Kris Bryant is awesome and we were always right to love him

[Brian]

how about based on whether you are a high school draftee, college draftee or international signing you sign a certain length contract that is the remainder of that season plus X number of seasons that would reasonably get the player through the minor leagues plus a rough equivalence of the pre-arb years. Therefore there is a ticking clock from day one in the organization, there is time enough so you don't have to rush them, but there is incentive for big league teams to call up their uber prospects as soon as possible not leave them down.

 

At the end of that contract there is the option of a modified NBA/NFL restricted free agency period.

 

First of all, the team can let the player go (like 'non-tendering' them currently)

 

otherwise the player can request to solicit contracts from other teams, where any team can sign the player to whatever contract they want however the original team can match the contract and they'll get it (like in NBA/NFL restricted free agency)

 

The team can reject that (or the player doesn't request it) and then that triggers basically what is the current arb system but it will be the same for everybody 3 years (or maybe even 2) where the teams can agree on 1 year deals (or go to arb) or sign longer term deals.

 

Unrestricted free agency after that runs out.

[Old Style]

Countdown to the end of KB's Cub career.

 

[jersey cubs fan]

Countdown to the end of KB's Cub career.

 

so it will never actually end?

[Regular Show]

how about based on whether you are a high school draftee, college draftee or international signing you sign a certain length contract that is the remainder of that season plus X number of seasons that would reasonably get the player through the minor leagues plus a rough equivalence of the pre-arb years. Therefore there is a ticking clock from day one in the organization, there is time enough so you don't have to rush them, but there is incentive for big league teams to call up their uber prospects as soon as possible not leave them down...

 

So putting international signees aside, the problem with this system is that it places an even greater premium on drafting college players in the draft because they can make the big leagues faster than HS players. A top college prospect can be ready within 1-2 years after being drafted while most top HS prospects still need at least 3-4 years before they're ready. If the X number of seasons of control is the same for every player then college players would give you the most value and the highest output. Let's say "X" is 9 years of control then a college player could be ready within a year giving the team drafting him a full 8 seasons of control. This system would heavily penalize HS players and teams drafting HS players, and as a bizarre consequence make more top HS prospects choose to go to college as a result.

 

I don't like the idea of fixing it to an X number of seasons because of these reasons.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Regular Show

[Bertz]

This will never happen, but an interesting alternative

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This will never happen, but an interesting alternative

 

 

That seems like looking for an outside the box solution when a normal one(lowering service requirements) would be preferred all around.

 

Something like making 60 days the cutoff for a full year of service time, and removing a pre-arb year to make it 2 pre-arb/3 arb/FA feels like a decent first try at better balance without completely killing off the ability for small market teams to be competitive.

[WrigleyField 22]

This will never happen, but an interesting alternative

 

I don't think I understand this idea...

[Rob]

Kill the draft and arbitration. They just exist to suppress salaries so that billionaires can pocket more money.

 

Free agency for everybody.

[Brian]

So putting international signees aside, the problem with this system is that it places an even greater premium on drafting college players in the draft because they can make the big leagues faster than HS players. A top college prospect can be ready within 1-2 years after being drafted while most top HS prospects still need at least 3-4 years before they're ready. If the X number of seasons of control is the same for every player then college players would give you the most value and the highest output. Let's say "X" is 9 years of control then a college player could be ready within a year giving the team drafting him a full 8 seasons of control. This system would heavily penalize HS players and teams drafting HS players, and as a bizarre consequence make more top HS prospects choose to go to college as a result.

 

I don't like the idea of fixing it to an X number of seasons because of these reasons.

 

Yeah, I may have worded it badly... my scenario high school draftees and college draftees contracts are for a different number of years for that very reason.

 

EDIT: probably should have said high school draftees are for X years, college draftees for Y years, etc.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think it's more likely that the Cubs seized on something they knew wouldn't be resolved until now as the "lynchpin" to an offseason in which they planned on doing nothing all along.

[Bertz]

This will never happen, but an interesting alternative

 

I don't think I understand this idea...

 

Let's say you have a guy who hits FA with 6 years and 120 days, where 180 is the cutoff. This guy has 2/3s of an extra year of service, so his club would owe him 2/3s of the AAV of his next contract (e.g. $10M on a $15M AAV contract)

 

Like TT said it's far more complicated of a solution than the problem requires, but it'd be amongst the most fair and equitable.

[UMFan83]

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/cubs/kris-bryant-reportedly-believes-cubs-openly-lied-during-arbitration-hearing

 

Nightengale is reporting that the Cubs “lied to him.” Bryant “feels unwanted, underappreciated, and believes the organization openly lied during the arbitration hearing.”

 

Officially getting ugly. Trading Bryant might be more about the fact that its looking increasingly unlikely that he re-signs with the Cubs

[ConstableRabbit]

Unions generally prioritize tenure over everything else. The MLBPA has shown that they are cool making tradeoffs to this end based on how they've set up service time, pre-FA salaries... even minor league players. They could put these issues to the forefront in negotiations, but they've probably have to give up other items they've deemed more important.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/cubs/kris-bryant-reportedly-believes-cubs-openly-lied-during-arbitration-hearing

 

Nightengale is reporting that the Cubs “lied to him.” Bryant “feels unwanted, underappreciated, and believes the organization openly lied during the arbitration hearing.”

 

Officially getting ugly. Trading Bryant might be more about the fact that its looking increasingly unlikely that he re-signs with the Cubs

 

They did lie. They held him down to delay his service time and lied about it.

[BigbadB]

Wasn't this grievance more of a Boras grievance than a Bryant grievance? It wasn't a winnable grievance, but it does bring the issue to the forefront for the next CBA. I haven't been following it all that closely, so I don't know really how pissed Bryant is/was about the Cubs skirting the CBA rules on service time with him. I remember them doing it and I'm glad they did it, but it's Boras that sees this as a big loss to his clients and future clients as long as this loophole exists. So, was it really Bryant fighting with the Cubs for compensation, or was this more about Boras fighting for his players?

 

I just don't really see Bryant needing to be traded because of this grievance loss. This type of loophole has been there for years and I imagine every team has used it at some point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wasn't this grievance more of a Boras grievance than a Bryant grievance? It wasn't a winnable grievance, but it does bring the issue to the forefront for the next CBA. I haven't been following it all that closely, so I don't know really how pissed Bryant is/was about the Cubs skirting the CBA rules on service time with him. I remember them doing it and I'm glad they did it, but it's Boras that sees this as a big loss to his clients and future clients as long as this loophole exists. So, was it really Bryant fighting with the Cubs for compensation, or was this more about Boras fighting for his players?

 

I just don't really see Bryant needing to be traded because of this grievance loss. This type of loophole has been there for years and I imagine every team has used it at some point.

 

Boras wasn't just like randomly assigned to Bryant. He was hired by Bryant to advocate for Bryant.

[BigbadB]

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/cubs/kris-bryant-reportedly-believes-cubs-openly-lied-during-arbitration-hearing

 

Nightengale is reporting that the Cubs “lied to him.” Bryant “feels unwanted, underappreciated, and believes the organization openly lied during the arbitration hearing.”

 

Officially getting ugly. Trading Bryant might be more about the fact that its looking increasingly unlikely that he re-signs with the Cubs

 

They did lie. They held him down to delay his service time and lied about it.

 

Of course they lied. Every team would lie to get that extra year of service without the clock actually starting. And of course, they will lie about lying.

[UMFan83]

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/cubs/kris-bryant-reportedly-believes-cubs-openly-lied-during-arbitration-hearing

 

Nightengale is reporting that the Cubs “lied to him.” Bryant “feels unwanted, underappreciated, and believes the organization openly lied during the arbitration hearing.”

 

Officially getting ugly. Trading Bryant might be more about the fact that its looking increasingly unlikely that he re-signs with the Cubs

 

They did lie. They held him down to delay his service time and lied about it.

 

The Cubs should have just offered him a 2 year contract for a little more than what he was projected to make in arbitration, and if he accepted it would have prevented a lot of this.

[BigbadB]

Wasn't this grievance more of a Boras grievance than a Bryant grievance? It wasn't a winnable grievance, but it does bring the issue to the forefront for the next CBA. I haven't been following it all that closely, so I don't know really how pissed Bryant is/was about the Cubs skirting the CBA rules on service time with him. I remember them doing it and I'm glad they did it, but it's Boras that sees this as a big loss to his clients and future clients as long as this loophole exists. So, was it really Bryant fighting with the Cubs for compensation, or was this more about Boras fighting for his players?

 

I just don't really see Bryant needing to be traded because of this grievance loss. This type of loophole has been there for years and I imagine every team has used it at some point.

 

Boras wasn't just like randomly assigned to Bryant. He was hired by Bryant to advocate for Bryant.

 

Right, but Boras' work with Bryant doesn't really start until his rookie deal is nearing completion. Maybe he got an extra million or two in his rookie deal with Boras as his agent, but the real value will be his first year in free agency, which was delayed a year because of the service time loophole. That happens to many of Boras' other clients (and every other agent of a top tier prospect) and they are all losing out on an extra year of free agency commission. The player is losing it, too, but it's probably Boras that pushed to make this happen moreso than Bryant, IMO.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wasn't this grievance more of a Boras grievance than a Bryant grievance? It wasn't a winnable grievance, but it does bring the issue to the forefront for the next CBA. I haven't been following it all that closely, so I don't know really how pissed Bryant is/was about the Cubs skirting the CBA rules on service time with him. I remember them doing it and I'm glad they did it, but it's Boras that sees this as a big loss to his clients and future clients as long as this loophole exists. So, was it really Bryant fighting with the Cubs for compensation, or was this more about Boras fighting for his players?

 

I just don't really see Bryant needing to be traded because of this grievance loss. This type of loophole has been there for years and I imagine every team has used it at some point.

 

Boras wasn't just like randomly assigned to Bryant. He was hired by Bryant to advocate for Bryant.

 

Right, but Boras' work with Bryant doesn't really start until his rookie deal is nearing completion. Maybe he got an extra million or two in his rookie deal with Boras as his agent, but the real value will be his first year in free agency, which was delayed a year because of the service time loophole. That happens to many of Boras' other clients (and every other agent of a top tier prospect) and they are all losing out on an extra year of free agency commission. The player is losing it, too, but it's probably Boras that pushed to make this happen moreso than Bryant, IMO.

 

Why don't you think Bryant pushed for this?

[Brian]

fwiw, Wittenmyer has his own article with sources saying "no ill will whatsoever"

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/cubs/2020/1/29/21113460/kris-bryant-cubs-grievance

[BigbadB]

 

Boras wasn't just like randomly assigned to Bryant. He was hired by Bryant to advocate for Bryant.

 

Right, but Boras' work with Bryant doesn't really start until his rookie deal is nearing completion. Maybe he got an extra million or two in his rookie deal with Boras as his agent, but the real value will be his first year in free agency, which was delayed a year because of the service time loophole. That happens to many of Boras' other clients (and every other agent of a top tier prospect) and they are all losing out on an extra year of free agency commission. The player is losing it, too, but it's probably Boras that pushed to make this happen moreso than Bryant, IMO.

 

Why don't you think Bryant pushed for this?

 

Well, I already said I haven't been following this all that closely, but it's 5 years after it happened and it just seems more like a Players Association and Agent issue than a player issue. When does the current CBA expire? I'm guessing it's soon.

[CubinNY]

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/cubs/kris-bryant-reportedly-believes-cubs-openly-lied-during-arbitration-hearing

 

Nightengale is reporting that the Cubs “lied to him.” Bryant “feels unwanted, underappreciated, and believes the organization openly lied during the arbitration hearing.”

 

Officially getting ugly. Trading Bryant might be more about the fact that its looking increasingly unlikely that he re-signs with the Cubs

 

They did lie. They held him down to delay his service time and lied about it.

No matter how talented, nice, and squeaky clean they are, they are still labor. And MLB management does not give two shits about its labor.

[CubinNY]

BTW, this should all go in the Ricketts Family Sucks thread.

[WrigleyField 22]

This will never happen, but an interesting alternative

 

I don't think I understand this idea...

 

Let's say you have a guy who hits FA with 6 years and 120 days, where 180 is the cutoff. This guy has 2/3s of an extra year of service, so his club would owe him 2/3s of the AAV of his next contract (e.g. $10M on a $15M AAV contract)

 

Like TT said it's far more complicated of a solution than the problem requires, but it'd be amongst the most fair and equitable.

Huh... there seem like lots of potential complications, not the least of which is the situation where a player switches teams once they hit FA. Who's picking up the tab, which lux tax year it affects, etc.