2019 MLB Hot Stove Thread

[mse326]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Terrible ruling of the most blatant case of service time manipulation in MLB history. 

Most blatant, sure. But if anyone really thought there was ever going to be chance the grievance was upheld they are fooling themselves. Arbitrators know they aren't in a position to question "baseball readiness" decisions. Unless there is an exec on the record saying it is for no other reason that service time these will always go against the player.

[mse326]

17 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

And it's a joke. 

I know the obvious response is "oh you're a Brewers fan that's the only reason why you care", but that's really not it. The Cubs promoted him the day after he wasn't getting a full season after Bryant made a stink about it in spring training because he "had to work on his defense". Then 12 days later after he has a bunch of errors, all of the sudden that imaginary problem is fixed.

I get that people will respond "the Cubs did what made them the most money by manipulating his service time". And that's exactly why this ruling was important. Clubs won't police themselves, so arbiters should. It's the only way this stupid service time stuff goes away.

That's not really the arbitrator's job. It is the MLBPA's fault for putting the season threshold so low. They need to make it more time before it doesn't count as a season. Something like June 1. If you come up in April or May that is a full season. That will make clubs actually have to think about this season. No team cares about a guy missing 2 weeks of games. 2 months would be a bigger deal.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, mse326 said:

Most blatant, sure. But if anyone really thought there was ever going to be chance the grievance was upheld they are fooling themselves. Arbitrators know they aren't in a position to question "baseball readiness" decisions. Unless there is an exec on the record saying it is for no other reason that service time these will always go against the player.

Basically, it comes down to intent. Did the Cubs purposefully manipulate Bryant's service time or did they just act like it and didn't expect him to be this good. And somehow, an arbiter can't figure out that the Cubs thought a guy who they took 2nd in the draft, paid millions in signing bonuses to, and murdered the minor leagues might turn out to be the best big leaguer on the roster. What, because of his defense?

It's stupid. I knew this was going to happen. I knew I'd be annoyed by it. It's stupid. 

And what's really bad about this is that the clubs who get punished are those like the Padres who did the right thing with Fernando Tatis Jr.

[ramssuperbowl99]

7 minutes ago, mse326 said:

That's not really the arbitrator's job. 

That's 100% the arbiters job. The MLBPA and MLB negotiate a CBA under the expectation that people will operate in good faith. I know that's a legal term, I'm using it in the layman's sense. Good faith in this instance would be putting the best 25 man roster together you can instead of not trying to win games. The Cubs blatantly, obviously didn't do that, and the remedy for this in the CBA is arbiters put in place to stop precisely this type of jackassery. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

15 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

And what's really bad about this is that the clubs who get punished are those like the Padres who did the right thing with Fernando Tatis Jr.

The other bad thing are these horse**** contracts that are getting signed by guys who should clearly be on the opening day roster, but have to give away tons of free agent years to avoid their service time getting manipulated.

Baseball as a product suffers for this so that owners can reduce costs. Arbitration was the common sense solution. Set the precedent that if you act like you're expertly manipulating service time, you're going to be treated like you meant to do it.

[flyguy1609]

1 hour ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

That’s actually offensive.

i think so to but that maybe the best deal they get unless the dodgers(or another team) comes in last minute. Also i heard The padres are willing to eat half of Myers contract

[flyguy1609]

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

39 minutes ago, flyguy1609 said:

 

butwhy.gif

[flyguy1609]

not sure if this is 100% true or not but wow if it is

[mse326]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Basically, it comes down to intent. Did the Cubs purposefully manipulate Bryant's service time or did they just act like it and didn't expect him to be this good. And somehow, an arbiter can't figure out that the Cubs thought a guy who they took 2nd in the draft, paid millions in signing bonuses to, and murdered the minor leagues might turn out to be the best big leaguer on the roster. What, because of his defense?

It's stupid. I knew this was going to happen. I knew I'd be annoyed by it. It's stupid. 

And what's really bad about this is that the clubs who get punished are those like the Padres who did the right thing with Fernando Tatis Jr.

It has to do with deference. ALL arbitrators are going to give large deference to decisions outside their expertise, like baseball skill. That is how arbitration works in pretty much any field. We may not like it but that is the standard across the board. The MLBPA should know that and not rely on arbitrators and instead negotiate a system that prevents it.

[mse326]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The MLBPA and MLB negotiate a CBA under the expectation that people will operate in good faith.

That is not true. When you negotiate a contract between two sophisticated bodies the only expectation in law is that the contract is complied with. If the MLBPA expected more they are idiots and the top people need to be fired.

Quote

Good faith in this instance would be putting the best 25 man roster together you can instead of not trying to win games

The teams job is also to consider long term. And it is well understood that there is more time to learn and get help in the minors. That is where most development happens. So it isn't bad faith to say "yes this person may be better, but he will benefit from more time in the minors and we will benefit long term from that improved play even absent time manipulation."

Example, there are plenty of pitchers in triple A that are better than the 4 or 5 starter but they still need to work on a 3rd pitch. You can't do that in the majors. You can in the minors. It isn't even remotely bad faith to keep them in the minors to improve the third pitch.

That is why good/bad faith really doesn't apply here. No arbitrator is going to feel they can substitute their judgement on baseball matters. There is a reason everyone knew Bryant would lose despite how blatant it was. Because everyone knows how arbitration works. That's how it works, because that is how the arbitrators are supposed to work. That is why the failing is on the MLBPA for agreeing to a system where it is obvious this will happen.

[ramssuperbowl99]

29 minutes ago, mse326 said:

It has to do with deference. ALL arbitrators are going to give large deference to decisions outside their expertise, like baseball skill. That is how arbitration works in pretty much any field. We may not like it but that is the standard across the board. The MLBPA should know that and not rely on arbitrators and instead negotiate a system that prevents it.

The level of bending backwards for the clubs is absurd. To find the MLBPA liable for this, you have to:

• Completely absolve the clubs of blame for not acting ethically. They lied to Kris Bryant to save money. They lied to Scott Boras to save money when he campaigned publicly. They lied to their fans who wanted to see him to save money. They lied to press and to the rest of baseball to save money. They lied to the arbiter who I'm sure asked for their rationale. What they did was wrong and they knew it, which is why they lied. We're so used to clubs screwing over players, we don't even count them.
• Completely absolve the arbiter for calling common sense a matter of baseball judgement. And this isn't event beyond a reasonable doubt or anything. If Theo Epstein was facing jail time for this and someone said "is it reasonable", I'd be fine saying no. This is preponderance of the evidence. 50.1% chance the Cubs manipulated his service time, and Bryant gets to FA a year faster.
• Let's talk about "large deference". You have to willfully ignore every single action the Cubs took along Bryant's career up to the decision to send him down, ignore the defense rationale the spouted publicly at the time that didn't hold up, and ignore the timing of his promotion. Any one of those move the needle 0.1%, and Bryant is a FA a year early. They were given precisely zero credit. That's not deference to baseball decision making, it's willful ignorance of the context.
• Completely ignore that the CBA for MLB teams and the MLBPA relies only on players who are already in the major leagues, and not callups. Therefore, situations like Kris Bryant's aren't even really the MLBPA's jurisdiction since Bryant is only in the MLB after the manipulation happened.

 

 

And I'm not a lawyer, but your statement that there are no expectations of good faith in labor seems like it was either an oversimplification on your part or wrong. I realize I'm not the expert, but 10 seconds on google and I found this law review on this exact situation from a BC law school professor:

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3528&context=bclr

The phrase "good faith" is mentioned 66 times, including numerous case precedents where good faith was noted as a requirement for labor negotiations.

[ramssuperbowl99]

And by the way, AJ McCarron won a grievance for the something really similar in the NFL like 2 years ago. This absolutely can happen, and it's a joke that it didn't.

[mse326]

59 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The level of bending backwards for the clubs is absurd. To find the MLBPA liable for this, you have to:

• Completely absolve the clubs of blame for not acting ethically. They lied to Kris Bryant to save money. They lied to Scott Boras to save money when he campaigned publicly. They lied to their fans who wanted to see him to save money. They lied to press and to the rest of baseball to save money. They lied to the arbiter who I'm sure asked for their rationale. What they did was wrong and they knew it, which is why they lied. We're so used to clubs screwing over players, we don't even count them.
• Completely absolve the arbiter for calling common sense a matter of baseball judgement. And this isn't event beyond a reasonable doubt or anything. If Theo Epstein was facing jail time for this and someone said "is it reasonable", I'd be fine saying no. This is preponderance of the evidence. 50.1% chance the Cubs manipulated his service time, and Bryant gets to FA a year faster.
• Let's talk about "large deference". You have to willfully ignore every single action the Cubs took along Bryant's career up to the decision to send him down, ignore the defense rationale the spouted publicly at the time that didn't hold up, and ignore the timing of his promotion. Any one of those move the needle 0.1%, and Bryant is a FA a year early. They were given precisely zero credit. That's not deference to baseball decision making, it's willful ignorance of the context.
• Completely ignore that the CBA for MLB teams and the MLBPA relies only on players who are already in the major leagues, and not callups. Therefore, situations like Kris Bryant's aren't even really the MLBPA's jurisdiction since Bryant is only in the MLB after the manipulation happened.

 

 

And I'm not a lawyer, but your statement that there are no expectations of good faith in labor seems like it was either an oversimplification on your part or wrong. I realize I'm not the expert, but 10 seconds on google and I found this law review on this exact situation from a BC law school professor:

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3528&context=bclr

The phrase "good faith" is mentioned 66 times, including numerous case precedents where good faith was noted as a requirement for labor negotiations.

There is a difference between labor negotiations and and compliance with the agreed upon contract. There is a requirement to negotiate in good faith.

While there is a part of contract law that deals with an implied obligation to act in good faith, that is a very amorphous doctrine that many in law feel has become akin to determining what is fair under guise that the contract demands it. So yes I oversimplified I concede that but it is a bit too complicated for a message board like this. There is a reason this note is 37 pages long. And this note acknowledges that "Scholars point to differing judicial interpretations, tests applied to establish breach of the obligation, and standards of review as the leading causes of shortcomings in the good faith doctrine."

One of the consistent aspects though is that it should only be applied to protect what was intended by both parties in the contract. This is where the short term vs long term issue I mentioned comes in. It can't be said that the parties, particularly the teams, intended for the CBA to be putting the best 25 on the roster. We know that has never been how it has worked. And consequently we can assume then the MLBPA also didn't intend that to be a requirement of the CBA or they would have put that in writing since it is a significant change. So already we are dealing with a grey area regarding a player being "ready."

Here is another part of the article you posted. "In forming such an investigation, a factfinder must determine whether the discretionary party used its contractual discretion for reasons outside the justified and “reasonable expectations” of the parties when they entered into the agreement." Given the history and the precedent that had long been set regarding time manipulation in previous CBAs, can we really say that the MLBPA had that reasonable expectation? This is what the author of the note asserts as the possible reasonable expectation "The MLBPA can assert that its reasonable expectation is that MLB clubs will assign players to the major league roster once club executives believe that players have reached full minor league development and can help the team compete for a championship." While that is debatable that suffers from exactly what I talked about before, the arbitrator isn't going to substitute his belief into when full minor league development has been achieved. Further it is a balancing act between development in the minors and winning in the majors. And if a player in the majors isn't playing as well as expected, or a competitor is playing better than expected that changes the calculus. Again the arbitrator is pretty much never going to overrule a judgment like that. Further Bryant likely doesn't meet those expectations. He still could have developed defensively in the minors. There is a difference with whether he could develop more (full development as the author framed it) and the team not caring that he isn't fully developed. I have no doubt the defensive development was lip service that they couldn't have cared less about, but from a "reasonable expectations" standpoint that isn't the question.

The doctrine "also may not be employed to add terms with new and reasonably unexpected duties to a contract." This goes back to what "ready" means and also to past precedent of time manipulation and the MLBPA still agreeing to the same language. Generally courts will look to how things operated under a previous similar contract and assume that using the same language the parties agree that the precedent can continue. Time manipulation didn't start with this CBA and the MLBPA put nothing in the contract to restrict it.

Here is the biggest kicker, again from the note you cite, "Many jurisdictions have also found that the implied obligation of good faith does not create an independent cause of action for breach of a contract.165 That is, any party that wishes to seek respite for breach utilizing the implied obligation of good faith must accuse another party of violating an explicit term of the contract, not a term implied by the good faith obligation." That is if in one of those jurisdictions you comply with express terms then you have done nothing legally wrong. That much is clear in this case, that no explicit terms were violated. So it may not really even apply in these cases.

So in this note that is generally pro players here, this is how he starts his discussion "Players have a colorable argument under the implied obligation of good faith that the manipulation of their service time violates the CBA between the MLB and the MLBPA. There is, however, no article of the CBA that sets, suggests, or even intimates rules that require an MLB club to assign players to various levels of professional baseball based on that player’s performance." In fact he basically says exactly what I said to start with "Alleging that a club used this vast discretion for unexpected reasons may be a daunting task unless a club official clearly admits to ulterior motives." He also brings up the issue of deference but doesn't expand "there is no indication of the standard of deference that the arbitrator would have to give to the explanations that clubs put forward for a player’s assignment, or how much evidence the arbitrator would allow into the case to refute such an explanation."

I know you've accused me of being overly legalistic, but I think it was warranted here since you said it is the arbitrator's job to do this rather than me putting it on the MLBPA based on the way the legal/arbitration system works. I have never denied that this is unethical by the teams. I have never denied that I would love arbitrators to hold them accountable. I just know that that isn't the way it works. And if I know that the MLBPA should to and not rely on it. That means either not having such a short period to lose a season or explicitly putting in a good faith requirement with some explanation of how to adjudicate. The difficulty is that the rules for arbitration are general rules and sports and particularly baseball with it's extensive minor league is pretty unique. So the system if not adjusted can come to unfair results. But the system really shouldn't adjust on its own because parties are assumed to be negotiating with knowledge of the law and process so that it is assumed they agree to it. One thing nobody ever debates is that the system should be about providing the parties what the agreed to. So changes to the process should come from the negotiations and agreement, not arbitrator fiat even in the name of fairness. That is one thing I think lawyers tend to care about more than the general public. Process is just as important as ultimate result because that allows parties to know what they are in for. So a change in process is just as damaging even if is seen as done for reasons of fairness.

Also if it is relevant to you, it would be in the legal world but I'm not making a claim one way or the other, this is a note which means it's written by a law student rather than a law review article written by a law professor or lawyer. Not saying anything he said was wrong it still needs to meet standards to be published, but generally they are not researched as in depth or nuanced. I didn't find anything that he said that I disagree with legally. My only concern, and this is actually something that is true of all law review articles even by professors, is it is too theoretical and doesn't take enough heed of the practical. For instance a one sentence passing reference to the deference. From a practical standpoint that is THE BIGGEST hurdle so to barely acknowledge it shows more that it is about theoretical interpretation rather than a practical implementation.

[mse326]

10 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

And by the way, AJ McCarron won a grievance for the something really similar in the NFL like 2 years ago. This absolutely can happen, and it's a joke that it didn't.

Injury versus development are two separate worlds in these types of grievances because injury can be litigated with experts. The development angle not too much.

Again I want to make clear I don't at all question that what you are saying is correct. The Cubs manipulated service time. I'd consider it unethical. I wish there was a way Bryant could have won. I just know that that isn't how it works. That is why I blame the MLBPA for agreeing to a CBA where this can happen with ease. Especially since it was happening BEFORE this CBA as well. So it isn't even like it could have surprised them or they missed that possibility. They 100% knew it was happening and was going to continue to happen and did nothing about it.