MLBPA executive director Tony Clark is said to be “ready to reach out to [Kris] Bryant soon to determine his mindset” on whether or not a grievance should be filed against the Cubs for holding him in Triple-A to start the season, writes Jon Heyman of CBS Sports in his latest Inside Baseball column. Heyman notes that the union could file a grievance on Bryant’s behalf even without his consent, though that’s unlikely. The issue at hand, of course, would be whether or not Bryant was clearly one of Chicago’s 25 best players and the demotion was made purely for service time implications. (Chicago bought an extra year of control over Bryant by stashing him in the Minors for all of eight games/11 days). Heyman points out that it would be difficult to an arbitrator to rule in Bryant’s favor, as there’s no precedent for this type of grievance. Players in similar situations have historically been hesitant to file a grievance, he adds, because it would be a contentious way to begin a relationship with a team to which a player will be tied for the next six-plus years. A “Cubs connected person” called the notion of a grievance “laughable” when asked by Heyman. However, the points that Bryant was recalled on the first day the team could add him while still delaying free agency and slotted directly into the cleanup spot could make a case that the club had an understanding of his value, Heyman writes. From the union’s perspective, it’s understandable that they’d have interest in preventing this type of situation in the future, even if it’s a long shot.
More highlights from a lengthy Heyman column…
- The Padres don’t yet view Melvin Upton Jr. as a throwaway piece and will use him as an occasional outfielder and pinch-runner, Heyman writes. He also looks back on Upton’s original five-year, $75.2MM pact and notes that it’s one of the worst contracts in recent history, particularly given the fact that the next-highest offer was believed to come from the Phillies at somewhere in the $40MMs.
- The league’s investigation into the Rays’ allegations of the Cubs’ tampering in the Joe Maddon saga could come to a close as soon as next week, per Heyman. MLB was still interviewing people as recently as last week, but to this point there “is believed to have been no smoking guns found.”
- The Reds never approached right-hander Mike Leake about a contract extension this offseason, and the free-agent-to-be is said to be a bit hurt not to have been contacted. Leake’s not a front-line starter, but he’ll hit the open market heading into his age-28 season and currently sports a 3.56 ERA in 427 1/3 innings dating back to Opening Day 2013. A third straight season of 190+ innings and an ERA in the mid-3.00s should position him for a nice contract, especially considering the fact that half of his starts have come in the hitter-friendly Great American Ball Park.
- Multiple teams have worked out Rafael Soriano, and while he’s on the Tigers’ radar, there’s also been some contact with the Mariners. Heyman adds the Pirates, Indians and Dodgers as “logical suitors,” though I’d imagine the Pirates and Indians in particular would have some payroll constraints, depending on the asking price of agent Scott Boras.
- Heyman echoes ESPN’s Buster Olney in speculating that the Dodgers could make a run at extending Howie Kendrick, noting that the Dodgers love Kendrick both on the field and in the clubhouse. He also notes that the Dodgers are impressed with Alex Guerrero’s bat and may coming around on him as a passable option at third base or in left field, though the team is already well-stocked at each position.
- The Pirates and Gregory Polanco may have come as close as about $1MM on agreeing to a seven-year contract, Heyman hears. The biggest holdup was over the three club options on the deal, which ranged from $11-13MM, and when the team would have been required to exercise them.
- Though recent reports have indicated that John Lackey hopes the Cardinals will approach him about an extension, Heyman writes that it’s not a likely scenario. St. Louis likes its pitching depth and the young starters in line beyond those in the 2015 rotation.
- The Orioles asked the Blue Jays for both of the team’s first round picks from the 2014 draft — right-hander Jeff Hoffman and catcher Max Pentecost — in exchange for the ability to hire EVP/general manager Dan Duquette as their new president, according to Heyman.
the upton contract made sense at the time, I mean even if he was inconsistent with tampa he was incredibly helpful
There were five or six other CFers available, though… and the Braves decided their best option was to hand out the largest free agent contract in franchise history to a seven year veteran coming off three years of red flags, who’d still never really been able to “put it all together”… I’d say that was a pretty terrible move.
Yep, reminds me (to some extent) of the Angels signing Gary Matthews Jr. to a 5-year/$50 million contract. Even then, that one made me go “hmm?”
Hey! take it easy on Frank, he did the best he could to ignore all those things!
Hillarious. He was trending down every single year after his rookie season and was looking more like someone only Maddon could be able to reign in with his lapses. Stack onto that his OBP, a once prestigious number was deteriorating had fallen to the .300 range his last few seasons in TB and K rate was awful. glaring signs of stay away, yet the Braves FO ignored all the warning signs regardless.
Was his defense calculated at all into this? Or was his offense so bad it cancelled it out?
he was a above average hitter, a solid defender at premium position, and great value on base paths. I know WAR isn’t be it all but he was a 3+ win player for 3 straight years prior to FA and I think that was a good representation of his production
I’m tired of the complaining by Boras and the MLBPA over Bryant. It’s negotiated in the CBA, the Cubs broke no rules, end of discussion.
And the kid received a handsome signing bonus after being drafted. I think he’ll live through this ordeal just fine.
And Bingo was his Namo….
It’s even funnier when Boras is just doing it for his own financial gain. Not that his comments affected the Cubs decision but his complaints are very shallow.
Aren’t the Cubs doing it for their own financial gain? Who cares?
and all the FO has to say is that we brought him up because our starting third baseman (Olt) was injured and put on the disabled list.
If Kris wants to push the issue, let him contact the Union, not the other way around.
I remember hearing rumors that the Braves may have overpaid for BJ, but had no idea it was possibly a 35M overpay. That’s awful and Frank Wren is an idiot if that’s the case. That terrible contract cost the Braves a Heyward extention and Kimbrel.
Honestly, I find it harder and harder to defend Frank. Lol but for him to offer a guaranteed 35 million more than the next closest team is ridiculous. I still remember when it happened. Melvin and Co. took the deal immediately. That’s how shocking it was.
FYI, had Frank waited he could have had Bourn for much cheaper. The Braves would have had a legitimate leadoff hitter and wouldn’t have been hamstrung with Upton’s contract. If i remember Lowe was coming off the books around that time and Uggla hadn’t quite fallen off the cliff yet. Who knows, this might have led to an extension of Heyward for all of those fans still bitter at Hart.
I remember that it was 55 million philly offered, didn’t know that it was lower than that. So Wren outbid himself.
If the MLBPA does not like the deal that it negotiated that allows the
teams to do what they did with regards to Bryant. There was similar
talk of waiting to long to bring up Polanco in Pittsburgh. He was
hitting the cover off the ball in AAA. Came up and started out the same
way. After taking a turn through the league low and behold, pitchers
found holes. He finally adjusted to the pitching…..a couple weeks ago. The MLBPA should wait a couple of weeks before filing any grievance. May look real silly fighting over Bryant if he slumps. He is a rookie. He will slump. He should rebound and get better. That is why Teams want control of developing players and not agents and unions.
Instead of blaming the Cubs for leaving him in Triple-A even when ready why don’t you change the dumb rules of extra control. You can’t blame the Cubs for sending him down to get that 1 extra year of control, and if the Players Association really does file grievence then they really are f’n jokes.
I would kinda think that the MLBPA filing a grievance over Bryant’s contract would make the owners a whole lot less willing to even discuss the matter of changing service time rules in the next CBA. Just seems like at this stage of the game, it’d be poking a bear just to poke it, especially since it’s happened before without the MLBPA doing anything.
Someone show me in the CBA where it lays out how you determine your 25 best players and specifies that you must select the team of 25 as outlined by that criteria. Because the union sure seems to think such a thing exists. I’m sure right now Kris Bryant most wants to just focus on playing, too.
Exactly my thoughts, but I guess that’s just Scott Boras being Scott Boras, very typical of him. There are plenty of reasons why a player who’s one of the best 25 in the organization could be playing in the minors: to get regular playing time, because he has little professional experience, for further development, because his team doesn’t need him right now, because the front office thinks he’s not ready for the majors, or for contractual reasons, as is the case here. The team gets to keep the player for longer, but they also deprive themselves of a valuable asset in the immediate future. It’s simply a tradeoff, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Boras wants to be able to say, “Look at how much I fight for every one of MY guys!” Good move on his part.
At which point we can all see Steven Drew, Kendrys Morales and Ryan Madson huddling up in the corner sharing stories about how they thought Boras had guaranteed them multi-year deals.
At some point though as a GM I’d make it a policy to not deal with Boras free agents. You get the worst value for the production shopping at Boras corp. Draft them sure, but keep them for 6.9 years and then let them walk and let some other team pay exorbitant prices for their 28-38 years.
Some teams are starting to get fed up with Boras I feel and this Bryant issue will only make the owners play even harder when it comes to the next negotiations.
Not only does he probably want to focus on playing, he would lose anyway. While it’s widely accepted that it was a service time consideration, being able to PROVE that is nearly impossible. Even though Bryant ended up in the Majors on exactly the day the extra year of control was gained, the Cubs lost two third basemen before that happened. And honestly, while I believe it was indeed service-time related I don’t believe Theo actually wanted to call him up that early. When your starting third baseman is about to be Arismendy “Wait, people can hit over .100?” Alcantara that tends to create a new perspective.
Can’t blame the Orioles for asking for the moon. Glad the jays said no.
Glad to see the Phillies dodged a bullet, there. They sure have enough problems without adding Upton to the mix.
The Cubs will simply say that they wanted Bryant in AAA but injuries to players like Mike Olt forced them to change their plans. And there’s really no proof their intentions were anything but that.
why would their intentions matter? . . . even if they intended to control him for another year, that is the rules of the CBA
That’s what I thought, but every article I’ve seen so far has implied that if the Cubs came straight out and clarified their true reasoning for keeping him down, the player’s union could win the grievance. I don’t see how.
From what I can tell if they came right out and said it was for service time, the grievance would have a LITTLE more validity to it, but would still be all but impossible to win.
the intentions matter because the union argument would be the Cubs, who didn’t break any rules, still acted in bad faith because it was naked manipulation of the service clock…. which is a tenuous argument even to begin with.
If the Cubs can argue back that they had intended to keep him there longer but injuries forced their hand, then even that argument collapses.
a grievance over what?? . . . the club followed the rules as negotiated to by the MLBPA . . . they are going to grieve over the thing they agreed to? . . . on what planet must an arbitrator live who would uphold that stupidity?
Frank Wren at the discussion table with Upton’s Management..
Agent : “Mr. Wren, we are looking for a 5 year deal around 50 million dollars”
Wren : 5 years……40 million? 45 Million? …NO 75 million! ..
Wren assistant to Uptons agent: He doesn’t know how to haggle…
Could be a split personality, bidding against the voices in his head.
Hoffman and Pentecost???? i wouldnt even give one of em up
Agreed. That’s a steep price to pay for ANYONE, much less “simply” a front office guy. I mean, even if Duquette really has his stuff together, his impact on the franchise would still be 3 years away, at best. Until then, Toronto is supposed to give up 2 of its top 5 prospects? That’s just absurd.
I guess I can’t fault Baltimore for asking for the moon. But seriously, just leave such shenanigans aside and come out and state Duquette is not available to be negotiated with for a lateral move.
Anyone? Come on there’s probably 150 players that you would jump at trading those two for.
I dunno about there being 150 players in the league worth trading these two guys for. Maybe 50, tops, and that’s pushing it.
50 is less than two per team. Not sure if that changes your statement, but that’s a pretty bold comment on how highly you value those prospects.
Wouldn’t sat Duquette is a lateral move, but giving up either one of those guys is a bit steep.
Duquette, IMO is one of the top GM’s in the game and given the resources Toronto has, could build from within quite possibly that playoff team Toronto has been looking for for quite some time and without taking on massive contracts from other teams to boot like they have done under current leadership.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. They are offering Duquette what amounts to a lateral move FOR HIM. That’s the key. If they were offering him a clear and undeniable promotion, Baltimore would probably have a much harder time blocking the move, since most organizations try not to stand in the way of a clear move to advancement.
Duquette would certainly be a solid choice to come in and work his mojo on the Blue Jays.
It wasn’t lateral, President is a promotion.
He needs a large money organization that will allow him to build. Was upset at 1st when Boston let him go for Epstein, he got a raw deal in the Boston media (go figure huh). Probably some was his “dumpster diving” of finding players via waiver wire and Indy leagues, tho that pays off as am sure Oriole fans will attest to.
The player’s union doesn’t like the holdback of BryantâĤthen during the next collective bargaining agreement they can re-work the issue of service time. That is 100% a result of what they agreed to during the last renegotiation.
And, the key thing is, they’ll have to make concessions and give something up to gain the service time thing.
I can’t see union members being keen on an agreement that loses them more than it gains them. And since this issue isn’t important to most members, I’d imagine its priority is the same as always: not terribly important.
Of course, they’ll give it lip service. But when time comes to cut nuts, they’re out on that one.
Leake might be looking at a very nice payday this offseason. Over the past couple of seasons, Leake and Porcello have very similar numbers. I’ve heard Red Sox fans talking about Porcello’s extension being a good deal due to length and that they thought he could get $100mm in the offseason. Does anyone thinks Leake could approach the $80-$100mm range?
Leake ages 25-27: 427 IP, 3.56 ERA, 3.99 FIP, 103 ERA+, 1.243 WHIP
Porcello age 24-26: 400 IP, 3.98 ERA, 3.72 FIP, 101 ERA+, 1.265 WHIP
I think he is looking at a 80-90MM deal if he stays in line with his career, and his FIP stays below 4.00. He is a year older than Porcello, so the longevity of his deal would’ve probably been shorter than Porcello if both were to become free agents. Regardless, he is probably gonna get 5/80-90MM, which seems about fair.
Interesting, because I do not view Mike Leake as a good pitcher. I would not have guessed his numbers were that decent.
Leake is decent. He definitely pitches to contact and will never have big strike out numbers. The Reds defense is very good and this has definitely helped Leake. Leake will be a good signing for anyone who has a strong defense. I think it would be a mistake though for a team to sign him if they are not strong up the middle.
It seems to me that GMs are still very undervalued on the trade market. I can see why Jays fans wouldn’t want to give up their top 2 picks, and yet I’m delighted and relieved that Toronto didn’t say yes. The Orioles hadn’t had a good GM before Duquette since Pat Gillick left after the 1998 season, and that was the main source of 13 years of misery.
If Duquette had left, I would gladly trade the Orioles’ top 2 picks this year or next year for a quality GM. Draft picks come every year, and some of them work out and some don’t. But a good GM is a huge advantage over a bad GM for a decade to come.
But the Orioles top 2 picks this year won’t be nearly as high as those two.
Orioles had Andy MacPhail right before Duquette who won 2 championships with the Twins and took the Cubs within one Steve Bartman play from making the world series.
If Melancon keeps going like he is, the Bucs will have to meet Boras/Soriano’s price whether that fits within their self-imposed penny pinching budget or not. I like Watson and Caminaro but I don’t think I’d trust either as a closer, especially not in a tight pennant race against the super-tough competition in the Central.
The Bryant “ordeal” is a non-issue. He received a huge signing bonus, the Cubs will -try- to sign him to a big extension for the entirety of his time with Chicago (that Boras won’t let him even consider), and he will be a superstar on a team with a fan-base that will worship him. So… what’s the problem? It seems like everyone is making this a big deal except for Bryant. Boras just wanted his payday to come a year earlier. And the MLBPA is being ridiculous. They’ve been wanting to do something about how service time clocks operate for a while now and are using Bryant’s situation as exhibit A, which is making both Bryant and the Cubs look bad over something that EVERY TEAM DOES. I would have stopped watching MLB and MiLB completely if the Cubs would have called him up before the roll-over because the MLBPA was being a bully and Bryant would have struggled out of the box. There’s a system in place and every team works with and around the system. Any loopholes used aren’t the teams’ problem. No individual team is benefiting more than another, so change it or leave it the way it is, but don’t make it look like a single team’s decisions are the reason for it. The Cubs had faith in this kid and drafted him over multiple pitchers that were supposed to be some of the best the league would see in a long time, so why on Earth is it such a big deal that they want him to be a Cub for the full six years instead of five years and twelve days? Again, that’s not their problem, that’s the MLBPA’s.