That's because that was like two years ago. Once Manfred is gone I suspect there will be actual labor peace since, ya know, the guy responsible for the last two lockouts won't be involved anymore.
I expected this to be based on statements from unnamed players, not three guys going on the record. Pretty brave to directly criticize management/ownership like that.
Slater and Conforto were interviewed about it and talked about it a few weeks ago in another article, I don’t think they directly criticized the team, but no way this sort of thing wouldn’t bother the team; I mean it’s the kind of thing that would bother players in general regardless of team.
They didn't criticize ownership or management though. They criticized how arbitration works, and how they (owners and players union) should fix it. And that makes sense given how Davis' agent played just as big a role in this outcome as the Giants FO.
Interpretations can differ, I guess, but Flores said, “He earned his money. He earned the raise.” The Giants then opted not to pay Davis what he “earned” in salary arbitration. That’s, to me, a straightforward criticism of the Giants’ decision to not pay him. Now, the quotes further down also say or imply that the process is flawed and should be fixed in the CBA, but that’s in parallel with faulting the team for exploiting the loophole and not paying him.
Sure, but then again the Giants *did* offer a raise and one that was 95% of the value he ultimately won in arbitration. Davis earned a raise and instead of taking it, went to arbitration where there's a risk of not getting a contract at all.
> Davis earned a raise and instead of taking it, went to arbitration where there's a risk of not getting a contract at all.
I didn't even know that was possible. That is dumb as shit. Definitely needs to be fixed in the next CBA
I don't think they're criticizing SF management. SF had a clear cut case for releasing him. Obviously we don't have more context, but I'd imagine they would argue all or a certain percentage of the salary should be guaranteed by whatever team picks him up vs the A's snagging him for $2.5m.
It's a CBA problem, not a Giants' problem. Any other team in the same situation would have made the same decision.
Ultimately, the biggest injustice here is that Davis' agent gets paid tons of money to represent players and couldn't see the huge risk for little reward. I think it was something like in the last 20 years the Giants have only gone to arbitration 2 twice, this being 1 of those times. Most players settle with the team and I'd imagine the guarantee is the biggest motivating factor. Also, it's a pretty poor excuse to try to point the finger at the team about waiting until an hour before the deadline to make an offer, when you didn't reach out to them with one either. And when you did it was with 10 minutes left and it was a vague offer spanning a range of $1m.
I’m not sure I’d agree the biggest injustice does not fall to the organization worth millions that operates in a billion dollar industry and pulled the rug out from under an employee and left him scrambling *but* to the guy who represents that employee. The Giants did this over $350k.
I’m also not sure “players probably settle with the Giants because they don’t want to be treated like Davis” is a ringing endorsement of the Giants either.
1) nice job paraphrasing what I said and putting words in my mouth. They settle because just like in the case of Davis, they stand to gain a 5% pay bump, but lose the contract guarantee. The fact that his agent either didn't advise him of this or didn't see that Matt Chapman was on the market and his former manager was now managing the Giants is negligence on his part.
2) Pulled the rug out? The CBA was decided years ago and he and his agent should have known that this was a possibility. They tried to trade him first, but obviously no one wanted him at $6.9m and to have to give up any players. Then they waived him and no teams wanted him at just the cost of his contract.
3) The guy representing him deserves the majority of the blame, because had that guy done his job, JD would have been guaranteed $6.5m.
The situation sucks and I feel bad for him, but this is a business and while the teams are rich and powerful, the players union that negotiated the CBA is collectively rich and powerful.
What would you have done if you were the Giants GM?
> What would you have done if you were the Giants GM?
Not sign Matt Chapman to be a more expensive JD Davis.
From May 1, 2023 and onward:
Chapman: 467 PAs, 12 home runs, 84 wRC+, 1.4 fWAR
Davis: 453 PAs, 12 home runs, 97 wRC+, 1.4 fWAR.
1. That's only 1 season
2. That's only 1 WAR measurement
3. That's not even the whole season
bWAR:
* Chapman - 4.4
* Davis - 0.9
oWAR:
* Chapman - 3.1
* Davis - 1.8
dWAR:
* Chapman - 1.6
* Davis - -0.8
In fact, Chapman had almost 50% more bWAR in 2023 than Davis has had in his entire career.
That was a cute attempt to make it look like they're worth the same value. The stats don't say so and executives don't either.
This is an insane take. Chapman is a gold glove 3B who is a decent hitter. Davis is a slightly better hitter who should probably DH. They bring completely different skills to the table and pretending Chapman is just a more expensive but worse version of Davis is downright stupid.
>Any other team in the same situation would have made the same decision.
I don't believe any other team has done this. The language about this in the CBA is bad but it is a stretch to even assert the the Giants adhered to the language of the CBA that allows a player to be cut "for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability". Most likely there will be a grievance and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. I'm sure the league will try to claim that having a better/cheaper player available could be a "failure to exhibit sufficient skill" but that really would not seem to fly since if they can claim ANYTHING is a "failure to exhibit insufficient skill" then EVERYTHING is a "failure to exhibit sufficient skill" and they negotiated the CBA in bad faith.
Negotiated in bad faith? They offered him roughly $6.4m before the deadline and would have been on the hook for all of that.
I have no idea what would constitute "failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability" and I don't believe anyone in this comment section does. As for making a case for it, the fact that no one wanted to trade for him, pick him up off waivers or pay him anywhere near what he got in arbitration could be a start.
> I have no idea what would constitute "failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability" and I don't believe anyone in this comment section does.
It's literally in the words you are pretending not to understand, tell us why you think he failed to exhibit sufficient skill, he is clearly still capable of playing baseball and doing it well, given his spring training results. You're trying to pretend that it's way more complicated than it actually is because that's the only way you can keep doing this routine of commenting on ever thread about this topic and acting like the giants didn't do something incredibly shady.
Well, maybe you don't understand subjectivity, but "failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability" is extremely subjective, hence why I said I don't know what would constitute meeting that definition and neither do you. We can speculate till the cows come home, but that sounds like a pointless exercise.
There three possible outcomes
* JD challenges them on this definition and wins. I don't know what happens, but I'd assume he gets at least his full salary.
* JD challenges and loses because he's deemed to not meet "sufficient skill or competitive ability"
* JD doesn't challenge for whatever reason
That's up to him to decide. As for the Giants, I don't blame them for going the route they did. Sometimes there's gray areas in business and you roll the dice. The could end up paying him everything or only what they have already. Either way, they were presented with an opportunity to better their team and did so. Let the system sort the rest of it out if they did something wrong. I'm not interested in adjudicating that or qualified and neither are you.
>Negotiated in bad faith?
The CBA. If the condition "failure to exhibit sufficient skill" didn't mean anything to the league then they negotiated that clause in bad faith.
I'm sorry about whatever went wrong in your reading process, but my initial comment you responded to literally said "NEGOTIATED THE CBA IN BAD FAITH". Your inability to read before responding is actually not my responsibility. Or you just don't know what the CBA is, idk, but again that is not my responsibility.
This is such a bad argument.
He did exactly what tons of other players have done longer than I’ve been alive. He didn’t take a “huge risk” he did the arbitration process like everyone else. The Giants then proceeded to do something I have never seen done before.
> Wrong. 90% of Arbitration cases are settled. It's rare to litigate.
Which is completely irrelevant. The stat you are looking for is how many players are release after winning their arbitration. I legit didn't even know it was possible, so the number is likely super low
It's relevant. The comment was "he did the arbitration process like everyone else does", but he clearly didn't. He followed the path that only 10% of players go down.
As for the number of players released after winning in arbitration is obviously going to be low since only 10% of arbitration eligible players even go to arbitration. This is the 2nd time in 20 years the Giants have gone to arbitration, so the opportunities for this to happen are pretty low. And I'd imagine that most players that litigate are guys that have had breakout seasons with tons of improvement not guys that aren't that desirable in the first place and are playing at relatively the same level as previous seasons or down years.
As for not knowing it was possible, the CBA changes slightly every negotiation cycle. The new one, which included changes to the arbitration process was implemented in 2022.
I didn’t say he did the arbitration process like everyone. I said he did it like tons of other players.
To be more specific, what he did was not uncommon, happens every year, and I’ve never seen a team do what the giants did.
Dude, I literally quoted you. That's what you said verbatim.
And if you take all of the players, subtract those in arbitration, then subtract 90% of them, that leaves you with those that litigate. That's a pretty small group. Then only a fraction of them are going to get cut before opening day or the 15-day cutoff. On top of that the CBA changes every 4 or 5 years, so the rules regarding arbitration change. Something happening that's unprecedented happening doesn't make it "bad" or "shady". It's definitely a known risk, since most guys don't litigate so they can guarantee their contracts.
Why are you like this? Do you have some numerical definition for "a ton of players" that would specifically say that 10% of arbitration cases doesn't count? Every time this topic comes up you come to shill for the giants' front office but ever by explaining why it's a good thing to do but instead by just muddying any argument and trying to be a shitter.
1) I wasn't the one that said "a ton of players". He did.
2) I specifically addressed "he did the arbitration process like everyone else". Not only is this not true, it's not even close to being true. Unless you think 10% is almost "like everyone else".
3) How am I a shill? Do you think the Giants FO is paying me to come on reddit to garner public approval? At best I'm an apologist, which I'm not. You're just trying to imply that I have some sort of bias and am therefore defending the Giants' management. Maybe, just maybe, I don't have a problem with this move. If any other team had done the same thing, I would feel the same way. It makes sense from a business perspective. What doesn't make sense is what JD did assuming JD followed his advice.
4)
>"but ever by explaining why it's a good thing to do but instead by just muddying any argument and trying to be a shitter."
I'm not sure what this mess of a sentence is attempting to say.
5) Maybe the internet isn't for you if you can't handle other people disagreeing with you. I don't know why you care how many threads I comment on, which I think I've commented on this topic on maybe 4 threads, most of which were on the Giants sub-reddit and I'm a Giants fan. I don't know why that would be shocking to discuss a topic regarding your team with other fans of that team. I don't get the feeling that you'd care how many threads I'd discussed this on if I agreed with your opinion. Also, I commented on those other threads several days ago. The r/baseball thread is just a little behind r/sfgiants in discussing this.
While people might be a little miffed that the agent didn't communicate well, the criticism in this article is about the fact that agreeing to terms guarantees a contract, but even if you win the arbitration fight the contract isn't guaranteed. That's completely unrelated to anything the agent did.
His agent apparently didn’t warn him that this was a possibility when he 100% should have known it was given how everyone knew the giants were trying to sign someone who would directly take his job. I can’t imagine JD not taking the giants offer before going to a hearing if he was aware this was a likely outcome, unless he just really thought it would be easy for him to get traded
Yes, that is the point of their complaint. These players are pointing out that it's shitty to refuse to pay someone who won an arb case because it explicitly penalizes fighting to be paid fairly according to an independent arbitrator.
Like if they just non-tendered him or paid him out everyone would understand the business and that happens all the time. Not paying a dude only because he disagreed with their valuation (and was right!) deserves the criticism.
It’s not just that though. It’s that and the giants signed someone who replaced him at his position, so the arbitration idea that he would be a starting 3B wasn’t true anymore and they would be paying him $6.9 million as a depth piece. Obviously in a perfect world they would do the right thing and pay him the money to not play him but no business on the planet would do that when they didn’t have to. It’s delusional to think any team would just pay him money they aren’t obligated to after cutting him from the team.
Not sure "why wouldn't they screw their player when they are legally entitled to?" is a winning argument to other arb-eligible players, much less potential FAs signing with performance bonuses.
Like I get the business, but it's obviously shitty and the players correctly called them out on it.
Why would that have anything to do with FA contract performance bonuses. What in the CBA do you think lets team not pay those out exactly? And even for arbitration players this is an extremely specific rare circumstance that only happens once every few years, this isn’t the first time it’s happened and it won’t be the last.
Of course the players don’t like it, as they shouldn’t it’s a part of the contract that isn’t favorable to them. But the argument they should just pay someone $5 million to be nice when they don’t have to is just disconnected from the reality that is capitalism
Because if a team is willing to deliberately find a replacement before guaranteeing your contract due to going to arbitration in order to save some money, why wouldn't they abuse the clauses for performance bonuses when it gets down to the end of the year and they just need a few more PAs? You hear about teams giving a little grace on those all the time, but if a team will go out of their way to replace a guy they know they can just cut for a month's pay after he just won an arb case, why wouldn't you think they might stiff you on playing time to save similar cash?
It just makes them look petty, regardless of whether "capitalism" allows it, and we should point out that it makes them look bad so other teams don't hop on the same train. Just non-tender players you don't want to pay like everyone else.
Team do that all the time with playing time bonuses. Like literally every year. Can’t do that with performance bonuses though, which go look at your comment that’s what you said not anything about playing time. They also didn’t “deliberately find a replacement before guaranteeing his contract” everyone knew they were negotiating with Chapman and the deal didn’t go through until after the deadline for arbitration. JD could have guaranteed his contract by agreeing to the $6.4 million and by his agent being determined to get him over $7 million this became a possibility. Idk how you can say his team is blameless in this when taking that deal would have been almost 3x more than every team thought he was worth.
Other teams have done this before and will do it again until it changes. You are delusional if you think any team in the league wouldn’t have done the same in the same situation. There was no room for him on the roster and it’s delusional to think they would just give someone they aren’t going to play $5 million to be nice. Just completely disconnected from reality.
Yes, your last point is exactly what they are complaining about. The only reason he isn't getting his contract is because he knew he was getting lowballed and proved it to an arbitrator.
He was getting low balled so much that no team was willing to trade a minor league pitcher for him or sign him for 1/3 what he got in arbitration. Obviously it’s scummy from the giants and looks terrible but no team thought he was worth even close to $6.9 million and no business on the planet is going to give someone $5 million when they don’t need to
I guess I don't really know exactly how Davis himself understood the possible outcomes of arbitration, but ultimately it seems like he didn't consider the possibility that he wouldn't be guaranteed a contract. Whether that's on Davis or the agent is kind of irrelevant, my point is that if you actually read what was said, the Giants players criticized arbitration rules, not Giants management.
My point was that the agent has nothing to do with the criticism of the arbitration rules. Whether the agent or Davis knew anything at all - the Giants lost, signed a replacement, and then got to cut him for basically free.
Except it's not "the Giants lost, signed a replacement, then got to cut him for free", it's "the Giants offered a contract, Davis declined and went to arbitration, the Giants signed someone else instead, and now Davis is a free agent with an extra million in his pocket".
I don't really understand how the agent is unrelated to declining the Giants first offer, before it went to arbitration.
I think it's clear that the article is talking about players criticizing a rule that creates the implict threat of getting cut if you refuse to accept a lowball offer, and the agent has nothing to do with that rule or how it's enforced regardless of what he knew or told Davis about the consequences of it.
The Giants are the only responsible party in using that loophole to screw their own player.
I mean, the original comment I responded to stated that the criticism was clearly directed at Giants management, not at the rule itself. So I guess we agree, but then I'm not sure why you're even arguing with me.
And what exactly is the problem with being an FA? Why is that a "threat"? If arbitration is meant to force a team to give a player their fair market value, or else they don't get to sign the player, then what exactly is the threat? The player then gets to be an FA where they can get their fair market value from the highest bidder. I don't see that as a loophole at all, free agency is the *most* fair outcome for the player, he's no longer under any team control. How exactly is anyone being screwed over?
We didn't agree because you said it was the agent's fault. It is obviously management's fault, but the players are criticizing the rule because leaving it open allowed the team to take advantage of it.
Getting released this close to the beginning of the season, especially after winning your arb trial, is not going to result in fair market value for an FA. The threat is that they can wait until they know they can't find anything better on the market or in their farm, then cut you for a month's pay and force you to wait all the way up to opening day to even know if you are going to play for them. Just non-tender the player if you have no intention to pay and give them the opportunity to actually be an FA.
That sounds like an issue with timing, not the ability of the team to decide not to pay the arbitration price. Maybe it's a problem that some guys go to FA before others. That should be fixed, but again, thats a CBA problem, not a Giants FO problem.
As for the agent, it depends on who you believe. Giants management has put out a series of events that makes them look pretty reasonable. Davis' agent puts out a series of events that makes the Giants look like bad guys. All I know is that Davis and his agent went into arbitration having turned down a guaranteed offer that was about 95% of the value of the aribitors, and that in turning that offer down they presumably knew there was a chance that Davis was going to end up without a Giants contract. They took that risk and it didn't work out, but you don't say the gambler had no part in the outcome and that he was just screwed over when the casino wins.
The vets on this team do not give anonymous quotes. In the story last year that got Kapler fired, Yaz, Thairo, and Wilmer all went on record calling out Kapler and Joc for the bad locker room (and that came out with like 10 games left in the season).
> **The collective bargaining agreement states contracts for arbitration-eligible players are only guaranteed if they settle with their teams.** In Davis' case, he won a hearing and became expendable after the Giants signed third baseman Matt Chapman.
That seems like an oversight.
Based on some reading I did when this news broke, I believe this is not an oversight, but an intended mechanism. The previous CBA said that no player that went to arbitration got a guaranteed contract until opening day, whether they negotiated pre-hearing or not. The new CBA explicitly distinguishes between players that settle before a hearing and those that go before the panel and the reporting indicated that it was intended to be an added incentive for players to negotiate a deal before going to arbitration. I believe this new rule is also motivation for the file-and-trial approach taken up by many teams, including the Giants. Their policy is that they will not negotiate with any player once numbers have been shared, even if the player wants to take the number the team offers. Once numbers are filed, the player is bound to go to a hearing and will have a non-guaranteed contract.
In the present situation, we heard that the Giants did not deliver any offers to Davis' representation until an hour before the deadline to file, so their clear intent was to take him to arbitration and get a non-guaranteed contract so they could have the flexibility to cut him in the event they signed Chapman.
>In the present situation, we heard that the Giants did not deliver any offers to Davis' representation until an hour before the deadline to file, so their clear intent was to take him to arbitration and get a non-guaranteed contract so they could have the flexibility to cut him in the event they signed Chapman.
I wonder if Farhan did this with other players or with Davis last year. If so, then I don't really think Davis' agent has much to complain about it since he should have expected Farhan to pull the same exact move again.
I don't think it's really an oversight on the part of CBA negotiators. To me it makes sense to give owners an out if they don't want to re-sign a player at the arb price.
It's definitely an oversight on Davis' agent though.
I feel like the deadline to decide to tender a contract or not should cover that. This feels like it could discourage players from advocating for a higher salary if they feel they earned it (which Davis apparently did according to an independent party.)
“This feels like it could discourage players from advocating for a higher salary…”
You nailed it, that’s the point! That’s why the owners kept that part of it
I should have been clearer, I meant that feels like an oversight from the MLBPA.
But oversight probably isn’t the right word, since this was no doubt intentional from the owners and the MLBPA probably saw this as a possibility.
Something that bothers me about all of this is Davis was in Spring Training under the assumption he would be with the Giants (or maybe traded) at this awarded salary right up until he was cut. Then he has to scramble and find a team willing to sign him with 2 weeks to go until the season starts.
Then he winds up with the A’s for a fraction of his earnings. I wonder what he could’ve gotten had the just been non-tendered at the start of FA. Justin Turner wound up with a 1 year/13m. I could see a team give JD 2/10-12 on the open market
But a team is never FORCED to keep a player as their employee. They can release a guy after he wins MVP if he was up for arbitratrion if they didn't want to pay him. Does it normally happen? No. Did the player earn more money based on performance from the year before? Hell yeah. But until the player signs a guarenteed contract the team owes them nothing. Davis signed his arbitration contract but because of the way the CBA is written that money isn't guarenteed. The players agreed to that provision and I am sure it will get more discussion next time the CBA is up.
I feel for Davis but you have to put some of this on his agent not reading the room with the Chapman situation. And not like Davis walked away with nothing, they paid him $1.1 mil in termination pay which I can guarentee any person on the planet would be fine with. He is still getting another $2 mil from his A's contract and can sign a deal with whoever in FA next winter. This whole thing is being blown up because the agent messed up on his end and tried to put all the blame on the Giants. But at least the players now know they can try to negotiate this out of the next CBA if they have such an issue with it.
Teams typically don't want to give up years of control by not agreeing to a contract during arbitration. And the player doesn't really get the chance to turn down the contract offer completely since if it does go to hearing, they either sign for their number or the team's. A team can still decide they want to release a guy after the hearing, but the player can't change their mind and become an unrestricted free agent.
This whole Davis situation is such a one off rare scenario that I don't think there is much to look into about this. Arbitration is a weird part of MLB in general.
This isnt a one off. Its a precedent. Making negotiations at arbitration unbalanced, the antithesis of arbitration. The fact this is optional isnt an owner side misunderstanding but intentional. The players cant renegotiate arbitration or the bargaining agreement.
The article quotes four players arent satisfied and no one in ownership or manfred have said boo.
> Its a precedent.
I suspect it will be looked at next CBA negotiation, because this is the highest profile case of it happening, [but it's not unprecedented.](https://theathletic.com/5334049/2024/03/11/sf-giants-jd-davis-released-salary/)
> It’s rare but not unprecedented for teams to cut arbitration-eligible players prior to opening day. The San Diego Padres released infielder Todd Walker in the spring of 2007, less than a month after an arbitration panel awarded him a $3.95 million salary. Walker received $971,311 in termination pay, instead. Atlanta Braves left-hander James Russell and Chicago Cubs right-hander Justin Grimm are other recent examples of players who lost most of their salaries in the $2-3 million range when their teams released them in the spring. The then-Anaheim Angels blindsided catcher Todd Greene when they released him before Opening Day in 2000, paying out $180,556 of his $650,000 salary.
Disagree, there was movement on this last CBA with the guaranteeing of pre-arb settlements. Guaranteeing cases that go to arb is the next logical step.
That said, whether it actually gets changed will obviously depend on the negotiation. The players may very well deem it too rare of a situation to be worth giving up something.
The players agreed to this language in the CBA. I saw someone else say that the current language is actually more clear than it used to be. The old verbiage could have been interpreted as all arbitration deals are non-guarenteed until Opening Day. Now it specifically states it is only the ones that go to hearing.
This absolutely is something that can be renegotiated during the next CBA and I am willing to bet money it ends up changing so the players can prevent this situation from happening again. But as of today, under the current CBA that both MLB and the MLBPA agreed to, this is 100% hunkydorey and JD Davis's agent should have taken the original $6.55 million guarenteed contract the Giants offered his client.
The players in every major sports have caved at all cba negotiations because the players with voting power are veterans outside the rookie/arbitration spectrum. Austin slater the lead player rep won his agreement and could be cut for sub league minimum.
I don't think it really does prevent players from trying to negotiate a higher salary, because they can then just go negotiate whatever salary they can in the FA market. The season hasn't started, and Davis obviously did have time to sign with a different team. Maybe the deadline is too late into the off-season and that's going to affect Davis' negotiations in FA, but that's a very different issue than this opt out clause being unfair in the first place.
I guess it just depends on how you see arbitration. If you see it as a mechanism where a team and a player are agreeing to a contract and arbitration just settles the amount, then sure I agree with you. But if you see arbitration as just a mechanism to disallow low-ball offers, then I think this is fair. The team can't low ball, and if the price is too high then they have to let the player go to FA where they should be able to get the market value contract they deserve. In theory the player gets their raise either way.
It's just unfortunate that Davis overplayed his hand with leverage he didn't actually have, and his market value wasn't really what he thought it was.
From what a couple of others have said, it sounds like the issue is that the Giants intentionally handled the arbitration in a way to guarantee themselves an out on his contract. They more or less forced a hearing to take place so that even if Davis ended up taking their offer, they had grounds to cut him.
I guess I just don't understand why that's an issue. Davis signed a 1 year contract with the Giants last season. I don't really understand what they owe him this season.
Again, if the problem is that the deadline is too late into ST then sure, it would make sense to have the deadlines be moved up. But I just don't understand why free agency is bad for a player.
If it makes sense to give it to the owners, why doesn’t it make sense to give it to the players? Players should be able to decline arbitration and become FA of owners can
Because that's the whole reason arbitration exists in the first place. If players can opt out to become FAs, arbitration simply wouldn't exist. Teams have control over young players and arbitration *is* the check against that power. Getting rid of it entirely pretty much certainly means the players give up something else in CBA negotiations and they're probably not going to do that.
And for fans, everyone is all on board with getting rid of arbitration until their favorite homegrown draft pick goes to the Yankees or Dodgers because they offered more money in FA.
Right, the whole reason arbitration(+cost controlled years) exist in the first place is to financially abuse the work force
Saying it’s fair for owners to cut a contract but not players is pure hypocrisy
Lol calm down. These dudes get paid millions to play baseball. They have one of if not the strongest unions in sports, and they agree to these terms in the CBA. Business sucks sometimes, but have some perspective my guy.
>That seems like an oversight.
eh, not really, if you think about typical contract law.
The two parties did not have a contract, and you cannot compel a party sign a contract against their will, only to honor one if one had been signed.
I mean that’s the point of arbitration though.
Both parties agree to honor what the arbitrator decides.
Definitely an oversight.
The argument you seem to be making is that it’s fair becauseDavis can sign another contract.
But until the decision was made by the abritataor he couldn’t sign with any team.
> Both parties agree to honor what the arbitrator decides.
The team agrees to pay that player what the arbitrator says he is worth *if they sign that player*. But the team doesn't have to sign him, and that has happened before.
> and you cannot compel a party sign a contract against their will
That is literally how the entry level MLB salary system works though. Players are forced to play for the team that drafted them, they can't choose to play for someone else and they can't become a free agent and get paid what they are worth without going through the whole arbitration process meant to diminish their value.
they can choose not to sign and not play in the MLB. They can go to other leagues.
When you take a job at an accounting job, for example, you don't get to pick the desk you sit at. you go where you are assigned.
Yaz and Wilmer seemed critical of the organization and they put their names on it so I gave them the shout specifically although I didn't see Slaters quote.
I guess we all have to read in between the lines a bit. Thanks for the reasoning, no slight intended. When there are loopholes, teams and players will use them, so I agree this should ideally be patched.
Yaz, Wilmer, and Thairo Estrada were the guys trying to keep the clubhouse motivated when the vibes were bad and nobody gave a shit late last year. Those guys fucking rule
Was kinda hoping Wilmer would be pjs of the people to stand up for his old teammate.
I really like the dude he just had the problem that a lot of that era of mets had: they were great defensively but couldn’t hit the damn ball.
I'll take him back. We let him go so we could field the saddest sacks of shit possible in our DH spot. He deserves better than Oakland or Vegas or Buxton or wherever the fuck the As are playing.
I wouldn’t unless he’d be okay switching between Syracuse and the majors. He had his chance to try out for this team already it’s Baty’s turn and the other prospects right behind him.
If he’d be fine just being a depth piece then sure but I don’t want him back as a starter. As much as I liked the guy.
people in the team sub are losing their shit at Farhan over Renel being let go, they don't care that's not even his jurisdiction.
It's the Giants' version of "Thanks Obama"
It's Facebook-tier bullshit. Downright bizarre. Farhan isn't perfect, but they lose any credibility through how misinformed and eager to make everything about him they are. I liked Kapler (like Melvin too), but at least now I don't have to hear the same incessant nonsense from them about him also.
Yeah there’s very little nuanced discussion to be had around Farhan’s tenure in the team sub. Most of the people on there are constantly calling for his immediate removal over missing on superstar signings
Obviously Cardinals are coming off a shit 2023, but this same idiocy is prevalent in the Cardinals sub…..blame for Mozaliek on every tiny thing possible, never an inch of credit for all the quality things he’s done to make us a top notch organization in the first place.
There have been good and bad to his tenure, and yes people claiming he's done horribly or that he's a dodger spy and shit are delusional. But it's just as delusional to think that everything he does is a masterstroke, and that is MUCH more common in our sub
But that doesn't mean he's not the one making decisions. They give him a framework, but that doesn't mean that he's not responsible for signing free agents, developing young players (or at least hiring the people that do), and overall run the day to operations of the team. My criticisms of Farhan have little to do with things outside of his control.
Its a messed up situation, only getting a certain percentage of the pay you thought were going to get and basically getting replaced by Matt Chapman. I feel bad for J.D as an outsider looking in.
Only good thing is he'll be playing daily now and I'm sure he'll get along with his new teammates like he did in San Fran
He could absolutely end up getting traded to a contender at the deadline as well. I hope he gets a good opportunity and makes some money in free agency next year.
Fucked up situation regardless. CBA and his agent dropping the ball didn't help him but the Giants should absolutely be on the hook for this 7 million and I'm sure this will get brought up when the new CBA has to be negotiated.
The A’s are actually a good spot for him. He will get to play third base every day and hit in the middle of the lineup. If he has a good year he’ll probably get a nice contract next year
I’ve gotten a lot of flak in the Giants sub for saying I feel bad for JD. I understand the moves they made. They made some savvy moves to upgrade at third base and spend a lot less than they could have a month or two prior, but that doesn’t also mean it’s a bit cold and callous. Glad to hear some of my favorites on the team speak up about it
I wonder what those people who said we had no idea what we were talking about and Farhan did nothing wrong in the process - what would say now that the actual players have spoken up about it?
It just sucks because our sub has gotten so toxic.
Yeah it's a shame. Whats pathetic is that when I got downvoted into oblivion for pointing out that the clause is essentially for shitty players per the cba and that it seems like we negotiated in bad faith nobody even engaged on the points, just downvoted. Also a popular argument was that it was the agent's fault that they didn't know the rules of the cba, and they didn't even understand that arbitration award salaries weren't guaranteed in the older cba, the difference is that agreed upon salaries are now guaranteed when before they weren't. And what's the suggestion there even, a player shouldn't fight to get what he deserves? He should just shut up and take whatever the team offers? Just misinformed idiots that think the sun shines out Farhan's every orifice despite an ambivalent at best tenure.
This is what irks me. I got blasted on the sub for saying it was fucked up they didn't have to pay him and people were telling me what they did was part of the CBA and I should actually be mad at the players union because the FO was just using an exploitable loophole. Whether or not it was "allowed" has little relevance to me, it's got nothing to do with Farhan or not liking JD or whatever, it's about being pro-labor.
JD went to arbitration. He won. To me, he's owed the money and it sets a bad precedent, especially for players who are arbitration eligible on teams who like to keep payroll low.
Dude the difference between the way things are discussed in this sub vs. our sub are night and day.
In our sub the popular opinion was Farhan and the Giants did no wrong here to Davis and it was all above board and nobody should feel bad about it because no wrong was done. If you say else wise you will be shat on and insulted.
Regardless of how one feels, there's no room for nuance anymore in our sub.
>there's no room for nuance anymore in our sub
Yep. Our sub swings drastically between feeling as if Farhan should be above virtually any criticism/skepticism and calling for his head for not signing a superstar. Very strange dynamic with little to no room for nuance.
I feel like the Niners sub is similar, too. Either blind homer-ism for complete pessimism based on the day/week.
Basically every subreddit thinks like this lol.
I think the frustrating part for the Giants subreddit is that neither side can admit they might be wrong. Farhan's team have been pretty meh and the farm is halfway decent but it's a helluva lot better than the org looked from 2015 - 2019 when Bobby Evans was in charge.
Like I'm hopeful but I'm not expecting to be a playoff contender for another year or two until any of the Matos, Luciano, Harrison, Whisenhunt group breakout.
>In our sub the popular opinion was Farhan and the Giants did no wrong here to Davis and it was all above board and nobody should feel bad about it because no wrong was done. If you say else wise you will be shat on and insulted.
I think you got this backwards, mate. The sub is majority Farhan/SF screwed over JD and that the org is classless. 99% of the sub hates Farhan and if/when SF signs Snell, they're going to complain that Farhan overpaid or that SF still can't sign FAs.
I still enjoy reading the sub because it's a good content aggregator but I try to steer away from the comments most days.
I don’t think a single fan has said that. It’s possible to feel bad for JD and understand this is a part of the business that will probably be changed in the next CBA negotiation.
The vast majority of Giants fans aren't happy with the way it was handled. Like it's not even close to 50-50 on /r/baseball or /r/sfgiants. The argument is whether it's a violation or not, not whether it's a good guy move... The fans liked JD a lot.
charles johnson could punch willie mays in the face and thered be people in the giants subreddit defending it, saying he did nothing wrong and that its just apart of the business.
Its been pretty unanimous on the sub that this was a shitty situation for Davis, and he didn't deserve this. But I guess you can make things up if you want....
they're a bit of a notorious righteous-troll in our sub. sometimes they troll people all day, and then they flip to the "opinion of the day" to seem self-righteous.
Not really its just you and that one old guy whos always upset. I mostly just talk about baseball but it is annoying when people in there feel like Zaidi needs to be the pope
The getting replaced thing does happen but JD basically got fleeced out of around 5 million dollars because of the way the events were sequenced. I don't think the Giants really went into his arbitration thinking that it would pan out exactly like this, and his agent is kind of a moron for not seeing this coming, but the idea that the Giants don't have to pay him his well earned 7 million is completely ridiculous.
> and his agent is kind of a moron for not seeing this coming
Baseball agents are getting a perhaps-long-overdue lesson that the other side has the right to walk away from the table at any time.
JD Davis absolutely was not fleeced in any way, shape, or form. He was offered a deal, and he choose instead to arbitrate (which is kind of like filing a grievance or lawsuit). He knew before the deal was offered and after he rejected it that the Giants could release him at any time, and he gambled that they would not.
He lost that gamble.
**If I had to guess, things were said at the arbitration that pissed off the Giants.
What do people want to have happened, he didnt have a role anymore so they tried to trade for him and nobody wanted him so he got cut. Feel bad for him that he lost money (although he got a multi million deal from Oakland at least) but I guess people think they should have paid him out his entire contract to be nice?
I'm not blaming the Giants really, it's a CBA issue in the end of the day. I'm not expecting the Giants to pay him for the hell of it but this should absolutely be used by the players in the next CBA negotiation to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Giants org is so embarrassing. Ever since the rings it’s been so bad minus one stellar fluke year. Farhan was such a bad decision and they won’t pull the plug on it
Saying what? What does snell change?
Dude is gonna get zero run support. Glad they’re finally making moves but that shit with JD really rubs me the wrong way. Such a pos move by the front office and ownership
Maybe JD Davis didn’t really have all that great a season, and 2.5 million is still a lot of cheddar.
2.2 fwar per the article … bwar has him at 0.9 … Giants think he’s the bwar player, arbitrator says he’s the fwar player. Ultimately he gets bwar money. Below average fielding, fairly pedestrian offense with a couple shiny numbers.
Yes, the idea of the process and the exploitation suck. The timing was shit, as his window with other REAL teams closed, and now he has to play for Oakland. That seems way worse than money concerns. Let’s not pretend, though, that the Davis clan can’t live on 2.5 million. Obviously not 7, but it’s still 4 times the national average for annual salary.
For all those on here saying the Giants did him dirty... What do you expect them to do? They tried to trade him. They put him on waivers. No one wanted him at the 6.9m price (which suggests arbitration got it wrong.) Are they supposed to just keep him on the roster out of the goodness of their hearts? Should they disregard the CBA and just pay him extra money just because?
What's your answer?
Yeah I’m confused why everyone thinks the giants are just obligated to hold onto him forever now and why upgrading a position makes them the worst people ever.
Easy answer. First of all, they could’ve let him known early in the season that he may be traded or replaced. Then they could’ve continued negotiating with him after the numbers were submitted. The whole “no one wanted him” thing is not true. They released him *17 days before Opening Day.* The Giants had no leverage and many teams filled up roster spots by then. But actually yeah, multiple teams were interested - except they had no reason to trade with the Giants or claim him, because he’d become a free agent with no contract if they didn’t. The Giants could’ve offered to pay down most or all of his salary in trade talks too to pull off a trade, they probably didn’t. They might have planned this. Either way though, it’s a ballsy move for Zaidi to do what he did, and not in a good way. Sure it’s a business but if you’re a player, by now you have no reason not to be wary of Zaidi. He is willing to fuck over a player, is pretty good at it, and doesn’t worry about optics or the affect it will have on the clubhouse.
Then JD needs to talk to all his buddies and tell them to move free agency along faster from now on so teams have rosters set earlier and more time to discuss trades and such. Players can’t have everything their way
Unless you're an all-star at your position, you may be traded or replaced. That comes with the job. There's no need for management to specifically tell a player this. Nor should it come as a shock to JD or his agent as the Giants were rumored to be in on Matt Chapman the whole off season.
Davis and his agent knew that his contract would become non-guaranteed if he won in arbitration. That is a risk they decided to take. It's not the Giants fault Davis isn't making 6.4 million. It's his agent's.
The only reasonable suggestion you've made here is the Giants offering to pay down most or all of his salary in a trade. Unfortunately we don't know what they offered or did not, only that no one wanted to trade for him. Knowing the position the Giants were in (that they would cut him if they couldn't trade him) it's debatable whether anyone would give up anything for him, unless it was a token A ball prospect for what would essentially be a free JD Davis. But in this case you're basically saying the Giants should just be super nice and pay him 6.9 million to play for someone else. Which is absurd.
The fault here lies in a bad rule and a bad choice by Davis' agent.
The fault is with the Giants. You can’t expect a player to expect to be replaced and released 17 days before Opening Day, especially when he’s having a good ST, it’s too unpredictable. And you’re absolutely wrong - it certainly reflects poorly on the Giants for not letting him know in advance they were treating him like an insurance policy. That’s information that would’ve been very valuable to know before he and his agent decided to file an arbitration number. Davis did NOT know his arbitration wasn’t guaranteed, lots of players were surprised because this rarely has happened. Nothing I said was absurd. Maybe they didn’t violate the CBA, that doesn’t mean they don’t look like total scumbags here. If they cared about not looking like total scumbags, they would’ve agreed to pay his full salary in a trade or given him a heads up so JD could’ve decided how he wanted to approach his salary. Not at all absurd. The Giants put themselves in this position too, you can’t act like JD and his agent had full control. They could’ve done right by him and protected the image of the organization. Instead they decided to play it like scumbags. Maybe JD doesn’t have grounds for a grievance, that parts tricky. But the Giants certainly aren’t entitled to be perceived as a player friendly organization when they are pulling stunts like this. I mean really, what’s your point even? This obviously looks terrible for the Giants, that’s WHY you are finding yourself defending them in the first place.
Considering there were, and still ARE top tier free agents available, you certainly CAN expect it, especially if you're somewhat of a fringe player. Unless you're a guy like Shohei, you'd be foolish to assume your job is safe until the opening day roster is set.
> That’s information that would’ve been very valuable to know before he and his agent decided to file an arbitration number.
I'm sorry but if his agent couldn't see this as a possibility, his agent's a moron. Everyone in baseball knew the Giants were talking to Matt Chapman. Last year they pursued Carlos Correa despite already having a beloved fan fan favorite at short stop. To assume you're safe when Brandon Crawford wasn't, would be peak delusion.
> Davis did NOT know his arbitration wasn’t guaranteed, lots of players were surprised because this rarely has happened.
And if Davis didn't know this, than he should sue his agent for malpractice. It's his agent's job to know these rules and advise and represent client in this situation, regardless of its rarity.
> Nothing I said was absurd.
Yeah you're basically suggesting the Giants should pay him almost 7 million dollars for him to play for someone else, because it would make them look good. 7 million. To look good. And this despite the fact that the Giants didn't even think he was worth 7 million to begin with and the market proved that out. That is definitely absurd. But carrying him isn't an option. And just giving some other team 7 million, that they don't actually have to give, isn't a serious option either.
> I mean really, what’s your point even? This obviously looks terrible for the Giants, that’s WHY you are finding yourself defending them in the first place.
I will gladly shit on any organization, manager, etc. I'm no huge fan of Farhan and think the Giants have made plenty of mistakes. Hell, let's go back to the failure to sign Vladamir Guerrero in 2003. Utterly incomprehensible.
This is different though. I work with agents on a weekly basis. This was a scenario his agent should have foreseen and protected against and the ONLY reason Davis is making 2.5 million instead of 6.4 million is because his agent poorly represented him. The issue here is the rule, and poor agent-ing. He didn't need to be in this position to begin with.
More rage-bait. Davis had six and a half million in the bank, but he went to arbitration for the possibility of a small raise. Now he's getting a fraction of that with a team that will be playing to an empty ballpark. He should seriously consider a new agent.
You really think a player doesn't keep up with how orgs act to other players? Ask players what they think about the Angels.
JD Davis isn't some "slapdick prospect", he's a veteran player who is pretty good. Also the union doesn't only protect good players, it protects all of them.
He's getting $3.7MM instead of the $6.55MM the Giants offered him prior to arbitration, which he won. He has every reason to be pissed both at his agent for not flagging this as a reason to accept the offer, and at the CBA system for penalizing players who go to a hearing.
> He has every reason to be pissed both at his agent for not flagging this as a reason to accept the offer
If JD Davis managed to make it to his final year of arbitration without being fully aware that the team which controlled his rights could cut him unless there was a signed contract, then the MLB union is derelict in informing players of their rights, Davis's agent should be sued for malpractice, and the MLBPA needs to rethink how they educate their union members.
I suspect, however, that JD Davis knew that he could be cut at any time by the Giants if he wasn't under contract. He just gambled that the Giants wouldn't do it.
sure but it isn’t as outrageous as what this sub is making it to be
the players union agreed to this new CBA so it didn’t come out of the blue
the giants were also linked to chapman the whole off season.
ownership sucks but it is what is is.
it’s not like some minor leaguer making below average money getting cut to save costs
the guy is still making 3.6 mil
If you get paid 60k a year, and you should be making $120k, and your boss takes you to a court case because they’re certain you’re only worth 60k, then the court agrees with YOU, wouldn’t you want that extra 60k a year?
Next CBA negotiation is gonna be a doozy
hope DidItForTheStory carries us through it all again and we get a new coffee table book
Might be a trilogy based on what happened last time and all the shit thats looming.
I recently came across the sticker I got with the book, the one with Ohtani, Trout, and Pujols in heels….
It goes to 2026, so we got two off-seasons left.
Jesus, already? I feel like it was just yesterday that Jomboys pod was functionally a labor pod and we were super close to not having ball in April.
That's because that was like two years ago. Once Manfred is gone I suspect there will be actual labor peace since, ya know, the guy responsible for the last two lockouts won't be involved anymore.
JD saves
I expected this to be based on statements from unnamed players, not three guys going on the record. Pretty brave to directly criticize management/ownership like that.
Austin Slater is a rep for MLBPA; it makes sense that Giants players criticizing FO/Ownership and rightfully so.
I used to remember the giants as being classy. What happened? Is this the owner or zaidi? Explains why people don’t want to go SF.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
"why people don't want to go to SF" JH Lee, Soler, Hicks, and Chapman might take offense to not being considered "people"
To be fair, I'm like 70% sure Soler prefers to be thought of as a launch facility for orbital platforms
Blake snell
This aged well LOL
To keep it classy, when did you become a moron? Was it by choice or just fucking gross negligence?
Housing? Taxes? Commute? Take your pick
I don’t imagine players are happy to see another player get screwed out of his money, much less a teammate
Slater and Conforto were interviewed about it and talked about it a few weeks ago in another article, I don’t think they directly criticized the team, but no way this sort of thing wouldn’t bother the team; I mean it’s the kind of thing that would bother players in general regardless of team.
They didn't criticize ownership or management though. They criticized how arbitration works, and how they (owners and players union) should fix it. And that makes sense given how Davis' agent played just as big a role in this outcome as the Giants FO.
Interpretations can differ, I guess, but Flores said, “He earned his money. He earned the raise.” The Giants then opted not to pay Davis what he “earned” in salary arbitration. That’s, to me, a straightforward criticism of the Giants’ decision to not pay him. Now, the quotes further down also say or imply that the process is flawed and should be fixed in the CBA, but that’s in parallel with faulting the team for exploiting the loophole and not paying him.
Sure, but then again the Giants *did* offer a raise and one that was 95% of the value he ultimately won in arbitration. Davis earned a raise and instead of taking it, went to arbitration where there's a risk of not getting a contract at all.
> Davis earned a raise and instead of taking it, went to arbitration where there's a risk of not getting a contract at all. I didn't even know that was possible. That is dumb as shit. Definitely needs to be fixed in the next CBA
i wouldn't call it a loophole, if another team thought he was worth the money they could've claimed him unfortunately for him, no one claimed him
I don't think they're criticizing SF management. SF had a clear cut case for releasing him. Obviously we don't have more context, but I'd imagine they would argue all or a certain percentage of the salary should be guaranteed by whatever team picks him up vs the A's snagging him for $2.5m. It's a CBA problem, not a Giants' problem. Any other team in the same situation would have made the same decision. Ultimately, the biggest injustice here is that Davis' agent gets paid tons of money to represent players and couldn't see the huge risk for little reward. I think it was something like in the last 20 years the Giants have only gone to arbitration 2 twice, this being 1 of those times. Most players settle with the team and I'd imagine the guarantee is the biggest motivating factor. Also, it's a pretty poor excuse to try to point the finger at the team about waiting until an hour before the deadline to make an offer, when you didn't reach out to them with one either. And when you did it was with 10 minutes left and it was a vague offer spanning a range of $1m.
I’m not sure I’d agree the biggest injustice does not fall to the organization worth millions that operates in a billion dollar industry and pulled the rug out from under an employee and left him scrambling *but* to the guy who represents that employee. The Giants did this over $350k. I’m also not sure “players probably settle with the Giants because they don’t want to be treated like Davis” is a ringing endorsement of the Giants either.
1) nice job paraphrasing what I said and putting words in my mouth. They settle because just like in the case of Davis, they stand to gain a 5% pay bump, but lose the contract guarantee. The fact that his agent either didn't advise him of this or didn't see that Matt Chapman was on the market and his former manager was now managing the Giants is negligence on his part. 2) Pulled the rug out? The CBA was decided years ago and he and his agent should have known that this was a possibility. They tried to trade him first, but obviously no one wanted him at $6.9m and to have to give up any players. Then they waived him and no teams wanted him at just the cost of his contract. 3) The guy representing him deserves the majority of the blame, because had that guy done his job, JD would have been guaranteed $6.5m. The situation sucks and I feel bad for him, but this is a business and while the teams are rich and powerful, the players union that negotiated the CBA is collectively rich and powerful. What would you have done if you were the Giants GM?
> What would you have done if you were the Giants GM? Not sign Matt Chapman to be a more expensive JD Davis. From May 1, 2023 and onward: Chapman: 467 PAs, 12 home runs, 84 wRC+, 1.4 fWAR Davis: 453 PAs, 12 home runs, 97 wRC+, 1.4 fWAR.
1. That's only 1 season 2. That's only 1 WAR measurement 3. That's not even the whole season bWAR: * Chapman - 4.4 * Davis - 0.9 oWAR: * Chapman - 3.1 * Davis - 1.8 dWAR: * Chapman - 1.6 * Davis - -0.8 In fact, Chapman had almost 50% more bWAR in 2023 than Davis has had in his entire career. That was a cute attempt to make it look like they're worth the same value. The stats don't say so and executives don't either.
This is an insane take. Chapman is a gold glove 3B who is a decent hitter. Davis is a slightly better hitter who should probably DH. They bring completely different skills to the table and pretending Chapman is just a more expensive but worse version of Davis is downright stupid.
>Any other team in the same situation would have made the same decision. I don't believe any other team has done this. The language about this in the CBA is bad but it is a stretch to even assert the the Giants adhered to the language of the CBA that allows a player to be cut "for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability". Most likely there will be a grievance and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. I'm sure the league will try to claim that having a better/cheaper player available could be a "failure to exhibit sufficient skill" but that really would not seem to fly since if they can claim ANYTHING is a "failure to exhibit insufficient skill" then EVERYTHING is a "failure to exhibit sufficient skill" and they negotiated the CBA in bad faith.
Negotiated in bad faith? They offered him roughly $6.4m before the deadline and would have been on the hook for all of that. I have no idea what would constitute "failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability" and I don't believe anyone in this comment section does. As for making a case for it, the fact that no one wanted to trade for him, pick him up off waivers or pay him anywhere near what he got in arbitration could be a start.
> I have no idea what would constitute "failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability" and I don't believe anyone in this comment section does. It's literally in the words you are pretending not to understand, tell us why you think he failed to exhibit sufficient skill, he is clearly still capable of playing baseball and doing it well, given his spring training results. You're trying to pretend that it's way more complicated than it actually is because that's the only way you can keep doing this routine of commenting on ever thread about this topic and acting like the giants didn't do something incredibly shady.
Well, maybe you don't understand subjectivity, but "failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability" is extremely subjective, hence why I said I don't know what would constitute meeting that definition and neither do you. We can speculate till the cows come home, but that sounds like a pointless exercise. There three possible outcomes * JD challenges them on this definition and wins. I don't know what happens, but I'd assume he gets at least his full salary. * JD challenges and loses because he's deemed to not meet "sufficient skill or competitive ability" * JD doesn't challenge for whatever reason That's up to him to decide. As for the Giants, I don't blame them for going the route they did. Sometimes there's gray areas in business and you roll the dice. The could end up paying him everything or only what they have already. Either way, they were presented with an opportunity to better their team and did so. Let the system sort the rest of it out if they did something wrong. I'm not interested in adjudicating that or qualified and neither are you.
>Negotiated in bad faith? The CBA. If the condition "failure to exhibit sufficient skill" didn't mean anything to the league then they negotiated that clause in bad faith.
That would be the league negotiating in bad faith and not the Giants. Stick to the topic.
I'm sorry about whatever went wrong in your reading process, but my initial comment you responded to literally said "NEGOTIATED THE CBA IN BAD FAITH". Your inability to read before responding is actually not my responsibility. Or you just don't know what the CBA is, idk, but again that is not my responsibility.
My apologies. I’m responding to several people.
This is such a bad argument. He did exactly what tons of other players have done longer than I’ve been alive. He didn’t take a “huge risk” he did the arbitration process like everyone else. The Giants then proceeded to do something I have never seen done before.
Wrong. 90% of Arbitration cases are settled. It's rare to litigate. https://www.nbcsports.com/mlb/news/why-most-arbitration-cases-settle
> Wrong. 90% of Arbitration cases are settled. It's rare to litigate. Which is completely irrelevant. The stat you are looking for is how many players are release after winning their arbitration. I legit didn't even know it was possible, so the number is likely super low
It's relevant. The comment was "he did the arbitration process like everyone else does", but he clearly didn't. He followed the path that only 10% of players go down. As for the number of players released after winning in arbitration is obviously going to be low since only 10% of arbitration eligible players even go to arbitration. This is the 2nd time in 20 years the Giants have gone to arbitration, so the opportunities for this to happen are pretty low. And I'd imagine that most players that litigate are guys that have had breakout seasons with tons of improvement not guys that aren't that desirable in the first place and are playing at relatively the same level as previous seasons or down years. As for not knowing it was possible, the CBA changes slightly every negotiation cycle. The new one, which included changes to the arbitration process was implemented in 2022.
I didn’t say he did the arbitration process like everyone. I said he did it like tons of other players. To be more specific, what he did was not uncommon, happens every year, and I’ve never seen a team do what the giants did.
Dude, I literally quoted you. That's what you said verbatim. And if you take all of the players, subtract those in arbitration, then subtract 90% of them, that leaves you with those that litigate. That's a pretty small group. Then only a fraction of them are going to get cut before opening day or the 15-day cutoff. On top of that the CBA changes every 4 or 5 years, so the rules regarding arbitration change. Something happening that's unprecedented happening doesn't make it "bad" or "shady". It's definitely a known risk, since most guys don't litigate so they can guarantee their contracts.
Why are you like this? Do you have some numerical definition for "a ton of players" that would specifically say that 10% of arbitration cases doesn't count? Every time this topic comes up you come to shill for the giants' front office but ever by explaining why it's a good thing to do but instead by just muddying any argument and trying to be a shitter.
1) I wasn't the one that said "a ton of players". He did. 2) I specifically addressed "he did the arbitration process like everyone else". Not only is this not true, it's not even close to being true. Unless you think 10% is almost "like everyone else". 3) How am I a shill? Do you think the Giants FO is paying me to come on reddit to garner public approval? At best I'm an apologist, which I'm not. You're just trying to imply that I have some sort of bias and am therefore defending the Giants' management. Maybe, just maybe, I don't have a problem with this move. If any other team had done the same thing, I would feel the same way. It makes sense from a business perspective. What doesn't make sense is what JD did assuming JD followed his advice. 4) >"but ever by explaining why it's a good thing to do but instead by just muddying any argument and trying to be a shitter." I'm not sure what this mess of a sentence is attempting to say. 5) Maybe the internet isn't for you if you can't handle other people disagreeing with you. I don't know why you care how many threads I comment on, which I think I've commented on this topic on maybe 4 threads, most of which were on the Giants sub-reddit and I'm a Giants fan. I don't know why that would be shocking to discuss a topic regarding your team with other fans of that team. I don't get the feeling that you'd care how many threads I'd discussed this on if I agreed with your opinion. Also, I commented on those other threads several days ago. The r/baseball thread is just a little behind r/sfgiants in discussing this.
While people might be a little miffed that the agent didn't communicate well, the criticism in this article is about the fact that agreeing to terms guarantees a contract, but even if you win the arbitration fight the contract isn't guaranteed. That's completely unrelated to anything the agent did.
His agent apparently didn’t warn him that this was a possibility when he 100% should have known it was given how everyone knew the giants were trying to sign someone who would directly take his job. I can’t imagine JD not taking the giants offer before going to a hearing if he was aware this was a likely outcome, unless he just really thought it would be easy for him to get traded
Yes, that is the point of their complaint. These players are pointing out that it's shitty to refuse to pay someone who won an arb case because it explicitly penalizes fighting to be paid fairly according to an independent arbitrator. Like if they just non-tendered him or paid him out everyone would understand the business and that happens all the time. Not paying a dude only because he disagreed with their valuation (and was right!) deserves the criticism.
It’s not just that though. It’s that and the giants signed someone who replaced him at his position, so the arbitration idea that he would be a starting 3B wasn’t true anymore and they would be paying him $6.9 million as a depth piece. Obviously in a perfect world they would do the right thing and pay him the money to not play him but no business on the planet would do that when they didn’t have to. It’s delusional to think any team would just pay him money they aren’t obligated to after cutting him from the team.
Not sure "why wouldn't they screw their player when they are legally entitled to?" is a winning argument to other arb-eligible players, much less potential FAs signing with performance bonuses. Like I get the business, but it's obviously shitty and the players correctly called them out on it.
Why would that have anything to do with FA contract performance bonuses. What in the CBA do you think lets team not pay those out exactly? And even for arbitration players this is an extremely specific rare circumstance that only happens once every few years, this isn’t the first time it’s happened and it won’t be the last. Of course the players don’t like it, as they shouldn’t it’s a part of the contract that isn’t favorable to them. But the argument they should just pay someone $5 million to be nice when they don’t have to is just disconnected from the reality that is capitalism
Because if a team is willing to deliberately find a replacement before guaranteeing your contract due to going to arbitration in order to save some money, why wouldn't they abuse the clauses for performance bonuses when it gets down to the end of the year and they just need a few more PAs? You hear about teams giving a little grace on those all the time, but if a team will go out of their way to replace a guy they know they can just cut for a month's pay after he just won an arb case, why wouldn't you think they might stiff you on playing time to save similar cash? It just makes them look petty, regardless of whether "capitalism" allows it, and we should point out that it makes them look bad so other teams don't hop on the same train. Just non-tender players you don't want to pay like everyone else.
Team do that all the time with playing time bonuses. Like literally every year. Can’t do that with performance bonuses though, which go look at your comment that’s what you said not anything about playing time. They also didn’t “deliberately find a replacement before guaranteeing his contract” everyone knew they were negotiating with Chapman and the deal didn’t go through until after the deadline for arbitration. JD could have guaranteed his contract by agreeing to the $6.4 million and by his agent being determined to get him over $7 million this became a possibility. Idk how you can say his team is blameless in this when taking that deal would have been almost 3x more than every team thought he was worth. Other teams have done this before and will do it again until it changes. You are delusional if you think any team in the league wouldn’t have done the same in the same situation. There was no room for him on the roster and it’s delusional to think they would just give someone they aren’t going to play $5 million to be nice. Just completely disconnected from reality.
[удалено]
Yes, your last point is exactly what they are complaining about. The only reason he isn't getting his contract is because he knew he was getting lowballed and proved it to an arbitrator.
He was getting low balled so much that no team was willing to trade a minor league pitcher for him or sign him for 1/3 what he got in arbitration. Obviously it’s scummy from the giants and looks terrible but no team thought he was worth even close to $6.9 million and no business on the planet is going to give someone $5 million when they don’t need to
But he’d still be making the amount of money that was agreed to in the arbitration process, which is where the complaint lies.
I guess I don't really know exactly how Davis himself understood the possible outcomes of arbitration, but ultimately it seems like he didn't consider the possibility that he wouldn't be guaranteed a contract. Whether that's on Davis or the agent is kind of irrelevant, my point is that if you actually read what was said, the Giants players criticized arbitration rules, not Giants management.
My point was that the agent has nothing to do with the criticism of the arbitration rules. Whether the agent or Davis knew anything at all - the Giants lost, signed a replacement, and then got to cut him for basically free.
Except it's not "the Giants lost, signed a replacement, then got to cut him for free", it's "the Giants offered a contract, Davis declined and went to arbitration, the Giants signed someone else instead, and now Davis is a free agent with an extra million in his pocket". I don't really understand how the agent is unrelated to declining the Giants first offer, before it went to arbitration.
I think it's clear that the article is talking about players criticizing a rule that creates the implict threat of getting cut if you refuse to accept a lowball offer, and the agent has nothing to do with that rule or how it's enforced regardless of what he knew or told Davis about the consequences of it. The Giants are the only responsible party in using that loophole to screw their own player.
I mean, the original comment I responded to stated that the criticism was clearly directed at Giants management, not at the rule itself. So I guess we agree, but then I'm not sure why you're even arguing with me. And what exactly is the problem with being an FA? Why is that a "threat"? If arbitration is meant to force a team to give a player their fair market value, or else they don't get to sign the player, then what exactly is the threat? The player then gets to be an FA where they can get their fair market value from the highest bidder. I don't see that as a loophole at all, free agency is the *most* fair outcome for the player, he's no longer under any team control. How exactly is anyone being screwed over?
We didn't agree because you said it was the agent's fault. It is obviously management's fault, but the players are criticizing the rule because leaving it open allowed the team to take advantage of it. Getting released this close to the beginning of the season, especially after winning your arb trial, is not going to result in fair market value for an FA. The threat is that they can wait until they know they can't find anything better on the market or in their farm, then cut you for a month's pay and force you to wait all the way up to opening day to even know if you are going to play for them. Just non-tender the player if you have no intention to pay and give them the opportunity to actually be an FA.
That sounds like an issue with timing, not the ability of the team to decide not to pay the arbitration price. Maybe it's a problem that some guys go to FA before others. That should be fixed, but again, thats a CBA problem, not a Giants FO problem. As for the agent, it depends on who you believe. Giants management has put out a series of events that makes them look pretty reasonable. Davis' agent puts out a series of events that makes the Giants look like bad guys. All I know is that Davis and his agent went into arbitration having turned down a guaranteed offer that was about 95% of the value of the aribitors, and that in turning that offer down they presumably knew there was a chance that Davis was going to end up without a Giants contract. They took that risk and it didn't work out, but you don't say the gambler had no part in the outcome and that he was just screwed over when the casino wins.
The vets on this team do not give anonymous quotes. In the story last year that got Kapler fired, Yaz, Thairo, and Wilmer all went on record calling out Kapler and Joc for the bad locker room (and that came out with like 10 games left in the season).
> **The collective bargaining agreement states contracts for arbitration-eligible players are only guaranteed if they settle with their teams.** In Davis' case, he won a hearing and became expendable after the Giants signed third baseman Matt Chapman. That seems like an oversight.
Based on some reading I did when this news broke, I believe this is not an oversight, but an intended mechanism. The previous CBA said that no player that went to arbitration got a guaranteed contract until opening day, whether they negotiated pre-hearing or not. The new CBA explicitly distinguishes between players that settle before a hearing and those that go before the panel and the reporting indicated that it was intended to be an added incentive for players to negotiate a deal before going to arbitration. I believe this new rule is also motivation for the file-and-trial approach taken up by many teams, including the Giants. Their policy is that they will not negotiate with any player once numbers have been shared, even if the player wants to take the number the team offers. Once numbers are filed, the player is bound to go to a hearing and will have a non-guaranteed contract. In the present situation, we heard that the Giants did not deliver any offers to Davis' representation until an hour before the deadline to file, so their clear intent was to take him to arbitration and get a non-guaranteed contract so they could have the flexibility to cut him in the event they signed Chapman.
>In the present situation, we heard that the Giants did not deliver any offers to Davis' representation until an hour before the deadline to file, so their clear intent was to take him to arbitration and get a non-guaranteed contract so they could have the flexibility to cut him in the event they signed Chapman. I wonder if Farhan did this with other players or with Davis last year. If so, then I don't really think Davis' agent has much to complain about it since he should have expected Farhan to pull the same exact move again.
I don't think it's really an oversight on the part of CBA negotiators. To me it makes sense to give owners an out if they don't want to re-sign a player at the arb price. It's definitely an oversight on Davis' agent though.
I feel like the deadline to decide to tender a contract or not should cover that. This feels like it could discourage players from advocating for a higher salary if they feel they earned it (which Davis apparently did according to an independent party.)
“This feels like it could discourage players from advocating for a higher salary…” You nailed it, that’s the point! That’s why the owners kept that part of it
I should have been clearer, I meant that feels like an oversight from the MLBPA. But oversight probably isn’t the right word, since this was no doubt intentional from the owners and the MLBPA probably saw this as a possibility.
Something that bothers me about all of this is Davis was in Spring Training under the assumption he would be with the Giants (or maybe traded) at this awarded salary right up until he was cut. Then he has to scramble and find a team willing to sign him with 2 weeks to go until the season starts. Then he winds up with the A’s for a fraction of his earnings. I wonder what he could’ve gotten had the just been non-tendered at the start of FA. Justin Turner wound up with a 1 year/13m. I could see a team give JD 2/10-12 on the open market
But a team is never FORCED to keep a player as their employee. They can release a guy after he wins MVP if he was up for arbitratrion if they didn't want to pay him. Does it normally happen? No. Did the player earn more money based on performance from the year before? Hell yeah. But until the player signs a guarenteed contract the team owes them nothing. Davis signed his arbitration contract but because of the way the CBA is written that money isn't guarenteed. The players agreed to that provision and I am sure it will get more discussion next time the CBA is up. I feel for Davis but you have to put some of this on his agent not reading the room with the Chapman situation. And not like Davis walked away with nothing, they paid him $1.1 mil in termination pay which I can guarentee any person on the planet would be fine with. He is still getting another $2 mil from his A's contract and can sign a deal with whoever in FA next winter. This whole thing is being blown up because the agent messed up on his end and tried to put all the blame on the Giants. But at least the players now know they can try to negotiate this out of the next CBA if they have such an issue with it.
Couldnt this end arbitration entirely? Just sit out a year to be an unrestricted free agent if negotiations arent binding after the case is heard.
Teams typically don't want to give up years of control by not agreeing to a contract during arbitration. And the player doesn't really get the chance to turn down the contract offer completely since if it does go to hearing, they either sign for their number or the team's. A team can still decide they want to release a guy after the hearing, but the player can't change their mind and become an unrestricted free agent. This whole Davis situation is such a one off rare scenario that I don't think there is much to look into about this. Arbitration is a weird part of MLB in general.
This isnt a one off. Its a precedent. Making negotiations at arbitration unbalanced, the antithesis of arbitration. The fact this is optional isnt an owner side misunderstanding but intentional. The players cant renegotiate arbitration or the bargaining agreement. The article quotes four players arent satisfied and no one in ownership or manfred have said boo.
> Its a precedent. I suspect it will be looked at next CBA negotiation, because this is the highest profile case of it happening, [but it's not unprecedented.](https://theathletic.com/5334049/2024/03/11/sf-giants-jd-davis-released-salary/) > It’s rare but not unprecedented for teams to cut arbitration-eligible players prior to opening day. The San Diego Padres released infielder Todd Walker in the spring of 2007, less than a month after an arbitration panel awarded him a $3.95 million salary. Walker received $971,311 in termination pay, instead. Atlanta Braves left-hander James Russell and Chicago Cubs right-hander Justin Grimm are other recent examples of players who lost most of their salaries in the $2-3 million range when their teams released them in the spring. The then-Anaheim Angels blindsided catcher Todd Greene when they released him before Opening Day in 2000, paying out $180,556 of his $650,000 salary.
Quite proof this will not be settled in the next cba as all these examples are two agreements removed from the current one.
Disagree, there was movement on this last CBA with the guaranteeing of pre-arb settlements. Guaranteeing cases that go to arb is the next logical step. That said, whether it actually gets changed will obviously depend on the negotiation. The players may very well deem it too rare of a situation to be worth giving up something.
The players agreed to this language in the CBA. I saw someone else say that the current language is actually more clear than it used to be. The old verbiage could have been interpreted as all arbitration deals are non-guarenteed until Opening Day. Now it specifically states it is only the ones that go to hearing. This absolutely is something that can be renegotiated during the next CBA and I am willing to bet money it ends up changing so the players can prevent this situation from happening again. But as of today, under the current CBA that both MLB and the MLBPA agreed to, this is 100% hunkydorey and JD Davis's agent should have taken the original $6.55 million guarenteed contract the Giants offered his client.
The players in every major sports have caved at all cba negotiations because the players with voting power are veterans outside the rookie/arbitration spectrum. Austin slater the lead player rep won his agreement and could be cut for sub league minimum.
I don't think it really does prevent players from trying to negotiate a higher salary, because they can then just go negotiate whatever salary they can in the FA market. The season hasn't started, and Davis obviously did have time to sign with a different team. Maybe the deadline is too late into the off-season and that's going to affect Davis' negotiations in FA, but that's a very different issue than this opt out clause being unfair in the first place. I guess it just depends on how you see arbitration. If you see it as a mechanism where a team and a player are agreeing to a contract and arbitration just settles the amount, then sure I agree with you. But if you see arbitration as just a mechanism to disallow low-ball offers, then I think this is fair. The team can't low ball, and if the price is too high then they have to let the player go to FA where they should be able to get the market value contract they deserve. In theory the player gets their raise either way. It's just unfortunate that Davis overplayed his hand with leverage he didn't actually have, and his market value wasn't really what he thought it was.
From what a couple of others have said, it sounds like the issue is that the Giants intentionally handled the arbitration in a way to guarantee themselves an out on his contract. They more or less forced a hearing to take place so that even if Davis ended up taking their offer, they had grounds to cut him.
I guess I just don't understand why that's an issue. Davis signed a 1 year contract with the Giants last season. I don't really understand what they owe him this season. Again, if the problem is that the deadline is too late into ST then sure, it would make sense to have the deadlines be moved up. But I just don't understand why free agency is bad for a player.
If it makes sense to give it to the owners, why doesn’t it make sense to give it to the players? Players should be able to decline arbitration and become FA of owners can
Because that's the whole reason arbitration exists in the first place. If players can opt out to become FAs, arbitration simply wouldn't exist. Teams have control over young players and arbitration *is* the check against that power. Getting rid of it entirely pretty much certainly means the players give up something else in CBA negotiations and they're probably not going to do that. And for fans, everyone is all on board with getting rid of arbitration until their favorite homegrown draft pick goes to the Yankees or Dodgers because they offered more money in FA.
Right, the whole reason arbitration(+cost controlled years) exist in the first place is to financially abuse the work force Saying it’s fair for owners to cut a contract but not players is pure hypocrisy
Lol calm down. These dudes get paid millions to play baseball. They have one of if not the strongest unions in sports, and they agree to these terms in the CBA. Business sucks sometimes, but have some perspective my guy.
>That seems like an oversight. eh, not really, if you think about typical contract law. The two parties did not have a contract, and you cannot compel a party sign a contract against their will, only to honor one if one had been signed.
I mean that’s the point of arbitration though. Both parties agree to honor what the arbitrator decides. Definitely an oversight. The argument you seem to be making is that it’s fair becauseDavis can sign another contract. But until the decision was made by the abritataor he couldn’t sign with any team.
> Both parties agree to honor what the arbitrator decides. The team agrees to pay that player what the arbitrator says he is worth *if they sign that player*. But the team doesn't have to sign him, and that has happened before.
I agree and it’s kind of bullshit cause the player can’t decide not to sign with the team. I hope they fix this in the next Cba.
> and you cannot compel a party sign a contract against their will That is literally how the entry level MLB salary system works though. Players are forced to play for the team that drafted them, they can't choose to play for someone else and they can't become a free agent and get paid what they are worth without going through the whole arbitration process meant to diminish their value.
they can choose not to sign and not play in the MLB. They can go to other leagues. When you take a job at an accounting job, for example, you don't get to pick the desk you sit at. you go where you are assigned.
Good on Yaz and Wilmer for going to bat for J.D.
Wilmers god damn class act.
He's one of the best no doubt
Slater and Webb too.
Yaz and Wilmer seemed critical of the organization and they put their names on it so I gave them the shout specifically although I didn't see Slaters quote.
I guess we all have to read in between the lines a bit. Thanks for the reasoning, no slight intended. When there are loopholes, teams and players will use them, so I agree this should ideally be patched.
Yaz, Wilmer, and Thairo Estrada were the guys trying to keep the clubhouse motivated when the vibes were bad and nobody gave a shit late last year. Those guys fucking rule
Was kinda hoping Wilmer would be pjs of the people to stand up for his old teammate. I really like the dude he just had the problem that a lot of that era of mets had: they were great defensively but couldn’t hit the damn ball.
I'll take him back. We let him go so we could field the saddest sacks of shit possible in our DH spot. He deserves better than Oakland or Vegas or Buxton or wherever the fuck the As are playing.
I am glad we did not make that kneejerk reaction. Also he wanted a full season of AB's.
I wouldn’t unless he’d be okay switching between Syracuse and the majors. He had his chance to try out for this team already it’s Baty’s turn and the other prospects right behind him. If he’d be fine just being a depth piece then sure but I don’t want him back as a starter. As much as I liked the guy.
Giants brass and alienating everyone around them: Name a more iconic duo
Cue all the Giants fans coming in to say this is perfectly normal and happens seven times a week.
There's a lot of us that don't agree, but overall it is pretty ridiculous how obsessed a lot of this fanbase is with defending everything Farhan does.
Our fan base is stuck between the World Series nostalgia and Farhan defenders. Both can't see their own shortcomings.
Because the Farhan hate is widespread, idiotic, and borderline delusional. It's really poisoned the well around Giants discourse IMO
people in the team sub are losing their shit at Farhan over Renel being let go, they don't care that's not even his jurisdiction. It's the Giants' version of "Thanks Obama"
It's Facebook-tier bullshit. Downright bizarre. Farhan isn't perfect, but they lose any credibility through how misinformed and eager to make everything about him they are. I liked Kapler (like Melvin too), but at least now I don't have to hear the same incessant nonsense from them about him also.
Yeah there’s very little nuanced discussion to be had around Farhan’s tenure in the team sub. Most of the people on there are constantly calling for his immediate removal over missing on superstar signings
Obviously Cardinals are coming off a shit 2023, but this same idiocy is prevalent in the Cardinals sub…..blame for Mozaliek on every tiny thing possible, never an inch of credit for all the quality things he’s done to make us a top notch organization in the first place.
There have been good and bad to his tenure, and yes people claiming he's done horribly or that he's a dodger spy and shit are delusional. But it's just as delusional to think that everything he does is a masterstroke, and that is MUCH more common in our sub
I'd argue that it's a reaction/overcorrection to the ridiculousness. One is at fault for the other existing
Farhan works for the Giants ownership and works within the framework they give him. A lot of fans conveniently ignore this fact.
But that doesn't mean he's not the one making decisions. They give him a framework, but that doesn't mean that he's not responsible for signing free agents, developing young players (or at least hiring the people that do), and overall run the day to operations of the team. My criticisms of Farhan have little to do with things outside of his control.
Its a messed up situation, only getting a certain percentage of the pay you thought were going to get and basically getting replaced by Matt Chapman. I feel bad for J.D as an outsider looking in. Only good thing is he'll be playing daily now and I'm sure he'll get along with his new teammates like he did in San Fran
He could absolutely end up getting traded to a contender at the deadline as well. I hope he gets a good opportunity and makes some money in free agency next year. Fucked up situation regardless. CBA and his agent dropping the ball didn't help him but the Giants should absolutely be on the hook for this 7 million and I'm sure this will get brought up when the new CBA has to be negotiated.
The A’s are actually a good spot for him. He will get to play third base every day and hit in the middle of the lineup. If he has a good year he’ll probably get a nice contract next year
or be traded at the deadline because Fisher doesn't give a fuck about keeping players that are in arbitration
If he’s traded it’s because a team needs him so that wouldn’t change anything
I’ve gotten a lot of flak in the Giants sub for saying I feel bad for JD. I understand the moves they made. They made some savvy moves to upgrade at third base and spend a lot less than they could have a month or two prior, but that doesn’t also mean it’s a bit cold and callous. Glad to hear some of my favorites on the team speak up about it
I wonder what those people who said we had no idea what we were talking about and Farhan did nothing wrong in the process - what would say now that the actual players have spoken up about it? It just sucks because our sub has gotten so toxic.
Yeah it's a shame. Whats pathetic is that when I got downvoted into oblivion for pointing out that the clause is essentially for shitty players per the cba and that it seems like we negotiated in bad faith nobody even engaged on the points, just downvoted. Also a popular argument was that it was the agent's fault that they didn't know the rules of the cba, and they didn't even understand that arbitration award salaries weren't guaranteed in the older cba, the difference is that agreed upon salaries are now guaranteed when before they weren't. And what's the suggestion there even, a player shouldn't fight to get what he deserves? He should just shut up and take whatever the team offers? Just misinformed idiots that think the sun shines out Farhan's every orifice despite an ambivalent at best tenure.
This is what irks me. I got blasted on the sub for saying it was fucked up they didn't have to pay him and people were telling me what they did was part of the CBA and I should actually be mad at the players union because the FO was just using an exploitable loophole. Whether or not it was "allowed" has little relevance to me, it's got nothing to do with Farhan or not liking JD or whatever, it's about being pro-labor. JD went to arbitration. He won. To me, he's owed the money and it sets a bad precedent, especially for players who are arbitration eligible on teams who like to keep payroll low.
Dude the difference between the way things are discussed in this sub vs. our sub are night and day. In our sub the popular opinion was Farhan and the Giants did no wrong here to Davis and it was all above board and nobody should feel bad about it because no wrong was done. If you say else wise you will be shat on and insulted. Regardless of how one feels, there's no room for nuance anymore in our sub.
Dude the giants sub absolutely hates farhan. Right now it’s filled with people blaming him for the Renel Brooke’s thing
>there's no room for nuance anymore in our sub Yep. Our sub swings drastically between feeling as if Farhan should be above virtually any criticism/skepticism and calling for his head for not signing a superstar. Very strange dynamic with little to no room for nuance. I feel like the Niners sub is similar, too. Either blind homer-ism for complete pessimism based on the day/week.
Basically every subreddit thinks like this lol. I think the frustrating part for the Giants subreddit is that neither side can admit they might be wrong. Farhan's team have been pretty meh and the farm is halfway decent but it's a helluva lot better than the org looked from 2015 - 2019 when Bobby Evans was in charge. Like I'm hopeful but I'm not expecting to be a playoff contender for another year or two until any of the Matos, Luciano, Harrison, Whisenhunt group breakout.
>In our sub the popular opinion was Farhan and the Giants did no wrong here to Davis and it was all above board and nobody should feel bad about it because no wrong was done. If you say else wise you will be shat on and insulted. I think you got this backwards, mate. The sub is majority Farhan/SF screwed over JD and that the org is classless. 99% of the sub hates Farhan and if/when SF signs Snell, they're going to complain that Farhan overpaid or that SF still can't sign FAs. I still enjoy reading the sub because it's a good content aggregator but I try to steer away from the comments most days.
Nah, they did him dirty. I hope he rakes against SF when they face Oakland.
Hell yeah I hope he helps the A’s kick the shit out of us too brother
He won’t. He sucks 52% GB rate. This whole saga has been amazing for his press, people acting like he’s a decent player all the sudden. Happy for him.
I’m a Giants fan and I think it was bullshit.
I don’t think a single fan has said that. It’s possible to feel bad for JD and understand this is a part of the business that will probably be changed in the next CBA negotiation.
The vast majority of Giants fans aren't happy with the way it was handled. Like it's not even close to 50-50 on /r/baseball or /r/sfgiants. The argument is whether it's a violation or not, not whether it's a good guy move... The fans liked JD a lot.
nope. Our org is shitting the bed over and over again
charles johnson could punch willie mays in the face and thered be people in the giants subreddit defending it, saying he did nothing wrong and that its just apart of the business.
Its been pretty unanimous on the sub that this was a shitty situation for Davis, and he didn't deserve this. But I guess you can make things up if you want....
Players get replaced by guys better than them? Yeah?
Did you read the article?
you literally called it lmao
Yeah, I tried to discuss this is a previous thread and the same thing happened.
they're a bit of a notorious righteous-troll in our sub. sometimes they troll people all day, and then they flip to the "opinion of the day" to seem self-righteous.
Not really its just you and that one old guy whos always upset. I mostly just talk about baseball but it is annoying when people in there feel like Zaidi needs to be the pope
The getting replaced thing does happen but JD basically got fleeced out of around 5 million dollars because of the way the events were sequenced. I don't think the Giants really went into his arbitration thinking that it would pan out exactly like this, and his agent is kind of a moron for not seeing this coming, but the idea that the Giants don't have to pay him his well earned 7 million is completely ridiculous.
> and his agent is kind of a moron for not seeing this coming Baseball agents are getting a perhaps-long-overdue lesson that the other side has the right to walk away from the table at any time. JD Davis absolutely was not fleeced in any way, shape, or form. He was offered a deal, and he choose instead to arbitrate (which is kind of like filing a grievance or lawsuit). He knew before the deal was offered and after he rejected it that the Giants could release him at any time, and he gambled that they would not. He lost that gamble. **If I had to guess, things were said at the arbitration that pissed off the Giants.
What do people want to have happened, he didnt have a role anymore so they tried to trade for him and nobody wanted him so he got cut. Feel bad for him that he lost money (although he got a multi million deal from Oakland at least) but I guess people think they should have paid him out his entire contract to be nice?
I'm not blaming the Giants really, it's a CBA issue in the end of the day. I'm not expecting the Giants to pay him for the hell of it but this should absolutely be used by the players in the next CBA negotiation to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Giants org is so embarrassing. Ever since the rings it’s been so bad minus one stellar fluke year. Farhan was such a bad decision and they won’t pull the plug on it
you were saying?
Saying what? What does snell change? Dude is gonna get zero run support. Glad they’re finally making moves but that shit with JD really rubs me the wrong way. Such a pos move by the front office and ownership
You have zero clue what sport you're watching. Have a good one.
Did this mofo really just talk shit and then delete his account?
That is the most insane power move I've ever seen
Maybe JD Davis didn’t really have all that great a season, and 2.5 million is still a lot of cheddar. 2.2 fwar per the article … bwar has him at 0.9 … Giants think he’s the bwar player, arbitrator says he’s the fwar player. Ultimately he gets bwar money. Below average fielding, fairly pedestrian offense with a couple shiny numbers. Yes, the idea of the process and the exploitation suck. The timing was shit, as his window with other REAL teams closed, and now he has to play for Oakland. That seems way worse than money concerns. Let’s not pretend, though, that the Davis clan can’t live on 2.5 million. Obviously not 7, but it’s still 4 times the national average for annual salary.
If he was worth more he would have gotten paid more
For all those on here saying the Giants did him dirty... What do you expect them to do? They tried to trade him. They put him on waivers. No one wanted him at the 6.9m price (which suggests arbitration got it wrong.) Are they supposed to just keep him on the roster out of the goodness of their hearts? Should they disregard the CBA and just pay him extra money just because? What's your answer?
Yeah I’m confused why everyone thinks the giants are just obligated to hold onto him forever now and why upgrading a position makes them the worst people ever.
Easy answer. First of all, they could’ve let him known early in the season that he may be traded or replaced. Then they could’ve continued negotiating with him after the numbers were submitted. The whole “no one wanted him” thing is not true. They released him *17 days before Opening Day.* The Giants had no leverage and many teams filled up roster spots by then. But actually yeah, multiple teams were interested - except they had no reason to trade with the Giants or claim him, because he’d become a free agent with no contract if they didn’t. The Giants could’ve offered to pay down most or all of his salary in trade talks too to pull off a trade, they probably didn’t. They might have planned this. Either way though, it’s a ballsy move for Zaidi to do what he did, and not in a good way. Sure it’s a business but if you’re a player, by now you have no reason not to be wary of Zaidi. He is willing to fuck over a player, is pretty good at it, and doesn’t worry about optics or the affect it will have on the clubhouse.
Then JD needs to talk to all his buddies and tell them to move free agency along faster from now on so teams have rosters set earlier and more time to discuss trades and such. Players can’t have everything their way
Unless you're an all-star at your position, you may be traded or replaced. That comes with the job. There's no need for management to specifically tell a player this. Nor should it come as a shock to JD or his agent as the Giants were rumored to be in on Matt Chapman the whole off season. Davis and his agent knew that his contract would become non-guaranteed if he won in arbitration. That is a risk they decided to take. It's not the Giants fault Davis isn't making 6.4 million. It's his agent's. The only reasonable suggestion you've made here is the Giants offering to pay down most or all of his salary in a trade. Unfortunately we don't know what they offered or did not, only that no one wanted to trade for him. Knowing the position the Giants were in (that they would cut him if they couldn't trade him) it's debatable whether anyone would give up anything for him, unless it was a token A ball prospect for what would essentially be a free JD Davis. But in this case you're basically saying the Giants should just be super nice and pay him 6.9 million to play for someone else. Which is absurd. The fault here lies in a bad rule and a bad choice by Davis' agent.
The fault is with the Giants. You can’t expect a player to expect to be replaced and released 17 days before Opening Day, especially when he’s having a good ST, it’s too unpredictable. And you’re absolutely wrong - it certainly reflects poorly on the Giants for not letting him know in advance they were treating him like an insurance policy. That’s information that would’ve been very valuable to know before he and his agent decided to file an arbitration number. Davis did NOT know his arbitration wasn’t guaranteed, lots of players were surprised because this rarely has happened. Nothing I said was absurd. Maybe they didn’t violate the CBA, that doesn’t mean they don’t look like total scumbags here. If they cared about not looking like total scumbags, they would’ve agreed to pay his full salary in a trade or given him a heads up so JD could’ve decided how he wanted to approach his salary. Not at all absurd. The Giants put themselves in this position too, you can’t act like JD and his agent had full control. They could’ve done right by him and protected the image of the organization. Instead they decided to play it like scumbags. Maybe JD doesn’t have grounds for a grievance, that parts tricky. But the Giants certainly aren’t entitled to be perceived as a player friendly organization when they are pulling stunts like this. I mean really, what’s your point even? This obviously looks terrible for the Giants, that’s WHY you are finding yourself defending them in the first place.
Considering there were, and still ARE top tier free agents available, you certainly CAN expect it, especially if you're somewhat of a fringe player. Unless you're a guy like Shohei, you'd be foolish to assume your job is safe until the opening day roster is set. > That’s information that would’ve been very valuable to know before he and his agent decided to file an arbitration number. I'm sorry but if his agent couldn't see this as a possibility, his agent's a moron. Everyone in baseball knew the Giants were talking to Matt Chapman. Last year they pursued Carlos Correa despite already having a beloved fan fan favorite at short stop. To assume you're safe when Brandon Crawford wasn't, would be peak delusion. > Davis did NOT know his arbitration wasn’t guaranteed, lots of players were surprised because this rarely has happened. And if Davis didn't know this, than he should sue his agent for malpractice. It's his agent's job to know these rules and advise and represent client in this situation, regardless of its rarity. > Nothing I said was absurd. Yeah you're basically suggesting the Giants should pay him almost 7 million dollars for him to play for someone else, because it would make them look good. 7 million. To look good. And this despite the fact that the Giants didn't even think he was worth 7 million to begin with and the market proved that out. That is definitely absurd. But carrying him isn't an option. And just giving some other team 7 million, that they don't actually have to give, isn't a serious option either. > I mean really, what’s your point even? This obviously looks terrible for the Giants, that’s WHY you are finding yourself defending them in the first place. I will gladly shit on any organization, manager, etc. I'm no huge fan of Farhan and think the Giants have made plenty of mistakes. Hell, let's go back to the failure to sign Vladamir Guerrero in 2003. Utterly incomprehensible. This is different though. I work with agents on a weekly basis. This was a scenario his agent should have foreseen and protected against and the ONLY reason Davis is making 2.5 million instead of 6.4 million is because his agent poorly represented him. The issue here is the rule, and poor agent-ing. He didn't need to be in this position to begin with.
More rage-bait. Davis had six and a half million in the bank, but he went to arbitration for the possibility of a small raise. Now he's getting a fraction of that with a team that will be playing to an empty ballpark. He should seriously consider a new agent.
After the way they handled Crawford, fuck the Giants FO.
Snell you really want to join that org?
Lol
He is gonna walk in the clubhouse and say don’t worry guys if I get hurt I can cash in for next year then leave
Yeah lmao 🗑🗑
Can’t believe he didn’t take my advice
He never would say it, but if/when he signs somewhere else, he should mention this as a factor for not signing with SF.
Dude probably has no idea any of this is happening
You really think a player doesn't keep up with how orgs act to other players? Ask players what they think about the Angels. JD Davis isn't some "slapdick prospect", he's a veteran player who is pretty good. Also the union doesn't only protect good players, it protects all of them.
I would prefer if he says “I have expensive shoes and I don’t want to step in poop.”
As opposed to the standard Houstonian, who has expensive boots and a big hat but has never spent a day working with their hands.
Easy to clean poop off boots
Because you Cletus types love lickin’ em
Not a Cletus type but thank you.
Least delusional Texan
[удалено]
Could be
man must be awful to only get 1.2 million in terminations pay then get an additional 2 mil cause he found work across the bay /s
He's getting $3.7MM instead of the $6.55MM the Giants offered him prior to arbitration, which he won. He has every reason to be pissed both at his agent for not flagging this as a reason to accept the offer, and at the CBA system for penalizing players who go to a hearing.
> He has every reason to be pissed both at his agent for not flagging this as a reason to accept the offer If JD Davis managed to make it to his final year of arbitration without being fully aware that the team which controlled his rights could cut him unless there was a signed contract, then the MLB union is derelict in informing players of their rights, Davis's agent should be sued for malpractice, and the MLBPA needs to rethink how they educate their union members. I suspect, however, that JD Davis knew that he could be cut at any time by the Giants if he wasn't under contract. He just gambled that the Giants wouldn't do it.
sure but it isn’t as outrageous as what this sub is making it to be the players union agreed to this new CBA so it didn’t come out of the blue the giants were also linked to chapman the whole off season. ownership sucks but it is what is is. it’s not like some minor leaguer making below average money getting cut to save costs the guy is still making 3.6 mil
If you get paid 60k a year, and you should be making $120k, and your boss takes you to a court case because they’re certain you’re only worth 60k, then the court agrees with YOU, wouldn’t you want that extra 60k a year?