Union head, Tony Clark, watching Kris Bryant situation

http://espn.go.com/blog/spring-training/post/_/id/3089/union-head-tony-clark-watching-kris-bryant-situation

?I'll offer you this,?? Clark said Sunday. "I think we?re all in agreement that it?s in everyone?s interest to have the best players play. The idea that there may be some consideration being made against some process that is in place that is going to be used to the detriment of having the best players on the field, that?s a concern. As far as I know, Kris is still in camp. As far as I know, he hit two more home runs yesterday, so we?ll see where this goes.

"But rest assured, as I?ve told everyone, whether it?s Kris or whether it?s any other young player in a situation that is similar, we pay attention to it. I think at the end of the day, particularly against the backdrop of the excitement any one player is generating, it?s always beneficial to put the best players on the field that give your team a chance to win. We?re assuming every team will make that decision at the end of camp.''

I understand the position of not wanting teams to manipulate service time, but I really do not see a good solution. Players, agents and reps can kick and scream all they want in situations where it seems fairly clear that decisions are being made based on service clock, but what is the fix? I don't believe that any mechanism that takes control of promotion decisions out of the hands of teams would solve any more issues than it would create. What say you OH?

http://espn.go.com/blog/spring-training/post/_/id/3089/union-head-tony-clark-watching-kris-bryant-situation

I understand the position of not wanting teams to manipulate service time, but I really do not see a good solution. Players, agents and reps can kick and scream all they want in situations where it seems fairly clear that decisions are being made based on service clock, but what is the fix? I don't believe that any mechanism that takes control of promotion decisions out of the hands of teams would solve any more issues than it would create. What say you OH?

He should negotiate the solution into the next collective bargaining agreement. Of course, he will have to give something up to get that one. Probably 10 and 5 rights or something.

Shouldn't this be in the minors section?

Of course he is getting a raw deal, as raw a deal as someone in his situation can get.

Barring catastrophic injury he will end up just fine.

He should negotiate the solution into the next collective bargaining agreement. Of course, he will have to give something up to get that one. Probably 10 and 5 rights or something.

Yep, they only have themselves to blame. I'm sure the owner's would let him start with the Cubs if MLBPA will agree to not have it count towards service time.

Shouldn't this be in the minors section?

Of course he is getting a raw deal, as raw a deal as someone in his situation can get.

Barring catastrophic injury he will end up just fine.

Wasn't sure if minors section was more for Orioles MiL and monitoring other prospects. Thought this was more overall MLB interest. Can be moved if appropriate.

I'm sure he will be fine. I don't doubt he should be up as he is probably ready for the MLB. I just don't think it is possible to legislate something like this, something as amorphous as "ready" and "what gives the team the best chance to win." There are already measures in place that prevent teams from stashing players in the minors into perpetuity.

I was joking, MLB section is fine by me.

I was joking, MLB section is fine by me.

It will be once he joins the union.

It will be once he joins the union.

You know, if the Union accepted minor league players then they would have a lot more leverage to help in these situations.

You know, if the Union accepted minor league players then they would have a lot more leverage to help in these situations.

And they would have to share their pie. What about non-affiliate minor leagues? That charge admission, and feed the major leagues with players?

I agree with the OP -- it's hard to see what solution there could be in the CBA. Any cut-off dates can be manipulated. You don't want a series of arbitrations over whether the team acted in good faith or in the best interest of competition or whatever. The team has to have latitude to make judgments. Plenty of guys have had good springs but weren't ready.

I agree with the OP -- it's hard to see what solution there could be in the CBA. Any cut-off dates can be manipulated. You don't want a series of arbitrations over whether the team acted in good faith or in the best interest of competition or whatever. The team has to have latitude to make judgments. Plenty of guys have had good springs but weren't ready.

:agree: It is a slippery slope to allow players and/or the union to challenge roster decisions. Where would you draw the line? Are we going to have arbitration/litigation from every player that feels he should have made the team over someone else? Bad for baseball.

9 games over 12 is all he technically has to sit out, but I assume it will be more like 15 games just so it's not too glaringly obvious what the Cubs are doing. I kind of expect a grievance filed regardless, but it will fail. I still can't figure out why the MLBPA has anything to say in the matter as Bryant isn't on the 40 man and therefore not even a member yet.

9 games over 12 is all he technically has to sit out, but I assume it will be more like 15 games just so it's not too glaringly obvious what the Cubs are doing. I kind of expect a grievance filed regardless, but it will fail. I still can't figure out why the MLBPA has anything to say in the matter as Bryant isn't on the 40 man and therefore not even a member yet.

The Union wants to have it both ways.

If Bryant wasn't projected to be a star then wouldn't have said a word.

The Union wants to have it both ways.

If Bryant wasn't projected to be a star then wouldn't have said a word.

I am not certain that until they do file a grievance, that they even have. Tony talked simply about the next CBA. in very nebulous terms.

I am not certain that until they do file a grievance, that they even have. Tony talked simply about the next CBA. in very nebulous terms.

How can they have a grievance when he isn't a member of the Union?