2015 MLB Season Thread

[CSTowle]

When you stack it up against the way the NFL teams can screw their players it seems like a minor issue (no pun intended), but it still feels wrong. I'd like to see them make the teams pay for it by making it half the season. If that were the case, no way he's sent down.

[MRP]

When you stack it up against the way the NFL teams can screw their players it seems like a minor issue (no pun intended), but it still feels wrong. I'd like to see them make the teams pay for it by making it half the season. If that were the case, no way he's sent down.

But the players negotiated it the way it is, much like the NFLPA letting the owners have a structured rookie contract system so there is more money to go to veteran players, the MLB players don't mind giving incentive to owners to keep kids down on the farm in general as it keeps more roster spots for veteran players who may fill roster spots 20-25 on the MLB rosters and/or who are out of options and cannot be sent down to the minors, so get released. If there is a change, it will not be until the next MLB CBA is negotiated. If Scott Boras weren't the agent here, this would not be getting any kind of the press it is, and Boras is one of the figures in sports I despise, so I have trouble getting fully behind Bryant's plight. Lots of rookies have great springs then fizzle in the majors, and the Cubs have a track history of losing great prospects they rushed to injuries and never having them fully reach their potential, so I don't have a real issue with them taking their time with Bryant, except that it sucks for Bryant. If he does come up and goes into a funk after a promising start a la Xander Boegarts with the Sox last year, the Cubs will get all kinds of grief (from the same Cubs fans calling for him to start with the big league club) that they rushed him to win now and hurt his development, but you'll never hear Boras talk about the flip side of the prospect bubble and how many guys he got paid that never delivered for their clubs.

-M

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw gets dental work after taking liner to the mouth. OUCH!

MLB will decide Josh Hamilton's fate by Opening Day

[CSTowle]

But the players negotiated it the way it is, much like the NFLPA letting the owners have a structured rookie contract system so there is more money to go to veteran players, the MLB players don't mind giving incentive to owners to keep kids down on the farm in general as it keeps more roster spots for veteran players who may fill roster spots 20-25 on the MLB rosters and/or who are out of options and cannot be sent down to the minors, so get released. If there is a change, it will not be until the next MLB CBA is negotiated. If Scott Boras weren't the agent here, this would not be getting any kind of the press it is, and Boras is one of the figures in sports I despise, so I have trouble getting fully behind Bryant's plight. Lots of rookies have great springs then fizzle in the majors, and the Cubs have a track history of losing great prospects they rushed to injuries and never having them fully reach their potential, so I don't have a real issue with them taking their time with Bryant, except that it sucks for Bryant. If he does come up and goes into a funk after a promising start a la Xander Boegarts with the Sox last year, the Cubs will get all kinds of grief (from the same Cubs fans calling for him to start with the big league club) that they rushed him to win now and hurt his development, but you'll never hear Boras talk about the flip side of the prospect bubble and how many guys he got paid that never delivered for their clubs.

-M

Nobody's arguing it wasn't negotiated (at least I wasn't), what I'm saying (and I seem to be seeing from fans/casuals/sportswriters) is that it's a pretty crappy thing to do. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good thing or even a thing that's neither here-nor-there. If this were a pitcher who wasn't ready for the workload, or a hitter who couldn't get into the swing of things, then I could see it. This seems to be solely about the year of control though, which is where I came in with the opinion I hold on the matter.

[MRP]

Nobody's arguing it wasn't negotiated (at least I wasn't), what I'm saying (and I seem to be seeing from fans/casuals/sportswriters) is that it's a pretty crappy thing to do. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good thing or even a thing that's neither here-nor-there. If this were a pitcher who wasn't ready for the workload, or a hitter who couldn't get into the swing of things, then I could see it. This seems to be solely about the year of control though, which is where I came in with the opinion I hold on the matter.

If I am a team that has to take the risk and live with the vagaries and inconsistencies that usually occur in a player's rookie year, and I can gain the reward for that risk of adding another season of control of an asset for my team during the player's prime to balance off those rookie vagaries by simply delaying the start of that player's career by a dozen games-I am going to do it every time. Yes it sucks for Bryant to be knocking the cover off the ball in spring training but possibly starting in the minors, but that's baseball. Hot prospect rookies face that all the time. As I said, if Boras weren't his agent, or if the Cubs hadn't gone out and spent big money in free agency raising every one's expectations for this season, or if Bryant were having just a good spring and not tearing it up, no one would be paying attention to this, but the need for fodder for 24/7 sports coverage and talk radio topics are fueling this. The Boras and Bryant are looking at it form the point of view of when they can line their pockets, the Cubs have to look at it with a view towards what gives us the longest window of opportunity to be competitive, not just what's good for this season or for one player and his agent.

-M

[CSTowle]

Again, you're confusing the ability to do something and the advantage gained with being a good thing to do. If you stole somebody's wallet and emptied it out it'd be great for you, not so much for the person you stole the wallet from.

[MRP]

Again, you're confusing the ability to do something and the advantage gained with being a good thing to do. If you stole somebody's wallet and emptied it out it'd be great for you, not so much for the person you stole the wallet from.

Except they are not stealing from Bryant. They are paying him to work for them according to the terms of the contract. He's free to go work in another industry if he doesn't like the terms, but by choosing to be an MLB player, he is agreeing to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that is part of the job. You can't tell your boss you need to give me hours now so I can get paid a higher wage in five years on your job, can you?

-M

[Detox]

Very nice outting for Matt Harvey. Even though the Mets say he won't start the opener that had to be very reassuring for them.

[CSTowle]

Except they are not stealing from Bryant. They are paying him to work for them according to the terms of the contract. He's free to go work in another industry if he doesn't like the terms, but by choosing to be an MLB player, he is agreeing to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that is part of the job. You can't tell your boss you need to give me hours now so I can get paid a higher wage in five years on your job, can you?

-M

Again, they have leverage and are allowed to do this thing. They can do this thing. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There's all the difference. If you don't see it, that's fine. It's a moral judgment call, I can't convince anyone if they don't see it that way.

[MRP]

Again, they have leverage and are allowed to do this thing. They can do this thing. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There's all the difference. If you don't see it, that's fine. It's a moral judgment call, I can't convince anyone if they don't see it that way.

It's also not stealing from Bryant as you imply with your stealing a wallet analogy. Bryant is an employee, he is paid to do a job at whatever location his employer wants him to work at (whether AAA or the majors). Just because they do not want to hasten the end of his term of employment with them to give him a chance to take more money to go work for one of their competitors after they spent time and money developing his job skills is not stealing from him. And if Bryant flares out or blows an elbow and and never plays again, he still collects all his money from the Cubs even if he cannot do the job he is getting paid to do (unlike say the NFL where only a portion of the contract is guaranteed or most other real word jobs where if you don't perform to expectations or are unable to work you lose your job and money). All the risk is with the Cubs, and if they choose to leverage that risk by gaining an extra year of service from their investment in the player development, well so be it.

Does it suck for Bryant? Yep, if he lives up to and plays up to his potential especially. Should he be on the opening day roster? Most probably. Are the Cubs stealing from Bryant or doing something wrong by exercising their contractual rights? Nope.

What is Bryant's moral obligation then to the team that took the risk to draft him, spent time and money developing the skills he will use to earn his living, and paid him millions of dollars in doing so? Is he morally right is trying to shame them into letting him hit the open market sooner and having his agent try to manipulate their decisions for his (the agent's) own personal benefit?

-M

[Detox]

It is what it is. Bryant is a stud and he WILL get paid, probably by the Cubs for a long time and he will probably produce big for the club. I think all parties will be very happy when it's all said and done.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

In what's believed to be a first, Hall of Famers Ryne Sandberg of the Phillies and Paul Molitor of the Twins faced off against each other as managers yesterday

The Dodgers and Diamondbacks needed a timeout yesterday

[CSTowle]

It's also not stealing from Bryant as you imply with your stealing a wallet analogy. Bryant is an employee, he is paid to do a job at whatever location his employer wants him to work at (whether AAA or the majors). Just because they do not want to hasten the end of his term of employment with them to give him a chance to take more money to go work for one of their competitors after they spent time and money developing his job skills is not stealing from him. And if Bryant flares out or blows an elbow and and never plays again, he still collects all his money from the Cubs even if he cannot do the job he is getting paid to do (unlike say the NFL where only a portion of the contract is guaranteed or most other real word jobs where if you don't perform to expectations or are unable to work you lose your job and money). All the risk is with the Cubs, and if they choose to leverage that risk by gaining an extra year of service from their investment in the player development, well so be it.

Does it suck for Bryant? Yep, if he lives up to and plays up to his potential especially. Should he be on the opening day roster? Most probably. Are the Cubs stealing from Bryant or doing something wrong by exercising their contractual rights? Nope.

What is Bryant's moral obligation then to the team that took the risk to draft him, spent time and money developing the skills he will use to earn his living, and paid him millions of dollars in doing so? Is he morally right is trying to shame them into letting him hit the open market sooner and having his agent try to manipulate their decisions for his (the agent's) own personal benefit?

-M

Many employers have leverage over their employees that allows them to set practices and standards that are to their advantage rather than the employee's, and almost all use that leverage to do so. Many would use that leverage much more than they do if they weren't restricted by law in the extent that they're allowed to. It makes economic sense (again, not arguing with you there), but in my opinion (hope I didn't have to explain that, but to make certain) it's not the right thing for the club to do from a moral standpoint. There's no equivalent on Bryant's side. If he's ready, then he's ready. They spent time and money to develop him yes, but that development appears to have culminated in a player ready for the big leagues. If they had to keep him down half the season to get the extra year of control, he'd be on the opening day roster. This is a loophole in the law that allows them to screw the player out of a year of earning potential down the line. He'd be much better off if they'd just stolen his wallet and kicked him in the n##ts for good measure.

But this is a circular argument, I think we agree with the benefit to the Cubs if not the morality of it. I'm not a Cubs fan (though I still feel like we should have kept Theo and feel a bit of kinship to them for that, and they've clearly taken the mantle of perennial heartbreak club from my Red Sox which helps), so I don't care as much about their success as the management of the team does or even a casual fan. I'm just looking at the situation from my vantage point and making a judgment call on the right or wrong. Not the risk/reward.

[Detox]

In what's believed to be a first, Hall of Famers Ryne Sandberg of the Phillies and Paul Molitor of the Twins faced off against each other as managers yesterday

The Dodgers and Diamondbacks needed a timeout yesterday

I saw the Molitor-Sandberg interview yesterday, this is pretty cool actually. Those were definitely two of my favorites growing up.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

I read a great article on how Pete rose should be forgiven in the wallstreet journal.
It told how rose is being excluded as McGwire who admitted to using steroids still has a job as the LA dodgers hitting coach. It's not denying what rose did wasn't immoral and wrong as it is but did go on to talk how steroids is worse as it taints all stats yet McGwire wasn't banned from mlb, neither is a rod, Braun, etc.

I'm very pleased to see the cubs open vs the cards.