As baseball’s equivalent to Christmas, the winter meetings began to kick off, and Chicago Cubs fans were anxiously awaiting news that the team had acquired a starting pitcher to solidify the rotation. We were shocked to hear that the reigning rookie of the year had filed a grievance against the Cubs. While the Kris Bryant grievance may have caught you off-guard, it wasn’t surprising if you listened to the MLBPA’s reaction throughout the season.
Facts about the Kris Bryant grievance
Under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the Chicago Cubs acted within their rights in terms of calling Kris Bryant up. The CBA states that a player earns a full year of service time once they are on the 25-man roster for 172 days. There are roughly 183 days within a typical 162 game MLB season. If a player is active for 172 days they are credited with 1-service year, if they are active for 171 days (or less), the year doesn’t count towards their service clock.
Team’s own the rights to a player until they have reached their sixth service year. By holding a player off a roster until there are 171 days remaining, the team then owns the rights of the player for six service years and 171 days, or basically seven years. That is what the Cubs did with Kris Bryant, and is what most teams have done with their sure bet prospects.
Here is where things can get dicey, in the case of rookies…
A team could literally have their first 12 games rained out, call up a rookie, they play in all 162 games, and it wouldn’t count as a service year since the clock begins at the official start of the MLB season. While this would be an incredible event, the way rules are stated, it is insane, and possible.
This is an union agreed upon rule, and regardless of how much a player, an agent, or the union like it (or don’t)… teams would be absolutely foolish if they didn’t take advantage of it. Doesn’t mean it is wrong or right (although I have a thought on that) it is what it is and under this CBA, and players have gotten used to playing seven years before they enter free agency.
Myths about the Kris Bryant grievance
Contrary to some fans belief, this isn’t about Kris Bryant being greedy. The Chicago Cubs — by rule — didn’t do anything wrong according to the current CBA, so Bryant should not have the mindset that he will gain a year against his service clock if he wins the grievance (which I don’t think he does). Bryant is doing this at the request of the MLBPA, in hopes of ensuring the next CBA isn’t as egregious for future prospects.
Why did he (Bryant) surprise the Cubs now with this? The grievance was filed in April and as the above video validates, it was the MLBPA that handled it, and is handling it. While Bryant needed to approve being connected to the grievance, this is an union thing which Bryant felt important enough to he attached to in hopes of helping other players down the road.
This is the greedy super agent, Scott Boras trying to make more money. While yes, ratifying the current service time rules would make Boras money, quicker, this is driven by the Player’s Union in an attempt to help their cause once the current CBA expires after the 2016 season. Boras was fairly transparent of this when he spoke during his annual address at the winter meetings, and Bryant himself verified it is a MLBPA thing.
“This is about rule interpretation, the intent,” Boras said. “That’s something the drafters of the CBA and an arbitrator will have to define. The union’s handling it.”
The Cubs should stop trying to be cheap and pay their players. First, I’d like to introduce you to John Lackey, Ben Zobrist, and Jason Heyward. Next, MLB is a business. The Cubs are a for profit business and the team’s executives need to show the company’s president that they are doing what they can to remain a profitable organization today, tomorrow, and years down the road.
Think about it like this, when the MLBPA argues against the service time rule, they are making a labor dispute just like a plumbers union or carpenter’s union might make on one of their members behalf. Doesn’t necessarily mean your company doesn’t value you, or pay you accordingly, there just happens to be times when a union will decide filing a grievance is the best action.
Outcomes of the Kris Bryant grievance
While I do not have a crystal ball, I can say with a degree of certainty that the grievance will not cause much action, short term. The current CBA has the rules clearly stated, the Cubs followed the rules to the letter, and many other have done the same. While the rule may seem ridiculous, both sides agreed upon this when they drew out this current labor agreement. Additionally, if Bryant and the union were to win the grievance, then a number of other players would have similar cases against their teams, possibly releasing them into free agency as well.
What this grievance really does is open up the conversation at the end of the current CBA (after the 2016 season) to help ensure future players are not subjected to this rule. That is a good thing.
There is the old saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and that is especially true in this case. There is no coincidence that the MLBPA brought this case up now (May), when the CBA is about to expire. The union has effectively put the MLB, teams, and owners on notice that service time will be a huge sticking point when they sit down to discuss the new CBA. The Kris Bryant grievance was brought forth only to ensure the union will earn a favorable change to the current service time rule.
Understanding why the Kris Bryant grievance is important
Honestly, the rule is stupid. I put it this way for some over the past week, and it pretty much explains things out.
Say you were hired by a company on January 14th, two weeks into a year. There were others that were hired on January 1st, and while they have two weeks of additional experience on the job, you are both virtually in the same position as far as seniority goes. Every year the company gives everyone that had worked there for the year a raise, except they held off on yours because you started two weeks later than everyone else. They will however give you a raise at the end of the next year.
Where this is bad is, even if that company bumps your pay up to the exact same level as your co-workers that started two weeks before you, you will never earn the past year of compensation back that you lost out on. This is the same with Kris Bryant.
Don’t get me wrong here, Kris will have a certain level of wealth many can only dream of. While he will be very rich for a very long time, he still will never be able to earn the money back from when he should be eligible to hit free agency. That is what the argument is about.
Changing the rule
I live by a rule, if you are going to point out how something doesn’t work, you had better have a better option ready to help fix the issue. Here is how one would fix this issue.
In the first year, baseball needs to change the definition of a service year from 172 service days, down to 100 service days. This should coincide with all star weekend, and the unofficial halfway point of the baseball season. This will help teams manage their roster, but more importantly, allow players that have played since the early parts of the season earn a full service year.
How will it help? This change will allow teams to make decisions which are in the best interest of the ballclub’s on-field success, and not the financial success down the road. While there will still be teams that hold players in the minors until the all star break, teams like the Cubs in 2015 would be more likely to bring guys like Kris Bryant up at the start of the year, instead of waiting out the service clock.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement for #MLB & the MLBPA expires one year from today.
— Ben Nicholson-Smith (@bnicholsonsmith) December 1, 2015
@rljmb23 yep! Guys like Bryant getting held back is something to address for sure
— Ben Nicholson-Smith (@bnicholsonsmith) December 1, 2015
While the Cubs and other MLB teams play by the book when waiting out the service clock, there is a certain level of dirtiness that the above suggestion would cure. Whatever course they take, this will be a big sticking point during the next labor discussions, perhaps enough to threaten the first work stoppage since the 1994-95 seasons.
