KB/Boras file service time grievance

[davell]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--kris-bryant--maikel-franco-filed-grievances-over-manipulation-of-service-time-213422124-mlb.html

 

As they should.....Doubt anything comes of it. But for fucks sake, when are we going to hear anything more on the Cards stealing [expletive]?

[UMFan83]

Is this going to hurt the Cubs relationship with Bryant? I doubt it but just my first thought that popped into my head.

 

I'm guessing the worst that comes of this is they add a year to Bryant's service time (which is quite damaging but not necessarily in the short term).

 

 

Edit: Nevermind, it looks like the grievence was filed way back in April. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[Guest]

Pretty sure we already heard about this a while back unless I'm clairvoyant.

[Cubswin11]

Pretty sure we already heard about this a while back unless I'm clairvoyant.

One of the articles I read said he filed it in April, so yeah it probably was previously reported

[davell]

I'm pretty sure this is the first time its been reported, but it seemed like an inevitability all along. My guess is it basically just gets them to address it in the next CBA.

[seanimal]

i suppose it's possible that an arbitrator could chose to rule against the cubs, in which case they would be subject to whatever penalties are outlined for such a thing in the CBA

[Rex Buckingham]

They can't rule against the Cubs without ruling against all the other teams who have done it, right?

[Cubswin11]

They aren't ruling against the Cubs, it's completely within the rules. It's a way to get it addressed in the next CBA

[NonProfitCow]

They aren't ruling against the Cubs, it's completely within the rules. It's a way to get it addressed in the next CBA

Yup

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's a lot more complicated than "Well, the rules say it's OK."

 

I thought this article did a good job of explaining it:

 

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-kris-bryant-situation-as-explained-by-a-labor-lawyer

 

As to the merits of that grievance: The best argument for the union is that the service time rules and the nature of the competitive enterprise of baseball give rise to an implied requirement that teams act in good faith in terms of when and whether to promote players to the majors. "Good faith," in this case, means that teams honestly attempt to use the players in their minor-league system to build a competitive big league baseball team and let the service time chips fall where they may from those baseball decisions. (Scott Boras, it should be noted, also believes this is the union's argument.)

 

This is not a slam-dunk winner, but it is decidedly more in keeping with the way contracts— and especially collective bargaining agreements—are interpreted than the "if it's not illegal, it's legal" position. In the absence of language explicitly controlling the situation, the question the arbitrator will consider is the parties' intent, and it beggars belief to suppose that the union intended that teams could manipulate players' service time without a shred of on-field justification.

 

The boundaries of this good faith requirement aren't obvious, but that's a frequent problem in law, and one that shouldn't stop us from believing that it exists. The lines emerge through case-by-case development, and nobody expects every possible contingency to be accounted for every time a legal rule is laid down. It's a society (or a workplace) we're building, after all, not an algorithm.

 

(emphasis added)

[mul21]

Honestly, the Olt injury probably screwed them in this as much as it may help them defend the way they handled it. I'll be very surprised if anything other than future CBA bargaining comes out of this.

[SRQCub]

They aren't ruling against the Cubs, it's completely within the rules. It's a way to get it addressed in the next CBA

 

The problem is, withholding a player in order to delay his clock is expressly forbidden in the CBA. Of course, Bryant's side has to somehow prove that's what the Cubs have done. Proof will be the thing that cannot provide, though every human being with at least two brain cells bumping into one another knows that's what the Cubs have done.

[Andy]

Obviously his service time was being manipulated, but once he was in AAA to start the season, what exactly should the Cubs have done after Olt's injury to make it look less transparent? Play Buckethead Herrera at third for 2 weeks?

[SouthSideRyan]

Obviously his service time was being manipulated, but once he was in AAA to start the season, what exactly should the Cubs have done after Olt's injury to make it look less transparent? Play Buckethead Herrera at third for 2 weeks?

 

They did play Alcantara there for the final necessary game after playing buckethead there for several games.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Is this going to hurt the Cubs relationship with Bryant? I doubt it but just my first thought that popped into my head.

 

I'm guessing the worst that comes of this is they add a year to Bryant's service time (which is quite damaging but not necessarily in the short term).

 

 

Edit: Nevermind, it looks like the grievence was filed way back in April. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

 

The thing is, I doubt this was orchestrated by Bryant or even Boras, so much as the players union as a whole. Though they probably didn't have to twist Boras' arm very hard.

[Guest]

It's a lot more complicated than "Well, the rules say it's OK."

 

I thought this article did a good job of explaining it:

 

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-kris-bryant-situation-as-explained-by-a-labor-lawyer

 

As to the merits of that grievance: The best argument for the union is that the service time rules and the nature of the competitive enterprise of baseball give rise to an implied requirement that teams act in good faith in terms of when and whether to promote players to the majors. "Good faith," in this case, means that teams honestly attempt to use the players in their minor-league system to build a competitive big league baseball team and let the service time chips fall where they may from those baseball decisions. (Scott Boras, it should be noted, also believes this is the union's argument.)

 

This is not a slam-dunk winner, but it is decidedly more in keeping with the way contracts— and especially collective bargaining agreements—are interpreted than the "if it's not illegal, it's legal" position. In the absence of language explicitly controlling the situation, the question the arbitrator will consider is the parties' intent, and it beggars belief to suppose that the union intended that teams could manipulate players' service time without a shred of on-field justification.

 

The boundaries of this good faith requirement aren't obvious, but that's a frequent problem in law, and one that shouldn't stop us from believing that it exists. The lines emerge through case-by-case development, and nobody expects every possible contingency to be accounted for every time a legal rule is laid down. It's a society (or a workplace) we're building, after all, not an algorithm.

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

The counterpoint here is that if the only proof is that 'it makes sense that this was the reason', it sets a pretty broad precedent that could be used in cases that are far less obvious. Maikel Franco filed a grievance too, and he was thought to be a rich man's Josh Vitters until last June or so. People wailed about the Pirates killing their chances by leaving Polanco down for Super 2 reasons in 2014, then when he did come up he was barely replacement level.

 

I wouldn't be stunned if the Cubs lost the grievance, but my feelings are similar to the Maddon tampering stuff. Unless there's some smoking gun where an email said 'Bryant won't start with the team because service time' or something like that, I don't think there's a high chance that Bryant/Boras/Union wins. But winning this specific grievance likely isn't the point anyway.

[SouthSideRyan]

Is this going to hurt the Cubs relationship with Bryant? I doubt it but just my first thought that popped into my head.

 

I'm guessing the worst that comes of this is they add a year to Bryant's service time (which is quite damaging but not necessarily in the short term).

 

 

Edit: Nevermind, it looks like the grievence was filed way back in April. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

 

The thing is, I doubt this was orchestrated by Bryant or even Boras, so much as the players union as a whole.

 

I bet Kris would play for free if the union would just let him!!

[SouthSideRyan]

I wouldn't be stunned if the Cubs lost the grievance, but my feelings are similar to the Maddon tampering stuff. Unless there's some smoking gun where an email said 'Bryant won't start with the team because service time' or something like that, I don't think there's a high chance that Bryant/Boras/Union wins. But winning this specific grievance likely isn't the point anyway.

 

 

I'd think the only chance of a smoking gun(and it'd be a bad one) would be some sort of evidence of messing with Olt's injury to delay his DL stint. Olt didn't start after he was injured, appearing only as a pinch hitter and defensive replacement. He'd then sit the entirety of the final necessary game, and be DLd just in time for Bryant to gain another year. I don't know what records are available in these hearings, nor do I know how well-documented a training staff/doctors' review would be. But other than a don't ask/don't tell policy as the date approached, I'd be surprised if somebody wasn't informed Olt would need a DL stint.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's a lot more complicated than "Well, the rules say it's OK."

 

I thought this article did a good job of explaining it:

 

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-kris-bryant-situation-as-explained-by-a-labor-lawyer

 

As to the merits of that grievance: The best argument for the union is that the service time rules and the nature of the competitive enterprise of baseball give rise to an implied requirement that teams act in good faith in terms of when and whether to promote players to the majors. "Good faith," in this case, means that teams honestly attempt to use the players in their minor-league system to build a competitive big league baseball team and let the service time chips fall where they may from those baseball decisions. (Scott Boras, it should be noted, also believes this is the union's argument.)

 

This is not a slam-dunk winner, but it is decidedly more in keeping with the way contracts— and especially collective bargaining agreements—are interpreted than the "if it's not illegal, it's legal" position. In the absence of language explicitly controlling the situation, the question the arbitrator will consider is the parties' intent, and it beggars belief to suppose that the union intended that teams could manipulate players' service time without a shred of on-field justification.

 

The boundaries of this good faith requirement aren't obvious, but that's a frequent problem in law, and one that shouldn't stop us from believing that it exists. The lines emerge through case-by-case development, and nobody expects every possible contingency to be accounted for every time a legal rule is laid down. It's a society (or a workplace) we're building, after all, not an algorithm.

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

The counterpoint here is that if the only proof is that 'it makes sense that this was the reason', it sets a pretty broad precedent that could be used in cases that are far less obvious. Maikel Franco filed a grievance too, and he was thought to be a rich man's Josh Vitters until last June or so. People wailed about the Pirates killing their chances by leaving Polanco down for Super 2 reasons in 2014, then when he did come up he was barely replacement level.

 

I wouldn't be stunned if the Cubs lost the grievance, but my feelings are similar to the Maddon tampering stuff. Unless there's some smoking gun where an email said 'Bryant won't start with the team because service time' or something like that, I don't think there's a high chance that Bryant/Boras/Union wins. But winning this specific grievance likely isn't the point anyway.

 

I'd be floored if the Cubs lost the grievance as it would require something pretty stupid to have been said/written and captured in a form that can be used in the hearing.

 

The article quoted by kyle is written by a guy (a labor union lawyer, btw, so not entirely unbiased in a union v company dispute) arguing that "it's not illegal, it's legal" which is far different from "the cubs should/will lose."

 

The league has a CBA. They all agreed to the service time rules. Do they also have to act in "good faith?" Yes, but that's a really ambiguous requirement and this is not kindergarten. If there's any defensible reason for the Cubs bringing Bryant up when they did, then they win. It would be madness to have team decisions subject to some guy (with the benefit of hindsight in the form of 5 months of stats) to evaluate the circumstances, find that the Cubs had a defensible position, but that he'd come to a different conclusion, so the Cubs lose.