Addison Russell

[Bertz]

Yeah I'm pretty sure Epstein has to say these sorts of things about Russell if for no other reason than to avoid ugliness with the Player's Union. I'd like for the team to non tender him, but they'll trade him somewhere, probably San Diego.

[Cubswin11]

[Rob]

I don't think Russell plays another inning for the Chicago Cubs, but I do wonder if they could get away with optioning him to Iowa for the start of the season and hoping he plays well enough to build trade value for a desperate contender.

 

I don't think they will, but I'm just curious about the technical aspects of it. I'm pretty sure he has options left. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have enough service time to negate those options. I'm less certain whether that would be grounds for a grievance with the union.

[weis21]

I don't think Russell plays another inning for the Chicago Cubs, but I do wonder if they could get away with optioning him to Iowa for the start of the season and hoping he plays well enough to build trade value for a desperate contender.

 

I don't think they will, but I'm just curious about the technical aspects of it. I'm pretty sure he has options left. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have enough service time to negate those options. I'm less certain whether that would be grounds for a grievance with the union.

couldn't the cubs just say they felt like he needed time outside the spotlight to get back to playing "normal" baseball and stuff? I mean that would fly i would imagine

 

all that said i really hope he's not a part of the organization next year

[WrigleyField 22]

I don't think Russell plays another inning for the Chicago Cubs, but I do wonder if they could get away with optioning him to Iowa for the start of the season and hoping he plays well enough to build trade value for a desperate contender.

 

I don't think they will, but I'm just curious about the technical aspects of it. I'm pretty sure he has options left. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have enough service time to negate those options. I'm less certain whether that would be grounds for a grievance with the union.

couldn't the cubs just say they felt like he needed time outside the spotlight to get back to playing "normal" baseball and stuff? I mean that would fly i would imagine

 

all that said i really hope he's not a part of the organization next year

Either way, I don't think that's really a solution for the Cubs (which I'm fine with-they don't need an easy "out", they can always just cut him). But hypothetically in that scenario Russell is still showing up in ST and the Cubs are still dealing with the PR side of it all.

 

Either bring him back and deal with the PR disaster, or cut the dead weight (either by actually cutting him or selling him off for anything - could be bonus pool money or cash considerations even) as soon as you can--like while the calendar still reads 2018.

[Backtobanks]

I can't believe that some team wouldn't take him as a throw-in on a trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

[Brian]

I still think he's traded before he puts on a Cubs uniform. They have little/no leverage before tendering him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Gross.

[jersey cubs fan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Sammy Sofa]

[UK]

I'm glad that the organization enables this behavior. Repulsive.

[Brian]

This is exactly what I would expect from Theo if he was trying to trade him (or if he was definitely keeping him also, so there's that).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Did people really think they were going to non-tender him? Even setting aside the argument about whether it's the right thing to maximize Russell as an asset, non-tendering him(not a defensible baseball decision) after he's agreed to his punishment that was collectively bargained would basically be begging for a grievance and for Boras(who if you want to get real cynical, also represents other...players of interest this offseason) to spend the winter shrieking at them in the media about it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Did people really think they were going to non-tender him? Even setting aside the argument about whether it's the right thing to maximize Russell as an asset, non-tendering him(not a defensible baseball decision) after he's agreed to his punishment that was collectively bargained would basically be begging for a grievance and for Boras(who if you want to get real cynical, also represents other...players of interest this offseason) to spend the winter shrieking at them in the media about it.

If you want to defend the baseball side of the decision, sure. But claiming that non-tendering an arb eligible player who had accepted a punishment would somehow create blowback that the player was being mistreated is laughable.

[Old Style]

[Sammy Sofa]

Did people really think they were going to non-tender him? Even setting aside the argument about whether it's the right thing to maximize Russell as an asset, non-tendering him(not a defensible baseball decision) after he's agreed to his punishment that was collectively bargained would basically be begging for a grievance and for Boras(who if you want to get real cynical, also represents other...players of interest this offseason) to spend the winter shrieking at them in the media about it.

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Did people really think they were going to non-tender him? Even setting aside the argument about whether it's the right thing to maximize Russell as an asset, non-tendering him(not a defensible baseball decision) after he's agreed to his punishment that was collectively bargained would basically be begging for a grievance and for Boras(who if you want to get real cynical, also represents other...players of interest this offseason) to spend the winter shrieking at them in the media about it.

If you want to defend the baseball side of the decision, sure. But claiming that non-tendering an arb eligible player who had accepted a punishment would somehow create blowback that the player was being mistreated is laughable.

 

Are you saying Russell/Boras would lose a grievance? I completely disagree, with the obvious IANAL caveat. It'd be a slam dunk that it was punitive for the DV and above and beyond the collectively bargained punishment he accepted.

 

Just to be 100% clear since there's a lot of reflexive reactions to this, there are zero circumstances in which I want Russell on the 2019 roster. I also understand that until they actually trade him they're in a difficult spot because of the CBA, whether they truly want to act on it or not. Given their history I don't begrudge people for thinking they're giving lip service to Russell's treatment, but you can also make the argument that it shows at least some sensitivity to the situation and if the details are true, are as much as you could hope to see in terms of actually trying to get Russell help. Especially since there are no obvious or perfect solutions on how teams and leagues should act to actually deter future domestic violence.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Are you saying Russell/Boras would lose a grievance?

 

I'm saying there is no grievance.

 

He wasn't under contract. Non-tendering makes him a free agent. Anybody else can sign him, end of story.

[badger]

As a psychologist who does therapy all day long (individual, group and couples), I would like to think that I've helped people make significant changes in their life. I would like to think that if Addy takes this process seriously that he too can understand his need for power/control in relationships and learn to let go of that. If I didn't, what the horsefeathers am I doing with my life.

 

As a fan, I want nothing to do with him on my team.

 

I'm struggling to make sense of and integrate these dichotomous views.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Are you saying Russell/Boras would lose a grievance?

 

I'm saying there is no grievance.

 

He wasn't under contract. Non-tendering makes him a free agent. Anybody else can sign him, end of story.

 

From a mechanical standpoint, non-tendering is the same as releasing him. I don't buy that non-tendering him is some sort of non-action that is immune from CBA complaints, it's the same argument of bad faith inaction that's not explicitly against the rules that led to Bryant's grievance(non-tendering Russell, not promoting Bryant).

[SouthSideRyan]

And what happened with Bryant's grievance?

 

Boras would have no case. He's going to argue against free agency?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And what happened with Bryant's grievance?

 

Boras would have no case. He's going to argue against free agency?

 

Being similar in how a grievance would be allowed is not the same as the likelihood of success. Russell is still subject to arbitration in future years with his new team, and the negative signal of being cut by a team that would have kept him without the DV is pretty straight forward.

[Sammy Sofa]

When it comes down to robotically trying to defend as some kind of unavoidable business decision, probably best to just punch out.