Challenging Kris Bryant’s Demotion
Kris Bryant has been the talk of the baseball world this spring. Following Monday’s news that the Cubs had officially reassigned Bryant to the team’s minor league camp, speculation shifted from focusing on whether Bryant would make the Cubs’ opening day roster to whether Bryant or the Major League Baseball Players Association will challenge the demotion.
For its part, the MLBPA helped fuel this speculation in an official statement released on Monday following Bryant’s demotion:
Today is a bad day for baseball. We all know that if @KrisBryant_23 were a combination of the greatest Players to play our great game,(1/3)
— MLBPA (@MLB_PLAYERS) March 30, 2015
and perhaps he will be before it’s all said and done, the @Cubs still would have made the decision they made today. (2/3) — MLBPA (@MLB_PLAYERS) March 30, 2015
You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
This decision, and other similar decisions made by clubs will be addressed in litigation, bargaining or both. (End)
— MLBPA (@MLB_PLAYERS) March 30, 2015
Although the MLBPA’s statement spoke of possible litigation, the first course of action that either the union or Bryant would take – should they decide to challenge the demotion – would almost certainly be to file a grievance against the Cubs under the terms of MLB’s collective bargaining agreement. Under Article XI of the CBA, with a few exceptions not applicable here, any dispute between the union and league – or a player and his club – must be resolved through grievance-based arbitration.
The basic procedure is as follows: Within 45 days of the offending action (Bryant’s demotion, in this case), the player or union must send a written protest to the club. The team then has 10 days to review the complaint and notify the player of what, if anything, it will do to resolve the issue. If the player is not satisfied with his team’s response, he can then file an appeal to Major League Baseball’s Labor Relations Department (“LRD”) within 15 days of receiving the final notification from his team. The LRD then has 35 days to confer with union representatives in an attempt to settle the case. Assuming the case can’t be resolved at this stage, the player (or union) has 15 days to request that a neutral arbitrator decide the matter. That arbitration will then be scheduled sometime within the next year.
A couple of takeaways can be gleaned from all of this. First, to the extent the union or Bryant do decide to take action, it will initially be through the grievance-based arbitration process, not litigation in a court of law. And second, this process will take some time.
Importantly, then, this timetable means that if a grievance is filed over Bryant’s demotion, its goal will not be to force the Cubs to place Bryant on its opening day roster, as he will almost certainly have been promoted to the major leagues by the time any arbitration decision is issued. Instead, the grievance will ask an arbitrator to award Bryant any MLB service time lost due to the demotion, allowing Bryant to become a free agent after the 2020 season – as would have been the case had Bryant started the year in the major leagues – rather than in 2021.
So what are the odds that an arbitrator would actually award Bryant his lost service time? The CBA is silent as to whether a team can demote a player to the minors due to service time considerations. In lieu of a specific rule to the contrary, many have assumed that the Cubs are thus acting fully within their rights, and that the union would have no chance of winning a grievance over Bryant’s demotion.
But as Jason Wojciechowski has pointed out, just because something is not specifically prohibited in the CBA does not necessarily mean that it is permissible. In prior grievances under MLB’s CBA, arbitrators have generally ruled that teams must act in “good faith” when deciding whether to send a player to the minors. And while arbitrators will usually defer to a team’s decision to demote a player based on his perceived “skill or ability,” if a team is blatantly demoting an otherwise worthy player simply for contractual considerations alone then an arbitrator could decide that the decision was made in bad faith, and thus violated the CBA.
This explains why teams never openly admit that they are demoting a top prospect to the minors for a few weeks due to service time issues. Even though there may not be any clear language in the CBA to the contrary, teams know they cannot simply demote a player for any reason at all. Instead, the clubs always say that the decision was made for baseball reasons, invariably citing the prospect’s need for further development.
Along these lines, the Cubs have said all of the right things this spring about Bryant’s possible demotion. Theo Epstein has repeatedly insisted that Bryant’s status would be decided based on baseball, not business, reasons, while also noting that a top prospect had never made his team’s opening day roster in his nearly 13 years of running the Red Sox and Cubs. Indeed, for as great a prospect as Bryant is, questions do remain regarding both his defense and his ability to make contact at the plate. So even though we all know that service time concerns are the primary motivating factor behind the Cubs’ decision to demote Bryant, the team can credibly argue that the decision to send him to the minors was intended to allow him to further refine his skills.
If the MLBPA or Bryant were to file a grievance, then, they would have to persuade an arbitrator that these alleged baseball-related concerns were a sham, and that the team’s decision to demote Bryant was really made in bad faith solely due to business considerations. This is obviously a difficult argument to win. But it’s not utterly inconceivable that an arbitrator would agree considering both Bryant’s track record and his complete demolition of the Cactus League this spring. Ultimately, though, Bryant or the MLBPA would be a decided underdog in any grievance filed against the Cubs.
All of that having been said, there is an additional potential wrinkle in Bryant’s case. As explained above, under the CBA a neutral arbitrator will usually decide any grievance filed by a player or the union. But the CBA only applies to members of the MLBPA. Because Bryant is not yet on the Cubs’ 40-man roster, he is not technically an MLBPA member. So there is some question about whether Bryant’s hypothetical grievance would be subject to the normal procedure specified in the CBA.
The MLBPA would likely argue that even though Bryant is not technically a member of the union, it nevertheless has the legal authority to represent him since he is a prospective future union member. This is why the MLBPA was – rightly or wrongly – able to negotiate away the rights of future draftees by agreeing to draft bonus pools in the last CBA, for instance. The MLBPA would likely also argue that because Bryant’s case implicates the CBA, the union (or Bryant) should have the right to pursue the grievance through the traditional procedure.
Conversely, the Cubs could argue that because Bryant is not a union member, his case must be decided under the separate dispute resolution procedure set forth in Bryant’s Uniform Minor League Player Contract. That agreement specifies that any dispute between a player and his club will be resolved by the commissioner – rather than a neutral arbitrator – and that the commissioner’s decision on the matter will be final, with no opportunity for the player to appeal to a court of law.
Moreover, the minor league contract also specifies that the player’s major league team has the right to “freely direct him to perform services for any Major League or Minor League Club.” Unlike the CBA, then, Bryant’s minor league contract – and in particular its use of the term “freely” – arguably gives the Cubs the right to reassign him to the minor leagues for any reason at all.
So the Cubs could not only argue that Bryant’s grievance must be resolved by Commissioner Manfred – who is already on record as supporting the team on the matter – but also that the dispute must be decided under the more favorable language in the minor league player contract. If successful, this would almost certainly doom Bryant’s appeal.
If the Cubs were to make this argument, though, the MLBPA would surely object. This dispute over the proper procedure for resolving Bryant’s case could then, in turn, form the basis of a separate grievance between the union and team. That fight would also likely require neutral arbitration to resolve, further delaying the resolution of Bryant’s grievance.
Given all this, it is fair to ask why the MLBPA would ever consider pursuing a case on Bryant’s behalf. In fact, considering that any such grievance would have slim odds of success, it is entirely possible – and perhaps even likely – that the union will decide not to formally contest the matter. This would be consistent with how the MLBPA has responded to similar demotions in the past. For instance, even though the Astros were arguably more clearly acting in bad faith last spring by demoting George Springer after he had reportedly turned down a seven-year contract – an agreement that would have rendered any service time issues moot – the MLBPA never formally challenged the decision.
Moreover, filing a grievance over Bryant’s demotion would put the MLBPA in the rather awkward position of contesting the decision to send a non-union member to the minors, when Bryant’s inclusion on the Cubs’ opening day roster would have resulted in a current union member being granted his release.
So it’s quite possible that Monday’s statement will be the last we hear from the MLBPA on the matter (at least, perhaps, until collective bargaining talks begin in 2016). In fact, the union’s decision to release a statement at all on the matter is somewhat unusual, as the MLBPA typically does not publicly comment on potential action it may take on behalf of a player. (No such statement was released last year regarding the George Springer controversy, for example, nor has the MLBPA ever publicly acknowledged filing a grievance against Houston over its treatment of 2014 draft pick Jacob Nix.) This suggests that the MLBPA may have felt compelled to respond to Bryant’s demotion in some form, while not actually intending to formally pursue the matter.
But what if the union does actually decide to challenge Bryant’s demotion? Even though the MLBPA would likely realize that its odds of winning the case are relatively slim, there are nevertheless several reasons why it could still move forward with a grievance anyway.
For starters, by challenging Bryant’s demotion, the union would not only be able to request documents related to the Cubs’ decision-making process – a paper trail that could theoretically reveal a bad faith motive for the decision – but would also potentially be able to force several of the Cubs’ high-level executives (including Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer) to appear for questioning at the arbitration hearing. Taken together, this might make the process uncomfortable enough for the Cubs that it gives other teams some pause when facing a similar decision in the future. At a minimum, an unsuccessful grievance would at least force the Cubs to incur some legal fees, a prospect that would make it incrementally more expensive for a team to similarly demote a top prospect in the future.
It’s also possible, though, that the union could strategically decide to file a grievance in Bryant’s case as a negotiating ploy in anticipation of the 2016 collective bargaining talks. By taking a strong stand on Bryant’s demotion, the MLBPA would make it appear as if service time manipulation is a top priority for the union heading into 2016. The union would then be in a position to trade-off an apparent concession on the service time issue in exchange for a concession from MLB on an issue of greater importance to the union membership.
This wouldn’t be unprecedented. Many believe that the NFL, for example, threatened to expand its regular season to 18 games in 2011 simply to gain other, more valuable concessions from the union in exchange for the league ultimately agreeing to keep the schedule at 16 games.
Of course, MLB is represented by some pretty shrewd negotiators itself, so it is probably unlikely that the league would fall for such a ploy. But the union could reasonably conclude that the potential benefits of filing a grievance over Kris Bryant’s demotion outweigh the relatively minimal cost and slim odds of success.
All in all, then, it is not terribly surprising that the MLBPA opted to voice its displeasure over the Cubs’ decision to demote Bryant. Time will tell if anyone actually decides to do anything about it, though.
Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics and the Yormark Family Director of the Sports Industry Workshop at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.
This would open too big a can of worms for the MLBPA is they were to contest Bryant’s demotion. As stated, Bryant is not a union member; this would set a precedent for the union fighting for non-union members, i.e. minor leaguers. Specifically, this line:
“The MLBPA would likely argue that even though Bryant is not technically a member of the union, it nevertheless has the legal authority to represent him since he is a prospective future union member.”
This line could apply, theoretically, to any minor league player. I’m not sure the union has the resources or the desire to fight for minor leaguers’ rights, given their history of doing so (they don’t).
Yup. If the establish this as a precedent, it’s only a matter of time before an impatient bonus-baby MiLB player who wants to be in the show NOW ends up suing the MLBPA if they don’t file a similar grievance on his behalf.
Even if Bryant were a union (say he was on the 40-man roster but was optioned) this whole grievance is absurd.
1) The rules explicitly allow the team to keep him in the minors.
2) There are no rules that require a team to ever call a player up from the minors.
3) There is no requirement that a team field a 25-man roster of the best players.
4) Even if such a rule existed, you cannot legally prove that Bryant (a player without a single MLB appearance) is better than other players on the roster.
5) There is no rule that prohibits a team from acting in its financial best interests rather than in the interests of winning.
6) No one is arguing that the Cubs are doing this out of spite or to punish Bryant.
The entire argument here is that the Cubs are acting in their own long-term interests rather than their short-term interests. And under the CBA and the law, there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s not bad faith.
I think your bottom line is probably right, but if you are suggesting that there are no implied limitations on the ability of teams to keep a player in the minors, or not field their best roster, or to put finances above winning, I disagree.
Also, your point #4 is clearly wrong. I don’t know what you mean by “legally prove” but Bryant is clearly better than a number of Cubs major leaguers and virtually anyone on this site could show that.
The grievance is unwinnable, but not really absurd. I find it much more absurd that the rules make it advantageous to not field your best team. Does any fan actually think it is a good thing that Bryant isn’t starting the season in the majors? Is it really absurd to believe that if you are clearly one of the best 25 players you should be on the major league team?
I hope the MLBPA and league come to an agreement so in the future this kind of thing doesn’t happen (and it really is a widespread problem, this is just an particularly glaring example).
If I were a Cubs fan, I’d agree with the Cubs’ decision here. It’s in the best long-term interest of the team. Sacrifice ~0.1 WAR in 2015 for ~4+ WAR in 2012? Who wouldn’t do that?
I agree that the service time rules are a mess, and I oppose pretty much any limit on players’ ability to earn their free market value. But I don’t see the controversy here.
But teams place other considerations over short-term wins all the time, and I don’t see the problem with that. On opening day, they go with the guy with no options rather than the slightly-better player with options. They trade veterans for prospects. Rebuilding teams play cheap young guys over expensive veterans (and we laud them for doing so), even though they know they’ll win fewer games. When teams are out of the playoff race, they play their prospects in September. They keep prospects in the minors rather than have them as a bench player because the player needs everyday at-bats… This is the same thing as any of that.
I’m not disagreeing with the Cubs logic given the situation, I think you know that.
Your other examples are weak comparisons. Nobody cares whether the 25th or 26th best player makes the team. Nobody cares about young guys getting playing time over aging, useless veterans (useful veterans don’t ride the bench). People do care about a guy who is projected to be an all-star level player. They want to see him play. These things are not the same. This is abundantly clear.
You must not follow any team blogs if you think nobody cares whether the 25th or 26th best player makes the team.
Typo above: meant 2021, not 2012.
And TKDC, you’re kind of making my point. Teams make decisions about other players all the time that involve choosing finances/contracts over winning, and (most) people don’t care. This is only an issue because it’s high profile, not because there’s any kind of labor violation here.
EVERY spring, there are multiple players who get optioned to the minors simply because they have options, and there are other (lesser) players who get picked for the 25-man roster ahead of them because the team would lose control of those players if they didn’t get placed on the 25-man (i.e., out-of-option players, or guys with minor league deals with an opt-out). Those guys being optioned to the minors for reasons unrelated to performance/winning are your rank-and-file union members, and there are a lot of them. If the union thought this was a real issue, they would’ve made a fuss about that situation a long time ago.
I think the other thing to remember is that it’s all relative, and when Bryant is an active member of the club, he’s going to want the club making decisions that are best for the team over the course of his career there… if that means manipulating service time rules to have more money to aquire a top flight arm in his 5th year with the team, I’m sure he’ll have no issue with them doing what they can to strengthen the organization.
Not when the manipulation was him. No manipulation during Bryant’s 5th year will help him win. By the time that manipulation pays dividends, he’ll likely be gone. Also, I’m glad you’ve provided this insight into 2019 Kris Bryant and his level of selfishness and “we all went through it”ness. I’d say plenty of players care about fair treatment. Maybe not above their own pay checks, but above the “team.”
Another point I don’t think is pointed out often enough here is that its not like Bryant’s spot is now going vacant. If he would have made the team he would have taken a job away from a current MLBPA union member. It is exceedingly funny that the MLBPA is essentially saying that a person not in their union (Bryant) deserves a job over someone who is in their union (whomever Bryant would displace). The fact that any union would take such a stance is very comical.
It is mentioned in the article
Moreover, filing a grievance over Bryant’s demotion would put the MLBPA in the rather awkward position of contesting the decision to send a non-union member to the minors, when Bryant’s inclusion on the Cubs’ opening day roster would have resulted in a current union member being granted his release.
It’s about the money Lebowski.
Bryant is going to bring in more cash than whatever scrub he’ll replace.
This is the most thorough piece I’ve read on the Bryant matter, and I’ve read a lot.
Two of multiple counterarguments to “It is exceedingly funny that the MLBPA is essentially saying that a person not in their union (Bryant) deserves a job over someone who is in their union (whomever Bryant would displace)” are as follows:
1. Getting Bryant to free agency 1 year sooner helps the union rank and file, because the free agent salary he will command will likely drive up salaries one year sooner.
2. The Cubs players (except maybe Mike Olt) are reportedly not happy about this move. John Lester for one has publicly voiced his displeasure. He chose the Cubs because he was under the impression that they were committed to winning this year. This move arguably affects Lester’s conditions of employment as a result of management’s ulterior motives.
There’s something of a curiosity, in my opinion, w/r/t how the MLBPA has positioned itself vis-a-vis younger and more established players. As much as I understand that future players are not members at the time of negotiating, members with .01-5/6 years of service time are. In less strongly representing younger players’ interests, they are impacting future members quite clearly — to a much greater extent than they are when, e.g., they bargain away draftee interests. (Indeed, young ML players are definitionally members of MLBPA; a given draftee has many hoops to jump through to get to that level.) To me, then, this is clearly an MLBPA issue (by nature, if not by rule) — because anyone who confronts it is an MLBPA member as it plays out. The devil is in the rule’s details, as the triggering incident occurs before a player is officially a union member.
Right. But what’s strange is that the MLBPA has repeatedly and consistently negotiated away the rights of minor leaguers even though they are future union members. Why do they suddenly care now?
I wasn’t completely clear in my post: what I mean is that this decision affects Bryant as a major leaguer, not as a minor leaguer — even though the decision is made when he is not yet a union member. This isn’t, really, about the interest of “future union members” in the same vague sense that minor leaguer interests are those of people a small sliver of which will some day be in the majors. This issue is only about major league interests (notably, those of a major leaguer in 2020/21), it’s just that the key moment occurs before that major leaguer is a union member. So, I don’t think this ultimately is about MLBPA suddenly caring about MiLB issues; it’s just that the formalities make it somewhat awkward for the union.
Most union members won’t be in baseball in 2021. Baseball careers just aren’t that long. (Think about all the bench players who only spend parts of two seasons, or whatever, in the majors.) The only members who actually have something to gain out of this are guys who are already union members but who might get demoted later for service time reasons.
I read the comments from the Cubs players and took away that they weren’t necessarily angry about the move as much as the typical “baseball is a business” and “we’ve all been there.”
I think they’d be more frustrated if it were 40 games rather than 8. If Bryant misses 8 games, hits like Pujols in his prime and the Cubs miss the playoffs by 1 game… then I’d look back and be upset. The way it stands, I’m not particularly concerned about 8 games during what should prove to be his least productive year in MLB. Especially when the cost is 162 games when he’s got 6 years under his belt.
*gets called up and then hits like Pujols in his prime for 154 games (to clarify)
I think the MLPBA would lose this case on the merits 99 out of 100 times (if not more) regarding the Cubs’ motives for sending Bryant down absent a CONCRETE showing of bad faith… i.e., an e-mail from Theo Epstein that says “I no Tommy LaStella sux but DAT SERVICE TIME DOE LOL!”
It’s just so hard to prove bad faith here. It may seem silly and transparent to, and perhaps it is, but from a legal perspective it seems totally plausible that an organization might want to keep him down for a few weeks to iron out a few kinks. It’s kinda like baseball’s version of the Business Judgment Rule. Basically, if corporate directors aren’t negligent clowns, their decision-making process is usually assumed to be prudent
I don’t agree with you that sending him down to preserve a year of service time is bad faith. Why is that not allowed? Why is that unacceptable?
Bad faith is using a rule that is manipulating the rules to do something that is otherwise prohibited. Or making a verbal agreement or promise to a player, and then not following through. If they were sending him to the minors as punishment for some reason, that’s bad faith. If in order to get him to sign his draftee contract, they promised him that he would only spend 2 seasons in the minors, that might be bad faith.
But the accusation here is simply that the Cubs are sacrificing a fraction of a win or performance from Bryant in 2015 in order to acquire a full year of his services in 2021. That’s not bad faith. That’s business.
The argument would be that good faith requires baseball decisions to be made primarily for baseball reasons, not for the purpose of suppressing player compensation. Not saying it’s a clear winner, but that’s the argument.
Also, the accusation here is NOT that the Cubs are sacrificing a fraction of a win in exchange for an extra year of team control. The accusation is that they are suppressing Kris Bryant’s compensation compared to what it would be if they made baseball decisions for baseball reasons. The fact that it is in the Cubs’ financial interest to do this is irrelevant. If anything, it would be a good fact for the MLBPA.
It is a baseball decision. If they don’t do this he’s (probably) not playing for the Cubs in 2021.
Oh I totally agree. I was spealing more from the normative perspective when I said that it might seem obvious that the decision is purely money related. Sorry I was a bit unclear.
This case is an absolute loser though. I think any MLBPA challenge would be more about posturing. I just can’t imagine an arbitrator ruling that a team should be forced to promote a player because we (collectively) think they should. Sets a very crappy precedent. There are a myriad of legitimate reasons to keep him down, EVEN IF the FO doesn’t necessarily care about them in reality, and that alone shields them here I think
Not to mention that holding a player back for financial reasons might not even constitute bad faith anyway as you correctly pointed out
The issue of advocating for a non-member over a current member is a red herring – everyone knows that a current member is going to lose his job in two weeks when Bryant is ultimately promoted, and two weeks of a low-salary player doesn’t come close to offsetting the financial loss to union members overall from delaying their free agency.
I think it is a no-brainer for the union to file a grievance. If they win Bryant a full year of service time, it will effectively end this practice going forward and the gains to their membership would be HUGE. The cost of failure is maintaining the status quo, thus zero. As long as the probability of victory is slightly positive this is an issue worth pursuing.
In the vein of the MLBPA getting involved in a non-union player’s rights, what would it take for the minor league players to push for MLBPA representation? It is abundantly clear that Bryant’s situation is no different than dozens of other top prospects who have similar, though less strong, cases for the same treatment. It seems inevitable that minor leaguers will get union representation and a seat at the table in negotiations, and I think that is sorely needed.
I don’t think MLBPA would necessarily have to prove that the baseball-related issues are a “sham” in the sense that they aren’t real. I think it would be enough to show that they weren’t the reason he was sent to the minors. It depends on how the arbitrator interprets the unwritten good-faith standard, of course, but I would think the arbitrator could say something like, “Sure, he needs to work on his defense and his strikeouts, and probably always will, but it’s 100% clear he would have worked on them in Chicago if it weren’t for service time considerations, so this is not a legitimate, good-faith decision.”
I don’t think any arbitrator is going to assume the office of major league talent developer in this case or any other one. It’s the job of clubs to prepare their players for the big leagues, and I don’t think any arbitrator is going to say “but you have to do it this way” or “in this case, the player is ready enough, even though everyone seems to agree about his defensive skills and contact abilities.”
Just imagine what happens when the player in question arrives and, lo and behold, the contact issues become a huge problem at the MLB level. I’m not saying this will happen with Bryant, but if it did (or did with someone else in a similar case) the MLB Clubs would be universally pissed about it, for good reason.
As a litigator, I never understand why people who are perfectly capable of call BS in real life think that judges or arbitrators are somehow obliged to accept BS just because someone with a vested interest manages to say it with a straight face. As MLBPA says, everyone knows this is service-time related. An arbitrator is allowed to know that too.
And it has happened with previous prospects who had great springs.
Right, if this was just based on his great spring, there wouldn’t be an issue.
Kind of a slippery slope though, as you’re opening up the door to dictating to teams how they should run their franchises. I don’t think we should want to get in the habit of telling teams when and why to make baseball decisions. The real elephant in the room is the crappy service time rule, and I think the arbitrator would recognize that. Proving bad faith is SO tough, even when it seems blatant…. Not to mention of course that an extra 9 games of Bryant would only add about .2 – .3 WAR if we’re being optimistic, so you can’t really claim the team is being burdened so heavily anyway
If Bryant wins one of those 9 games for the Cubs, that could be the one game that puts them into the playoffs.
And if the Cubs get a few playoff home games, the extra revenue might even be enough to pay for one year of Bryant in free agency.
what if he sucks those 9 games and airmails a couple throws to 1B that lead to runs and the Cubs lose 2 game because of it and miss the playoffs? It’s 9 games, anything can happen in 9 games.
If Bryant’s an 18 WAR player in his rookie year, then that extra year before free agency becomes even more important (he will not be an 18 WAR player, obviously).
Question regarding the mechanics here: if the Cubs promote Bryant before the 45-day time period has passed (which is mid-May, compared to the mid/late April that works for service time reasons), could MLBPA represent him for this claim even though the action giving rise to it occurred before he was a member?
Good question. I assume that the date that the action arose (Monday, in this case) would be determinative, but it is possible that they could wait until he’s recalled and then claim to be representing a union member.
Thanks, Nathaniel. I’ve enjoyed reading your work at Fangraphs over the past few months.
Was I the only one who needed to read MLBPA’s tweets more than once to make sense of them? Why are they talking about a “combination of the greatest Players to play or great game”? Are they preparing for a day in which Dr. Frankenstein stitches Billy Hamilton’s legs to Aroldis Chapman’s arm and needs his service time protected? Was it a rough day for the MLBPA social media intern?
You weren’t. I also gave them a few confused reads to get their gist. Maybe lawyers have a hard time being concise?
Nearing the end of law school, I’ve found that it’s not that we *can’t* be concise, it’s just that being concise usually means sacrificing precision, and we’ve read too many cases in which imprecision changed everything.
TL;DR: We’re paranoid lol
Just as a goofy example, imagine I said “left-handed hitter.” It’s a commonly used and understood term, so there’s probably no debate as to what it means. But what if I messed around with it and asked if it meant only hitters who threw lefty? Or if it meant right-handed hitters who let go of the bat early and had left-handed follow throughs? Law is all about resolving ambiguity in places one could never have imagined finding them lol
Oh, trust me, I know: my fantasy league is 20 dudes, and I swear half of them are lawyers. I wasn’t making an uninformed jab at lawyers.
It seems like the Nats really screwed the pooch in promoting Bryce Harper to the majors in 2012. Had they waited until a few weeks into this season, they’d control him through his age 28 season. As is, they don’t control his age 26-28 season. While Harper has accumulated 10 WAR the last three years, I doubt many would bet against him exceeding that during the meat of his prime. This is undoubtedly the case for most players. Cf. Trout, Mike.
Unchecked, you could see an organizational philosophy of simply not promoting players until they are at least 22.
I think there’s a great case to be made that the Nats made the right move, but that has to do with the fact they are probably the best team in baseball, and have been one of the best for the last couple of years. Will Haper be an All-Star caliber player in his prime? Given the history of guys who produced 10 WAR before 22, yes, probably. However, they are, right now, a top MLB team. Will they be one in four, five or six years? Who knows. Adding one all-star to a mediocre team makes it fringe contender, but adding Harper to the Nats this year makes them a handy lock on the NL East.
In short, there are situations in which you promote your best very young talent in order to win now.
To be fair, when the Nats added Harper, they were seen as a mediocre team becoming a fringe contender. My point is a talent like Harper (or a lesser but still great talent) shouldn’t spend years in the minors if he plays for a team that is terrible. Based on pure pragmatism, you could argue the Phillies should keep Maikel Franco in the minors until at least a few weeks into the 2017 season. What good will he do them the next two years? What good might he do them 8 years down the road?
It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove in court.
Interesting that MLBPA is content to let the majority of minor league players work for what amounts to less than minimum wage, yet are apparently willing to litigate when a Scott Boras client is involved.
This sounds so very much like an April Fools prank, though I know it is true.
Where’s NotGraphs when you need it?
MLBPA is responsible for negotiating things like this in the CBA. The only reason this service time nonsense is allowed to go on is because they allow it. Now they want to cry foul every time a popular prospect gets demoted?
Cry me a river, go represent your players the right way when you are supposed to, not with spilled milk.
This is a good article, but I’ll take some issue with semantics. I don’t know how many times the word “demotion” (or some form of it) was used, but Bryant was not demoted. He is a minor-league player invited to spring training as a non-roster player. Javier Baez was demoted. He was optioned to Iowa. Bryant was reassigned to Cubs minor-league camp.
Everyone seems to want to ignore that Bryant struck out 14 times in 44 PAs this spring. It’s pretty easy to make a baseball argument for him to be in the minors
He’s always going to strike out a lot. Would being in the majors prohibit him from working on his strikeout issue? Are the strikeouts making him worse than incumbents, which would mean he might struggle for playing time?
In my opinion the answers to both those questions are no. It isn’t as though going to AAA for 2 weeks is going to magically fix his strikeout problem; there’s no reason playing in the majors instead is going to permanently ruin him.
This is on the money. Adjusting at the ML level isn’t going to hurt, and a token AAA appearance isn’t going to make a meaningful difference. Add that to the fact that he’s not blocked at any of his positions (indeed those positions are about as not-blocked as any in baseball, including one where the incumbent was traded this winter to make room) and this posturing is rather transparent.
Though this makes me wonder if CHN might not keep him down for some period of time longer than service time reqs + change. Assuming whatever proceeding they wind up in can be flexible in the evidence it looks at, holding Bryant until mid-May and pointing to decreased K rate, some not-insubstantial fielding improvements, etc. would go some way to CHN’s point.
They’ll wait 3-4 days. Just enough to make it obvious, but not absurdly obvious.
The aspect of discussion that seems not to be talked about is the multiple reports that suggest Bryant is not an adequate 3B and that Mike Olt is having a good Spring and is a far better defender. Olt will either flame out as a hitter, or Bryant will have to get more experience in LF while in Iowa. The Cubs argument based on managing a roster, player development, and the quality of other player performances this Spring make their case stronger than whatever hypothetical the MLBPA could raise without access to a damning email, which I’m sure Theo and Hoyer are smart enough to not send.
Demotion? Was it really a demotion? According to most HR definitions of a “demotion”…Demotion means a reduction in salary only. Demotion does not include (a) a reassignment of duties that is not accompanied by a reduction in salary; (b) a suspension without pay for a period of ten (10) days or less; or (c) the elimination or reduction of bonus payments, incentive pay or salary supplements.
The kid was a non-returnable invite to big league camp… Never on the 40-man roster… just there with the hopes of making the team. HE WASN’T DEMOTED!!!
He didn’t get the job. This is ridiculous. He’ll be up before the end of the month. He’ll make more more one over the course of his career than he’ll ever need. Everyone shut up, get out of this kid’s head, and let him wirk on his defense, keep hitting the ball hard and just play ball.
Does anyone have a reference to these prior arbitration decisions that have found this unwritten “good faith” standard? And do they precede Article XXII of the CBA which explicitly states that the CBA does not restrict clubs from managing and directing their operations in “any manner whatsoever” unless it is for a reason that is “specifically limited” by the CBA?
I don’t see how an arbitrator can legally second-guess a baseball decision based on a lack of “good faith” if that’s not an explicit CBA provision.
If the union didn’t file a grievance over Ruben Tejada in 2013 based on “bad faith” I don’t know how Bryant is a stronger case.
Arbitration decisions generally are not public. But page three of the PDF I linked to above discusses the general standard:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iadcmeetings.mobi%2Fassets%2F1%2F7%2F12.2_-_silverman-_grievance_and_salary_arbitration_in_baseball.pdf&ei=4q0aVYv-MIO_ggSKzYKQBg&usg=AFQjCNE2XsXPYYW4bJzOwwALALQAkPGQwQ&sig2=KDWnRDsOVl_WpyoBOYbX4Q&bvm=bv.89381419,d.eXY
That is really helpful sir! Thank you.
If the standard truly is rational basis, then the MLBPA literally has no shot lol… rational basis as a bar about as low as “probable cause,” which is to say it isn’t high at all. I wonder, though, if service time considerations are included within the purview of rational basis. I think that’s the interesting question… whether rational basis only covers decisions made purely on baseball judgment.
I think this is mostly posturing on the part of the MLBPA, as Nathaniel pointed out in the last section.
My question, though, is why do GMs keep doing this? Of the 30 current GMs, only 9 have been in their job for 7 or more years. That means there is a 2/3 chance that a GM who holds a guy down for 2 weeks is never going to see the benefit of that decision. The GM will be long gone before then.
Are the owners pushing for this? If I’m a GM, I need to win as many games as possible this year, next year, and the year after, or I’m out. Unless this kind of service time game-playing makes it easier for a GM to get a job with a team in the future?
Maybe the GM explains to the owner how much money it’s going to save. Or maybe the owners know that and insist that GMs act in their best financial interest. (The purpose of a baseball team is to make money for its owner, after all. And GMs are just proxies for ownership.)
There is a crop of MLB executives who obsess over roster optimization. Many of the Cubs execs have had success in the past by doing just that.
They don’t think of Kris Bryant as a future star or even as a ticket seller. They seem him as a set of optimal stats that will peak at a certain time. They want to have him under a low-budget contract when that peak occurs.
Even if the GM gets canned, he can tout that he helped a roster achieve maximum statistical value under a budget. That helps you get another job.
I see what you’re saying, but by metrics such as WAR or WPA, 9 games of Bryant vs. 9 games of Mike Olt or Tommy LaStella means literally about a tenth of a win, and that’s assuming he actually plays well. It’s pretty easy to sacrifice .1 wins now with the hope of an extra 4-5-6 wins down the road
GMs keep doing it because it’s the smart play, given the terms of the current CBA.
9 games is obviously a small sample size, and anything can happen during that small sample, including Mike Olt out-producing what Bryant would do in those hypothetical games.
Also, the Cubs could easily point to previous players who mashed in spring training and never took to the major leagues. There are boatloads of examples of that.
Look at Travis Snider’s minor league numbers, at the same age as Bryant. It took years for him to even flash that potential again in the majors.
Jordan Valdespin crushed in spring training this year, meant squat. Off to the minors he goes. How about players like Furcal who are being released and re-signed to avoid paying out a bonus?
I’m as enamored with Bryant as everyone else, but why do we assume that he’s ready for the majors? Focusing on his on-field production, this is a guy that is supposedly “ready” because he can hit home runs, control the strike zone and has a high draft pedigree, right?. But who says that’s a recipe for success? Maybe there truly are things he needs to work on.
Consider the following 2-yr numbers for Bryant vs. a few comps at the same minors level(you’ll see why I use OPS in a moment):
Bryant: BB% (8% (2013), 14%), K% (24%, 27%), OPS (1.078, 1.098), HR (15, 43), age/level (21/R-A+, 22/AA-AAA)
Player B: BB% (7%, 8%), K% (15%, 18%), OPS (.997, .937), HR (12, 18), age/level (21/R-A-, 22/A-AA)
Player C: BB% (12%, 16%), K% (18%, 15%), OPS (.864, 1.100), HR (19,31), age/level (20/A+-AA, 21/AA-AAA), #2 overall draft pick, BA #1 prospect
Assuming the formatting comes out ok, this should easily align to show that these guys are loosely comparable. Player B was a decent prospect by these numbers, but maybe not an all-star. Player C was clearly better at BB%, K%, lesser at HR but comparable in OPS – overall a decent comp considering draft pick, etc..
Player B was JD Martinez and had to go back and completely overhaul his swing and finally had a break-out year after 3 below-average years. And even in his break-out year, he posted significantly worse K% & BB% – things he was better at/comparable to in the minors than Bryant.
Player C was Ben Grieve. Everyone was sure he would be a superstar for years. Yes he had 4 years where he popped 18+ HR, but that’s certainly not what was expected, and he had better peripherals than Bryant in every way.
Also consider that Miguel Cabrera’s K% in the minors was always 16%. When he reached the majors that jumped to 24, 21, 18% his first 3 years. If Bryant’s at 29% in AAA, will he still be “ready” if that jumps to 40%?
The point is that while everyone sneers at the Cubs’ claims that he has things to work on, it’s hard to begrudge them for looking at historical references & precedents and wanting to put him in what they feel is the best position to succeed.
After all, this is the team that has statistically underperformed more than anyone for the better part of a decade http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-vs-a-decade-of-projections/#more-178325
If you are a Cubs fan, you probably want them to do everything they can to get it right.
I don’t “assume” he’s ready for the majors as much as I assume he won’t be any more ready in 2 weeks. If he produces 4+ WAR after coming up on April 22 it means he was ready on Opening Day. If the Cubs really think he’s not ready they can prove it by waiting two months or so.
It is absolutely 100% implicitly within the rights of the employer to hire, fire, promote and assign work. Any abridgement of those rights would have to be explicitly delineated in the CBA. That’s the end of the discussion.
Just because the player isn’t technically a member of the bargaining unit doesn’t preclude the PA from filing a grievance based on the employers actions that directly impact generic members of the bargaining unit. If the union had smoking gun proof that the player was being discriminated against they would have a case.
I wish fangraphs would consult with a labor writer or attorney before publishing these pieces. Baseball expertise does not translate to labor law.
With all due respect to the author, Jason Wojciechowski apparently knows a couple of lawyers on twitter and so he therefore has the credentials to construct this “good faith” argument out of whole cloth. It’s really a misnomer as far as I can tell. In any case I’d like to see an actual example cited.
Both Nathaniel Grow and Jason Wojciechowski are lawyers. Grow specializes in sports law, while Wojciechowski is a labor lawyer.
I probably should have made this clearer, but the PDF I linked to above (it’s attached to the phrase “skill or ability” in the piece) provides a brief overview of the relevant MLB grievance arbitration precedent. The bad faith concept is, as far as I can tell, pretty well established in the baseball arbitration precedent. This is also consistent with recent comments by Scott Boras:
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-demotion-of-kris-bryant-could-force-mlbpa-to-file-grievance-033115
Rules are rules. No fan in his right mind, of any team, would trade another year in a young player’s prime for 2 weeks at the start of their career.
The numbers may be just a little off, but seem pretty straightforward. They send him down, he misses 12 games (3 of Lester’s starts), the Cubs (and Lester, indirectly) get another 162 games (and potentially another set of playoffs) with Bryant guaranteed, somewhat cost controlled.
That probably doesn’t value the playoff availability, either. If Bryant really is “all that we all dream of,”….what’s guaranteeing that you have available for another 17% potentially, during when “you want to win most?” Must be way more than the first 12 games.
It’s not like he’s going to the minors for half a season. The Cubs, and a player signed to a contract like Lester is, should be overjoyed that two weeks buys having potentially one of the elite talents locked up no matter for another full season (and playoffs potentially) at the end.
Lester probably won’t be too sad in 2021 that Bryant, looking to get paid off with a big year, will have to be there when Lester’s in the last year of his contract and looking for another payday. Most Cub fans probably wouldn’t be either.
Change the rules or stop complaining. As a Cub fan I’m overjoyed right now this rule is in place. The kid’s already paid millions; probably going to get paid millions more. Big market team probably will pay him early. Tell Boras the mouthpiece to STFU and don’t get hurt on your trip to Iowa.
What the Cubs are doing is nothing compared to the Washington Nationals sitting their second best (maybe best) pitcher out of a playoff series in 2012.