White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:52 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,497
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
That is the general thought. 5 or 6 years of control, and September callups don't count. This, and the cancellation of the 7th year of control for any player whose clock has started.
There will have to be some kind of "X-days of service time = a full year" in the CBA, but it will be greatly reduced from it's current situation. Probably July 1st or August 1st and teams won't want to leave their high end prospects in the minors that long.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:53 AM
Chez's Avatar
Chez Chez is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 7,160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
You realize other than Guerrero, those players came up a year early, right? Right? MLB.com lists don't mean anything. Those players would not be up right now if teams were manipulating service time.
I used the MLB.com list simply because it popped up on my phone when I was reading this thread. It was written by Richard Justice -- a sportswriter with an opinion (like Jeff Passan). Not one of the players I listed was ready for a September 2018 cup of coffee or ready to start this season on the 25 man roster?
__________________

2019 Sox Attendance Tracker: 9-6
All time Sox Attendance Tracker:

286-247
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:54 AM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 28,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
What this misses is that it's against labor law to manipulate or create a situation that denies a promotion to someone.
Cite me the statute that overrides the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Also, show me all the lawsuits filed because of this labor law violation by the players, their agents, the District Attorneys and US Attorney.
__________________


2020....2020.....2020....2020....2020.....
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:54 AM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
How do you determine if a player comes up a year early?
By listening to prospect analysts. But luckily when Passan was lambasting the Sox, he brought up these names as proof that everyone else has gotten the memo. He said no way they would be up otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:01 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpJerry View Post
Cite me the statute that overrides the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Also, show me all the lawsuits filed because of this labor law violation by the players, their agents, the District Attorneys and US Attorney.
You don't have to file a lawsuit for it to be illegal. But it's fairly common knowledge at this point that the MLBPA is going to submit a grievance to the NLRB over manipulative practices to deny promotions in conjunction with the next collective bargaining session.

The EEOC would handle the "legal" side of this, as it's a form of discrimination. There are lots of types of discrimination outside of race, sex, etc. Essentially if you, as an employer, create a situation that would deny any employee reasonable access to promotion while promoting others, that becomes discrimination. In most cases, you could defend against a suit with measurables. But in this case...I wouldn't want to be MLB.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:03 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
There will have to be some kind of "X-days of service time = a full year" in the CBA, but it will be greatly reduced from it's current situation. Probably July 1st or August 1st and teams won't want to leave their high end prospects in the minors that long.
I'd argue anything outside of 40 man expansion in September should count. If you're calling a guy up in July, it's because you need him. Not because of his development.

What that will also do is help the guys who spend their whole early career up and down and not accruing service time.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:09 PM
Chez's Avatar
Chez Chez is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 7,160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
The EEOC would handle the "legal" side of this, as it's a form of discrimination. There are lots of types of discrimination outside of race, sex, etc. Essentially if you, as an employer, create a situation that would deny any employee reasonable access to promotion while promoting others, that becomes discrimination. In most cases, you could defend against a suit with measurables. But in this case...I wouldn't want to be MLB.
Hmmm. You sure about this? I'm not a labor lawyer, but I always thought you had to be a member of a "protected class" before you could file a lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:24 PM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 28,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
You don't have to file a lawsuit for it to be illegal. But it's fairly common knowledge at this point that the MLBPA is going to submit a grievance to the NLRB over manipulative practices to deny promotions in conjunction with the next collective bargaining session.

The EEOC would handle the "legal" side of this, as it's a form of discrimination. There are lots of types of discrimination outside of race, sex, etc. Essentially if you, as an employer, create a situation that would deny any employee reasonable access to promotion while promoting others, that becomes discrimination. In most cases, you could defend against a suit with measurables. But in this case...I wouldn't want to be MLB.
By mentioning the EEOC, you just showed us you are 100% clueless on this issue.

First to your first point, if it is not illegal or a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, you would get heavily sanctioned by the Court for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Regarding the EEOC, they cover discrimination based on legally defined protected classes, like race, religion, marital status, sex, pregnancy, national origin, or age (if over 40 years old). Show me where one race or religion is not being subjected to the service time rules. Hell, do the owners even know the religion of 80% of their minor league players?

You are venting for venting's sake, but your legal arguments are nothing more than vapor.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:28 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,497
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
By listening to prospect analysts. But luckily when Passan was lambasting the Sox, he brought up these names as proof that everyone else has gotten the memo. He said no way they would be up otherwise.
Why did they wait until after the service time cutoff to do it then?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:30 PM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 9,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
Hmmm. You sure about this? I'm not a labor lawyer, but I always thought you had to be a member of a "protected class" before you could file a lawsuit.
A claimant has to be a member of a protected class if filing an EEOC claim, but a non-EEOC unfair labor practice can be filed by any individual. Of course, in the examples discussed in this thread, the player(s) would have to prove that he is not being brought up because of service time considerations. Good luck with that, as it requires proof of intent.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:44 PM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 28,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
A claimant has to be a member of a protected class if filing an EEOC claim, but a non-EEOC unfair labor practice can be filed by any individual. Of course, in the examples discussed in this thread, the player(s) would have to prove that he is not being brought up because of service time considerations. Good luck with that, as it requires proof of intent.
In addition, the player would have to get evidence entered showing he was fully capable of playing in The Show. Since there would not be any admissible evidence of this (Minor league stats are merely speculative. See: Anderson, Brian), the lawsuit would get tossed on Summary Judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:29 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
Hmmm. You sure about this? I'm not a labor lawyer, but I always thought you had to be a member of a "protected class" before you could file a lawsuit.
I'm fighting a case built on this premise currently.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:29 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Why did they wait until after the service time cutoff to do it then?
The assumption is they wouldn't be up until NEXT May.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:32 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
A claimant has to be a member of a protected class if filing an EEOC claim, but a non-EEOC unfair labor practice can be filed by any individual. Of course, in the examples discussed in this thread, the player(s) would have to prove that he is not being brought up because of service time considerations. Good luck with that, as it requires proof of intent.
Everyone keeps saying "good luck with that". I don't think they quite grasp that the bodies that monitor these things exist to stop wrong-doing, not to let organizations get off on technicalities.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:07 PM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
It's really not fair to compare an elite prospect like Luis Robert with a plus skill but highly flawed option like Mountcastle.

Mountcastle has a .215 ISO in AAA and has been aided by an unsustainable .370 BABIP.

Conversely, in AAA Robert has a .337 ISO and a BABIP (.324) that is more in line with his production.

Luis Robert is ready. Mountcastle is not.
Just because Robert is better doesn't mean that Mountcastle is any less closer to personally being ready for the bigs. Each have their own ceilings.

So Mountcastle has a few advanced stats that aren't glowing, great. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good player in AAA, and ready for the next step after playing 127 games there.

If service time wasn't a concern of teams, he would have 100% been a Sept call up at the very least.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.