Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    16,862

    MLB to hear Kris Bryant service time case this week


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,267
    I don't know if he'll win because the CBA rules are pretty clear but I hope he does. That service time manipulation stuff sucks. It takes forever for these guys to hit FA to begin with. No reason why they should tack on an extra year because the Cubs delayed his call up with just enough time to make sure he didn't hit FA earlier. I understand that was the point but its a crappy rule.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    29,873

    MLB to hear Kris Bryant service time case this week

    MLBPA signed off on it. Tough ****. Talk to Tony Clark if u r unhappy. Scott Boras never took advantage of a loophole?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, at least fails while daring greatly.” -- Teddy Roosevelt

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,258
    He won't win, but it's really unfortunate that he (and Vlad) were gamed like that.

    CBA has to be fixed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    16,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    He won't win, but it's really unfortunate that he (and Vlad) were gamed like that.

    CBA has to be fixed.
    One day though. That's the thing. It's not like they held the guy off until the end of the month, or into May. One day. It's bogus. A third party arbitrator might be swayed to agree with Bryant's side, but I doubt MLB is going to do it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    One day though. That's the thing. It's not like they held the guy off until the end of the month, or into May. One day. It's bogus. A third party arbitrator might be swayed to agree with Bryant's side, but I doubt MLB is going to do it.
    1 day doesn't matter. The Cubs played by the rules in the contract. The players association should have a problem with the people who put that contract together. And I agree it is horrible. But you play by the rules what are in place. It would be very unfair of MLB to decide Bryant is now one year closer to FA. That would be a huge penalty to the Cubs, who did nothing wrong with their handling of Bryant. In fact, they have been very good to him every off season. Always renewing him at much more then they needed to. Sure, they used the rules in fore to their advantage when they brought him up. But they made some of that up every off season.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,314
    I think it's unlikely that he wins, but if he does, it could have a huge impact on other players, the future negotiations for the league, and the Cubs next season.

    Because if they lose this and he's heading into his final year, suddenly the idea of trading him doesn't become to crazy.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,792
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    One day though. That's the thing. It's not like they held the guy off until the end of the month, or into May. One day. It's bogus. A third party arbitrator might be swayed to agree with Bryant's side, but I doubt MLB is going to do it.
    It's crappy, but I just don't see how an arbitrator could actually side with Bryant. It's crappy that something so arbitrary decides when he hits FA, especially since the cutoff date was so early in the year, but it was a bargained rule, so I dont think he has much ground to stand on.

    The rule itself is crappy, but if they have to keep it in place, they should really move the service time requirement back. It's a much different story if you have to keep a guy down for 80 games as opposed to 2 weeks.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,258
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    One day though. That's the thing. It's not like they held the guy off until the end of the month, or into May. One day. It's bogus. A third party arbitrator might be swayed to agree with Bryant's side, but I doubt MLB is going to do it.
    I fully agree.

    But there has to be a cutoff somewhere, and the union agreed to this deal.

    They need to make service time based on calendar years, not actual days.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,258
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    It's crappy, but I just don't see how an arbitrator could actually side with Bryant. It's crappy that something so arbitrary decides when he hits FA, especially since the cutoff date was so early in the year, but it was a bargained rule, so I dont think he has much ground to stand on.

    The rule itself is crappy, but if they have to keep it in place, they should really move the service time requirement back. It's a much different story if you have to keep a guy down for 80 games as opposed to 2 weeks.
    I mean, how do we determine what is enough time to wait?

    Okay, 1 day is too soon, but is 2 days okay?
    What about a week?
    A month?

    You have to have a set time for a reason.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    It's crappy, but I just don't see how an arbitrator could actually side with Bryant. It's crappy that something so arbitrary decides when he hits FA, especially since the cutoff date was so early in the year, but it was a bargained rule, so I dont think he has much ground to stand on.

    The rule itself is crappy, but if they have to keep it in place, they should really move the service time requirement back. It's a much different story if you have to keep a guy down for 80 games as opposed to 2 weeks.
    Agreed it is crappy. It is a bad rule. But that is on the players association and the CBA they agreed to. Not the Cubs or any other team for abiding by the rules. In fairness to the Cubs, they have been very good to Bryant every off season. He always gets on the high side of what is expected. And when they could automatically renew him without arbitration they always gave him the top amount. Not like the Pirates who wanted to cut Cole one year. So, while they were being kind of crappy holding him down, they did what they could to try making up some of the money he lost. And, again, they played by the rules.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    9,344
    Rules don't matter much in this country anymore, I wouldn't be shocked if he won.
    1985 Bears
    2005 White Sox
    2010 Blackhawks
    1991 Bulls

    1981 Sting

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I mean, how do we determine what is enough time to wait?

    Okay, 1 day is too soon, but is 2 days okay?
    What about a week?
    A month?

    You have to have a set time for a reason.
    I get you have a deadline, but Bryant played 151 games in his first non-full season. That's whats absurd to me. Make the cutoff 75-80% of the games. Make the decision actually hurt. Missing 10-12 games doesn't really hurt. It's pretty much a no brainer. It likely still wouldnt matter for a guy like vlad Jr playing on a bad team that expects to be be bad, but for most of the other teams that think of everything breaks right we could make a run at the wild card or better, it's hard to keep a guy down for 30-40 games.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    16,862
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I get you have a deadline, but Bryant played 151 games in his first non-full season. That's whats absurd to me. Make the cutoff 75-80% of the games. Make the decision actually hurt. Missing 10-12 games doesn't really hurt. It's pretty much a no brainer. It likely still wouldnt matter for a guy like vlad Jr playing on a bad team that expects to be be bad, but for most of the other teams that think of everything breaks right we could make a run at the wild card or better, it's hard to keep a guy down for 30-40 games.
    That's the one number that could work in his favor if this was an independent panel. It's absurd that we consider a full year for a starter around 150 games (days off, etc) and he doesn't get credit for playing that whole season.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    29,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Muttman73 View Post
    Rules don't matter much in this country anymore, I wouldn't be shocked if he won.
    based on what legality? Feelings don’t count. There has to be a contractual violation. I guess Bryant’s camp says there is, but what is it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, at least fails while daring greatly.” -- Teddy Roosevelt

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •