ptatc Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 11 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said: People are missing the point of this grievance. It is not Kris Bryant vs the Cubs it's Scott Boras vs the Owners. Scott Boras is the biggest player advote in baseball and hates the greedy owners with a white hot passion (which is almost as much as I hate them). He understands as well as anyone the system is broken and heavily tilted in the owners favor. This was just the first volley in what is going to be a fierce fight over service time manipulation and arbitration. All I have to say is go get em, Scott! We totally disagree on just about everything here. However, I do agree that it is laying the groundwork for the next CBA. It will be intewresting what the players have to give up for this system to change. I suspect it will center around changing arbitration not FA. Arbitration for the owners is the single biggest factor for artificial salary inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Haven't read through the thread, so apologies if this was discussed, but Bryant lost this grievance due to the ambiguity of "readiness" as laid out within the current CBA. Because it was not defined, and could be assumed to have multiple meanings, the arbiter is required by contract law to side and agree with any explanation of readiness or lack-there-of that is presented to them by the team. The only way in which a team could lose a grievance like this, is if they explicitly state that they held a player down to obtain another year of service. No team is ever going to say that, so until there is a new CBA in which "Readiness" is clearly defined and not ambigious, the arbiter is required to rule in the teams favor. Now one could argue that the team is not acting in good faith, but that lawsuit would take ages if brought by the PA and any resolution would be nearly impossible to monetarily define. The PA is just better off negotiating and defining it in the next CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 How should it be defined and written out? "X amount of at bats at AA, X amount of bats at AAA, or Y amount of at bats between both levels?" Of course, they can always get promoted sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said: How should it be defined and written out? "X amount of at bats at AA, X amount of bats at AAA, or Y amount of at bats between both levels?" Of course, they can always get promoted sooner. I imagine it will be difficult, but a comparison to peers could be a start. Prospect rankings compared to minor league level. Or you can simply push the date back far enough that a team who wants to manipulate time will be harming the team in the current year, and would force them to keep their top prospect down through, let's say, July 30th or something similar. Defining readiness will be a very big hurdle for the PA, as it is defined differently by everyone, but there are certainly ways that could force teams to call up prospects when they are ready. Edited January 30, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, ptatc said: We totally disagree on just about everything here. However, I do agree that it is laying the groundwork for the next CBA. It will be intewresting what the players have to give up for this system to change. I suspect it will center around changing arbitration not FA. Arbitration for the owners is the single biggest factor for artificial salary inflation. They really shouldn't have to give up anything, given that ownership already agreed that Manipulation is against the rules.. It's defining what is manipulation that is the hurdle. The PA lost a CBA for the first time in a long time - they punished FA's as well as maintaining the punishment for young players. Arbitration should likely be done away with, and I think the league should move more towards a restricted free agent concept instead of arbitration... where a team has the right to match and maintain any young player in a R-FA concept. If you want to cap the salaries in R-FA to match the average salary of a player with a similar WAR or etc via the FA process, that would be fine with me as well. So when Moncada is set to become Arb eligible, he simply because RFA eligible. You take his previous two years WAR/Perceived Value, compare it to the FA market price for that value, set a ceiling on that value that matches the FA market, and then allow teams to match any other teams offer and retain that player. Edited January 30, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: I imagine it will be difficult, but a comparison to peers could be a start. Prospect rankings compared to minor league level. Or you can simply push the date back far enough that a team who wants to manipulate time will be harming the team in the current year, and would force them to keep their top prospect down through, let's say, July 30th or something similar. Defining readiness will be a very big hurdle for the PA, as it is defined differently by everyone, but there are certainly ways that could force teams to call up prospects when they are ready. I do like the idea of a later date. You keep them down and you only get them for 6 years and a couple months or just 6 full years if you call them up sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold's Leg Lift Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 It has to do with the way service time is calculated. It is currently calculated by days which makes it much easier to manipulate. I saw one proposal that said it would be calculated by quarters. The theory is that would make it much more difficult to manipulate the service time while still giving the player a fair chance to start his free agent clock when he's ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 21 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: They really shouldn't have to give up anything, given that ownership already agreed that Manipulation is against the rules.. It's defining what is manipulation that is the hurdle. The PA lost a CBA for the first time in a long time - they punished FA's as well as maintaining the punishment for young players. Arbitration should likely be done away with, and I think the league should move more towards a restricted free agent concept instead of arbitration... where a team has the right to match and maintain any young player in a R-FA concept. If you want to cap the salaries in R-FA to match the average salary of a player with a similar WAR or etc via the FA process, that would be fine with me as well. So when Moncada is set to become Arb eligible, he simply because RFA eligible. You take his previous two years WAR/Perceived Value, compare it to the FA market price for that value, set a ceiling on that value that matches the FA market, and then allow teams to match any other teams offer and retain that player. They will have to give up a lot to to allow players to enter FA earlier. If they somehow change the arbitration process it may be as much. In your example, you need to define WAR. Which version? Can the owners come up with their own version. There is no way the owners will agree to something that will accelerate the FA timeclock without substantial sacrifices from the players. Maybe a cap on a % of salary for the RFA. I don't disagree the the RFA concept is a good one I like it, however the players will need to give up something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 If I had to guess - there is no fair system by which "readiness" can be judged other than the current setup because there's no clear way to evaluate that in every case. There's no means by which service time manipulation can be avoided. So, what will the players push for? They'll push for a shorter time to qualify for a full year, which they'll probably get - that way teams can't just keep a guy down for 2 weeks, but it won't be a huge difference. Since this issue is so complicated though, the players won't dwell on it, instead they'll push for a higher revenue share coming back to them and fixes to free agency such as a weakened luxury tax and/or payroll floors, which is more important for the current union. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: If I had to guess - there is no fair system by which "readiness" can be judged other than the current setup because there's no clear way to evaluate that in every case. There's no means by which service time manipulation can be avoided. So, what will the players push for? They'll push for a shorter time to qualify for a full year, which they'll probably get - that way teams can't just keep a guy down for 2 weeks, but it won't be a huge difference. Since this issue is so complicated though, the players won't dwell on it, instead they'll push for a higher revenue share coming back to them and fixes to free agency such as a weakened luxury tax and/or payroll floors, which is more important for the current union. How would they do this? There isn't a cap like basketball where they can determine the share of the revenue that goes to the players. The share for the players is usually around 55% but it isn't determined in any formal way. I do think an MLB payroll floor would be the thing that would help the players the most. Edited January 30, 2020 by ptatc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 15 minutes ago, ptatc said: How would they do this? There isn't a cap like basketball where they can determine the share of the revenue that goes to the players. The share for the players is usually around 55% but it isn't determined in any formal way. I do think an MLB payroll floor would be the thing that would help the players the most. Yeah it's honestly pathetic that the Pirates payroll is like $43 mill right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, ptatc said: They will have to give up a lot to to allow players to enter FA earlier. If they somehow change the arbitration process it may be as much. In your example, you need to define WAR. Which version? Can the owners come up with their own version. There is no way the owners will agree to something that will accelerate the FA timeclock without substantial sacrifices from the players. Maybe a cap on a % of salary for the RFA. I don't disagree the the RFA concept is a good one I like it, however the players will need to give up something. I used WAR because it's a metric everyone understands; I'm sure baseball can come together and use a value level based on multiple factors. Most teams have their own proprietary valuation models, and baseball could easily come together to develop one in agreement with most. WAR was just a metric I used to push forward my concept. I actually like the RFA concept for a few years - it gets young players money faster than the scaling of arbitration, and it allows teams to protect themselves from losing their guys by paying them market value while not allowing others to greatly out bid the market just to steal a player from another team. If you don't want to pay your players market value by their 3rd year in the league, too bad so sad. Edited January 30, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: I used WAR because it's a metric everyone understands; I'm sure baseball can come together and use a value level based on multiple factors. Most teams have their own proprietary valuation models, and baseball could easily come together to develop one in agreement with most. WAR was just a metric I used to push forward my concept. I actually like the RFA concept for a few years - it gets young players money faster than the scaling of arbitration, and it allows teams to protect themselves from losing their guys by paying them market value while not allowing others to greatly out bid the market just to steal a player from another team. If you don't want to pay your players market value by their 3rd year in the league, too bad so sad. I can't see any way the players association and ownership are all going to come together to agree on a single standard by which all players will be evaluated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 6 hours ago, soxfan2014 said: You sure the O's let him walk in free agency? By waiting until the 11th hour they received 5 no name minor league players from the Dodgers. I sure hope we don't mishandle any of our studs if they refuse to reach extensions. Not very worried about it since RH is the best at this phase of his job. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, poppysox said: By waiting until the 11th hour they received 5 no name minor league players from the Dodgers. I sure hope we don't mishandle any of our studs if they refuse to reach extensions. Not very worried about it since RH is the best at this phase of his job. Why on earth would we trade them if we are in the middle of contending? If we are running away with the division (like we possibly could be in 2021, 2022), why would you trade them? Such a bad take. And to be honest, they are "5 no name minor league players" because you've never heard of them. Combing through the deal and stats, they got 4 interesting/solid/good pieces and then one guy who is a clear throw in. That's a pretty good haul for 2 months of a player. Edited January 30, 2020 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 23 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I can't see any way the players association and ownership are all going to come together to agree on a single standard by which all players will be evaluated. This is what they use right now: Quote the information the player and team can use during the hearing to present their case is governed by Article VI, Section E, Part 10 (a) & (b) of the CBA. This information includes the player's contribution to the team during the past season (e.g., the player's on-field performance and other qualities such as leadership and fan appeal), the length and consistency of the player's career contributions, the player's past compensation, the existence of any physical or mental defects, the team's recent performance (e.g., the team's record, improvement and attendance) and comparative baseball salaries. Does WAR get thrown around during the hearings for "on field performance"? I'd hazard a guess it does. A singular measure will never be in place to measure everything that paragraph above encapsulates but using a more accurate and precise player value metric, (like WAR over RBIs or Wins) is something I'd imagine owners and players would appreciate and push. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 6 hours ago, soxfan2014 said: You sure the O's let him walk in free agency? Still not seeing how the O’s looking up at all four teams in their division is anything like Sox situation will be after 2021 unless absolutely everything possible goes wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: Still not seeing how the O’s looking up at all four teams in their division is anything like Sox situation will be after 2021 unless absolutely everything possible goes wrong... Yeah. It's not a good comparison at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 22 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said: Why on earth would we trade them if we are in the middle of contending? If we are running away with the division (like we possibly could be in 2021, 2022), why would you trade them? Such a bad take. And to be honest, they are "5 no name minor league players" because you've never heard of them. Combing through the deal and stats, they got 4 interesting/solid/good pieces and then one guy who is a clear throw in. That's a pretty good haul for 2 months of a player. We don't believe we have any stud players we would lose in 2021 or 2022 do to failure to extend. I think 2024 would be the first year of that possible situation. Not really a factor for a few years. Most people would agree with the assessment that the Orioles got hosed in the lopsidedness of that trade IMO. Yeah...I agree they got about as good as you are going to get for a two month player. That's exactly my point...don't wait until you have only two months. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, poppysox said: We don't believe we have any stud players we would lose in 2021 or 2022 do to failure to extend. I think 2024 would be the first year of that possible situation. Not really a factor for a few years. Most people would agree with the assessment that the Orioles got hosed in the lopsidedness of that trade IMO. Yeah...I agree they got about as good as you are going to get for a two month player. That's exactly my point...don't wait until you have only two months. You literally said trade them with 2 years of control which would be 2021/2022. You're literally comparing 2 teams that couldn't be farther apart. Edited January 30, 2020 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said: Yeah. It's not a good comparison at all. Talking about guys like Betts, Bryant, Lindor...at least is closer. The difference is I can’t think of a team that ever traded a young player like that before the team hit its playoff peak. Maybe the Rays or A’s or Pirates, but it is an extremely rare occurrence. When White Sox fans have been waiting at that point for 14-17 seasons (basically, a whole generation of fans) for another deep playoff run, trading Moncada or Giolito for A or Advanced A level prospects is pretty much crazy. Even trading the three main guys we did, a lot of those guys were closer to the bigs and have still required lots of additional time at the big league level. That kind of trade just turns is into the Rays or A’s without their level of expertise in constantly retooling. Edited January 30, 2020 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 I swear, there's a very small group of fans on this board that are obsessed with the idea of a perpetual rebuild lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Balta1701 said: I can't see any way the players association and ownership are all going to come together to agree on a single standard by which all players will be evaluated. They already do it - it's called arbitration - so I'm not sure what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: They already do it - it's called arbitration - so I'm not sure what you mean. They don't just agree on a single statistic there, it's literally left up to a human to make the call taking everything into account that is presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 50 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: This is what they use right now: Does WAR get thrown around during the hearings for "on field performance"? I'd hazard a guess it does. A singular measure will never be in place to measure everything that paragraph above encapsulates but using a more accurate and precise player value metric, (like WAR over RBIs or Wins) is something I'd imagine owners and players would appreciate and push. Exactly, they already have a system to evaluate the value of a player that is used by all teams in arbitration. Taking away arbitration while using the same process in a RFA landscape would be a big win for younger players and a more fair way to pay players for their production. 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.