2019 MLB Hot Stove Thread

[DirtyDez]

The Cubs are going to end up with Arenado LOL.  

[Leader]

 

4 hours ago, mse326 said:

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.

This ^

This nails the entire matter IMO.

Did the Cubs manipulate Bryant's roster time? Sure they did! Because they could and its very much in THEIR best interests to do so. I think the NYY might have done it this year with Frazier. Not sure - but I wouldnt put it past them - besides, its in the rules! Why shouldnt they?

The arbitrators cant discern "intent" and penalize the team if they did it in accordance with the standing rules.

Is it "nice?" No -  but its in line with the rules in place.

Negotiate a new CBA and incorporate changes as mentioned above. Dont make it so easy for the team.....to do whats in their interest.

[pwny]

One thing that’s probably important to note is that timing on Bryant’s call up was heavily influenced by two injuries at 3B on the main roster. Had those injuries not happened, they probably wait a while longer to bring him up.

The Cubs weren’t supposed to be good in 2015. And Theo had made it clear before then and after that how good they were in the later half of 2015 came as a shock to the entire organization, as the *plan* had always saw them becoming competitors in 2016. So pointing to places they wanted him to develop before bringing him up to a roster that wasn’t supposed to compete actually does make sense.

Within the CBA, the Cubs didn’t break any rules. I do - however - think they did manipulate service time and do believe that he *should* have won in a perfect system.

[ramssuperbowl99]

42 minutes ago, mse326 said:

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.

Thanks for the post, and no, it wasn't too much legalese. I cited a legal review in front of a lawyer, you'd be doing your job a disservice if you didn't rip it to shreds.

Your comments on the process are definitely important. I'm looking at a result that is, on it's face, absurd and judging backwards. That's not the best way to do things, but on the other hand there comes a point where you're doing yourself a disservice by not zooming out for a second and doing a sanity check. And I guess that's why even though some aspects of law are interesting to me, most of the time I just find myself more and more annoyed the more I see it. You can dig and dig and dig and review a contract over and debate over the inclusion and exclusion of data based on a variety of factors and precedents with differing relevance to the central point where the end product is so different from where you started it's tough to know if the sky is even blue any more. Similar to how you feel on theoretical and practical law reviews, my take on this is that there are 2 parties, one intentionally wronged the other and was dumb enough to leave a mountain of circumstantial evidence behind. When it goes to court, the bad guy should be found liable. They tried to steal a year, and the judge says no the other guy gets his year back. Simplistic bordering on caveman like to a lawyer, but not wrong.

58 minutes ago, mse326 said:

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.

I think out of all you said, this is the heart of the disagreement. Maybe it's semantics, but I think it's important.

The Cubs acted unethical, and they should be blamed for it 100%. The MLBPA didn't close this loophole, but just like someone who leaves their front door open doesn't justify getting their stuff stolen, when we talk about service time manipulation the blame starts and stops with the teams.

[mse326]

34 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think out of all you said, this is the heart of the disagreement. Maybe it's semantics, but I think it's important.

The Cubs acted unethical, and they should be blamed for it 100%. The MLBPA didn't close this loophole, but just like someone who leaves their front door open doesn't justify getting their stuff stolen, when we talk about service time manipulation the blame starts and stops with the teams.

I think we've both stated our positions pretty clearly so this isn't meant to further critique or argue, just to further articulate where we differ. You analogize this to leaving a door open. Perhaps it is because I'm a lawyer or maybe we do just see this in different ways, but I wouldn't analogize it to you leaving your door open. I would analogize it to your house sitter leaving the door open so someone can come take stuff. That is the MLBPA is an agent whose only job to act in your best interests and for your benefit. So they still failed to live up to their obligation. Would the thief be criminally liable? Yes. But the house sitter would too. And with this being so clear to me that wasn't simply an error. They knowingly let that happen. To me that is a big deal. There is also the whole law vs ethics/morality angle that that plays into (I'm not gonna get into that because that has been debated for millennia). The clubs may be violating ethics, but the reason we don't punish unethical behavior generally is because it's too variable person to person. There are plenty of people, not just sociopath billionaires, that would say a business is supposed to act in it's own interest as long as they do it legally. But an agent, here the MLBPA, looking out for the best interests of their principle is something that 100% of people agree with. It is generally seen as their ethical duty. Given complex negotiations I can't go so far as to say they acted illegally and violated this duty because they would have had to give something up to prevent this so there is always that cost-benefit analysis, but I do think they failed here. I don't think the teams are blameless, but I do think the MLBPA was the bigger failure in terms of ethical obligations

I may also be biased given that I think the MLBPA, representing only MLB players but negotiating rights and restrictions for minor league players and future major league players, is offensive to the entire idea of representation. They shouldn't be allowed to negotiate aspects that generally only apply to future players or at least mostly will apply to future players because the current makeup is always going to be more about current players since those future players have no say. So I usually come at these things with the general presumption, fair or not, that the MLBPA is screwing future players because they don't care about them at least in relation to current players. And there have been enough things they have agreed to that convince me of that like doing away with major league contracts for draftees, a restrictive pool of money for draftees and IFAs, a 6 year (plus time in the minors) hold on players. I just don't see any reason to give the MLBPA the benefit of the doubt that this was necessarily in the best interests of all players vs in the best interests of current players to not fight this practice during the past CBA negotiations.

[Slateman]

It just dawned on me. Dusty Baker will be managing the AL team in the ASG against the manager who replaced him ....

[Leader]

16 minutes ago, mse326 said:

I think we've both stated our positions pretty clearly so this isn't meant to further critique or argue, just to further articulate where we differ. You analogize this to leaving a door open. Perhaps it is because I'm a lawyer or maybe we do just see this in different ways, but I wouldn't analogize it to you leaving your door open. I would analogize it to your house sitter leaving the door open so someone can come take stuff. That is the MLBPA is an agent whose only job to act in your best interests and for your benefit. So they still failed to live up to their obligation. Would the thief be criminally liable? Yes. But the house sitter would too. And with this being so clear to me that wasn't simply an error. They knowingly let that happen. To me that is a big deal.

Again this ^

House sitter = MLPBA.

Not "blaming" the MLBPA per se - but they negotiated the CBA and basically left that short two week window in the agreement which is *highly manipulative* - easy to do without hamstringing the team to any great exent.

A team can delay a player being brought up for two weeks - and in doing so gain an entire year of contractual control? Since its "legal" what team wouldnt do that? Maybe there are some, but from their perspective, they'd be stupid not to. Sure - it might not be "nice" but we're talking about a million dollar enterprise here. This is business.

I truly dont fault the team(s) from taking advantage of the advantage the CBA affords them and I dont think you can claim they acted unethically - if they acted within the negotiated / agreed upon rules.

 

[THE DUKE]

The whole service time fiasco is squarely the fault of the MLBPA for negotiating a terrible deal the last CBA.  Negotiations for the next one are coming up, and that is their opportunity to remedy this situation.  I'd like to think they'll also throw the minor leaguers a bone from their position of power, but we all know that won't happen.

[kgarrett12486]

9 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

The whole service time fiasco is squarely the fault of the MLBPA for negotiating a terrible deal the last CBA.  Negotiations for the next one are coming up, and that is their opportunity to remedy this situation.  I'd like to think they'll also throw the minor leaguers a bone from their position of power, but we all know that won't happen.

Problem is, the MLBPA gave away so much at the last deal, they don't have very much left to negotiate with on this one...

Work stoppage is really there only bargaining chip...

[flyguy1609]

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

14 hours ago, mse326 said:

I think we've both stated our positions pretty clearly so this isn't meant to further critique or argue, just to further articulate where we differ.

Yep, we're in agree to disagree territory.

And I completely agree with (and have previously ranted about) your points on the MLBPA and how it has screwed over MiLB, draftees, and international free agents completely. I'm pro MLBPA because it's the lesser of two evils, not because I think it's acting ethically.

[ramssuperbowl99]

38 minutes ago, kgarrett12486 said:

Work stoppage is really there only bargaining chip...

Baseball is a $10B/year business. Work stoppage threatens that; it's a huge piece of leverage.

[tom cody]

Yeah, going to be interesting to see what happens with baseball and the CBA that expires next year. Baseball's been pretty peaceful in terms of labor talks since the strike in the mid 90's. Hope that continues even with the storm clouds surrounding the game as of late (Free Agency, particularly in the winter of 2019 for 1). 

[flyguy1609]

https://theathletic.com/1571208/?source=twitterhq

 

According to Andy McCullough of The Athletic, the Dodgers front office "remains engaged with Boston" about a Mookie Betts trade.

McCullough further adds that the "dialogue with Boston has approached a resolution" in recent days. It's unclear what names are being discussed -- the Dodgers are known to be reluctant to part with top prospects Gavin Lux and Dustin May -- but the financial resources are there and Los Angeles could potentially take on both the $27 million that Betts is owed in 2020 and the $96 million that David Price is due between 2020-2022. It sure sounds like this thing has legs, though the Padres are also said to be heavily involved.

 

https://www.rotoworld.com/baseball/mlb/player/20029/mookie-betts

[Thelonebillsfan]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Baseball is a $10B/year business. Work stoppage threatens that; it's a huge piece of leverage.

Strikes work precisely because labor is so valuable. Shutting down games would be catastrophic, if the PA didn't leverage that they're the worst union in history (which, you know... arguable).