Soxbadger Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I don't think it would make me happy for the Sox to get sanctioned for this, but I kinda hope the harder the players hit on this now the more the owners will understand "we have to have a better way to do this" going into the next CBA. Maybe we can get some of these fights fought now, and have both sides ready to make a deal so we can avoid a strike over this. This issue is something the players are going to give into owners almost every time. The reason is that the majority of the players were already screwed by the system and thus wont gain anything by the new rules. If you already are passed your 6 years of service or signed an agreement to buy those years out, why would you care at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: This issue is something the players are going to give into owners almost every time. The reason is that the majority of the players were already screwed by the system and thus wont gain anything by the new rules. If you already are passed your 6 years of service or signed an agreement to buy those years out, why would you care at all? I'd be willing to bet that there's a majority of MLB Players who have not yet passed that 6 year limit, so I think it's going to be important across the entire union, and the more that single cases make a big deal of this then I'd guess the more the players who have already passed 6 years will realize that this is something they need to support being fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Just now, Balta1701 said: I'd be willing to bet that there's a majority of MLB Players who have not yet passed that 6 year limit, so I think it's going to be important across the entire union, and the more that single cases make a big deal of this then I'd guess the more the players who have already passed 6 years will realize that this is something they need to support being fixed. I have no way of knowing whether or not there are more players on their original deals that havent been bought out (my guess is there is not.) But I disagree that players who it wont impact are going to argue for it if means them losing out on something that would benefit them. Completely hypothetical MLB offers: All players 1% of concession or they agree to reduce service time from 6 to 5 years. Id bet that 1% wins because there are many players who get nothing from the reduced service time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: This issue is something the players are going to give into owners almost every time. The reason is that the majority of the players were already screwed by the system and thus wont gain anything by the new rules. If you already are passed your 6 years of service or signed an agreement to buy those years out, why would you care at all? Because moving up the free agency goal line means more free agent competition for a smaller number of teams who are willing to spend money on a winter to winter basis? With the tank coming into vogue, fewer teams are willing to spend on a year to year basis. If you give those teams more options, the onus on outbidding the other teams for players is reduced. Typically the front end guys will be fine, but the more fungible players will suffer, as has been recent history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: Because moving up the free agency goal line means more free agent competition for a smaller number of teams who are willing to spend money on a winter to winter basis? With the tank coming into vogue, fewer teams are willing to spend on a year to year basis. If you give those teams more options, the onus on outbidding the other teams for players is reduced. Typically the front end guys will be fine, but the more fungible players will suffer, as has been recent history. Possibly, but I dont necessarily believe that reducing service time from 6 to 5 years is somehow going to be a boon to players who already have 6+ years or have had their contracts bought out. If anything it could mean less cheaper players, so less money being offered to current FAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: Possibly, but I dont necessarily believe that reducing service time from 6 to 5 years is somehow going to be a boon to players who already have 6+ years or have had their contracts bought out. If anything it could mean less cheaper players, so less money being offered to current FAs. I am saying it would hurt them by having more competition on the free agent market, That is why they could vote against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 I'm not sure we are fully aware of what the market implications would be, but for one the players could argue for more guaranteed revenue to the union, or also increase the cost of the first contracts to create more equity in the balance of vets vs younger players. There are a number of scenarios I find plausible that making the first contracts more expensive OR reducing length may have consequences in making more equitable toward players: - The long length of control (6 years) has many players signing extensions to hedge against injury - This has reduced the pool of younger and high quality players from free agency, making free agency less attractive for team building - This has made the strategy of tanking more potent because it allows a larger number of in their prime players on the team at same time, and financial flexibility to lock them up So, if FA has better potential to build teams up, more teams could spend and boost salaries. If teams are competing, they may very well be more willing to sign a vet for their bench over banking that a 23 year old kid can do same for cheaper, but less certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I am saying it would hurt them by having more competition on the free agent market, That is why they could vote against it. haha Okay, thats what I thought you meant at first. Disregard my post lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 2 hours ago, ChiSox59 said: He can file a grievance all he wants. He has no case. He’s played minimal games above AA and has spent large portions of the last 2 seasons on the DL. I feel for the kid, but he’s just gonna have to wait until late next April. I have to agree with this. The threat of a grievance does not equal filing a grievance. Sure they could file one and they would lose. The consequences of the threat now mean that the Sox have to wait for the extra year of control. Bringing him up before then would look like an admission of their guilt . They were probably going to do that anyway but now it's 99% assured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Reducing service time from 6 to 5 years would increase the owners desire to leave players like Eloy and Vlad Jr down in AAA for the extra year of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, BlackSox13 said: Reducing service time from 6 to 5 years would increase the owners desire to leave players like Eloy and Vlad Jr down in AAA for the extra year of control. Entire system needs an overhaul. Might be finally time to kill the arbitration model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, BlackSox13 said: Reducing service time from 6 to 5 years would increase the owners desire to leave players like Eloy and Vlad Jr down in AAA for the extra year of control. Would agree with this too. With one year less of control, maximizing that control becomes more important. It might also reduce the willingness of teams to stick with young players through slumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Jake said: We should have called him up a month ago. If it is true the Sox approached him with a contract offer designed to secure the extra year while also calling him up this season, it would be proof positive of the Sox's motivations. I would be happy for the Sox to get sanctioned for this stuff because it's bad for the game and something has to be done to stop it. Every team does this stuff, wanting your favorite team to be the sacrificial lamb is very odd if I’m being polite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) It would be pretty amazing if baseball created their own version of WAR and based salaries on that figure + service time to replace the old arb model. Doubt the players would ever accept that but judging from last offseason MLB FOs are almost certainly using projected WAR and cost per WAR in their FA calculations. Edited August 30, 2018 by chitownsportsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) I could see some sort of compromise where the 1st September call up wouldnt count as service time, but the player would get a MLB salary. Then make it so service time is 1 day played prior to September. Thus Eloy could get called up this year, get paid MLB money for a month. Then next year Sox have no incentive to hold him down at the start. I could see that making sense for both sides. Edited August 30, 2018 by Soxbadger 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 28 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Every team does this stuff, wanting your favorite team to be the sacrificial lamb is very odd if I’m being polite. It's not that I want it to be the Sox and no one else. I want it to be whichever team is doing it. I wanted the Cubs to get in trouble with Bryant too. 25 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: I could see some sort of compromise where the 1st September call up wouldnt count as service time, but the player would get a MLB salary. Then make it so service time is 1 day played prior to September. Thus Eloy could get called up this year, get paid MLB money for a month. Then next year Sox have no incentive to hold him down at the start. I could see that making sense for both sides. I do think that it should be pretty easy to at least have no service time penalty to the team if the player is called up in September. Then you just add a provision that if the player is used in the playoffs that same year, then the September service days are added back to the service time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, ptatc said: The Sox do have blame. They are purposely limiting his income for the sole reason of limiting his income. Just because you agree with this practice doesn't mean it's right. It is solely to benefit the monetary position of the team. Thy should file a grievance. They will lose but they should still file it. Part of the business side. Oh well. Hes still young enough to the point where he will make a fuckload of money. Edited August 30, 2018 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I see both sides in this and as others have said the Sox are playing within the agreed rules of the game. But given their history and reputation this is not a good look for them and could have very serious consequences down the road. They are between a rock and a hard place in this one with no real "good" solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 If they offered Eloy a contract, he really has no ground to stand on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I'm filing a grievance over their grievance. Totally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 40 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: I see both sides in this and as others have said the Sox are playing within the agreed rules of the game. But given their history and reputation this is not a good look for them and could have very serious consequences down the road. They are between a rock and a hard place in this one with no real "good" solution. Who have they screwed on service time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Who have they screwed on service time? The Drake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-Gun Pete Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I don't think a grievance will actually be filed, because there isn't a snowball's chance in hell it would be successful. The CBA is what the CBA is, and that aside, he's only had 500 or so PA above High A; 300 or so of the 500 PA in AA. He won't be hurt by finishing up the year with Charlotte, and/or getting some more PAs with W-S in their playoffs, then a few weeks in 2019 again in Charlotte. All that said, despite my previous misgivings about his readiness, I feel a lot better about his prospects than I did earlier this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: Who have they screwed on service time? Was referring to the general way some players have been treated gong back to guys like Carlton Fisk and Jack McDowell with this organization, not specifically on "service time." As I said they are not breaking any rules and are within their rights but it looks bad from a PR standpoint and right now with them about to have their sixth straight losing season (Last time 1944-1950) they should be trying to get as much positive press / PR / fan goodwill as they can muster. And this could bite them on the ass down the road...we'll have to wait and see. Edited August 31, 2018 by Lip Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 AND THIS IS WHY I SAID ELOY WRITING AN ARTICLE PLEADING TO BE CALLED UP WAS A BAD SIGN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.