Cubs will not be moving on from 3B Kris Bryant simply to cut down on their payrollgetty images
There has been a perception that the Cubs this season would like payroll to stay under the luxury tax, but "no such mandate from ownership exists," according to sources cited by David Kaplan of NBC SPORTS CHICAGO. While the team may "like to reset under the luxury tax threshold for strategic reasons, ownership is well aware of the financial challenges they are currently dealing with in player payroll." Team ownership also is "prepared to navigate another year in the luxury tax if the club remains in the playoff picture" this season. Competitive balance tax penalties are not "computed on Opening Day but rather at the end of the season, giving management the opportunity to move players during the season if the team falls out of the playoff race." As a result, the Cubs will "weigh all of their options," but they will not be moving 3B Kris Bryant to "simply reduce costs and ownership made that clear" (NBCSPORTSCHICAGO.com, 1/30).
GRIEVANCE GRIPE: In Chicago, Gordon Wittenmyer notes Bryant losing his grievance hearing against the club over service-time manipulation "preserves the Cubs' remaining two years of club control." The case brought by the MLBPA was "considered a long shot even though Bryant was the ideal subject to test teams' long-standing practice of manipulating the service time of their best players to assure additional seasons of club control." For Bryant, that meant the Cubs sending him back down to the minors in '15 -- "despite the most productive spring training in the majors that year -- and waiting 12 days after the season started to call him up for a big-league debut." Bryant "missed qualifying for a full season of service time by one day." A final, "more detailed decision from the arbitrator" in Bryant's dispute case is "expected to be filed" by tomorrow. A source said that language in statements by the involved parties was "expected to include MLB's acknowledgement during the hearing and fact-finding processes that teams must operate with an obligation of good faith when applying the rules" of the CBA. Whether or not that "proves to become a significant leverage point in upcoming negotiations for the next CBA, what's clear is that this case always has served a much larger purpose in the eyes of the union over free-agency definitions and rules" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 1/30).
BAD PRACTICE: In Chicago, Paul Sullivan writes the Cubs winning Bryant's service time grievance "means only that the Cubs will get more in return for Bryant when they trade him to stay under the luxury-tax threshold and bring back some youth talent to an organization that has failed to draft and develop any stars since Bryant's arrival" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 1/30). Also in Chicago, Rick Morrissey writes if the Cubs were "big-league in the best sense of the phrase, they wouldn't have taken the route they did" with Bryant in '15. Morrissey: "Tell me, chairman Tom Ricketts, is it worth it now? The fan anger? The bad feelings? The bad look of a team trying to save money in the long term instead of tending to a player in 2015 who would give so much excitement to a starved fan base?" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 1/30).
ITS JUST BUSINESS: In Chicago, Barry Rozner writes those who "argue in favor of the players, saying this 'loophole' must be removed, have not yet explained how it will be removed in the next CBA." MLB owners "aren't going to agree to shorten free agency," so do they want to "change it from 172 days to 170? To 160? to 150?" Rozner: "Go ahead. Management will simply wait to bring a player to the big leagues." It simply is "smart business for management to take advantage of this opportunity for the extra season" (Chicago DAILY HERALD, 1/30).
