Starting Service Time Fixes

[TheHurl]

I consider myself of average intelligence and definitely think on the business (owners) side of CBA's. Yet I only have one average solution to the issues with service time.

 

The review the issues:

 

1. Top players being held back until they won't hit 172 days in the majors. 5 years, 171 days means a player will not hit free agency. 5 years 172 days (172 is considered a year in baseball) and they do hit free agency. Current examples are Vlad, Eloy. Recent examples Ronald Acuna, Kris Bryant.

 

2. Byron Buxton an established (but not proven) Major League player did not get the call-up this year which will increase his service time by a year. He was sent down early enough to keep his year of eligibility. Admittedly it's a justified send down, but most 24 year old players coming off of a 3.5 win season are given a little more rope. He had a .365/.400/.596 line in August.

 

 

I've only come up with one solution which helps this situation. Including playoff days in service time is an interesting option (so as many as 30 extra days if a team made the finals. It adds an unknown to the mix at least and only punishes the teams that are getting playoff money. The issue with it is that it might just mean that teams wait until the Super 2 deadline and this pushes prospect debuts even further back.

 

Thoughts? Other ideas? Radio Scouts topic? Any articles or research out there (normally I look but I'm lazy in my old age)

[Hipfan]

Jonah Kerri had an interested idea on Sportsnet about giving financial payouts to the first teams that promote their top prospects: https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/fix-mlbs-service-time-dilemma/

 

It's an interesting read. I'd say cut the service times days in have, so in stead of 172 days in the league, make it something like 80. That way if a player is ready, you won't get that stupid "he needs 3 more weeks in AAA to refine his baserunning" garbage. If a player is going to help the team win, they will call him up immediately, rather than take the huge hit of not having him for half the season. Perhaps that's too simple?

[Jimcanuck]

Best way to do it is increase the compensation for teams that lose free agents, lessening the loss. The obvious one is supplementary picks (team signing the playing loses nothing), as was the case a few years ago.

 

Another option is to mandate bonuses be paid to A+, AA, and AAA players based on performance. If high performing AA / AAA players are going to have to be paid a sizable bonus, might as well bring them up?

 

The two things above in combination would probably go a long way.

 

The other thing is time to free agency based on MLB entry age, ie. a player that enters MLB at 19 yrs, 6 mo has a longer service time before free agency than a player that enters at 24 yrs, 2 mo. Come up with some reasonable formula. Reduces the incentive a team has to keep a player down.

 

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

[Abomination]

I consider myself of average intelligence and definitely think on the business (owners) side of CBA's. Yet I only have one average solution to the issues with service time.

 

The review the issues:

 

1. Top players being held back until they won't hit 172 days in the majors. 5 years, 171 days means a player will not hit free agency. 5 years 172 days (172 is considered a year in baseball) and they do hit free agency. Current examples are Vlad, Eloy. Recent examples Ronald Acuna, Kris Bryant.

 

2. Byron Buxton an established (but not proven) Major League player did not get the call-up this year which will increase his service time by a year. He was sent down early enough to keep his year of eligibility. Admittedly it's a justified send down, but most 24 year old players coming off of a 3.5 win season are given a little more rope. He had a .365/.400/.596 line in August.

 

 

I've only come up with one solution which helps this situation. Including playoff days in service time is an interesting option (so as many as 30 extra days if a team made the finals. It adds an unknown to the mix at least and only punishes the teams that are getting playoff money. The issue with it is that it might just mean that teams wait until the Super 2 deadline and this pushes prospect debuts even further back.

 

Thoughts? Other ideas? Radio Scouts topic? Any articles or research out there (normally I look but I'm lazy in my old age)

 

Exclude September, give teams 15 free games for a position player in a year, 5 for reliever, 3 for starter to cover emergency situations, and any appearances above that in a year results in a year of service time for the player.

[Dr. Dinger]

Mandatory minimum free agency age of 27 + unlimited arb years until then.

[Grant77]

Perhaps a super 2 type system where a percentage of players just short of free agency would be granted an extra year? Or would that just result in teams keeping players down even longer?

[John_Havok]

Mandatory minimum free agency age of 27 + unlimited arb years until then.

 

I can't remember which episode this was in our radio scouts podcast, but I was playing devils advocate for the sake of the show. I actually think this is a good idea.

 

Though maybe an either/or scenario would be better.

 

When you're called up, you get FA after 6 years of service time or your age 27 season, whichever comes first. I guarantee the PA would never agree to a system that keeps an 18 or 19 year old under 1 team's control for possibly 9 seasons, a 20 year old for 8 seasons, etc before he gets to hit the open market, even if those last 2 or 3 seasons were still additional arbitration years with what should increasing salary. The key is that still only 1 team would have access to offer the deal to that player

 

The arbitration system sucks, the players hate it, the owners don't really like it either so adding potentially 3 more seasons of 1 team's control just isn't fair to those generational type talents that would be the most affected by it.

 

I would also get rid of super 2 completely, and lower the threshold of what counts as a year of service time to go with it, but I'm not sure how low to go. Can't really be less than 50% of the season

Edited September 8, 2018 by John_Havok

[P2F]

It was discussed in Episode 2: Ten Straight Balls.

 

https://radioscouts.buzzsprout.com/200570/777918-episode-2-ten-straight-balls

 

The discussion begins at 14:29.

[Jimcanuck]

A bit of a more complicated option:

 

Commence FA exactly 7 years after MLB call-up, ie. if called up July 25, 2018, the player hits free agency on July 25, 2025. The player doesn't actually enter the free agent market, but remains with the team from July 25, 2025 until season's end. Compensation from July 25, 2025 to season's end is calculated based on the average compensation for the highest paid 25% of comparable players using WAR (or some other accepted metric).

 

By this method there is no reason for a team to keep a MLB ready player on the farm.

 

As well, players will not be elevated to MLB until they are truly ready. MLBPA will like this, veterans less likely to be replaced by A+ or even A ball players as has happened in the past.

[Dick_Pole]

The two issues are:

 

1. Teams manipulating service time to get more than the six years they are allotted.

2. Teams that suck delaying service time because they have no incentive to roster their best players now.

 

Issue 1 seems like an easy fix to me, if a little controversial. Service time clock starts on day 1 and control ends after 6 years, regardless of timing. That means players can start arbitration and attain free agency mid-season. That would make teams s*** their pants regarding in-year budgeting and marketing and at least eliminate the May/June call-up when the player is deserving of a roster spot out of Spring Training. It would also hurt mid-season/September call-ups but I have an idea for that.

 

Give MiLB players the right to waive starting their service time clock through to the end of the year if they are deserving a mid-season call-up. My theory on this is that it's better to earn MLB minimum than be paid MiLB salary if the team was going to delay service time under the current system anyways and that is the only roadblock to the call-up.

 

Eliminate incentives for teams to suck like a lotto draft and I think it was Boras' idea to compensate teams for finishing higher in the standings? I like that idea. Right now there is no incentive (other than pride) for a team to finish 20th over 29th in the standings but lots of incentive for a team to finish 29th over 20th. Eliminate that gap and you'll see a reduction in issue #2 I think.

[Jimcanuck]

The two issues are:

 

1. Teams manipulating service time to get more than the six years they are allotted.

2. Teams that suck delaying service time because they have no incentive to roster their best players now.

 

Issue 1 seems like an easy fix to me, if a little controversial. Service time clock starts on day 1 and control ends after 6 years, regardless of timing. That means players can start arbitration and attain free agency mid-season. That would make teams s*** their pants regarding in-year budgeting and marketing and at least eliminate the May/June call-up when the player is deserving of a roster spot out of Spring Training. It would also hurt mid-season/September call-ups but I have an idea for that.

 

Give MiLB players the right to waive starting their service time clock through to the end of the year if they are deserving a mid-season call-up. My theory on this is that it's better to earn MLB minimum than be paid MiLB salary if the team was going to delay service time under the current system anyways and that is the only roadblock to the call-up.

 

Eliminate incentives for teams to suck like a lotto draft and I think it was Boras' idea to compensate teams for finishing higher in the standings? I like that idea. Right now there is no incentive (other than pride) for a team to finish 20th over 29th in the standings but lots of incentive for a team to finish 29th over 20th. Eliminate that gap and you'll see a reduction in issue #2 I think.

 

Beat you to it by 2 minutes, other than I increased the time to 7 years to give teams further incentive to elevate deserving players.

[Dick_Pole]

Beat you to it by 2 minutes, other than I increased the time to 7 years to give teams further incentive to elevate deserving players.

 

Damn you Jim!

[BTS]

Mandatory minimum free agency age of 27 + unlimited arb years until then.

 

Yup. If you're 27 or older on November 1st, you're a free agent. If not, you're arbitration-eligible.

[Jimcanuck]

Yup. If you're 27 or older on November 1st, you're a free agent. If not, you're arbitration-eligible.

 

MLBPA will never agree. Veteran MLB calibre players will be pushed out even more, as teams seek to maximize the return from cost controlled players until 27 ie. players will be elevated before they are ready at a higher frequency.

 

Shadow ST teams like the one seen this past spring with Moose and others will become quite large.

[BTS]

MLBPA will never agree. Veteran MLB calibre players will be pushed out even more, as teams seek to maximize the return from cost controlled players until 27 ie. players will be elevated before they are ready at a higher frequency.

 

Shadow ST teams like the one seen this past spring with Moose and others will become quite large.

 

Teams will only do this if their young players are on par skill-wise with the veterans whose spots they'd be taking. And if not, teams willing to buy a Mike Moustakas for 1/10 instead of having a replacement-level 20-year old take the spot will be rewarded in the standings.

[Jimcanuck]

Teams will only do this if their young players are on par skill-wise with the veterans whose spots they'd be taking. And if not, teams willing to buy a Mike Moustakas for 1/10 instead of having a replacement-level 20-year old take the spot will be rewarded in the standings.

 

This will depend on the team and team budget. There is no question that a fixed 27 yrs old FA approach would push out more MLB calibre veterans.

 

This is a simple solution that has not been adopted for a reason.

[BTS]

This will depend on the team. There is no question that a fixed 27 yrs old FA approach would push out more MLB calibre veterans.

 

This is a simple solution that has not been adopted for a reason.

 

As long as the vets being pushed out are not better players than the young guys taking their place, I just don't see this as a problem. Players will not see a smaller percentage of revenues overall.

[Boxcar]

I consider myself of average intelligence and definitely think on the business (owners) side of CBA's. Yet I only have one average solution to the issues with service time.

 

The review the issues:

 

1. Top players being held back until they won't hit 172 days in the majors. 5 years, 171 days means a player will not hit free agency. 5 years 172 days (172 is considered a year in baseball) and they do hit free agency. Current examples are Vlad, Eloy. Recent examples Ronald Acuna, Kris Bryant.

 

2. Byron Buxton an established (but not proven) Major League player did not get the call-up this year which will increase his service time by a year. He was sent down early enough to keep his year of eligibility. Admittedly it's a justified send down, but most 24 year old players coming off of a 3.5 win season are given a little more rope. He had a .365/.400/.596 line in August.

 

 

I've only come up with one solution which helps this situation. Including playoff days in service time is an interesting option (so as many as 30 extra days if a team made the finals. It adds an unknown to the mix at least and only punishes the teams that are getting playoff money. The issue with it is that it might just mean that teams wait until the Super 2 deadline and this pushes prospect debuts even further back.

 

Thoughts? Other ideas? Radio Scouts topic? Any articles or research out there (normally I look but I'm lazy in my old age)

 

We talked about this already

[TheHurl]

Exclude September, give teams 15 free games for a position player in a year, 5 for reliever, 3 for starter to cover emergency situations, and any appearances above that in a year results in a year of service time for the player.

 

Free days probably screw the questionable talent though. The guys that might only get that or will go up and down most of their career. Ryan Spilborgh covered that one yesterday. Before putting up an over 1 win season he had come up 3 service days short of arbitration, he was a contributor for 4 seasons but still not arb eligible.. Rockies acknowledged it and gave him a 2 year contract

[Abomination]

Free days probably screw the questionable talent though. The guys that might only get that or will go up and down most of their career. Ryan Spilborgh covered that one yesterday. Before putting up an over 1 win season he had come up 3 service days short of arbitration, he was a contributor for 4 seasons but still not arb eligible.. Rockies acknowledged it and gave him a 2 year contract

 

Well it would still eat up an option and put the player on the 40 man, so I'm not sure it would be much different than it is now. In fact, I suspect it would help most players stay up longer rather than the other way around. I have doubts a team would keep a guy on the 40 man specifically to play him 14 days a year for a few years.

 

I think it's the solution that would result in the least amount of manipulation by teams, but I'm sure there's probably one or two guys who would end up worse off. In any kind of change, there always are.