Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Phillies Coast Past Brewers, Face L.A. In NLCS Bar-right-arrows



Managing the Clock

As June starts to wind down, the front office's trigger finger starts to look twitchier in terms of calling up prospects to the big club.  Maybe he's forced his way onto the team.  Maybe it's time to start sitting a moribund veteran.  Maybe it's just boredom, or lack of anything better to do.

Regardless of the reason, you can bet that the front office is keeping a keen eye on the service time being racked up by its youngest players, and that service time clock plays some part in making callup decisions.  It may seem crass or greedy to some, but there are millions of dollars at stake in watching the service time clock.

Maybe even enough to trigger the trade of a key player.

As elaborated previously, when a team signs an amateur player, that team has exclusive rights to a player's services for six to seven full seasons -- in the majors.  Once a player is added to the 40-man roster, his service time clock is running for every day he spends on the big-league club (or on the Disabled List).  At the end of the season, if he's amassed at least six full years of service time, he's a free agent.  If he hasn't, he's not.  It's that simple.

Except for the money, that is.  At the end of the season, if the player has less than three years of service time, the team can pay him any salary it wants to over the minimum, which generally means he'll make something like $400,000.

If, on the other hand, he's got at least three years of service time, he's eligible for arbitration -- in which case, he's going to get paid a very nice seven-digit number.  Whether it's $1 million or $9.9 million, or somewhere in between, depends on how much service time he's got, how valuable a player he's been, and how much he's been paid in the past.  Remember that last part.

The final catch is the Super Two rule, which is applied to players with more than two years of service time but less than three.  Each year, the top 17 percent of these players (in service time) also become arbitration-eligible -- adding millions to their salary, both that year and probably in the future.  Because past salary is one of the factors in arbitrated salaries, reaching arbitration a year earlier will also boost a player's salary in all future years.

And that simple fact has a noticeable impact on long-term contract negotiations.  Consider these six talented young players and the money they will receive before reaching free agency:

The second column shows the player's service time at the time he was negotiating his current contract -- "1.118" means one full season, plus 118 additional days out of a possible 172.  The next seven columns show the player's salary in his first six-plus seasons -- in every case, the first season listed was spent partially in the minors, and at least Y4 through Y7 are part of a long term deal.  The last column shows the player's total guaranteed earnings through six-plus seasons in the majors.  (All salary numbers in millions.)

Three things I want to point out on this list.  First, Crisp is making a lot more money than the others in Year 4.  In fact, he makes more than everyone in Year 5 and only Jason Bay tops him after that; Crisp and Bay finish in a tie for total earnings.  Second, Crisp negotiated his deal with more service time than any of the others.  Third, despite his many talents and charms, Crisp is -- by far -- the least valuable player on this list.

So what the hell happened?  Well, obviously, Crisp having Super Two status happened.  But what also happened is that his Super Two status was anticipated in considering the feasibility of a long-term deal -- both by the Indians and by Crisp's representation.  The Super Two cutoff generally falls between 2.130 and 2.140.  When Crisp finished the 2004 season at 1.158, it was fairly obvious that he was only one year away from arbitration.  In contrast, when Victor Martinez finished the 2004 season at 1.118, it was fairly obvoius that he was two years away.  That changes the negotiating position substantially.

Of course, service time wasn't the only difference bewteen Crisp and Martinez.  Martinez had emerged from a string of minor league MVP's to establish himself as an elite big-league catcher, with a good chance to be not only a "core player" for the Indians, but one of the game's best overall players in this decade.  Crisp had never been a highly touted prospect and had won a starting job in the bigs both on merit and by default.  He posted a 790 OPS that some doubted he would ever improve upon, or even match.

The Indians could have locked up Crisp right then and there, but they simply weren't sure they wanted to.  Because of those extra 40 days of service time, he was only one year removed from arbitration at that point, not two -- so they probably would have had to offer a deal similar to Victor's to get Crisp signed -- even though Crisp was nowhere near as valuable as Martinez.

A year later, Crisp had established himself as a quality all-around player with a slightly better year at the plate and a sterling performance in the field -- and he was now on the cusp of arbitration.  It's hard to overstate the effect this would tend to have on long-term contract negotations, which, for both sides, are largely dependent on estimates of both future salaries and risk.  For a player like Victor, two years away from arbitration, a long-term contract is a chance to increase his total guaranteed earnings from $400,000 to $15.5 million -- a life-changing degree of financial security.

An arbitration-eligible player, by contrast, essentially is already a millionnaire.  Any everyday player -- Ben Broussard for example -- is going to get more than $2 million in arbitration, even the first time.  This dramatically reduces the risk to a player opting not to sign a long-term deal, while doing nothing for the team.  It makes a great value for the team far less likely, because a Super Two like Crisp will have to be paid like Jason Bay -- a player who may hit 20 more home runs than Crisp every season.

In other words, the problem is not only that Crisp took longer to establish himself than Martinez did, or that he is not a player of similar value, but also that because Crisp was going to reach arbitration a year earlier, the team had one fewer year in which to evaluate him as a player while still maintaining the most favorable negotiating position.  Now, it would be an exaggeration to say that Crisp's Super Two status was the cause of his trade. But it clearly made the idea of keeping him long-term somewhat less enticing.


Super Two status is never going to be a major factor in calling up prospects, but smart and fiscally prudent teams will keep one eye on the clock in all decisions.  Crisp was called up in 2003 because of a need on the team; he stayed because he remained the best available option.  Nobody was watching his service time, in part because initially, nobody thought he'd stick as an everyday player.  By the time he'd stuck, the clock was essentially already set.  In the absence of a roster crunch or performance issue, no team is likely to demote a player for a short period purely to suppress his service time.

If Super Two status is to be avoided, generally it's best not to let a prospect accumulate as many as 130 days of service time before the end of the season. For players bouncing up and down over several years, it gets a little more complicated. Here's how the Indians' younger players' clocks figure in to this season's callup decisions:

  • Cliff Lee and Rafael Betancourt will finish the 2006 season with more than three years of service time, becoming arbitration-eligible for the first time.
  • Matt Miller will finish the season at 2.134 and is a possible Super Two.  As a reliever with significant time on the DL, however, he is unlikely to surpass $1 million.
  • Jason Davis is currently right around 2.130.  However, he has only spent about 70 days in the majors this season; players with fewer than 86 days of service time in the current season are ineligible to become Super Twos.  He'll need at least another 16 days in the majors this season, including September callups, in order to be eligible.
  • Jason Stanford entered the season at 2.005, accumulated almost entirely while on the DL.  There isn't enough season left for him to reach arbitration for 2007.  Of course, at this point he'd probably be happy just to get back to the majors at all.
  • Jason Dubois entered the season at 1.037.  Unless he spends almost the entire remaining season in the majors, he will not be arbitration-eligible before 2009.
  • Fernando Cabrera will finish 2006 at 1.105 and will reach arbitration in 2009.
  • Fausto Carmona entered the season with 22 days and has spent about 56 days in the majors this season.  Kelly Shoppach, recalled from Buffalo today, started with 44 days and has added another 50 so far.  Both players are likely to exceed a full year of service time by the end of 2006, putting them on track to reach arbitration in 2009.
  • Jeremy Guthrie currently has about 101 days of service time.  If he spends another month in the majors this season, he will be a possible Super Two for 2009.
  • Andy Marte entered the season with 60 days, so he'll be lined up to become a Super Two for 2009 if he spends 70 or more days in the majors this season.  Don't be surprised if the Indians let him continue to hone his game in Buffalo through late July.
  • Franklin Gutierrez entered the season with 33 days and was recently promoted.  Unless he is demoted for 20 or more days at some point later this season, he will be a probable Super Two for 2009.  Look for him to return to Buffalo once Blake and/or Michaels return to the field.
  • Ryan Garko and Andrew Brown entered the season with 34 and 31 days of service time respectively. Unless they are promoted to the majors immediately and permanently, they will not reach arbitration until 2010.
  • Jeremy Sowers, Brian Slocum, Rafael Perez, Joe Inglett and Ed Mujica will all finish the season with fewer than 125 days of service time; they will not reach arbitration until 2010 at the earliest.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Managing the Clock
your knowledge of these intracacies frightens me.  it sure is nice to have a better understand though, thanks for the great post jay.
-Erik "Come on Dorn, get in front of the damn ball"

by drerikbrady on Jun 23, 2006 6:57 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Wow! Such heavy reading before I've even had my coffee.  If more fans understood how intricate baseball rules are there would be less bitching about FO decisions. Thanks for giving us a peek into what General Managers have to contend with.

I hope this will be permanently lodged somewhere on the right hand panel where we can refer to it again and again, maybe in Contract and Salaries?

by LeftyCatcher on Jun 23, 2006 7:56 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
i second that motion!  this is definitely stuff that it would be nice to refer back to
-Erik "Come on Dorn, get in front of the damn ball"

by drerikbrady on Jun 23, 2006 8:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Splendid as always.  

Question.  I always seem to have trouble making the quick conversion from service time in years (in Coco's case, 2.158 when he signed his long term deal) to service time in actual days.  

What's considered a full season, 180 days?  So, does that mean, when he signed his long term deal with Boston this spring, he had accumulated 40 + 180 + 180 days (400 days) in the big leagues.  I'm not doing something right, because then I come up with 2.222 years.  Am I doing it backwards somehow?

Or asked another way, if the cutoff is usually between 2.130 and 2.140, how does that translate to days in the majors?

by cheech99 on Jun 23, 2006 9:12 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
The maximum number of days that can be accrued in one season is 172, even though the actual season is more like 185 including the All-Star break.  So "1.130" refers to one full season plus 130 days out of a possible 172.  I'll amend the article to make this more clear.

by Jay on Jun 23, 2006 10:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Thanks for another fine post, Jay.

by Jeffrey R on Jun 23, 2006 9:32 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
This is just another example of why this is the best baseball site out there.  I've spent countless hours trying to learn about things like this and usually end up more confused.  But I come here and it is clearly explained.  Thanks Jay!

by dvd1204 on Jun 23, 2006 10:24 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Terrific post, Jay; thanks for the hard work. Your discussion of Super 2 was really helpful to me. I had for some reason thought that the possibility of becoming a Super 2 was tied to player performance, but it appears that it has everything to do with service time. Thanks again.

by jdudas on Jun 23, 2006 12:27 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
"[A] very nice nine-digit number" -- shouldn't that read "a very nice seven-digit number"?

by ploni on Jun 23, 2006 12:28 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Yep.  Fixed.  Thanks.

by Jay on Jun 23, 2006 12:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Nice article.

But, unless you worked for the Indians, how can you make this statement?

"Nobody was watching his service time, in part because initially, nobody thought he'd stick as an everyday player."

by ronh on Jun 23, 2006 2:08 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
When Crisp was initially called up, the Indians long-term plans included Bradley, Escobar and Sizemore, and they drafted Brad Snyder in the first round right around then as well.  Crisp was thought of as a great potential fourth outfielder or platoon guy, and I think you could confirm that yourself with a little research.

A club has very little reason to worry about service time for marginal or utility players, who are more interchangeable and often don't stick and make a lot less money in any event.  An individual player like that presents little reason to be thinking four years ahead about his salary.

by Jay on Jun 23, 2006 2:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Apparently you will make more money in your non-free agent years as a marginal prospect who overachieves than you would as a top prospect who overachieves (assuming you get the opportunity as a marginal prospect)

by dvd1204 on Jun 23, 2006 2:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I'll add my voice to the chorus: fantastic article Jay!  I've read a lot of baseball posts on the net but I've never seen one explaining this stuff.  May I ask - - how did you learn all this?

by Joe Charboneau on Jun 23, 2006 2:21 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Very slowly, bits and pieces here and there, and eventually hunting down the missing bits of info from online sources.  What I wanted to address here, and what I've never really read anything about online, is how the process plays out in the decisions a team makes over the long-term destiny of individual players, and how these issues shift the dynamics in contract negotiations.  The more you put the pieces together, the less surprising certain contract decisions become.

I'll be interested to see how the Indians' callup decisions go the rest of the season, comparing with my observations at the end of the piece.  If Marte stays down until late July, for example, it will suggest that they were highly aware of his service time in their decision making.  It also suggests that there's no reason to rush trading Boone.  Everything affects everything.

by Jay on Jun 23, 2006 2:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
The Shoppach situation I find interesting as well.  

It's one thing to have Laker up here when you want to make sure to be giving Kelly every day at bats to avoid Bard-like rust.  But to me, that seems like something you would do when you're still in contention, yet are still planning to bring him back up well before Sept.  

Now that we're out of contention, why wouldn't we be spotting Victor more with two games Vic, one game Kelly.  Shoppach seems to be doing his usual solid work at Buffalo, albeit with awful plate discipline.  

by cheech99 on Jun 23, 2006 3:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I swear to God.  I posted that, went to a different Indians chat room, and just saw Shoppach had been recalled.  

by cheech99 on Jun 23, 2006 3:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I updated the piece to reflect Shoppach's callup -- he's now grouped in logically with Carmona.

This too reflects some awareness of service time issues.  You have to assume they keep him in Buffalo another couple of weeks if it's going to affect his arbitration status -- but it would take another nine weeks.

So if service time came up at all, they're asking themselves, are we really keeping this guy in Buffalo all the way until September just to keep his service time down?  And the answer, of course, is no.

by Jay on Jun 23, 2006 6:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I'm assuming that the Indians' Diamond View system has all this type of information in it, right?  Though I suppose the FO probably has our main guys' service time memorized :)

by Jackdaw on Jun 23, 2006 3:51 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
AMAZING INFORMATION HERE!!!

by Tribe Alive on Jun 23, 2006 4:11 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I was referring to the first part of your statement,

"Nobody was watching his service time,"

when I said, how could you know that unless you were an employee.

In 2002 and 2003, Crisp played in the ML because Bradley was injured and Brady Anderson was dropped. The Indians didn't have much choice in the decision.

No ML team should put Super 2 concerns over winning in the ML. If it is close (7-14 days) then yes, but leaving a player in AAA just because of Super 2 concerns would be stupid.

by ronh on Jun 23, 2006 5:53 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
No ML team should put Super 2 concerns over winning in the ML.

Really? Somebody should tell the Devil Rays that.

by dgcambridge on Jun 23, 2006 6:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I quite agree.  Where there is a roster need and/or the performance is forcing the issue over an extended period of time, service time is going to take a back seat, and it should.  But for most prospects, there is an extended grey area when it would there are pros and cons to calling them up, and also pros and cons to leaving them in the minors for a little while longer.  In such cases, I think service time does play a role.  And as you note, especially when a player is close to a cutoff point.    Crisp is not $6 million better just because he got an extra 30 days in.

by Jay on Jun 23, 2006 6:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
In all seriousness though.  You have a point, but a lot of times it is a decision between using a resource now and having it available later.  Sometimes it's a tough call, but you shouldn't just ignore the future.

by dgcambridge on Jun 23, 2006 6:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
excellent article, impressively written considering it had a lot of numbers and I still understood it. Interesting to think what would have happened had the Indians left Coco down a bit longer a brought up a marginal player instead, 40 days 3 years ago really had an incredible impact. Great article
Surely we aren't this bad

by fwembt on Jun 23, 2006 8:36 PM EDT   0 recs

Excellent article, Jay!
Hello Jay,

Excellent work on your article! :-)

I heard about arbitration and Super-2 status, but never knew exactly what it was based on and how exactly it could affect a ballclub's decision to keep a player, trade a player, keep a player down in the Minors, etc.

Your article has allowed me to understand it much better - thank you very much for that - great work! :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Jun 24, 2006 6:19 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Jay said:

"Third, despite his many talents and charms, Crisp is -- by far -- the least valuable player on this list."

That is an opinion which was presented more like a fact.  Certainly Jason Bay has better numbers as does Martinez, but the verdict is still out on the others.  

by SpringTrainingFun on Jun 25, 2006 6:18 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Martinez is also a catcher.  Peralta and Crosby are both shortstops with better track records as hitters than Crisp.  It's not a close call, all three would be considered significantly more valuable than Crisp.

You could make an argument with Crawford, but it's not a great argument.  Crawford has a .280 EqA over the past three seasons, while .280 is Crisp's career best (last season).  Crawford is almost two years younger and is an impact baserunner, while Crisp teeters on being a liability with his bad instincts.  Crisp seems to be a significantly better defender, but I think actually all 30 GM's would rather have Crawford.

Ultimately what counts is the perceived economic value at the time of their deals, and in that respect I think the case is pretty solid.

by Jay on Jun 25, 2006 1:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Jay said:

"Peralta and Crosby are both shortstops with better track records as hitters than Crisp."

Huh ?  Peralta had one very good year and is having one somewhat lousy year in 2006, so there's incomplete data to conclude that Peralta is more valuable "by far" as a hitter.

Crosby had an OK first year but he also struck out 141 times that year.  Since then he's had several marginal years at the plate including the start to this year where he's hitting .246.  There's no way I'd say that Crosby is "by far" more valuable than Crisp as a hitter.

I'm not saying that Crisp is a great player, but saying that the others that were mentioned are "by far" better is just not correct, IMO.

Now, maybe we're arguing the definition or interpretation of the phrase "by far", but my understanding of that term is somewhere along the lines of "without question more valuable."  

I just don't see the data to support what you have put forth.

by SpringTrainingFun on Jun 26, 2006 12:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
Don't you remember that Peralta was the International League MVP a few years back?

by Jeffrey R on Jun 26, 2006 12:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
You're looking at data versus value. I don't think the discussion is even over value-who would teams obviously pay more for in a trade or free agency? The answers, I think resoundingly, are every player on that list other than Crisp. He's a decent hitter, a decent defender, and a kind of ok baserunner. I like Coco a lot, he's fun and he's cool. He's not an exceptional player-almost everyone else on that list has put up an MVP type season.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2006 1:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
When did Crosby or Crawford ever put up an MVP season ?  You must be looking at numbers that do not appear on my screen.

by SpringTrainingFun on Jun 26, 2006 1:17 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
"Almost everyone else."

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2006 12:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock
I hit post by accident...

Crosby was averaging 5.4 RC/G for the A's last year when he got hurt. Not an MVP season and probably not even an "MVP Type" season but still a great season from a SS. Crawford put up 6.6 last year, a good to great year for a LF and is at 8.1 this year, making him one of the best 15 or so offensive players in the league.

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2006 12:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions -- and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Craig-biggio
101 HBP! — Indians endure all-time record

Recent FanPosts

Small
Indians projected 2009 (put together July 7)
Img_0261_sized_small
Omar Vizquel in 09'?
Img_0095-b_small
CC - just 3 days rest for 4th straight time
Indiansfan-possibleavatarforlgt_minorleagueball__small
Beckett injures oblique in bullpen session, pushed back to Game 3
3444ant_black_small
Minor Pitching Leaders
Faustobeatdown_small
Jon Lester
Pryor_small
Optimism for 2009
Small
Ticket for Indians/Red Sox
3444ant_black_small
Minor Offensive Leaders

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

AL CENTRAL AFTER JULY 9

W L PCT GB
Cleveland 44 28 .611 -
Minnesota 38 34 .528 6
Kansas City 35 35 .500 8
Chicago 36 36 .500 8
Detroit 28 44 .389 16

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

"OK, figure this one out. We can't win in Cleveland. [Shapiro] trades...
Sabathia Pinch Hits in Playoff Game
Hoynes scouts the Tribe for 09
Brantley it is.
Will Carroll
You can't trust rookies in the postseason.  Also!  Longoria, 2-2, 2 HRs.
Bryson Undergoing Labrum Surgery
More plunking
Sabathia chokes, does nothing to prevent Brewers playoff loss
Why This Award Isn't Named After Derek Jeter Is Beyond Me

Post_icon New FanShot All FanShots Carrot-mini


Site Meter