DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 426565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Playtwo Date: March 10, 2021, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rising.
#Post#: 426566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: JR Date: March 10, 2021, 5:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JeffH link=topic=573.msg426561#msg426561
date=1615415785]
Rodriguez as fast as 98, according to the Giants broadcasters.
[/quote][quote author=JeffH link=topic=573.msg426564#msg426564
date=1615417196]
Now Stock at 101.
[/quote]
I take it strike throwing must not be the greatest skill these
guys possess?
#Post#: 426569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Deeg Date: March 10, 2021, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JeffH link=topic=573.msg426564#msg426564
date=1615417196]
Now Stock at 101.
[/quote]
Fake news gun?
#Post#: 426570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Deeg Date: March 10, 2021, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=craig link=topic=573.msg426534#msg426534
date=1615397373]
Ortega's big-league record is bad, but his minor-league career
is .292-.361-.424-.785. Not too bad.
A guy can change over some time, and perhaps add some strength,
so maybe in some ways he's better now than some of his numbers
reflect. The flip is that coming up with a west team, his minor
league numbers include stops in the Cal (A+), Texas (AA) and PC
(AAA) leagues, all leagues that are rather hitter friendl.
Perhaps .292-.361 in those leagues is more like .250-.320 in the
Cubs leagues, beats me.
Guess I'm thinking that he looks like he might potentially be
anti-awful if an injury necessitated him getting some action?
[/quote]
No, he almost certainly would be anti-anti-awful. But it's nice
he had his 15 minutes of glory, even if it was in Arizona.
#Post#: 426571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: craig Date: March 10, 2021, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Reb link=topic=573.msg426557#msg426557
date=1615415251]
...service manipulation is really bad for the relationship
between owners and players and unethical. ...[/quote]
Reb, that's interesting, I admit I've never perceived it from
the ethics standpoint.
1. I've always assumed that both sides of the contract
understood that parties will work within the constraints of the
mutually-agreed-upon contract, and that neither would consider
the other party unethical to do so.
2. I would have figured that actions within the contract would
be considered to be acceptable and not unethical?
3. The practice has been in play for decades, without the union
negotiating that practice away. Perhaps earlier decades of
union leadership didn't previously consider it unethical either?
Or at least not a significant enough issue to prioritize
negotiating in provisions to prevent it?
4. I imagine the union might think that team usage of the
practice is partly constrained by teams' motivation to win.
*IF* it's really unethical, then it should absolutely NOT be
exercised by Cubs.
I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to perhaps modify the
CBA. Reduce the service time requirement from 6 full years to
5.51 or 5.7 or some number of other. Obviously owners would
prefer status quo with that, but negotiate. Obviously teams
will always see the number and try to get past whatever cutoff
it is. But two weeks in April, is a small sliver of a 162-game
season. If that's 40 or 60 or 80 games, that would be harder
for teams who care about winning to keep a player they perceived
as superior down.
#Post#: 426574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Deeg Date: March 10, 2021, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig, this isn't part of the CBA because the players are fine
with the owners gaming the service time system to screw them.
It's because union leadership has been largely incompetent and
let the owners roger them roundly in the last CBA negotiation.
#Post#: 426575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Bennett Date: March 10, 2021, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Cubs used 25 players today, 7 of them pitchers.
#Post#: 426576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: davep Date: March 10, 2021, 7:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Reb link=topic=573.msg426557#msg426557
date=1615415251]
Dave is, of course, correct that it's a good thing for the club
(and the fans) to have the extra year of control over a player
via service time manipulation, as in Cubs are better off having
control over Bryant in 2021. It's just that the service
manipulation is really bad for the relationship between owners
and players and unethical.
Dave, of course, doesn't actually contend that Bryant was sent
to AAA for anything other than service time manipulation--to
avoid having 2015 count as a full year of service time. No
serious person would argue that the reason he was sent to Iowa
was for any other reason.
Funny thing is that just about everybody knows that the Bryant
to AAA had nothing to do with player development while, at the
same time, most everybody knew he would lose the service time
manipulation grievance. MLBPA pretty much knew it would lose,
as it made no effort to remove the permanent arbitrator after
the decision. Indeed, for the reasons I noted in the earlier
post, the arbitrator really had no choice given the absence of
direct proof of intent. Absent that, it would be silly and
presumptuous for a non-baseball evaluator like the permanent
arbitrator to overrule a Theo Epstein roster decision.
So, we have the perverse incentive for baseball decision-makers
to undermine the cba to keep up with some of their colleagues
who do the same thing. Theo did this for his entire career in
Boston too as to opening day roster decisions, which the
arbitrator found actually supported the Cubs decision with
Bryant. Very unfortunate when a stand-up guy like Theo is
incentivized to misrepresent his decision-making process. "Oh,
no, it was a baseball decision not based on service time." Give
me a break. Maybe Theo will come clean when he writes his
memoirs a few decades from now.
Presumably, this will be addressed in some fashion in the next
cba.
[/quote]
I agree with just about everything you say, other than the
second to last paragraph. You seem to be assuming that the
purpose of the CBA was to get the player into the majors as soon
as he is ready. But the CBA, as far as I know, does not contain
anything of that sort in it, and as far as I know, it was
negotiated at arms length between two parties fairly equal in
negotiating power. And you further seem to assume that keeping
the player in the minors until such time as you can maximize his
value to the club. I am not sure that this is a reasonable
assumption. If this was the primary goal of the players union,
they should have negotiated this into the final agreement. I
see no reason why something that has NOT been negotiated by the
parties should be included by inference. Nor does it seem that
the arbitrator thought so either. If it was so obvious that the
team did something that violates the agreement, he would have
found differently.
#Post#: 426577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Reb Date: March 10, 2021, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As to Craig’s point, service time manipulation is not “within
the contract.” If it was, the teams would just say player x is
being sent down so we can control the player through 2024 or
whenever.
They don’t admit to that because it would breach the contract.
Otherwise, they would have no problem saying what Dave said in
his posts. But, they come up with unconvincing
“baseball-related” reasons. Not a coincidence"
Teams didn’t do this much until about 10 years ago. My hunch is
that has to do with all the super-competitive Ivy Leagues types
running clubs who simply realize that a cost-benefit analysis
tells us that a full year of control is worth one month in AAA.
Even the old school anti-union types of years ago didn’t stoop
to this. They thought baseball more than cost/benefit.
#Post#: 426579--------------------------------------------------
Re: Today's Game - 2021
By: Reb Date: March 10, 2021, 8:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=573.msg426576#msg426576
date=1615427792]
I agree with just about everything you say, other than the
second to last paragraph. You seem to be assuming that the
purpose of the CBA was to get the player into the majors as soon
as he is ready. But the CBA, as far as I know, does not contain
anything of that sort in it, and as far as I know, it was
negotiated at arms length between two parties fairly equal in
negotiating power. And you further seem to assume that keeping
the player in the minors until such time as you can maximize his
value to the club. I am not sure that this is a reasonable
assumption. If this was the primary goal of the players union,
they should have negotiated this into the final agreement. I
see no reason why something that has NOT been negotiated by the
parties should be included by inference. Nor does it seem that
the arbitrator thought so either. If it was so obvious that the
team did something that violates the agreement, he would have
found differently.
[/quote]
Dave- this is the issue: but for service time considerations,
would the player make the ballclub opening day?
There are a variety of baseball-related reasons why player x
makes or does not make the ballclub. Could be a development
matter or whatever. Take your pick. But, if the motivation in
2015 is so the ballclub still has control over Bryant in 2021,
that a cba-motivated, non-baseball reason. The reason he doesn’t
make the 2015 club is because the cba says we lose him in 2021
if he makes the 2015 club.
As I noted before, EVERY contract has an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Google it. It applies here.
As I’ve noted, if service time reasons are legit under the cba,
why don’t the clubs just say that’s what they’re doing???
There a lot of things that we know as humans but can’t prove in
litigation. We know that Bryant would have made opening day 2015
but for service time considerations. But, if I was the
arbitrator in the Bryant case, I could not just say everybody
knows that. There has to be evidence of intent. That’s the rule
of law and sometimes you just have to swallow a bad result.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page