Is Hardy's FA delayed a year?

[Brewer Fever]

What black mark?

I see a potential one and you don't. Let's leave it at that. As for the Brewers, JJ Hardy, and his agent, it sounds like they're keen to a potential problem as well. But why on Earth would I think that the awareness of this issue expressed by those parties means anything at all?

[Hate those Rodents]

How is this that much different than those that wanted to keep JJ through next year and keep Escobar down in the minors an extra year (to essentially delay his free agency too)? Is it because JJ is somewhat proven despite only proving he should be playing AAA ball all year this year? Is it fair to keep minor leaguers that are ready to play in the majors down in the minors so that we control them longer? I think if one is fair, then the other is fair too. Maybe I am in the minority.

[Brewer Fever]

From TH to me:

 

"Again, believe me, I have this 20-day thing correct. I've spoken to Hardy and he said the agent called Melvin to talk about it. They're very aware of what's at stake. And they hope the Brewers aren't playing games with them."

 

It doesn't sound like it will be no big deal if the Brewers leave him down there long enough to cost him a year. And here I thought I was just imagining that it would.

 

As for what day he needs to be back to ensure keeping his year, I have officially given up. TH swears its 20 days and you lose a year. But there's also the issue as to when the clock starts, today or tomorrow. All I know is that I fully expect JJ to be back in time to keep his service year in tact.

 

MLB transactional rules are a pain in the rear.

[Never Outhustled]

The Brewers could easily keep Hardy in AAA for the remainder of Nashvilles season, which doesn't end until Septemember 7th this year, but Melvin won't have the stones to do it.

[Hate those Rodents]

Maybe Mark A is calling the shots now though X. I think he'd have the stones to do it (if he realizes the situation).

[Brewer Fever]

The Brewers could easily keep Hardy in AAA for the remainder of Nashvilles season, which doesn't end until Septemember 7th this year, but Melvin won't have the stones to do it.

Yeah, probably not. It's debatable whether the backlash from (at minimum) the player and agent would be worth the extra year. I cannot stress enough how little I care from JJ's perspective. He could have played better and avoided all of this. I'm just convinced that it's looked at as bad practice to send down 5 year vets just in time to cost them a service year. Look at it this way, if it didn't come with a price why wouldn't more teams do it? What's to stop a team out of contention from sending down all of its players with options remaining at this point every year? It sounds like something the Marlins would be all over if it didn't have negative consequences.

[Hate those Rodents]

Brewer Fever - how is this that much different than keeping major league ready players in AAA an extra year to delay their free agency? Some even wanted Escobar down another year next year so we could control him until 29 or 30. He has an agent too that has other players I am sure.

 

I think it wouldn't make JJ and his agent that happy, but I hardly see a backlash. And I definitely see both scenarios being right or both being wrong (talking of the current JJ situation and my Escobar scenario here_.

[Brewer Fever]

I said this before but its because when holding back a minor leaguer it is affecting a rookie. A rookie who hasn't put in his time. And players know that if the minor leaguer plays well enough to force their hand, the team will have no choice but to eventually call him up. This is putting off free agency for a 5 year vet who has put in his time. It's similar to the NFL. The players union will probably put up very little fight to a rookie salary slotting system. It will hurt players as they enter into the league, but help disperse more money to veterans. It's all about the rookie versus veteran side of the equation.

 

And again, I ask if it wasn't considered a no-no, and didn't have negative consequences why wouldn't it happen all the time? Why wouldn't teams out of contention send down all players with options every year at this time to put off their FA by another year? The fact it doesn't happen, EVER, should provide all the answer anyone would need.

[Invader3K]

They should do what's best for business. If an extra year of service time for Hardy means getting a better pitcher in a trade, they should do what is best for the team. Hardy has cost them enough with his poor play this season.

[Brewer Fever]

So you think being the only team that sends down 5 year vets, timing-specific to costing them a year of service time, is best for business? I see. Agree to disagree.

 

This will all be moot when the Brewers prove they do not see it as in their best interest and JJ is recalled before the 20 days expires.

[Hate those Rodents]

I just think you can argue JJ belongs down there for a full month. Let me ask you this....if the plan is to play Escobar at SS everyday for Milwaukee for a month and JJ was not in his "free agency situation" and not hitting real well in AAA, do we make sure he comes up September first?

 

The obvious answer is "no". So, if that's how the situation plays out, that's the way it should go for JJ in my opinion. Put his free agency aside and do what's best for us this season and what makes the most sense regardless of free agency.

[Invader3K]

Why does the team always have to bend over for the player? Why can't it be the other way for a change, especially when the player has been bad?

[Brewer Fever]

All they have to do is recall JJ before the 20 days, take advantage of expanded rosters, continue to play Escobar the majority of the time, and no unwritten no-no's will have been committed. That's exactly what I expect to see. And I'll be happy because if my scenario plays out, then the only thing I care about in all this will have happened. That one thing of course being giving Escobar the everyday job at SS.

[Invader3K]

Why can't we have both? I mean, have Escobar as the everyday SS, and get an extra service year out of Hardy, thus increasing his trade value? Seems like a win-win for the Brewers to me.

 

Seriously, the Brewers have gotten so screwed over in the past year in so many ways, getting an advantage just one time would be a pretty refreshing change of pace.

[Brewer Fever]

Why does the team always have to bend over for the player? Why can't it be the other way for a change, especially when the player has been bad?

Players union my friend.

 

If all the teams decided to go ahead and make moves to cost veterans service time, then sure no team would risk standing out in a negative light. But then of course we'd be back to the MLBPA and the poop fit they'd raise over such a colluded effort.

[Teatoe993]

I think one big thing that is being overlooked a bit in this entire situation is that Hardy will have to earn his way back to Milwaukee. What if Hardy pulls a Gamel and just tanks it for a couple weeks batting .180? How on earth could we justify promoting him back up within the 20 days if this happens. If I'm Melvin, I tell JJ that you have to earn your way back on the roster. He should be firm in making the decision too. If JJ figures it out and gets that BA up, promote him. If he continues to ride the Mendoza line, leave him down.

[Brewer Fever]

I think one big thing that is being overlooked a bit in this entire situation is that Hardy will have to earn his way back to Milwaukee. What if Hardy pulls a Gamel and just tanks it for a couple weeks batting .180? How on earth could we justify promoting him back up within the 20 days if this happens. If I'm Melvin, I tell JJ that you have to earn your way back on the roster. He should be firm in making the decision too. If JJ figures it out and gets that BA up, promote him. If he continues to ride the Mendoza line, leave him down.

JJ stinking it up sure would makes things interesting and might make the team more willing to take the heat. But alas, expanded rosters will most likely take JJ off the hook.

[Invader3K]

Players union my friend.

 

If all the teams decided to go ahead and make moves to cost veterans service time, then sure no team would risk standing out in a negative light. But then of course we'd be back to the MLBPA and the poop fit they'd raise over such a colluded effort.

I don't care. I'm just sick of my team being the proverbial you-know-what in the jailhouse. JJ has been good for basically two years out of five. It's not like he's Derek Jeter and been with the team for 15 years. These calls to be insanely loyal to Hardy are unwarranted, IMHO.

[Ennder]

Players union my friend.

 

If all the teams decided to go ahead and make moves to cost veterans service time, then sure no team would risk standing out in a negative light. But then of course we'd be back to the MLBPA and the poop fit they'd raise over such a colluded effort.

Sure but in this particular case you can strongly make the statement that you gave him every chance you could to turn it around before it came to this and you were forced to do it even though you didn't want to. I really don't think the players union would win this one given how Hardy has done this year and how Escobar has done in the minors.

[Hate those Rodents]

Brings me back to the "If the Packers can survive the Favre drama..." this will be so minor and have such slight ramifications in the future.

[JJHardy7]

From TH to me:

"Again, believe me, I have this 20-day thing correct. I've spoken to Hardy and he said the agent called Melvin to talk about it. They're very aware of what's at stake. And they hope the Brewers aren't playing games with them."

Well JJ should be aware that whining about 'rest' isn't a good thing either according to quotes here. I love JJ and have never met or anything like that...and I don't want to speculate at all...I'll just say his blow up 2 years ago IIRC with Yost and now his comments about Macha aren't a good thing. That's just an opinion and I could be way off. It doesn't come across well though.

It doesn't sound like it will be no big deal if the Brewers leave him down there long enough to cost him a year. And here I thought I was just imagining that it would.

That's JJ's problem. Him stinking this year didn't help the Brewers.

As for what day he needs to be back to ensure keeping his year, I have officially given up. TH swears its 20 days and you lose a year. But there's also the issue as to when the clock starts, today or tomorrow. All I know is that I fully expect JJ to be back in time to keep his service year in tact.

I think maybe your first issue in terms of us disagreeing is you are valuing JJ to high compared to where I value him. It's not JJ the all-star. He's supposed to be in his prime or close to it and flat out is playing poorly. If this was some random free agent playing SS there would've been 'DFA' claims months ago for his job. I also think if he's not doing the job he should be doing and is kept whatever day limit it is to get another year...who cares? JJ might be upset, but those are the rules. Complain to the union about it...that's not the Brewers problem. It obviously wouldn't make a ton of friends, but like I've stated before I think there's an agreement. JJ is staying until 9/2 or whatever date buys another year...if he's not starting next year he'll be dealt. That's my take. JJ simply isn't worth as much as some think he is. The only way this move makes any sense (and again I'm not saying it does) is if there was a handshake agreement with the Brewers wanting JJ to hit again, increase his trade value, and maybe be ready to play at a high MLB level....and in turn they'll deal him if he's not the starting SS next year. If it's 9/1, 9/3, or 9/6...it doesn't matter. I like JJ, but I guess I'm trying to look at this as a realist...as I've posted before...what is JJ worth? I honestly think it's less than some would expect here and JJ is going to make less in the free agent market. Again, in the in-game chat a few bf.netters thought JJ for Clay Buchholz would be a terrible deal for the Brewers...

MLB transactional rules are a pain in the rear.

I agree, but if you're thinking JJ's party will whine...that's not the Brewers fault.

[Brewer Fever]

I think maybe your first issue in terms of us disagreeing is you are valuing JJ to high compared to where I value him.

 

I think you missed where I said about 10 different times that I could care less how this affects JJ and wanted to see Escobar replace him many weeks ago.

[kramnoj]

McAlvy reports different language than the one from Cots: http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090812&content_id=6388086&vkey=news_mil&fext=.jsp&c_id=mil

 

According to Articles 19e and 21b of Major League Baseball's Basic Agreement, "If a player is optionally assigned for a total of less than 20 days in one championship season, the player shall be credited with Major League service during the period of such optional assignment(s)."

 

Ash is quoted "What you're describing is an unintended byproduct of this," Ash said. "The driving factor is performance."

[Invader3K]

I agree, but if you're thinking JJ's party will whine...that's not the Brewers fault.

 

See, exactly. I just don't get why, if the Brewers can get something positive out of all this mess, and give them a stronger chance to actually improve the club long term, they shouldn't do it? There is no good reason other than, "Well, they should be nice to JJ and let him leave after one more season instead of two." That is just not very good business reasoning at all. He hasn't played well, and has basically had two good seasons out of five. It's not like he has a really strong track record that will have pundits screaming at the Brewers to bring him back early. The only exception might be if Escobar really struggles to put up better numbers than JJ was, but that shouldn't be too difficult at this point.

[Thurston Fluff]

And two, agents and players don't take it too well when moves are made to narrowly allow for putting off a players FA by a whole year. You don't want that reputation as an organization. And Doug Melvin doesn't strike me as the type who would stick it to a player in that fashion.

 

Couple things. First of all I couldn't care less if the players and agents liked it. We don't get mad aty players when they leave for more money. I understand it's a business. Same goes the other way. It's a business and Melvin is responsible to the organization to do what is in it's best interests. IF keeping Hardy down to get another year of service time means he has more trade value then do it. If he gets p.o.ed to bad. Had he played better there wouldn't have been a need to do that to improve trade value.

Second if the agents and players get mad so what? They are drafted and have no choice but to sign or delay their careers at least a year. They are free agents after 6 years and most likely plan to leave anyway. SO what is the downside?

Agents play hard ball all the time. They are expected to do everything they can to get the player the best deal possible. They routinely do everything they can within the rules, ethical or not, to do that (see Scott Boras). It has to be expected teams would do the same.

 

I also don't believe it is being done to stick it to anyone. That implies it was done in anger or to get back at him. It may suck for JJ and is jamming him but the purpose isn't to stick it to him. It's to maximize his value to the team. It may be the same outcome but different intent. If I beleived Melvin was doing it out of petty revenge or something then I would agree it may hurt the team in the long run.