have greatly diminished his trade value.

Closer to home...I believe Moncada has used up 2 of the 6 years where we have control.  I hope and expect every effort is being made to extend the 4 years of control we have remaining by offering very fair compensation to buy out lets say 3 or 4 additional years.  The arbitration process will reward Yoan very nice money if he just goes that route lets say 18-20 and 22 million (just wild numbers).  He would be set to make over 60 million and then be a FA.  You need to offer something North of 170 in all probability.  The value Yoan puts on security (a bird in the hand) if he were to get injured vs how much discount the FO gets for giving him that security.  Every year Yoan performs well the price of those additional years goes up but if he gets hurt between now and signing an extension...he loses millions.  I stand by my opinion that by the time we use up 2 more years...if we haven't extended Moncada...it would be time to trade him while he would net the largest haul.  By the way...there is no law that you trade for prospects instead of Major Leaguers.

Lastly, you are hung up on Baltimore and the WS are in very different situations.  The same principles apply.  Baltimore was not going to ever make a deal to extend with Machado.  They should have traded him with two years remaining.  Their haul would have been far more substantial.  Boston and Betts are having the same issues at play now.  Boston wants a big haul because he's an excellent player but with only one year of control.

 

[poppysox]

1 hour ago, soxfan2014 said:

I swear, there's a very small group of fans on this board that are obsessed with the idea of a perpetual rebuild lol

I can't think of 1 poster who favors perpetual rebuild.  You do need an awareness of the financial ramifications of being unwilling to make tough decisions.  If a player is part of our championship runs...I have every confidence that RH will make every effort to extend them.  Believe me when I say that I want Moncada, Madrigal, Gio, Kopech, Cease and others to join Robert, Anderson and Eloy for this fun ride.

[ptatc]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I used WAR because it's a metric everyone understands; I'm sure baseball can come together and use a value level based on multiple factors. Most teams have their own proprietary valuation models, and baseball could easily come together to develop one in agreement with most. WAR was just a metric I used to push forward my concept. I actually like the RFA concept for a few years - it gets young players money faster than the scaling of arbitration, and it allows teams to protect themselves from losing their guys by paying them market value while not allowing others to greatly out bid the market just to steal a player from another team.

If you don't want to pay your players market value by their 3rd year in the league, too bad so sad.

Players already get 55% of the revenue. It's not like the owners are gouging them.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Exactly, they already have a system to evaluate the value of a player that is used by all teams in arbitration. Taking away arbitration while using the same process in a RFA landscape would be a big win for younger players and a more fair way to pay players for their production.

But who would decide on the RFA if both sides presented their case? 

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sure, they take a combination of a bunch of metrics (some trash and others not) and grade you vs your peers to determine your value. I'm simply replacing the slow moving arb process that scales poorly with a valuation progress that pays you what your worth once you hit year 3.

That doesnt take into consideration all of the non-statistical variables then. That could hurt some players.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

Players already get 55% of the revenue. It's not like the owners are gouging them.

This is an incredibly misleading and not really accurate number based on what should be accounted for in the revenue split.

Don't even get me started on how shady some of these owners are with local TV revenues either.

Also players used to get 60+%

Edited January 31, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

But who would decide on the RFA if both sides presented their case? 

the number is set; there is no arbiter process. Another team can then offer the max that is set, and the team can decide to match or not.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

That doesnt take into consideration all of the non-statistical variables then. That could hurt some players.

The value of non-statistical variables isn't quantifiable and really shouldn't be much of a problem; unless you think that's worth some significant amount of money (it's not).

[chitownsportsfan]

14 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is an incredibly misleading and not really accurate number based on what should be accounted for in the revenue split.

Don't even get me started on how shady some of these owners are with local TV revenues either.

Also players used to get 60+%

It's the classic argument as to who generates and thus deserves the most revenue:  Without the players there's no MLB;  Without MLB there's no baseball and no need for players!

Although I usually side with labor in this case I do think the owners are correct: the institution of MLB, its history, its teams, everything about it -- would remain even if you swapped out the players for beer leaguers on every team.  Most fans would STILL root for the laundry, even if filled by beer leaguers.

However, the product would eventually suffer and be replaced by a higher quality professional league.  It would take forever, but MLB would sow the seeds of its own ruin.

Both the players and the owners need to realize they are sitting on a golden goose.  The players' union needs to do a better job allocating revenue to younger players.  Yes, without seniority there is no union, but the union needs to realize that the vets only makeup a small percentage of all MLB player.  How many MLB players even play through their arb years?  50%?  40%?  How many ever hit FA?

The union needs to be unified and come with a real alternative to the pre-FA pay scale and reforms for the arb system.  Let's hope they do and that there is no work stoppage in 2022 just when the Sox should be at the peak of their contention.

@Look at Ray Ray Run -- ha, some people have a hard time realizing that the management phrase "if you can't measure it it doesn't exist or matter" is an OPERATIONS rule, not a statement about the existential nature of things.

Edited January 31, 2020 by chitownsportsfan

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

5 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

It's the classic argument as to who generates and thus deserves the most revenue:  Without the players there's no MLB;  Without MLB there's no baseball and no need for players!

Although I usually side with labor in this case I do think the owners are correct: the institution of MLB, its history, its teams, everything about it -- would remain even if you swapped out the players for beer leaguers on every team.  Most fans would STILL root for the laundry, even if filled by beer leaguers.

However, the product would eventually suffer and be replaced by a higher quality professional league.  It would take forever, but MLB would sow the seeds of its own ruin.

Both the players and the owners need to realize they are sitting on a golden goose.  The players' union needs to do a better job allocating revenue to younger players.  Yes, without seniority there is no union, but the union needs to realize that the vets only makeup a small percentage of all MLB player.  How many MLB players even play through their arb years?  50%?  40%?  How many ever hit FA?

The union needs to be unified and come with a real alternative to the pre-FA pay scale and reforms for the arb system.  Let's hope they do and that there is no work stoppage in 2022 just when the Sox should be at the peak of their contention.

@Look at Ray Ray Run -- ha, some people have a hard time realizing that the management phrase "if you can't measure it it doesn't exist or matter" is an OPERATIONS rule, not a statement about the existential nature of things.

It cracks me up, because I do care about personalities and I like to fill my department with people who I value tangibly and intangibly, but my personal opinion of them doesn't make them "more valuable" on the open market nor does it make them more valuable to my CEO. 

I'm not anti-intangible, I just think people attach these absurd monetary values on them when value is driven by skills and production and not opinion or thought. 

[tray]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

value is driven by skills and production and not opinion or thought. 

that and  perceived value, which is kind of  subjective and opinion based.

[tray]

Opinions about Madrigal's perceived value will begin to solidify when we all  get to see him against major league pitching  in Spring Training.  We will all have a better idea about whether or not he is a major league player right now, whether or not 4 weeks of hitting against AAA pitchers is in order, or if the Sox should think about spending money on a Dozier type second basemen in case  Madrigal looks like he might not be in the majors for a while. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, tray said:

that and  perceived value, which is kind of  subjective and opinion based.

Not sure what this means, but perceived value has nothing to do with how people are paid.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

3 minutes ago, tray said:

Opinions about Madrigal's perceived value will begin to solidify when we all  get to see him against major league pitching  in Spring Training.  We will all have a better idea about whether or not he is a major league player right now, whether or not 4 weeks of hitting against AAA pitchers is in order, or if the Sox should think about spending money on a Dozier type second basemen in case  Madrigal looks like he might not be in the majors for a while. 

This is not perceived value.

[Moan4Yoan]

28 minutes ago, tray said:

Opinions about Madrigal's perceived value will begin to solidify when we all  get to see him against major league pitching  in Spring Training.  We will all have a better idea about whether or not he is a major league player right now, whether or not 4 weeks of hitting against AAA pitchers is in order, or if the Sox should think about spending money on a Dozier type second basemen in case  Madrigal looks like he might not be in the majors for a while. 

The Sox should add a guy like Dozier regardless.  He will cost nothing.  The Tigers just re-signed Jordy Mercer to a minor league deal.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is an incredibly misleading and not really accurate number based on what should be accounted for in the revenue split.

Don't even get me started on how shady some of these owners are with local TV revenues either.

Also players used to get 60+%

How do you know it a shady and misleading number? If it is then we sure cant trust your 60 % either. No matter which way you look at it the overall money going to the players isn't far out of line.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The value of non-statistical variables isn't quantifiable and really shouldn't be much of a problem; unless you think that's worth some significant amount of money (it's not).

I disagree. Things like leadership should be rewarded. I know Boras does an extensive presentation about what an athlete can bring to the community and uses it as part of his value for the client during negotiations. 

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It cracks me up, because I do care about personalities and I like to fill my department with people who I value tangibly and intangibly, but my personal opinion of them doesn't make them "more valuable" on the open market nor does it make them more valuable to my CEO. 

I'm not anti-intangible, I just think people attach these absurd monetary values on them when value is driven by skills and production and not opinion or thought. 

You cant equate a major league sports team to the regular world. It's pretty rare that the workers make millions more than the management in the real world. You have to deal with those egos and the way it is done is with other players because the players dont listen to a manager making millions less than them when they arent at least somewhat happy. This is the primary job of an MLB manager. Otherwise you wind up with Chris Sale shredding jerseys or LaRoche having his kid live in the clubhouse.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

You cant equate a major league sports team to the regular world. It's pretty rare that the workers make millions more than the management in the real world. You have to deal with those egos and the way it is done is with other players because the players dont listen to a manager making millions less than them when they arent at least somewhat happy. This is the primary job of an MLB manager. Otherwise you wind up with Chris Sale shredding jerseys or LaRoche having his kid live in the clubhouse.

This has nothing to do with paying a player more in an arbitration type process because he brings intangibles. 

You said the problem with a value being set with metrics is players wont be paid for things you cant measure. Players already aren't paid for those things in an arbitration process, so it's irrelevant.

[ron883]

It's been interesting listening to Cubs fans calling into 670 the score. The meatballs are out in full force. Kris Bryant is greedy, he is soft, he isn't clutch, he isn't that good anymore, he is smug. Hearing this stuff A LOT. It's absurd. The station very well may be putting all these people on air intentionally, but it feels like lots of the fans turned on him and are totally unappreciative.

 

[tray]

Quote

It cracks me up, because I do care about personalities and I like to fill my department with people who I value tangibly and intangibly, but my personal opinion of them doesn't make them "more valuable" on the open market nor does it make them more valuable to my CEO. 

I don't question the experience you have in your job but you can't extrapolate that to everything outside of your sphere.  Personality, drive, creativity, attitude,  loyalty and other Intangible qualities have great value to many employers and to many people in major league baseball, including Jerry Reinsdorf.

But you are right about how  value  is assigned to  a player  through the arbitration process.  Indeed that process is almost exclusively  based on statistics from past performance.   Outside of the arbitration process though, intangibles do come into play as they did when Abreu was extended and as they might if the Sox decide to extend Madrigal before he has a significant track record in the majors.

Quote

It's been interesting listening to Cubs fans calling into 670 the score. The meatballs are out in full force. Kris Bryant is greedy, he is soft, he isn't clutch, he isn't that good anymore, he is smug.

I wonder what the point of that is. Maybe they want Kris traded for Arenado and that is their strange way of exerting some pressure to get that done.

Edited January 31, 2020 by tray

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, tray said:

I don't question the experience you have in your job but you can't extrapolate that to everything outside of your sphere.  Personality, drive, creativity, attitude,  loyalty and other Intangible qualities have great value to many employers and to many people in major league baseball, including Jerry Reinsdorf.

But you are right about how  value  is assigned to  a player  through the arbitration process.  Indeed that process is almost exclusively  based on statistics from past performance.   Outside of the arbitration process though, intangibles do come into play as they did when Abreu was extended and as they might if the Sox decide to extend Madrigal before he has a significant track record in the majors.

I wonder what the point of that is. Maybe they want Kris traded for Arenado and that is their strange way of exerting some pressure to get that done.

What have you done for me lately...ism.

Evaluating performance isn't just about productivity, because that would reward some of the most selfish, low EQ individuals in every business, team or organization.

[Moan4Yoan]

2 hours ago, tray said:

I wonder what the point of that is. Maybe they want Kris traded for Arenado and that is their strange way of exerting some pressure to get that done.

They know he’s going to be traded and the return isn’t going to be as good as Bryant himself so they are trying to minimize his value and importance to the team.

[Bob Sacamano]

13 hours ago, poppysox said:

Perhaps I am not clear.  In most cases a player will join his team for 3 pre-arb years where he is only owed league minimum and 3 years of arbitration eligibility.  A total of 6 years where his team has control of his services.  He can then become a FA after serving those 6 years of team control.  An agreement can be reached between team and player at any time to extend the years of team control for whatever the two parties agree to.

What I have been trying to say...if we have been unable to reach that agreement by the time we complete 4 of the 6 years years of control... it's time to trade him while still getting back top value.  If you wait until you have two months of control as was the case with Machado...you have greatly diminished his trade value.

Closer to home...I believe Moncada has used up 2 of the 6 years where we have control.  I hope and expect every effort is being made to extend the 4 years of control we have remaining by offering very fair compensation to buy out lets say 3 or 4 additional years.  The arbitration process will reward Yoan very nice money if he just goes that route lets say 18-20 and 22 million (just wild numbers).  He would be set to make over 60 million and then be a FA.  You need to offer something North of 170 in all probability.  The value Yoan puts on security (a bird in the hand) if he were to get injured vs how much discount the FO gets for giving him that security.  Every year Yoan performs well the price of those additional years goes up but if he gets hurt between now and signing an extension...he loses millions.  I stand by my opinion that by the time we use up 2 more years...if we haven't extended Moncada...it would be time to trade him while he would net the largest haul.  By the way...there is no law that you trade for prospects instead of Major Leaguers.

Lastly, you are hung up on Baltimore and the WS are in very different situations.  The same principles apply.  Baltimore was not going to ever make a deal to extend with Machado.  They should have traded him with two years remaining.  Their haul would have been far more substantial.  Boston and Betts are having the same issues at play now.  Boston wants a big haul because he's an excellent player but with only one year of control.

 

On no you're being clear. It just makes zero sense.

Teams don't trade their stars with 2 years of control left in the middle of their contention window. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by soxfan2014