2019-2020 MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes Discussion

[LoneStarPhan]

I never saw a reasonable way that Bryant could win given the agreements and rules in place.

It may not seem fair, but the system is in place and teams have every right to decide who should be on the roster. While Bryant was a special case where his performance shouted that he was ready, most cases are not nearly that definitive. Did Franco need more time in AAA? Who can say whether Utley was the player he turned out to be because he had what seemed to be excessive time in AAA? I do believe that the teams have to have control over such decisions, but I do think players deserve a fair shot at making the big league club.

I agree that the system needs some adjustments. Players should be able to reach better pay sooner and I'd like to see a system where long multi-year contracts were not fully guaranteed. I am sure both the owners and the players will battle this out in the near future.

[BostonRoss]

It’s hard for me to feel any kind of sympathy for Kris Bryant. How money in baseball gets divided up between the very rich and the super rich does not matter to me at all.

Kris Bryant wasn’t treated unfairly. No rules were broken or even bent. Players like him do very well if they make it to free agency or even to arbitration. When a player gets to free agency signs a long term contract, there is no risk on his end. No one feels sorry for the owners who pay big money to players who don’t perform. Heck, now payers often get opt-outs that minimize the risk of their markets improving after they commit.

I’ll save my concern, and my outrage toward the owners, for the folks in baseball who are truly being taken advantage of, like the minor leaguers and other low level employees.

[jimbomill]

I’ll save my concern, and my outrage toward the owners, for the folks in baseball who are truly being taken advantage of, like the minor leaguers and other low level employees

As rants go, that was pretty good and poignant.

[allentown]

I’ll save my concern, and my outrage toward the owners, for the folks in baseball who are truly being taken advantage of, like the minor leaguers and other low level employees.

I don't think it that easy. Yes, certainly more sympathy for the minor leaguers who got perhaps a $5K bonus to sign and are paid below minimum wage for years in minors at a pittance, with the majority never ever seeing MLB. Now MLB says it will raise the minor league salaries, while cutting the number of minor league teams and players. Is this a good thing? Certainly not for the minor league cities and towns. Maybe not for baseball. I'll argue probably yes for the minor league players, many of whom have no realistic chance to be MLB players, even for a cup of coffee, and would be better off just beginning their real careers. In the grand scheme of things, half of minor league players are filler to allow the prospects to have a full team to play on. It's also possible that with fewer levels in the minors that more players would reach the majors a year sooner. The 26th man on the roster will have either that effect or extend some guys career an extra year or two. I think the smart teams will add a young player sooner.

Should I feel outrage (to strong a word for me, but here goes) on behalf of Kris Bryant's plight? I feel closer to yes than to no. He developed his skill in college, rather than minors, earned #2 position in draft, probably could have played in MLB right out of college, at least had he left as senior, or a single partial season right from signing to AA and then majors. He is one of the fortunate few minor leaguers who signed to a big ($6.7 MM) bonus, so had plenty of $ to see his way through minors. But, counting bonus plus salary, he's putt up 25.4 bWAR for $32 million. At $1.3 M/WAR he is a super bargain and grossly underpaid. Is it fair that he work 2 more seasons before signing a FA contract? Consider:
-- baseball operates under a unique Congress-granted anti-trust exemption
-- in line with other sports, he had no choice of which employer to work for out of college, but...
-- unlike any other sport, the baseball team who drafted and signed him in 2013 gets to own his exclusive rights for 9 years, through 2021. For draftees with more time in minors, it can be years longer than that. No other sport comes remotely close to that period of having to work for the not-of-your-own-choice team at below market wages.
-- These 9 years are almost certain to be the most valuable years of his career. Baseball management is wising up to the perils of a system which overpays older, seriously declining players.
--2019 was an injury season, but Bryant seems on the decline, already. Two years from now? He's already gone from a plus dWAR at third base to -1.1 last year. He's worth less at 1B. He averaged 6.5 WAR in first 3 years, 1.8 in past two years, part injury, part reduced defensive value, part reduce oWAR.

Then consider that owners have taken a larger share of revenues in recent years and that the owners are just about the worst example of American capitalism: monopolists, other owners must approve a new owner and it acts as old-boys club, they hit up cities to provide low-rent, untaxed stadia, they can move cities almost on a whim.

Nope, nothing but scorn for the owners. Bryant is a victim of the system, he simply just isn't the biggest victim. He is the sort of star player who puts fannies in the seats and personally generates a lot of team revenue. I won't say the Cubs need him as much as they needed Ernie Banks, who brought fans to a losing team, but they badly need him.

For Bryant to end up with a fair shake value for his personal service, baseball will need to stick with the pay model for older players which prevailed in the nought decade. I think that model is already changing and will change a lot more.

[flyers19rw]

Not only has Bryant been jacked around financially by the Cubs but they also have moved him around the field on defense; never allowing him to settle into a single position in order to improve as his declining dWAR has illustrated. That hasn't served his career well at all. It's going to be interesting to see how Bryant and Boras react to this decision. My suspicion is that it will rival that of J.D. Drew.

[fish]

Not only has Bryant been jacked around financially by the Cubs but they also have moved him around the field on defense; never allowing him to settle into a single position in order to improve as his declining dWAR has illustrated.

Shockingly low RBI totals his last 3 years too. Really odd for a #3 hitter on a team like that. I know that doesn't tell an accurate story of his productivity, but still makes me wonder what they were doing with him.

[jimbomill]

Bryant is a victim of the system

Much like many other Americans, as well as other country's folks, if he doesn't like his job under the current rules, he can move onto another career. As it is, I hope he finds a way to get by on his $18.6M salary in 2020. If that's being a victim, SIGN ME UP.
He's employed according to the agreed upon rules. How's that being a victim? I like many of your posts, Allentown, but this one, not so much.

[andyb]

Bryant is a baseball player. He can't do anything else and make the same amount of money because MLB is a lightly regulated monopoly. While it is hard to be sympathetic to millionaire players (and there are bigger things to worry about in life), it still is not fair that he is probably cheated out of $20 million that is just going to the owners' excess profits. The owner is not dropping ticket prices because he is saving all that money.

[andyb]

It has been a little unclear, but MLB is confirming a 13-pitcher limit with the expanded roster (plus 2-way player exceptions).
https://twitter.com/jaysonst/status/1222657965758582785

Extra player for a DH (27th player) can be a 14th pitcher.

[David_Criss]

So does VV become a two-way player? He isn't the worst pinch hit or pinch run option.

[zambonir]

Not only has Bryant been jacked around financially by the Cubs but they also have moved him around the field on defense; never allowing him to settle into a single position in order to improve as his declining dWAR has illustrated. That hasn't served his career well at all. It's going to be interesting to see how Bryant and Boras react to this decision. My suspicion is that it will rival that of J.D. Drew.

Bryant has said there's no hard feelings and that the grievance was really driven by the MLBPA. He was a test case, basically, and there's nothing wrong with that (in American jurisprudence as well). I don't feel sorry for him per se but I certainly take his side, and had he won, it would have been a net good for other players. Perhaps the loss will be good for the CBA though (in that the MLBPA will be even more motivated to reform the system).

Not sure what you mean by J.D. Drew. Unlike Drew Bryant is already under contract. Heck, he settled with the Cubs in arbitration two weeks ago which you can't even say about JT Realmuto (who is also being guided by the MLBPA, just as the Phillies are being guided by MLB). Boras will always do his Boras stuff and his behavior re: Drew was reprehensible but if the Phillies hadn't been a joke of an organization it never would have happened. Now that they aren't (i.e. we pay players well) Boras loves us.

If I were Boras I'd be trying to get his guy signed to a new deal if the Cubs trade him; the open market might not be as friendly two years from now (though the addition of the DH will probably help).

[zambonir]

To be a two-way player you have to play 20 games, with at least 3 ABs a game (and games in which you are the pitcher don't count). So, not gonna happen in the NL, or with any reliever.

[Philsmania]

Astros have hired Dusty Baker. Nightengale says it's just a one-year deal (with option/buyout), which I guess makes sense given the circumstances/lack of GM.

Looks like Buck is going to get shut-out even with three unexpected openings.

A lot of the speculation about the Astros' GM opening is focusing on former Giants GM Bobby Evans. Interesting how the Astros seem to be focusing on older school baseball guys. A friend of mine always attends the SABR national convention and it was in Houston earlier this decade. He said to me that in a Q&A with Luhnow and others in the Astros' front office, they exuded this attitude that they were reinventing the game of baseball. Perhaps Crane is disgusted and embarrassed with them and that attitude.

[zambonir]

They are also considering someone from the Rays and the MLB front office though. Crane and Luhnow were always on the same page (and had the same attitude/culture). He has no more distance from Luhnow than Bob Kraft does from Belichick. What's happening now is purely reactive and for PR reasons. It will be interesting to see how long the GM's contract is, will he be in a position to hire a new manager and build a new front office or are they just trying to get through this year and regroup?

[schillingfan]

Bryant is a baseball player. He can't do anything else and make the same amount of money because MLB is a lightly regulated monopoly. While it is hard to be sympathetic to millionaire players (and there are bigger things to worry about in life), it still is not fair that he is probably cheated out of $20 million that is just going to the owners' excess profits. The owner is not dropping ticket prices because he is saving all that money.

Fairness is an issue that requires context. It’s not about how much money Bryant makes in a vacuum or relative to society. Within the context of baseball money, the rules are not fair to him.

[BostonRoss]

I don't particularly like the owners any more than you do. But the rules were not unilaterally imposed on the players. They resulted from negotiations between the players and owners. The owners do plenty of unfair things, but it is not unfair to work within the rules the players negotiated with them.

If it is fair for players to collect lots of money when they are not producing, then it is no less fair for the owners to withhold money that they are not required to pay, as long as they follow the negotiated rules. The Cubs paid $10 million to Craig Kimbrel to produce -0.5 WAR. Is that fair to the Cubs? Yes, because that's what they negotiated.

It seems very likely that Bryant will make more than he is worth going forward. If he has a long career, he will likely make more than he is worth over that time. It may more than even out for him. Sure, there will always be some players who don't quite make what they might be worth, but there are others who make a lot more than the worth of their production.

I wouldn't object if the system was changed to pay players more when they are producing and less when they're not. But under the current system, the Cubs should not be expected to pay more than they have to if players will not take less than their salaries when they are not producing.

The MLB owners are not fair in many ways, but this isn't one of them in my opinion.

[allentown]

I disagree. There is no other sport which drafts players and locks them up for 6, virtually always 6+, years in the bigs. And that is after top players from college spend multiple years in the minors. Baseball is WAAAY out of line compared to other professional sports. The Players Association leans toward the older players. It doesn't represent minor leaguers and so seems to care little for first and second year pros. They represent nobody who will be a first year pro during the course of a contract and very few who will be second years. The guys who will be in those positions during the course of a contract didn't have a vote on the deal. The longer the team which drafts you owns exclusive rights, the worse it is for the players. Baeball's partial anti-trust exemption is totally unwarranted.

[jimbomill]

I don't particularly like the owners any more than you do. But the rules were not unilaterally imposed on the players. They resulted from negotiations between the players and owners. The

If it is fair for players to collect lots of money when they are not producing, then it is no less fair for the owners to withhold money that they are not required to pay, as long as they follow the negotiated rules. .

I wouldn't object if the system was changed to pay players more when they are producing and less when they're not. But under the current system, the Cubs should not be expected to pay more than they have to if players will not take less than their salaries when they are not producing.

The MLB owners are not fair in many ways, but this isn't one of them in my opinion.

I like these points.

[BostonRoss]

It seems as if your issue here is more with the Players Association than with the owners. As you note, the PA prefers to see players overpaid toward the ends of their careers to helping younger players do better earlier.

Interesting that Bryant chose an agent who promotes this approach and has the influence to change it if he wanted to. But he and his clients on the whole do better under the existing system.

[julio]

But the rules were not unilaterally imposed on the players. They resulted from negotiations between the players and owners.

This is only partially true. The standard player contract that is imposed upon 16-18 year-olds when they sign is not the result of collective bargaining between the employers and the the kids who become employees - nor of bargaining between the owners and young men who have signed, and are subject to the terms of that contract.

To the extent that the standard player contract (minor league) has been "collectively bargained" at all, that bargaining has been between millionaire owners on one "side," and millionaire major-leaguers (who will never be subject to that contract) on the other "side."

You cannot just lump "players" into a single group, and assume that major-leaguers will represent (or give a darn about) the interests of minor-league kids.

There's serious exploitation going on here. Most of the kids who sign that minor league contract will never gain the benefits major-leaguers have negotiated for themselves. Most of them will be paid sub-minimum wages for several years, then will be cut loose - no severance, no 401k contributions, no nothing.