Pebble Hunting

Cameron's line "while the Cubs clearly want to win this year, no player is so great that missing 10 games would meaningfully alter a team's expected results" gets at the heart of this, not by what it says but by what it misses. In a league with three fairly clear favorites to win divisions and then a vast sea of contenders for wild-card slots, ANY voluntary weakening of one of those contenders comes with great risk, particularly one right on the cusp of contention as the Cubs are. The marginal value of Bryant for those ten games is arguably greater for the Cubs than it would be for any other single team, because the one win (rounding up) they risk by not having him is more likely to be the margin between success (post-season slot) and failure than what any other team would risk in the same situation. Combine that with the fact that 2015 is a known quantity, while the Cubs of Bryant's walk year are pure speculation, and it seems obvious to me that they screwed up here ... but then again, they're the Cubs, you expect screwups.

Comparing Bryant's send-down to a hypothetical Mike Trout 2013 send-down is really meaningless. At the beginning of 2013, Trout was already the best player in baseball, as demonstrated by his results in major-league games over an entire season. Bryant is not the best player in baseball, he is just a prospect who might be that someday or might be something considerably less.

Angels fans, baseball fans, etc. would justifiably go crazy if you sent the best player in baseball to the minors. Nobody has any justification to go crazy over a Bryant demotion until he proves himself against major-league pitchers over the course of a full MLB season. One of his fellow demotees is living proof that minor league and spring training numbers don't mean much at the majors.

This was an excellent article. It reminded me of old Joe Sheehan columns.

I think the system sucks, and everyone knows that it sucks, and that the logical thing for the team to do is suppress his service time......which sucks. Given that starting point, there are two recurring things in this episode that annoy me above all others:

1 --Theo's ridiculous claim in the press, on the record, that this for developmental reasons, and hey(!), he did the same thing to other players on the Red Sox, so it *must* really be for "baseball reasons."
2 -- Mainstream journalists printing this without calling Theo out overtly for these comments

This specious reasoning seems to apply to team side of the equation. When a team sends out a player so the service time clock doesn't start they are greedy, manipulative, and being totally unfair to a deserving young man. All this rhetoric over something the MLBPA agreed to in collective bargaining. If the player doesn't like it he should take it up with the MLBPA.

The clubs have a right to run they club the way they see fit provided it is within the law and the CBA, if any. It's called business. And they don't have to listen to the whinings of a bunch of people who have no skin in the game.

If you hate this "service clock" thing then advocate the MLBPA to give up something else that the teams would rather have.

I enjoyed the article, Sam, but would like to point out one additional justification for why people view this as okay in Bryant's case and not okay in Trout's hypothethical case. That justification is the potential argument that Bryant would benefit more from a developmental standpoint by getting additional at play at the AAA level versus the
MLB one, and that he will turn into a better MLB player as a result. A person making this argument would likely point to Bryant's defense and his minor league K rates as weaknesses that he needs to work on in the minors. They would also likely point to the psychological aspect of the game and say Bryant might fall short of his ceiling if he is "rushed." (See http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9421798/carlos-gomez-aaron-hicks-risk-rushing-prospects-mlb)

Personally, I think that entire argument is hot garbage and that the concept of prospects being rushed is greatly exaggerated. In my view, as long as they are relatively close, most players who have it in them to be quality MLB players (see e.g., Jose Fernandez) benefit more from the increased challenge of aggressive promotion than from languishing away in the minors while feasting on inferior talent, and potentially even developing bad habits because they aren't being forcing to make adjustments. Conversely, the players who are often cited as falling short of their potential because they were "rushed" (e.g., Aaron Hicks, Jesus Montero, Mike Moustakas) were never going to pan out anyway.

But I do think it's necessary to address the point, nonetheless, particuarly given that this argument is what the Cubs are (disingenuously) citing as their reasoning behind the Bryant decision.

I don't like that the MLBPA negotiates things that so directly impact minor league players, who they don't represent. That's a big part of the problem in my eyes. Many of the "concessions" MLBPA gives up impact minor leaguers, such as the slotting system in the draft and spending limits on international free agents.

Huh? I do not shame the Cubs. I shame the union that approved the Collective Bargaining Agreement. They have had the ability to make changes to this clause multiple times, but care little for minor leaguers.

The Cubs have every right to do what they're doing. They'd be stupid not to. I don't "shame" intelligent management, if it's within the rules, and this is.

Can you answer the question of whether the Cubs can reset the clock on Javier Baez for a year if they send him down for 60 days to make up for the 60 he was up last year?

If so it seems they can leave Baez down in the minors for the 60 + 13 days this year they could essentially reset him to the same service time as Bryant as of June 15.

Keeping Baez down may do even more harm to the Cubs than Bryant.

I believe the Cubs put a deal on the table to Boras right after Bryant was drafted. He sat on it for 60 days and then signed. That cost the Cubs 60 days of developmental time with Bryant. Was there an outcry then?

There's another reason why Trout wasn't sent down. In 2013 Trout was the best player in baseball. Its arguable that thats the best Trout will ever be. If you only get seven years of Trout, perhaps its best to get the 2013 Trout rather than the 2020 Trout. Sending him down would have been counter-productive regardless of service time.

Trout vs Bryant is absurd.

First. The angels won 86 and 89 games in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

They were already a very good team.

The Cubs, no secret, have been awful and still were last year. Now I'm a Cubs fan so I'm as optimistic as the next guy about 2015, but that's all it is- optimism.

The following positions are still big question marks for the Cubs: LF, RF, 3B, 2B.
They are also carrying 3 catchers, limiting their bench and/or bullpen (they will have only one lefty reliever). Their bench is almost 100% unproven.
And we don't even know what position Bryant will play when called up.

Furthermore, you're comparing a true 5 tool player to a 3 tool player (arguably an optimistic assessment as there's plenty of scouts who doubt his hit tool)

So it's only fair to put each player in his proper context.

Adding a player who does everything amazingly well to a very competitive team.
Vs
Adding a player we expect to be very good, but still has some obvious weaknesses to his game to a team that is still likely only the 3rd best in the division. (And one could argue that even a very optimistic view of the 2015 Cubs is still only 3rd best)

And a pessimist would point out that the Reds are only 3 years removed from a division title and are better right nowvthan the Cubs.

IF ANYTHING, the more apt comparison to Trout is:
If the Cubs are playing well in August, and in the hunt, do they call up Addison Russell?
(Obvious stipulation that Russell continues on his current career arc applies)

The argument is completely backwards. It is saying that you simply bring up a player when he is better than the next best alternative. If that were the case, there are probably some kids in A ball on teams that should be in the majors. It totally ignores the development aspect. It isn't about the best available player on the roster at any moment, it is make sure that each player is the best that he can potentially be when he arrives.

I don't entirely buy the development argument, but you can't just discount it. There is obviously a business aspect to it in delaying the service clock. The same as there is a business aspect when he reaches arbitration and Boras tries everything in his power to break the bank. The Cubs aren't a good example as they are a big market team, but "little" things like an extra year of control are a big deal to a lot of clubs. But, when they try to take advantage of a rule they are villified.

Let's really boil this down to dollars and cents. What does delaying his promotion by one month do to Kris Bryant? He'll still reach arbitration a year early as a super two. At that point, assuming he pans out, he'll make millions per year. Dexter Fowler is making almost $10M (if my memory serves me correctly) as an arbitration case. A successful Bryant will make far more. The only impact to him is that he has to wait one more year before he goes and tries to get his $200M payday. I'm sorry if I don't feel sorry for him.

Any chance this runs next to a companion piece arguing the opposite?

Top prospects who are allowed to find their groove in the minor leagues before being called up adjust better to MLB than those who start the season in a MLB lineup. That assertion is based on my casual observation over a period of time and has not been subject to any formal statistical analysis. But I think it would hold up to a statistical test, and so may represent an unintended consequence of the current rules that works to the advantage of the players and fans.

The Pirates kept Polonco down for a while due to the same reasons the Cubs sent down Bryant: $ and defense. When Polonco came up he started like a house on fire, yet he was sent back when pitchers found his weaknesses. Can anyone say Bryant will be immune to that?

What about the lack of trust this creates between Bryant and the Cubs? What about the lack of commitment to winning that this demonstrates? The idea that the Cubs will have a functional squad with a happy Bryant in five years may be flawed. There is a lot more going on here than team control and several million dollars. Would you want to play for the Cubs?

Getting another year of control of Bryant vs not having him on the roster for about 10 games is a no-brainer despite the backlash. It's business, smart business.

All of the hyperventilating over the Bryant situation is a bit silly, IMHO. The Cubs are well within their rights to do what they are doing. The MLBPA has consistently made this bed, essentially bargaining away real money that young players (that aren't members of the union) could make for the benefit of veteran players (who are members of the union). If I were more cynical, I might even posit that the MLBPA is gleefully and cunningly using the Bryant situation to develop a chip now that it will gladly cash in for more veteran goodies at the next CBA negotiation. Whether that's the connivance now, the smart money is that will be how it turns out.

All that being said, as a Cardinal fan, I feel that I'm morally obliged to note that the Cardinals, in a similar situation, made the decision to bring Albert Pujols north in 2001, when he played 161 games, won the NL RoY Award, finished 4th in MVP voting, and led a 93 win team to the playoffs. . .