Kris Bryant Files a Grievance against the Cubs for keeping him in the minors

[Don Walcott]

 

If you're going to define "baseball" one certain way, there isn't anything to discuss. Kinda dull. And since your definition is at odds with how general managers define it, it's not a realistic discussion either.

That's a deceptive misquote of my post.  "Penny wise, pound foolish" did not immediately follow my comments about Bryant.  And if you're definition baseball is the business of baseball, then say "the business of baseball."  Baseball, to me, is a game.  And I think it is a realistic discussion to have regarding whether a team puts its best players on the field.  I'm a fan, and I want my team to win, not save money for the owners.

[Don Walcott]

 

It is absolutely baseball-related. The Cubs swapped two weeks of a 23 year old Kris Bryant for a full season of a 29 year old Kris Bryant.

 

You can complain about the rules but that's a baseball decision, a long-term smart baseball decision at that.

That's a good point.  However, in many cases a smart team with an asset like that, signs them to a long-term deal before he becomes a free agent, like Mike Trout.  The Angels could have just continued to pay him what arbitrators decided until their control ran out.  But they invested wisely instead.

[Don Walcott]

 

Has anyone made the distinction that this is a smart move for the Cubs but bad for baseball.

 

Having a young player who is good, ready and has a open spot in the lineup but is still in the minors serves no one - team, player, fan or sport.

Exactly my point in prior posts.  Though I'm still not convinced that it's "smart" as much as "clever."  We'll see if Bryant and the Cubs mend fences.

[Intramural Legend]

Why not push the service date to mid to late July instead of April? That way teams would have to make a tougher choice of now vs later.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

You mean, a "money-related" reason.  Failing to put your best team on the field because you want "control" over an asset is not baseball-related.

 

Oh, I didn't realize that major league baseball was a charity, and the players are unpaid volunteers.  My bad.  I was under the mistaken impression that baseball had money in it, and therefore sometimes baseball decisions should be made not just for on-field reasons, but financial ones too.

[Don Walcott]

 

Oh, I didn't realize that major league baseball was a charity, and the players are unpaid volunteers.  My bad.  I was under the mistaken impression that baseball had money in it, and therefore sometimes baseball decisions should be made not just for on-field reasons, but financial ones too.

Are you reading this topic, or just trying to be condescending for fun?  Who said it was a charity?  Who said the players weren't paid?  The whole discussion centers around paying players. 

 

It is a business, but it's also a product -- an entertainment product.  We, the fans, pay real money to support this product, hoping our team wins.  And if the owners of our teams choose to not play the best team, and give our team the best chance of succeeding, we have a right to complain. 

 

I'm not sure why so many people seem so concerned about whether the owners are making a lot of money on an asset they own that greatly appreciates in value every day they own it.  I'd rather see the Twins make the playoffs and have a chance to win the World Series than to see their owners maximize their profits (although winning and making more profit also coincide).  And if that means losing a year of control of a player, and having to sign them to a long-term contract a year earlier than you'd otherwise have to, I'm all for the player getting paid.  And, in fact, there are several good examples of teams doing the smart thing by signing up their young stars to long-term contracts well before free agency (e.g. Trout and Posey).  I can understand the other side of the argument, but I don't think I'm being unrealistic or naive for taking this position.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Are you reading this topic, or just trying to be condescending for fun?  Who said it was a charity?  Who said the players weren't paid?  The whole discussion centers around paying players. 

 

It is a business, but it's also a product -- an entertainment product.  We, the fans, pay real money to support this product, hoping our team wins.  And if the owners of our teams choose to not play the best team, and give our team the best chance of succeeding, we have a right to complain. 

 

I'm not sure why so many people seem so concerned about whether the owners are making a lot of money on an asset they own that greatly appreciates in value every day they own it.  I'd rather see the Twins make the playoffs and have a chance to win the World Series than to see their owners maximize their profits (although winning and making more profit also coincide).  And if that means losing a year of control of a player, and having to sign them to a long-term contract a year earlier than you'd otherwise have to, I'm all for the player getting paid.  And, in fact, there are several good examples of teams doing the smart thing by signing up their young stars to long-term contracts well before free agency (e.g. Trout and Posey).  I can understand the other side of the argument, but I don't think I'm being unrealistic or naive for taking this position.

 

Are you reading this topic?  Baseball is clearly a game where roster decisions are made based not only on on-field performance, but for off-field reasons as well.  To deny that shows a refusal to accept the reality of Major League Baseball as currently incorporated.

 

No one is saying the Cubs put a better team on the field by keeping Bryant in the majors.  No one is happy with the system that incents teams to leave better players in the minors.  But everyone except you seems to understand that the Cubs would be at best misguided and at worst downright foolish to bring Bryant up to start the season, when by waiting only 2 weeks, they gain an entire extra YEAR of team control.  The decision to keep Bryant down was 100% a baseball decision, despite your assertion earlier in this thread.

 

Furthermore, keeping Bryant down for 2 weeks didn't actually affect the Cubs at all.  Bryant compiled 6.5 WAR in 151 games last year, but only missed the first 8 games of the season.  That means keeping Bryant down for two weeks cost the Cubs .34 WAR--not enough to move up to Wild Card 1 or the Division Title.  In return, they get a full extra year of control, where Bryant will probably be worth 7-9 WAR.  This was unequivocally the right decision, no matter how you want to slice it.