http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs...amp;utm_campaign=mlb
"“This is a union matter,” Boras said Wednesday inside the Opryland complex. “There’s an ambiguity. It needs to be resolved so that the sides know more about how to handle that situation."....."Bryant (171) and Franco (170) finished just short of the 172 days needed for a full year of service, the bottom line being they can’t become free agents until after the 2021 season."
This is why the Assistant to the GM has a computer and a Math degree from Amherst.
Bob
Somehow I don't believe the general public is going to worry about a guy making a million a year or more having to wait an extra year to make $25M. Whining about this in public is just going to make a player unpopular. I remember during an NBA strike Pat Ewing saying the average person just doesn't understand the bills NBA players have. Yes, for extravagances.
I don't have an issue with how much anyone makes doing anything. If they make a lot of money it's because they are the best of the best regardless of the profession. Let the free market prevail. But I don't want to hear them whining about how much they don't make.
RJM posted:Somehow I don't believe the general public is going to worry about a guy making a million a year or more having to wait an extra year to make $25M. Whining about this in public is just going to make a player unpopular. I remember during an NBA strike Pat Ewing saying the average person just doesn't understand the bills NBA players have. Yes, for extravagances.
I don't have an issue with how much anyone makes doing anything. If they make a lot of money it's because they are the best of the best regardless of the profession. Let the free market prevail. But I don't want to hear them whining about how much they don't make.
Well the issue is that MLB salaries go up slower than the revenue of the owners. 10 years ago it was over 50% now it is under 40%. Of course players make "too much" but if the salaries went down do you think the owners would lower the ticket prices? The Cubs and Astros did not lower their ticket prices when they tanked several seasons and had a minimum payroll.
mlb makes tons of money and I rather have the players bank the money than the 60 year old billionaires who own the clubs ( they should make their share too but not get all the money).
I don't live in that kind of business world, so maybe I'm off the mark. However, it sounds to me like this 172 day thing was a loophole for the fringe players that don't spend all year in the MLB and people like Bryant are saying it's not fair to use the loophole in the way it was used on him, since he was expected to be a top performer on day 1 of his MLB career.
From what I have read he would have a point if that is his argument. The Union should clear up the language and differentiate between people who are expected to be top contributors on day 1 or people the club is just giving a try out at the MLB level. Or, do I have this wrong people?
I think the agreement is just that - an agreement that both parties (owners, union) agreed to, including the good and the bad. I assume there are aspects that one party finds distasteful at times, but it gets offset by another clause that works in their favor. You have to live with the terms as written. As for service time, there is no qualitative component (i.e. was Bryant "good enough" day 1). and the number in the contract (172) is so close to an entire season that this was one clause that the owners worked in their favor. The union is primarily made up of players who will not be impacted by this clause (they've already been around long enough), so this works against the young guys (i.e. MiLB type players trying to break into the big leagues).
As for salaries as a percentage of revenues, apparently salary totals are very heavily weighted towards a small percentage of players that have huge contracts ($20 million+/yr) so increasing the total percentage really does not translate equally to all players - just makes the really rich guys a little richer. I guess you could increase the minimum salary to $1 million, but that would address the percentage issue to any real degree.
How about allocating a percentage of revenues towards MiLB salaries? I guess you cannot really do this given that different MLB teams have varying number of MiLB teams, but I'd be interested in knowing what the current percentage is.
Dominik85 posted:RJM posted:Somehow I don't believe the general public is going to worry about a guy making a million a year or more having to wait an extra year to make $25M. Whining about this in public is just going to make a player unpopular. I remember during an NBA strike Pat Ewing saying the average person just doesn't understand the bills NBA players have. Yes, for extravagances.
I don't have an issue with how much anyone makes doing anything. If they make a lot of money it's because they are the best of the best regardless of the profession. Let the free market prevail. But I don't want to hear them whining about how much they don't make.
Well the issue is that MLB salaries go up slower than the revenue of the owners. 10 years ago it was over 50% now it is under 40%. Of course players make "too much" but if the salaries went down do you think the owners would lower the ticket prices? The Cubs and Astros did not lower their ticket prices when they tanked several seasons and had a minimum payroll.
mlb makes tons of money and I rather have the players bank the money than the 60 year old billionaires who own the clubs ( they should make their share too but not get all the money).
My point is taking this "travesty" to the general public isn't going to accomplish anything positive. The typical fan doesn't care when Bryant gets to make $25M per year. For most studs they get offered a great deal about the third or fourth year to lock them up long term (see Trout).
This issue is more about Boras than the players. Boras doesn't like his players signing long term deals that push free agency off a few years. He wants them to be free agents asap so he can make more money. The guy also likes the limelight. This issue puts him in the limelight.
CaCO3Girl posted:I don't live in that kind of business world, so maybe I'm off the mark. However, it sounds to me like this 172 day thing was a loophole for the fringe players that don't spend all year in the MLB and people like Bryant are saying it's not fair to use the loophole in the way it was used on him, since he was expected to be a top performer on day 1 of his MLB career.
From what I have read he would have a point if that is his argument. The Union should clear up the language and differentiate between people who are expected to be top contributors on day 1 or people the club is just giving a try out at the MLB level. Or, do I have this wrong people?
I agree completely and I have no issue with the grievance. To hold someone back from free agency for a few games or a few weeks is just ridiculous. I don't think for one minute that Boras had nothing to do with this. One more year until free agency means lot less money and this is what this game is all about.
IMO, Bryant needs to be careful here. John Q. Public that works hard to earn a living just might not like a potential millionaire complaining about not making more millions.
Sure Boras is worried about waiting a year before KB's next contract. This is the same agent who in the winter meetings compared Wei-Yin Chen to HOF Tom Glavine. Maybe he's worried that Bryant will drop him that A-Roid did.
TPM posted:CaCO3Girl posted:I don't live in that kind of business world, so maybe I'm off the mark. However, it sounds to me like this 172 day thing was a loophole for the fringe players that don't spend all year in the MLB and people like Bryant are saying it's not fair to use the loophole in the way it was used on him, since he was expected to be a top performer on day 1 of his MLB career.
From what I have read he would have a point if that is his argument. The Union should clear up the language and differentiate between people who are expected to be top contributors on day 1 or people the club is just giving a try out at the MLB level. Or, do I have this wrong people?
I agree completely and I have no issue with the grievance. To hold someone back from free agency for a few games or a few weeks is just ridiculous. I don't think for one minute that Boras had nothing to do with this. One more year until free agency means lot less money and this is what this game is all about.
Disagree completely. It's collectively bargained and is part and parcel of what the union and owners negotiated. Just like bonus pool, arbitration process, pensions and all else. Those are the rules. They can remove the next time the CBA comes up, but everything else is also up for renegotiation.
It is clearly obvious that the Cubs did the guy dirty by using the Collective Bargaining Agreement to their advantage. However, as many have said, the players agreed to it. I wonder how that will affect the Cubs in the future. Will Bryant become disgruntled and have it affect his play? Will he become great and decide to leave in Free Agency? Not sure it was the best move for the Cubs in the long run.
Go44dad posted:TPM posted:CaCO3Girl posted:I don't live in that kind of business world, so maybe I'm off the mark. However, it sounds to me like this 172 day thing was a loophole for the fringe players that don't spend all year in the MLB and people like Bryant are saying it's not fair to use the loophole in the way it was used on him, since he was expected to be a top performer on day 1 of his MLB career.
From what I have read he would have a point if that is his argument. The Union should clear up the language and differentiate between people who are expected to be top contributors on day 1 or people the club is just giving a try out at the MLB level. Or, do I have this wrong people?
I agree completely and I have no issue with the grievance. To hold someone back from free agency for a few games or a few weeks is just ridiculous. I don't think for one minute that Boras had nothing to do with this. One more year until free agency means lot less money and this is what this game is all about.
Disagree completely. It's collectively bargained and is part and parcel of what the union and owners negotiated. Just like bonus pool, arbitration process, pensions and all else. Those are the rules. They can remove the next time the CBA comes up, but everything else is also up for renegotiation.
I understand that, and I also understand that this is being brought up now for next year, at this time.
I don't think it was a good move on the Cubs part. Players are being brought up earlier and earlier, the rule is the rule, but its still not equal for everyone. There are other teams that do not hold their players back from free agency like they used to.
I think it's going to be a moot point after two or three more years of success like they had this year. Winning cures almost any problem and if the Cubs are contenders every year - winning a World Series or two - then this will all work out. I have no problem with the grievance because it's part of the process. While you can say the players agreed to the CBA and need to suck it up but the flip side is each side has the ability to file a grievance if they feel they are wronged. Doesn't mean they will win and Bryant is going to lose this grievance. This will all go away with the new CBA. Players will fight tooth and nail to get rid of it and owners won't put up too much of a fight because it's not that big of a deal.
Just had the pleasure of attending the Winter Meetings and got to discuss this matter with folks on both the PA side and MLB side. Ryno basically sums it up above.
While it is easy to see the grievance from the MLBPA side - the Cubs clearly held Bryant back to gain another year of control, there were also folks on the MLB side who felt it was a huge mistake by the Cubs. Their take was that if a player can clearly help your team today, you have to use him today - regardless of the free agency clock. If the Cubs had missed the playoffs by a game or two, perhaps Bryant's bat gives them another win or two early in the season? You can't sweat 2022 when you are trying to win in 2016, and games count the same in April and September. And as noted above it also doesn't set a good precedent with a key component of your teams future when it comes time to negotiate his mega deal in a few years, and perhaps steers him out the door.
MLBPA emphasized that while they would likely lose the grievance - again, the rules are clearly spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement - this was a necessary step for the union members as it sets precedent for the next round of negotiations next year.
GoldenSombrero posted:Just had the pleasure of attending the Winter Meetings and got to discuss this matter with folks on both the PA side and MLB side. Ryno basically sums it up above.
While it is easy to see the grievance from the MLBPA side - the Cubs clearly held Bryant back to gain another year of control, there were also folks on the MLB side who felt it was a huge mistake by the Cubs. Their take was that if a player can clearly help your team today, you have to use him today - regardless of the free agency clock. If the Cubs had missed the playoffs by a game or two, perhaps Bryant's bat gives them another win or two early in the season? You can't sweat 2022 when you are trying to win in 2016, and games count the same in April and September. And as noted above it also doesn't set a good precedent with a key component of your teams future when it comes time to negotiate his mega deal in a few years, and perhaps steers him out the door.
MLBPA emphasized that while they would likely lose the grievance - again, the rules are clearly spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement - this was a necessary step for the union members as it sets precedent for the next round of negotiations next year.
hhhhmmm, see your point. But how much in 2022 did they save themselves by holding him back? $20M? discount to today's dollars as $16M? That's one year of "___________" starting pitching now. (Kazmir, Leake, etc.) Or similarly a trade at last year's deadline for a position of need, knowing you can replenish farm system with the money. Or maybe that financial decision helps them pull the trigger and sign Heyward.
Bryant's bat would have won them a game or two more, but that is looking in retrospect at the call up decision.
As an Astros fan, same deal with Correa this year. Astros could have won division with one more victory.
GoldenSombrero posted:Just had the pleasure of attending the Winter Meetings and got to discuss this matter with folks on both the PA side and MLB side. Ryno basically sums it up above.
While it is easy to see the grievance from the MLBPA side - the Cubs clearly held Bryant back to gain another year of control, there were also folks on the MLB side who felt it was a huge mistake by the Cubs. Their take was that if a player can clearly help your team today, you have to use him today - regardless of the free agency clock. If the Cubs had missed the playoffs by a game or two, perhaps Bryant's bat gives them another win or two early in the season? You can't sweat 2022 when you are trying to win in 2016, and games count the same in April and September. And as noted above it also doesn't set a good precedent with a key component of your teams future when it comes time to negotiate his mega deal in a few years, and perhaps steers him out the door.
MLBPA emphasized that while they would likely lose the grievance - again, the rules are clearly spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement - this was a necessary step for the union members as it sets precedent for the next round of negotiations next year.
But the math is relatively easy. I think Bryant missed about 15 games or actually slightly less, so about 10 percent of the season. Asuming he is about a 5 win player and replaces a 0.5 win guy that sitting would cost about half a win.
of course that can make a difference but half a win costs about 3 millions and the Cubs save at least 15 millions. Easy decision by the Cubs.
cubs did the right thing, if you want to stop it make it more expensive for the owners. Either make the cutoff the all star break or even include minor league years into team control ( maybe give different rules for college and hs players to adjust for different time to arrival).
