Cubs fans have been anxiously awaiting the debut of Kris Bryant since he began obliterating the upper levels of the Minor Leagues in 2014. The No. 2 pick in the 2013 draft, Bryant batted a Herculean .325/.438/.661 with 43 homers between Double-A and Triple-A last season. Unsurprisingly, he ranked as the game’s top prospect according to Baseball America and ESPN’s Keith Law, while MLB.com ranked him second and Baseball Prospectus ranked him fifth.
Bryant’s video-game-esque 2014 numbers prompted some, including agent Scott Boras, to advocate for a September call-up of the phenom. Bryant wasn’t on the 40-man roster at the time, though, and he never did receive the September call-up. In fact, even after Bryant hit a ridiculous nine home runs in just 40 Spring Training at-bats, he was reassigned to Minor League camp and began the season in Triple-A.
The Cubs maintain that the reasoning was for Bryant to work on his defense, and even today they’ve told reporters that Bryant would not have been recalled were it not for the fact that both Tommy La Stella and Mike Olt are on the disabled list. While that may be the case, it’s impossible to ignore that as of today, there are 171 days of the regular season remaining, which means Bryant will fall one day shy of accumulating a full year of Major League service time. In other words, by stashing Bryant in the Minors for the first 12 days of the season, the team has delayed his free agency by one season. Had Bryant broken camp with the club, he’d have been eligible for free agency following the 2020 season, but he’ll now have to wait until after the 2021 campaign.
Of course, it’s not all bad news for Bryant. He’ll now qualify for Super Two status, meaning that he’ll be arbitration-eligible four times, rather than three. By the time Bryant is in his final year of arbitration eligibility (his seventh in the Majors), he could be earning more than $20MM, if he lives up to expectations. He may still take home less in the 2021 season than he would have had it been a free agent season, but he won’t be hurting from a financial standpoint. (It should also be noted that Bryant received a $6.7MM signing bonus out of the draft, so he’s already been compensated quite well without so much as an inning in the Majors.)
Boras and many Cubs fans (and baseball fans in general) have denounced the Cubs’ tactics, stating that a team telling its fanbase that it is doing everything it can to win should bring the 25 best players north to open the season, regardless of service time. Others have noted that the Cubs are far from the first team to manipulate service time in this manner, and that there’s certainly something to be said for trading 10 games of Bryant’s rookie season for a full year of control in his prime. Just yesterday, MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes examined 11 top prospects who broke camp with their team, finding that by and large, the year-one benefit of roughly 10 extra games almost never outweighed the long-term negative of losing a full year of team control. (Jason Heyward was perhaps one notable exception, Tim found, as the Braves squeaked into the playoffs by just one game, and Heyward had a stellar rookie season.)
Detractors will say that the Cubs will rue the decision if they miss the postseason by a single game, and they can point to the fact that Chicago third baseman have batted a dismal .148/.233/.259 to begin the season. Supporters will point to the long-term gain of controlling Bryant’s age-29 season and the fact that many other clubs have acted in a similar fashion in the past. All of that said, let’s see where MLBTR readers come down on the issue…
Let’s see. 2 weeks at 23 or 1 year in his prime. Pretty easy choice.
But, but, but didn’t you listen to Scott Boras? Its not fair!!! Sure that’s what the rules are, and sure he’ll take advantage of the rules EVERY time. But clearly its so grossly unfair that it shouldn’t be allowed when someone uses a rule to their advantage instead of his.
Should this rule be changed? Maybe. But its not the only rule that creates a loop hole and if you’re going to change the rules to close this loop hole its only fair to close them all… even the one’s that have helped Mr. Boras over the years.
Why is this even being discussed still? The players have gained so many advantages from unionization, this just happens to be one of the small inconveniences. They need to buck up and quit whining. Kris Bryant will be just fine.
The idea that you are always obligated to break with your 25 best guys has never been true. Think of all the aging veterans on long-term contracts with poor production who can easily be replaced but aren’t because they’re owed too much money.
Think of the guy who gets an injury call-up or a spot out of spring training not because he’s the best option, but because he’s already on the 40 man roster (which Bryant, by the way, was still not until today).
You construct your team for both now and the future, taking into account all of these kinds of factors. Why should it somehow be different for a prospect?
More teams each year have recognized the concept of the sunk cost and won’t leave someone on the roster or in the line-up just because of a dollar figure. But not enough yet.
Some have, but even among those who have, how many do it early in a long-term deal? We usually see this kind of sunk cost analysis when the player has one year remaining. We don’t see it with three or four years left. They’ll keep those guys and hope his performance turns around, which it almost never does.
Sunk cost doesn’t really apply here. It’s true that whatever you’re paying the veteran is a sunk cost. But there are other costs to replacing the veteran. Maybe you have to add a different player to the 40-man roster, thus increasing your payroll. Or maybe you have to call up a guy like Bryant, costing you an extra year of arbitration. Or maybe you have to call up a guy like Bryant on opening day, costing you an extra year of arbitration and a year of team control.
I agree. If this was the case, E-Jax shouldn’t have been able to break camp with the team considering his production the past couple of years, whether or not his agent is Scott Boras.
Totally whiffed on the description.
“Of course, it’s not all bad news for Bryant. He’ll now qualify for Super Two status, meaning that he’ll be arbitration-eligible following his second season and go though the arb process four times, rather than three. Had Bryant debuted on Opening Day, he’d have been earning a bit more than the league minimum in his third season, but he could now conceivably be earning $5-6MM, if not more. ”
15-min
16-min
17-min
18-arb
19-arb
20-arb
21-arb
2018 was going to be his first arb year in any case.
Yeah, quite honestly have no idea what happened with my brain there. It’s been updated. Thanks.
No brainer, extra year of control is almost always more valuable
Now with Bryant called up, what are they going to do when Russell is ready, put him at short and trade castro? or move castro to second and trade baez?
2B probably
Probably move Russell to 2B for this year, then reevaluate in the off-season
If Bryant is as good in the bigs as he was in the minors, I hope they give bryant a long term deal
They’ll try, whether or not he wants one is a whole other story
Because I know Boras likes having his guys hit the open market, but I know Weaver took a home town discount to stay with the angels and I don’t think Boras was happy about that
_______ Scott Boras
He’s a Boras client and has already secured himself $7MM. I don’t think an extension is very likely unless it’s a huge overpay.
Russell is the superior defender and will take over SS is every scenario.
no.
He was already moved to second.
Who cares about Baez? Right now, it he looks like the bad version of Mark Reynolds. My guess is, long term, Russell plays SS. Either Castro moves to 3B and Bryant to LF, or Castro gets traded. I don’t think they’ll call up Russell until September this year, though, if at all.
If they are in contention and need another pitcher , I think they make a trade and either baez or castro is the center piece.
certainly not. Baez has no trade value. And for the millionth time, Castro isn’t going anywhere.
Thanks Theo.
No, it’s just common sense. Theodore isn’t as unpredictable as Billy Beane.
Their biggest mistake, considering that they likely have the offense to contend now, was trading Smardjzia for Russell.
Shark was a free agent after last year anyhow……getting Russell was a coup.
Russell WAS a coup. But Samardzija wasn’t going to be a FA until after this season, not last season.
Samardzija was going to free agency regardless and wants more money than his performance warrants. I don’t think the Cubs would have brought him back anyway since someone will give him the money he’s looking for.
I don’t think Samardzija gets a lot maybe a little more then what Homer Bailey got.
Agreed, and I think that’s too much for the Cubs to pay for Samardzija who’s had one good full season in his career.
But that’s next season. They’d have had Samardzija this season. When you haven’t been to the World Series in almost 60 years, and you have a competitive team, I think you have to play for this year. They should have kept him. Their long term SS options might not have been as good as Russell, but it’s not like they were hurting there.
That’s one approach, but the Cubs have been pretty clear about building for the long-term and I don’t think Shark was going to put the Cubs over the top in 2015, especially since the rotation is already pretty solid and pretty affordable. Russell will be playing 2B for the Cubs before the All-Star break and be a central figure in the lineup for years to come. At this point, Baez looks to be the odd man out.
Right, I get the ‘long term’ point. Now that Russell is up, I’m clearly wrong. They are now in a position to make another move for a starter if they want, maybe by moving Castro. Getting Cashner back might make sense.
The Cubs totally trumped my point by calling up Russell about two hours after I wrote that comment! LOL…
As for Castro, I think he’s here for the long haul unless they can get significantly better as a result of a deal. The hope would be for Baez to rebound enough to create value for him in the market and maybe create a package with Welington Castillo and Travis Wood to get another starter. But, even then, the starting five is looking pretty solid so far (once Lester comes around which is a matter of when, not if) and the three catcher system is paying dividends so far.
Regardless, it’s a fun time to be a Cubs fan!
The Cubs have lost 3 games so far, by 3 runs, 4 runs, and 1 run. I seriously doubt have KB in the lineup would have made up the losses of 3 and 4 runs. He possibly could have affected the outcome of the 1 run game, maybe, but I don’t think 1 possible win is worth losing a year of control.
Hell, maybe he makes a key error (Olt is definitely a better defender) in one of the games they won and he would have cost them a game. It’s just a fruitless exercise to look at things that way
What about at the cost of resigning him Scott Boras has long term memory. Not even negotiating with the Cubs would be a very Boras like move in response to this. I just hope it is one really good year for Cubs fans sake when he is in a Yankees uniform later on.
Yes, because Scott Boras was going to give them a discount in free agency if they had Bryant on the opening day roster per his wishes. He may have a long term memory, but I guarantee he wouldn’t remember that.
Well we could find out with how Harper negotiation goes down, Nationals fighting over something like 1 million dollars, it wouldn’t really be revenge for Boras it would be just him saying don’t do this to my clients in the future.
No, it wouldn’t. Boras isn’t going to cut out one of the biggest markets in the country from negotiations.
He’s going to push for the best offer, regardless of where it comes from. It’s possible that Bryant himself might be upset and hold it against the Cubs, but seven years down the road I doubt there’s still some kind of grudge. Besides, even if it means we don’t re-sign him I wouldn’t be too heartbroken: I’m very pleased to have age 23-30, and while I might like a couple more years after that I’d probably only be pleased with half the contract he gets after 30.
Agree 100%. Whoever signs Bryant at age 30 will probably have to give him a 10 year deal (by today’s standards) of which 2-4 will be prime years. Why pay a couple hundred million for his decline years?
Pujols-ian deal…
Cost isn’t the issue. Its the guarantee of the extra year.
Money trumps all, who in their right mind would think Stanton would have the desire to stay in MIA, 2 off-sesaons ago I thought he would be gone for sure. 325 million reasons later…
If we’re talking from a talent standpoint, absolutely. If we’re looking at it as a business decision, absolutely not. Since that wasn’t an option here, you’ve got to say they made the right call.
Cubs brass has no idea whatsoever what the free-agency eligibility rules will be in 2021. Delaying Bryant could have exactly zero impact on his contractual ties depending on what winds up in the next CBA. And no one knows what will be in that next agreement. No one.
He’d be grandfathered in like all the previous players who have had this done to them. It wouldn’t have any impact on him or the Cubs
Maybe he’d be grandfathered. Maybe he wouldn’t. The next CBA has yet to be written. Things are always done just as they’ve always been done right up until the time that they aren’t anymore.
He would definitely be grandfathered in. No chance they go back in time cause the rule NOW is what it is. If/When they change the rule, it will be for the future, not for the past? You can’t change a rule and have it effect the past, it only will change the future.
So you’re saying that if, for example, the new CBA required one fewer year to reach free agency, the union would agree that only applies to guys who aren’t already on the 40-man roster? I don’t know what world you live in, but in real life there’s no way that’s how it would work, nor how it’s worked in the past.
Are you sure? I thought when they changed the Super Two status rules in the last CBA, it was on a go-forward basis, not for the guys who were facing it in the coming year. [That’s a real question, not a snarky internet-style I’ll ask something to show you’re wrong question…]
Not as far as I can tell, but I’m open to be proven wrong.
mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf
It’s on pp. 17-18.
Regardless, that doesn’t mean they will necessarily do the same thing again.
So what you’re saying is that they could go back in time historically to all players who ever this was done to and change it historically? Tell me how that would work for a player it happened to 10 years ago that already signed a long term contract. How would you change it historically?
As long as you’re under contract, the contract is still valid.
But, under the current CBA, Bryant would be free agent eligible (assuming he signed no extension) after the 2021 season. The CBA expries in 2016. Let’s say they change the rules so that one fewer years are required to achieve free agency. In that case, Bryant would likely become a free agent after the 2020 season. There is no need to go back in time.
(It is possible that they could negotiate it so that this rule change only applied to guys not yet on the 40-man roster, but I don’t think that’s likely. It’s certainly not a sure thing or required, as you seem to suggest.)
What are you talking about? Let’s say I am in my 5th year and I have to wait to year SEVEN to become a FA. The new CBA comes out and says that players now only have to go SIX years to hit FA. I now get to hit FA one year sooner.
Did I miss the part about how the players have the owners over a barrel and will make them sign something that isn’t in their best interests? And the players will give up what for such a thing?
It is so simple. If he’s good enough for the opening day roster, he’s good enough to keep an extra year of control over his services before he hits free agency.
Well, he was good enough in the minors.
No
The rules are agreed upon by the owners and players union. Each GM has to follow the rules and do what is best for their team. You have to get the extra year of service time.
Boras could have avoided this by working out a contract. He would not have to give up any free agent years, just concede the extra year of service time. Instead he just whines to the media.
Everyone uses the rules to their full benefit. If I could only change one rule it would be to allow a team to void the rest of the contract of a newly signed free agent that is determined to have been on PED’s. That someone can cheat to get a big money deal and have it pay off is far more unconscionable. They’re not just cheat the team that signed them, but also the other players that would have gotten more money had that money not gone to the cheater. I don’t hear any of the agents who were responsible for those contracts apologizing for how unfair that was to everyone except their clients. I also haven’t heard the constant whining out of those teams that got stuck that I’ve heard out of the Boras/Bryant camp. Not everyone can be happy with every rule all of the time.
Braun is a great example. The few million he lost in his suspension was well worth the money when you consider the extension he received before being busted.
I am just trying to figure out why such a system exists to completely rip off American born players. How much money would Kris Bryant be signing for if he had produced these numbers in Japan?
he would be owned by his club still and wouldn’t have been posted… so less?
But what if he’d done it in Cuba? or the DR?
Well, then he wouldn’t have been drafted in the same way that these players are… so it would be a completely different set of circumstances that is impossible to try to figure out all the what ifs.
But Niekro’s point is that it’s financially disadvantageous to be from the U.S. He compared that to Japan, and he’s probably wrong in that context because of what you said. It is disadvantageous to be a top US prospect vs. a top Cuban or DR prospect.
I would disagree with that… If you are a prospect similar to Bryant (no pro experience), you all pretty much get shafted…. If you have the necessary pro experience (like a Puig), then you don’t really compare to US prospects.
How many prospects from the DR have gotten more then 7 million.
The number 1 overall draft pick in 2014 had a 7,922,100 slot value. That number has only been eclipsed 3 times by international prospect.. I don’t see ur point.
When Bryant hits free agency and wants a 10 year deal, the Cubs will be wishing he was a year younger.
Or let him walk. I’m not interested in paying him through age 40, and 39 really isn’t going to seal the deal.
My comment was tongue in cheek. I really have no feelings on the issue either way. I think it’s good business to play the most deserving but I also think it’s smart business to secure the extra year of control.
Apologies, I missed it.
That was a funny comment actually
Exactly…I don’t think the Angels are thrilled with having to pay Pujols 140MM for his age 37-41 seasons. His OPS is already down .228 since signing with the Halos.
No absolutely not! If anything it would be because just to get under Scott Boras’s skin.
And another thing, I can’t even begin to tell you how annoyed I am about the cost of my cable bill. I don’t mind paying the extra money for the baseball package, but I am telling you the cost of cable has gone up because of sports and mainly baseball. The cost of baseball has been driven up by Scott Boras! I can only describe that man as being tedious at best. Plus, the Cubs are tied for first place and they have done it without Kris Bryant!
PS If point isn’t clear, I feel we are all overpaying for this product! I am tired of exorbitant contracts due to Boras and I am tired of guaranteed contracts.It is outrageous and the catalyst of what I have to say here today is due to Scott Boras!
SMH!!! Bristling!
I cannot blame him for the whole load, but Scott Boras sure did throw his share of straws on the camel’s back, didn’t he?
Can’t really fault the guy for being good at what he’s paid exorbitantly well to do I guess, but I do think it is bad for the game of baseball.
If the players don’t like the rules, they can negotiate a different rule in the next CBA. For the most part, this rule was a concession that was worth making because it negatively affects so few players.
MLBPA tends to negotiate rules that favor their current membership and disfavor their future membership. We’ll see if that trend continues or not in the next CBA.
Contrast to golf, where Jordan Spieth 21 years old won the same EXACT amount in the Masters that Phil Mickelson, 44 years old would have won.
That’s an interesting perspective, but the free agency rule is just as likely to affect a rookie in the majors as it is an unsigned high school player, so I don’t think that’s applicable here.
There are obviously huge differences between prized-based sports and contract-based sports. Notably, rookie baseball players get the same share of playoff bonuses as veterans do. That’s a more apples-to-apples comparison to golf prizes.
Not really sure I understand what your point is here.
Minor leaguers are not represented by MLBPA, so they are all future members of MLBPA.
Sports fans surely realize the difference between team sports and competitions for a stated purse. But at least in golf, once a player becomes a member, the compensation is the same.
The CBA was agreed to by both sides. MLBPA is not going to give up guaranteed contracts, and teams are not going to give up control over rookies, so the divide gets deeper, and these type of results ensue.
Look: how long a player is under team control (or how long to arbitration, or what the arbitration rules are, etc.) is relevant to a huge percentage of players already represented by the MLBPA. Anybody who has not reached free agency will benefit from shortening the time to reach free agency and be harmed by an increase in that amount of time.
It is also not true that minor leaguers aren’t represented by the MLBPA. All players on the 40-man rosters (and the 60-day DL) are represented by the MLBPA. Many of those players (roughly 15 per team, less the number of players on the 15-day DL) are in the minors on optional assignment.
I have no idea why you are contesting a point you made that I agreed with, and upvoted. You said;
“For the most part, this rule was a concession that was worth making because it negatively affects so few players.”
yea, man. ummm. why do you think that is?
The average age of members of the PGA is in the area of 35 years old right now. Only 12 of the current top 40 money earners are under the age of 30. MLB players get paid NO MATTER WHAT. Injury, slump or even if they get released.In golf, if you don’t beat your competition…..YOU DON’T GET PAID. Money scale is 100% based off of results. Not even close to a good comparison.
Thanks for your reply. Yes, there are significant differences between golf and baseball. Glad to have the additional information.
Normally I’d be the first person to argue that a team should always field the best squad possible, but decisions on promotions are made based on rules agreed to by the players and MLB. I don’t see the point in debating about whether they are right or wrong.
Had the Cubs been in the race last year, he would have been called up last year. Because they were a losing ballclub, and because of the rule that equates 8 games into another year of control, he gets to become a free agent one year later.
I hope he wins his grievance and they change the rule.
The real question is then, who gets to determine when a player is ready to play in MLB… You are essentially ruining the entire process by allowing a player to dictate when he is ready for MLB.
They should base Free Agency off of age. That way service time is not a factor in decisions of who to put onto a roster.
Look at Josh Donaldson. First time he can become a Free Agent is when he is 33 years old.
Players develop at much different ages and some are drafted out of high school and some in college. It wouldnt work at all.
Or why not base it off looks, if you score a 7 or higher on “hot or not” you can get free agency.
He has no grounds for a grievance. They are free to do with their players as they please. There is literally no pleasing the MLBPA, they do nothing but complain, even about rules they agreed to. If it were up to them, the minimum contract length would be 10 years and players could call themselves up to the majors.
There is no grievence
The Cubs made the right decision and Bryant should have been on the opening day roster. The system is broken.
Game 2 the game I had tickets too was rained out, not sure I can make it back for the re-scheduled game. So the Cubs made the best decision.
Welcome to America in the 21st century, where we interpret everything solely on personal impact. How then, could the Cubs have done anything different?
Played the game. It didn’t rain. Or schedule it for that Thursday which was an off day for both teams.
It wasn’t cancelled because of Bryant, however. It was cancelled so they can sell an extra 5,000+ tickets with the bleachers open in July.
Huh? I was lamenting selfishly that had the game been played I would of said they made the wrong decision in waiting to promote Bryant because I would of wanted to see him play, since the game was cancelled they made the right choice since my opportunity to see Bryant play was superseded by the rain. Bill was picking up what I was laying down.
Wasn’t trying to say some conspiracy behind the reasoning to cancel and reschedule the game, the weather was miserable that night, way to cold to be sitting in Wrigley with wind blowing off the lake. Stunk I couldn’t get to Wrigley during my visit but would of been miserable being there that night.
I’m not really sure what you were trying to say other than you had tickets for the second game. Then I answered his question “could the Cubs have done anything different”
If the Cubs are going to be playing into late October in the coming years, there’s going to be much worse nights than that with baseball being played.
Sometimes you just have to chuckle (or not) and move on. Move on, being the key, here.
Wow this is a weirdly vitriolic response to a silly original comment
it is tongue-in-cheek, same as OP. Glad to see everyone picking up on that.
oh, how i wish that all 30 clubs would secretly collude to refuse to sign any player who retains boras as an agent.
If Cubs’ fans don’t think that this will come back to bite them when contract talks start, they are sadly mistaken. Boras doesn’t forgive or forget.
If Bryant is as good we all believe then he will get paid. Cubs will take care of him and he’ll be signed long term. Boras forgives all the time.
So then why keep him down for a few extra days if you are going to pay him any way.
Extraordinarily Bad logic. Why not keep all your options open is the correct argument.
Yep…every time the zero’s and commas are in the right places.
if anybody thinks the Cubs/Bryant relationship hasn’t always been about cold hard business since the day they drafted him and he then held out until the very last moment to get every dime the Cubs could offer without losing their 1st rounder the next year, they’re sadly mistaken.
Based on a story Dave Kaplan told, not only did he hold out until the very last moment, he didn’t get a single dime more than their initial offer.
I’m not worried about it. I remember Alfonso Soriano.
Um, thats not how Scott Boras works at all.
If the Cubs offer the most money, he’ll stay with the Cubs. If another club offers the most money, he signs elsewhere.
The vote results are not even close. The general public knows more than the media
The media wants the flashy player. They hardly care about the business side of baseball.
He was probably one of their 25 best players last year. Does that mean they should have brought him up last year and give up an extra year of control even though the team wasn’t going anywhere? No, certainly not. This whole discussion has been created by Scott Boras. Anyone who can take an objective look at the situation from the team’s point of view knows they are doing the right thing.
Bryant struck out in his first at-bat…
He’s a bust, ship em back down, make a trade for A Rod.
The fact that over 900 people said yes is just… ugh.
No way should he have been on the opening day roster………..his defense was horrible two weeks ago.
Curious on what you wanted the Cubs to say?
A team is comprised of 25 men. Expecting a rookie to make such a difference is a little insane. If you’re worried about missing the postseason because of any number of losses, you can look to all 25 to have performed better. Not an individual.
0-3 with 3 Ks thusfar
I find myself in complete disagreement with most everyone here. As far as I am concerned, the Cubs–and any team that holds a player in the minors for the sole purpose of delaying free agency or avoiding “Super Two” status are acting in bad faith. It is no different than benching a player to prevent the player from achieving a bonus. Not that I expect an arbitrator or court to do anything about it. This probably can only be addressed through collective bargaining.
So do you think Bryant will ask the FO to send him back to the minors if he performs below replacement level for the next 200 ABs or so? Each party is acting accordingly to ensure they obtain the maximum return on their investment.
That’s not necessarily a player’s role, and not part of a good faith execution of his contractual obligation. I could see a player or his agent suggesting it if it would benefit both sides, but that is not the same as what the Cubs did. I m not sure of a proper analogy on the player side. I don’t think refusing coaching/instruction or failing to follow instructions on the field is comparable. Perhaps refusing to learn a new position/role or to go to report to the minors when required or perhaps refusing a trade without the right to do so. I cannot think of anything a player could legally do in violation on the expectations of both parties in the contract that would financially benefit him. A holdout, perhaps? Deliberate poor play in the hope of being released?
I just see it from the perspective (having taken Contracts in law school) that, when a team signs a player, both parties do so with the understanding that they have obligations to one another the expectation that both sides will try their best to see the contract fulfilled to the fullest, which is the player being a successful major leaguer. I understand why clubs do what they do. I just don’t accept that what was done to Bryant was any more right than deliberately losing to get the number one draft pick. Good faith requires putting your best team on the field for every game. Good faith requires a team to promote players when they are ready.
I get that most people don’t agree with this. I feel there is a defensible argument against what the Cubs did.
Please tell me how many players work through only ONE FULL YEAR in the minors before they are called up. The average stay in the minor leagues is in the range of 4 years and 2100 AB’s. Not sure how you can see Bryant’s short stay as being held back.
Because no one can say with a straight face that he spent the last 12 days in AAA for any reason other than extending Cubs control for another year. It wasn’t for player development. He was held back to extend control and that is not a good faith reason. Because this is a collective bargaining situation, he has limited recourse. But, if the Cubs did not think they’d get a grievance if they told the truth, they would be honest about it. Teams are honest about keeping guys who are out of options even if they may not be the best players. This kind of team conduct, at least if they are up front about it, is at or over the line.
hat trick for kris bryant. three strikeouts in debut.
So I gotta blame Maddon for that one… putting a rookie to bat cleanup in his debut. Sure went well for the cubs in that blunder. Why couldn’t he of been eased into the lineup like good managers do for rookies?
Blame Maddon for 3 K’s….really? He was brought up to play.
The Cubs were 5-3 without Kris Bryant. The beginning of the season couldn’t have gone better without Bryant presence – though there are some concerns about Lester but that’s beside the point.
It’s easy to see by the voting that most fans think the Cubs made the right move. I’d risk losing a playoff spot by one game this year for an additional year of team control on a player of Bryant’s ability every day of the week. If the Cubs do miss the playoffs by one game there’s no guarantee that having Bryant would have made the difference anyway. The Cubs 3 losses so far have been by 3 runs, 4 runs and 1 run. Maybe…maybe he would have made a difference in the one run game. The other two losses were 3-0 and 5-1.
It would seem we know James Shields’ vote on whether Bryant was ready.