The hottest debate of spring training this season has been the fate of Chicago Cubs uber-prospect Kris Bryant.
Bryant, currently “competing” for the Cubs’ third base spot, has been on fire from the start of these exhibition games, and his success at the plate is putting his team in hot water.
They have the option to keep the 23-year old down in the minors to start the season, which would delay the start of his service time clock and allow the Cubs to keep him an extra year, or they could start him on Opening Day, and he would hit free agency one year sooner.
It’s a debate that has people from all across the nation chiming in.
Bryant’s agent and renowned strong-armer Scott Boras has called the Cubs everything but clinically insane for even considering keeping his client in the minor leagues. Former players have criticized the system and how it affects a player’s ability to make it to the big leagues when they’re actually ready. And talking heads have weighed in on either side of the debate.
The problem is that this isn’t a debate, or at least it shouldn’t be. Criticize the system all you want, but in the way it’s currently structured, the Cubs simply don’t have a choice.
If you’re picking between two and a half weeks of Bryant’s bat to start the season or a full season of Bryant when he’s an established MLB star, it’s not really even open for discussion. You take the full season and you don’t think twice about it.
Is that unfair to Bryant? Sure. But truth is that doesn’t matter.
The harsh reality of Major League Baseball and all professional sports is that they're businesses. And in business, you always choose to keep a useful asset around longer if it’s cost effective, and another year of Bryant making arbitration money in what would be his biological prime is a no-brainer.
It reminds me of the one-and-done debate in college basketball and specifically, the criticism of Kentucky head coach John Calipari, who uses the system to his advantage by renting out McDonald’s All-Americans for seven months before waving them off to the NBA and replacing them with the next batch of rentals.
Is the system bad? Yes, it is. Should Calipari be faulted for using it to his advantage? Most certainly not.
The same goes here for Chicago. Is the system of service time and free agency a flawed one? Oh, assuredly. But should they be criticized for letting Bryant sit in Triple-A for two or three weeks so that five years from now they get to have him on their roster as opposed to hitting free agency? Absolutely not.
Bryant could very well flame out, but the safer bet is that he develops into a guy who hits somewhere around .275 while banging in 20-30 home runs, driving in 80-90 RBIs and playing above average defense at third base.
That kind of talent makes $15-$20 million a year on the open market at age 27-28, which is when Bryant would hit free agency.
A player still being paid through arbitration would make a fraction of that.
So Chicago has two options.
Option A: Bryant waits anywhere between nine and 20 games before being called up. Five years down the line, the Cubs save likely $10 million or more to have him play his age 27 season in pale blue pinstripes.
Option B: Bryant starts Opening Day, has a nice few seasons as a Cub, hits the free agent market at the start of his prime and a team like the New York Yankees throw ungodly amounts of money at him, and the Cubs are left with nothing.
Don’t lie to yourself. If you were Theo Epstein, you wouldn’t even have to take a moment before deciding. You’d gladly accept Option A and bear the lash of public outrage until he debuts in early May.
Maybe Bryant deserves better. Maybe the MLB needs to take a serious look at its service time rules. But for now, Chicago needs to make the smart decision and let the system work to its advantage.
Reach the columnist at icbeck@asu.edu or follow @ICBeck21 on Twitter.
Like State Press Sports on Facebook and follow @statepresssport on Twitter.
