Bleacher Bums Forum

The CBA establishes the rules, and both sides should adhere to it.  The agreement was that the player can only be held in the minors for a certain period of time, and after a certain number of MLB years, becomes a free agent.  They even agreed on the specific number of games that comprises a "year", for free agent purpose.  Any team that does not maximize the value they get out of those specified six years is doing themselves and for that matter the fans, a disservice. 

Awesome!

The CBA establishes the rules, and both sides should adhere to it.  The agreement was that the player can only be held in the minors for a certain period of time, and after a certain number of MLB years, becomes a free agent.  They even agreed on the specific number of games that comprises a "year", for free agent purpose.  Any team that does not maximize the value they get out of those specified six years is doing themselves and for that matter the fans, a disservice.

What you’re really saying is that if a party can get away with undermining what they agreed to, they are doing a disservice when they fail to undermine.

You may notice that baseball management NEVER say what you just said they should do: Player X was sent to minors because the club wants to “maximize the value” of the six years. The one guy who actually said it recently (Mariners CEO) got fired for saying it.

Every contract in every transaction in every industry contains what lawyers call an implied covenant of fair dealing, meaning you can’t purposely undermine what you agreed to. If you agree to six years, you can’t undermine six years by making decisions so as to avoid six years. When a guy is sent out for non-baseball reasons so as to avoid reaching six years had the decision been based on baseball factors, it undermines the basic agreement that the parties reached.

The problem for the union is a failure of proof. No arbitrator is going to substitute his own judgment for a roster decision made by a baseball professional, so you actually need the club saying what you just said they should say—a smoking gun showing intent—which they try very hard to avoid saying.

What you’re really saying is that if a party can get away with undermining what they agreed to, they are doing a disservice when they fail to undermine.

You may notice that baseball management NEVER say what you just said they should do: Player X was sent to minors because the club wants to “maximize the value” of the six years. The one guy who actually said it recently (Mariners CEO) got fired for saying it.

Every contract in every transaction in every industry contains what lawyers call an implied covenant of fair dealing, meaning you can’t purposely undermine what you agreed to. If you agree to six years, you can’t undermine six years by making decisions so as to avoid six years. When a guy is sent out for non-baseball reasons so as to avoid reaching six years had the decision been based on baseball factors, it undermines the basic agreement that the parties reached.

The problem for the union is a failure of proof. No arbitrator is going to substitute his own judgment for a roster decision made by a baseball professional, so you actually need the club saying what you just said they should say—a smoking gun showing intent—which they try very hard to avoid saying.

Exactly.  There is no proof.  At no time did I say that they should announce their intentions or reasons.  But I certainly expect both sides to act in their own interests when working within the structure of the contract.  As I understand (I have not personally seen or read the CBA, but have read reports about it) the contract spells out exactly how many years it takes for a player to become a free agent, and spells out exactly how many days on the 40 man roster comprise a "year", in sufficient detail that it was known by both sides at what point they start counting years.

I have not seen any report that indicates that the contract specifies that a player MUST be called up to the majors when he is ready, nor any report that the CBA defines "readiness" in sufficient detail that an impartial arbiter can determine a player's state of "readiness".  If this is important to the players (and I do not deny that it is) then they should ensure that such specific language is contained in the next CBA. 

Without such specific language, it should be the burden of the aggrieved party to prove that a decision was made in "bad faith".  In the case of Bryant, it appears that the aggrieved party was not able to prove it.

In contract law, an ambiguity is a contract is usually resolved in the favor of the party that had the least power in the negotiation (such as the boiler plate provisions written by one party in which the other party must either accept or not enter into a contract (few bank loan provisions are seldom negotiable by the non-bank party).  But in this case, it would be hard to convince anyone that the players union did not have bargaining power equal to that of the owners.  In order to eliminate ambiguity of time requirements for free agency, the two sides agreed to the above mentioned length of time spelled out in the CBA to the exact number of roster days required, and the team complied with the requirements.  If there is a "spirit of the contract" ambiguity when it comes to a players state of "readiness", they should hammer that out in the next contract negotiation.

Manuel Rodriguez makes his spring debut.

Starts out with a 96 mph fastball.

Stock up to 99.