Kris Bryant loses grievance

[Dick Allen]

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So you bring the guy up exactly 3 days after the deadline, making 3 days after the deadline the "effective" deadline. 

Whatever deadline you try to devise as the rule, people will follow the rule you write. 

Of course it will. But I think they are going to have to keep guys on the farm maybe until August or September . As for the stragglers, whether they call Madrigal up the day his service time changes or a week later, they will be negotiating the new contract and know exactly what it was. If he comes up and sucks and gets sent back down, it will probably be ignored, but I bet the union is keeping their eye on guys getting manipulated now and will take care of them next deal. So holding Madrigal back for service time probably won't matter.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Of course it will. But I think they are going to have to keep guys on the farm maybe until August or September . As for the stragglers, whether they call Madrigal up the day his service time changes or a week later, they will be negotiating the new contract and know exactly what it was. If he comes up and sucks and gets sent back down, it will probably be ignored, but I bet the union is now keeping their eye on guys getting manipulated now and will take care of them next deal. 

The owners will fight very hard against a notion that a guy being called up for 1 month counts as a full year of service time, so the players will have to give up something substantial as a concession for that. 

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The owners will fight very hard against a notion that a guy being called up for 1 month counts as a full year of service time, so the players will have to give up something substantial as a concession for that. 

We will see. It will be different. It won't be wait 2 weeks, then you're good to go. It will be months. It should probably matter. 2 weeks in AAA isn't going to stunt anyone, but there comes a point when it does. 

[bmags]

13 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

We will see. It will be different. It won't be wait 2 weeks, then you're good to go. It will be months. It should probably matter. 2 weeks in AAA isn't going to stunt anyone, but there comes a point when it does. 

They could have an arbitrator rule. Players could submit independent evals and opinions from independent sites like BA saying they were likely ready and likely to be better than what was live, teams could provide internal statements, etc.

If a bearing on the ruling is what is available on mlb roster, it could provide more jobs to vets as teams try to show they had a better option on the club.

I could see it being better than this.

[poppysox]

2 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

Im a pretty big Madrigal fan, but there is really very little incentive to sign him right now. I cant see why he would sign a small deal, which is the only thing the Sox could really offer. 

 

 

Adam Eaton was a similar player to Madrigal when he signed the extension in 2015 for 23.5 million for 5 years with 2 option.  By similar...I mean not a HR hitting star.   When Eaton flourished the next year he was traded to Washington for a boat load thanks largely for the number of years under control at a relatively cheap price.  I don't believe only Eloy & Robert types warrant extensions.  Eaton's extension of less than 5 million per year seems small compared to many...but players of Madrigal's level might very well want to lock in lifetime security.  Even Sale alluded to signing his extension for less than potential market in order to lock in lifetime security.

[pcq]

It would be fair to say 100 days per season on the roster counts for one year service time.

[Balta1701]

33 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Adam Eaton was a similar player to Madrigal when he signed the extension in 2015 for 23.5 million for 5 years with 2 option.  By similar...I mean not a HR hitting star.   When Eaton flourished the next year he was traded to Washington for a boat load thanks largely for the number of years under control at a relatively cheap price.  I don't believe only Eloy & Robert types warrant extensions.  Eaton's extension of less than 5 million per year seems small compared to many...but players of Madrigal's level might very well want to lock in lifetime security.  Even Sale alluded to signing his extension for less than potential market in order to lock in lifetime security.

Eaton signed that deal, however, after he had already played >1 full year in the big leagues and had accrued a full year of service time. Eaton could not have signed that deal as a prospect. For Nick Madrigal, that would be the equivalent of signing a contract extension during Spring Training of 2022.

[poppysox]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Eaton signed that deal, however, after he had already played >1 full year in the big leagues and had accrued a full year of service time. Eaton could not have signed that deal as a prospect. For Nick Madrigal, that would be the equivalent of signing a contract extension during Spring Training of 2022.

I am trying to say the motivations are the same for many players not just super stars.  Only the zero's change.  RH has shown himself to be among the best at working out exceptional deals which have ultimately led to our current star studded situation.

[Dick Allen]

12 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I am trying to say the motivations are the same for many players not just super stars.  Only the zero's change.  RH has shown himself to be among the best at working out exceptional deals which have ultimately led to our current star studded situation.

Teams have way more leverage with the extensions Hahn has doled out. Many years from free agency, no guarantee of stardom, controlled,  and a life changing contract. But kudos to him for taking advantage of that. There certainly are risks involved as well. 

[poppysox]

9 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Teams have way more leverage with the extensions Hahn has doled out. Many years from free agency, no guarantee of stardom, controlled,  and a life changing contract. But kudos to him for taking advantage of that. There certainly are risks involved as well. 

I am swayed heavily by the belief that when a kids favorite player is lost to free agency...a part of that kids fandom is lost forever.  My brother and I were both huge Blackhawk fans when we lost Bobby Hull do to Wirtz being an idiot.  Neither one of us has ever bought a Blackhawk ticket since.  The Cubs absolutely sucked but they had Ernie Banks.  Now this Bryant situation will undoubtedly lead to many distraught kids who don't care about any of the money issues.  I love that the WS have shown a willingness to try to lock up good players with extensions.  Extensions will be good for the future of the ballclub.  The occasional John Danks suckage is the price you pay.

[Soxfest]

Cubs played by rules of CBA, Bryant had no chance of winning.

[pcq]

I thought the Cub were trying to trim payroll and bring in some youngbloods. Kris would be a smart guy to move. 

[Balta1701]

18 minutes ago, pcq said:

I thought the Cub were trying to trim payroll and bring in some youngbloods. Kris would be a smart guy to move. 

They absolutely are, however it was almost impossible to move him before this ruling because if he had won it would dramatically impact his trade value - 1 year of control versus 2. Any team acquiring him would want to delay until after this ruling came down to ensure they had 2 years of control before paying a fair price for that.

[oldsox]

3 hours ago, poppysox said:

I am swayed heavily by the belief that when a kids favorite player is lost to free agency...a part of that kids fandom is lost forever.  My brother and I were both huge Blackhawk fans when we lost Bobby Hull do to Wirtz being an idiot.  Neither one of us has ever bought a Blackhawk ticket since.  The Cubs absolutely sucked but they had Ernie Banks.  Now this Bryant situation will undoubtedly lead to many distraught kids who don't care about any of the money issues.  I love that the WS have shown a willingness to try to lock up good players with extensions.  Extensions will be good for the future of the ballclub.  The occasional John Danks suckage is the price you pay.

Good post, but if Cubs had tried to extend KB, which they very well might have, his agent would have turned it down.  Not that I am trying to defend the Cubs.  I personally believe that Cub fans of any age should be distraught.  I also love the extensions.

[Donaldo]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

They absolutely are, however it was almost impossible to move him before this ruling because if he had won it would dramatically impact his trade value - 1 year of control versus 2. Any team acquiring him would want to delay until after this ruling came down to ensure they had 2 years of control before paying a fair price for that.

The hot rumor about a month ago had Bryant going to the Braves for a package of prospects.  

[Kyyle23]

3 hours ago, poppysox said:

I am swayed heavily by the belief that when a kids favorite player is lost to free agency...a part of that kids fandom is lost forever.  My brother and I were both huge Blackhawk fans when we lost Bobby Hull do to Wirtz being an idiot.  Neither one of us has ever bought a Blackhawk ticket since.  The Cubs absolutely sucked but they had Ernie Banks.  Now this Bryant situation will undoubtedly lead to many distraught kids who don't care about any of the money issues.  I love that the WS have shown a willingness to try to lock up good players with extensions.  Extensions will be good for the future of the ballclub.  The occasional John Danks suckage is the price you pay.

That's a shame you couldn't enjoy three Stanley cups in a six year period because of something that happened decades ago

[poppysox]

12 minutes ago, oldsox said:

Good post, but if Cubs had tried to extend KB, which they very well might have, his agent would have turned it down.  Not that I am trying to defend the Cubs.  I personally believe that Cub fans of any age should be distraught.  I also love the extensions.

When I first heard Bryant say he wouldn't consider an extension I had a neg. vibe against him.

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by poppysox

[poppysox]

5 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

That's a shame you couldn't enjoy three Stanley cups in a six year period because of something that happened decades ago

Yeah...never bothered me.  Maybe I'm wrong but we as fans give our hearts to these teams and I expect a certain return on that emotional investment.  I expect loyalty from the players as well.  That's why I don't care especially for Bryant type players that announce right up front it's about the money.

[Moan4Yoan]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

When I first heard Bryant say he wouldn't consider an extension I had a neg. vibe against him.

 

It’s ultimately a business.  Players are doing what is best for their lives, families, careers, etc.

Obviously MLB players are getting paid at a much higher scale than the average 9-5 employee but have you ever applied to a better paying job while already employed at a different company?  Have you ever accepted this better opportunity and turned down your current company’s counteroffer because the new job was a better fit for you due to the money, proximity to home, less travel, better chance of moving up, etc.?  If so, you are being a hypocrite.  I think your perspective is a bit ridiculous.

Also, are you going to start disliking Moncada and/or Giolito if they don’t accept a contract extension from the Sox?  Let’s be honest here, the Sox aren’t offering these young players long-term extensions because they want to do the players a favor.  The Sox are looking at these extensions as team friendly deals that will likely save them a lot of money over the long run.  Hahn and the Sox are being self-serving with these deals.

I keep seeing you say you expect the Sox to extend Madrigal before the season starts so he makes the opening day roster.  Many posters have disagreed with you reasoning that he is not a sure-fire prospect like Luis Robert that a team would be wise to throw a bunch of money at until they can see how his game plays in the majors.  This could definitely be the case and it is more than likely that Hahn and the Sox are being self-serving like I said.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Moan4Yoan

[oldsox]

6 hours ago, poppysox said:

Adam Eaton was a similar player to Madrigal when he signed the extension in 2015 for 23.5 million for 5 years with 2 option.  By similar...I mean not a HR hitting star.   When Eaton flourished the next year he was traded to Washington for a boat load thanks largely for the number of years under control at a relatively cheap price.  I don't believe only Eloy & Robert types warrant extensions.  Eaton's extension of less than 5 million per year seems small compared to many...but players of Madrigal's level might very well want to lock in lifetime security.  Even Sale alluded to signing his extension for less than potential market in order to lock in lifetime security.

Boatload??  slight exaggeration.  A fair trade, but not in the boatload category.

[Vulture]

I'm not sure Madrigal should even be called up let alone given an extension. He can barely get the ball out of the infield and consistently hits the ball weakly into the ground. Doubt he will get all those weakly hit balls through the infield, and ducksnorts over the infield, that he has relied on in the minors. He's got some of the weakest contact I've ever seen as a mlb prospect. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he put up numbers similar to Yolmer in the future. He's no Eloy or Robert that much is clear. Maybe he develops into a Carew type hitter, but it's going to take a few years of development regardless. Either way I'm not holding my breath.

Edited January 30, 2020 by PantsRowland

[Moan4Yoan]

7 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Right, but I bet the new CBA will address any straggler manipulations. Anyone who gets called up a day or two after their service time changes this season or next, will IMO, have it credited back. 

It's a loophole in the rules the players should have seen coming. They will use any loophole they can get.  No one is ever going to be an expert on when a prospect is ready and when he is not. Some guys are ready to go, some need a little time. Some need no time. But calling someone up right after the magic day does indicate you are playing with  the rules, and I think it will be addressed, and stopped now. 

I think you are way off base here.  Has there ever been a change made within an MLB CBA that retroactively affected situations prior to the agreement of the new CBA?

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/league-info/cba-history/

From a legal standpoint, this wouldn’t even make sense.  Rules are rules and laws are laws until changes are agreed upon and the rules and laws are changed.  Once they are changed, they go into effect.

Once the owners and players are in agreement on the new CBA, and service time manipulation is addressed within this new CBA, it will take effect going forward.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Moan4Yoan

[SCCWS]

5 hours ago, poppysox said:

I am swayed heavily by the belief that when a kids favorite player is lost to free agency...a part of that kids fandom is lost forever.  My brother and I were both huge Blackhawk fans when we lost Bobby Hull do to Wirtz being an idiot.  Neither one of us has ever bought a Blackhawk ticket since.  The Cubs absolutely sucked but they had Ernie Banks.  Now this Bryant situation will undoubtedly lead to many distraught kids who don't care about any of the money issues.  I love that the WS have shown a willingness to try to lock up good players with extensions.  Extensions will be good for the future of the ballclub.  The occasional John Danks suckage is the price you pay.

I love the extensions as well. I think your analysis is wrong at least for big market teams.  There is a new age of fan out there who sees his team continually changing.  I think the Ernie Banks, Derek Jeter and Tom Brady types are going fast.  We as White Sox fans better hope so. Do you think the Chris Sale fans have left and will not return?  I think they already are Eloy or Yoan fans and Sale is in the rear view mirror.   

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, PantsRowland said:

I'm not sure Madrigal should even be called up let alone given an extension. He can barely get the ball out of the infield and consistently hits the ball weakly into the ground. Doubt he will get all those weakly hit balls through the infield, and ducksnorts over the infield, that he has relied on in the minors. He's got some of the weakest contact I've ever seen as a mlb prospect. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he put up numbers similar to Yolmer in the future. He's no Eloy or Robert that much is clear. Maybe he develops into a Carew type hitter, but it's going to take a few years of development regardless. Either way I'm not holding my breath.

Nick Madrigal struck out 16 times last year in 532 plate appearances. Yolmer struck out 117 times in 555 plate appearances. If Yolmer had struck out as few times as Madrigal, with no additional extra base hits out of those 30+ extra hits, he would have hit .280, with a .350 OBP and a near .700 OPS.

That would have made him a darn near average hitter and, with good defense, a valuable player. 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

1 hour ago, PantsRowland said:

I'm not sure Madrigal should even be called up let alone given an extension. He can barely get the ball out of the infield and consistently hits the ball weakly into the ground. Doubt he will get all those weakly hit balls through the infield, and ducksnorts over the infield, that he has relied on in the minors. He's got some of the weakest contact I've ever seen as a mlb prospect. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he put up numbers similar to Yolmer in the future. He's no Eloy or Robert that much is clear. Maybe he develops into a Carew type hitter, but it's going to take a few years of development regardless. Either way I'm not holding my breath.

Nor am I.