Question About Bradley

Claude

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 9:46:12 AM12/8/09

to

This is obviously a worse-case scenario. What if the Cubs were not able to
trade Bradley? Would they have to keep him on the 25 man roster and suit
up? Or could they just let him sit home?

Message has been deleted

Claude

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 1:15:10 PM12/8/09

to

"john" <jcad...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:781th5pv1nbef2ntp...@4ax.com...

> If the Cubs don't have him on the 25 man roster, I think they'd have
> to release him so he could try to play elsewhere. I can't quote any
> rule or contract section, but it seems to me that if teams could do
> that, they would. Instead they pay a player to play for someone else.
> Also, there was talk of a grievance last year when they suspended him
> with pay.
>
> So I think the Cubs are going to end up paying him to play for another
> team.
>
> john

Probably so. After all those years of player-exploitation, the system is
now skewed in favor of the players. Fairness to me would be a contract that
on the part of the employer guarantees salary, insurance, other perks of the
job. In return the player is obligated to do what the employer believes is
best for the team (within legal limits, of course). That means that if Cubs
management believes that the team is best helped by Bradley staying away
from it, he would be obligated to do so, as long as they continued to
provide all the monetary obligations from their part. If the player doesnt
like that option, he can ask to be released from the contract, and then seek
whatever employment he can get elsewhere. That's what happens to
teachers---my profession---when they are under long-term suspension until
their situation is adjudicated.

But, I guess I'm dreaming here.

The G, no C

unread,

Dec 9, 2009, 2:37:22 AM12/9/09

to

Claude <cla...@nospam.com> wrote:

> That's what happens to
> teachers---my profession---

Interesting... Teaching what?

G

--
_______________
�Sometimes the truth of a thing is not so much in the think of it, as in the
feel of it."
�� -�Stanley Kubrick

Claude

unread,

Dec 9, 2009, 11:37:07 AM12/9/09

to

"The G, no C" <ab...@blink45.com> wrote in message
news:081220092337221809%ab...@blink45.com...

> Claude <cla...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> That's what happens to
>> teachers---my profession---
>
> Interesting... Teaching what?
>

Biology and General Science in Africa

Junior High General Science in the US

Ron Johnson

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 9:37:19 AM12/10/09

to

On Dec 8, 1:05 pm, john <jcada...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:46:12 -0500, "Claude" <cla...@nospam.com> wrote:

> If the Cubs don't have him on the 25 man roster, I think they'd have
> to release him so he could try to play elsewhere.

Correct. When a player with 5+ years of service time is
removed from the 25 man roster you must offer him his
release.

> I can't quote any rule or contract section,

See Rob Neyer's transaction primer:

http://assets.espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html
(the veteran player section, plus the whole waivers part)

> but it seems to me that if teams could do
> that, they would. Instead they pay a player to play for someone else.
> Also, there was talk of a grievance last year when they suspended him
> with pay.

Arbitrators have granted teams a lot of freedom of action
as long as they're prepared to pay a player.

That said, I doubt a preemptive suspension would be allowed.

If you're thinking about some kind of extensive in-season
anger management treatment, you'd have to get him to agree
(and get the Commissioner's office to sign off)

> So I think the Cubs are going to end up paying him to play for another
> team.

Most likely.

Artie Lange

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 10:47:16 AM12/10/09

to

> john

I think the Cubs have been paying him to play for another team since he
was signed... He sure was not playing for the Cubs....