OCTOBER 26: The precise cutoff will be 2.131 years, Dierkes tweets. That means that most of the players noted below will fall short of qualifying, with Kiermaier representing one of the last to sneak into the arb process.
OCTOBER 10: We just published this year’s arbitration projections for all 30 teams this morning, and MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes follows that up with a report (Twitter link) that the projected Super Two cutoff for this year’s class is expected to fall between two years, 127 days of MLB service time (2.127) and two years, 131 days (2.131). Players who qualify for “Super Two” designation — that is, the top 22 percent of MLB players with between two and three years of service time — will be eligible for arbitration four times as opposed to the standard three that the rest of the league will qualify. That can have significant financial implications for both teams and players, and one needs only to look to this morning’s arbitration projections for proof of that point.
For instance, players such as David Peralta (2.120 years of service, $1.6MM projected salary), Rougned Odor (2.121, $4MM) and Dan Straily (2.126, $3.9MM) would fall a bit shy, as would Jesus Sucre ($600K) and Chase Whitley ($900K). In the case of a team like the Reds or Rangers, there’s already in the vicinity of $4MM at stake, and because future all future arbitration salaries are based on prior earnings, there’s a compounding effect at play as well. Super Two status also impacts extension talks, which the Rangers have reportedly explored with Odor’s camp. With Odor likely to fall shy of Super Two status, the Rangers needn’t offer quite as much as they would have had to were Odor slated to be arbitration-eligible four times, as his year-to-year earnings will be a bit lesser with only three trips through the arbitration process.
Meanwhile, players like Brett Oberholtzer (2.127, $1MM) and Kevin Kiermaier (2.131, $2.1MM) will see their earnings increase at least twofold in 2017 (if the lower end of the spectrum holds true, with regards to Oberholtzer). In Kiermaier’s case, he’d stand to roughly quadruple his salary by virtue of qualifying as a Super Two player.
This year’s cutoff, then, will fall pretty closely in line with the cutoffs we’ve seen over the past two years:
- 2015: 2.130
- 2014: 2.133
- 2013: 2.122
- 2012: 2.140
- 2011: 2.146
- 2010: 2.122
- 2009: 2.139
Last year’s Super Two class took players like Kole Calhoun ($3.4MM), Didi Gregorius ($2.425MM), Anthony Rendon ($2.8MM) and, most notably, Nolan Arenado ($5MM), and jump-started their earning power in significant fashion. As can be seen in the above-linked projections, the largest beneficiaries of this year’s Super Two cutoff figure to be George Springer, Kevin Gausman, Danny Salazar, Matt Shoemaker, Sam Dyson and Marcus Stroman — each of whom is projected to take home north of $3.5MM in his first of what will now be four trips through arbitration eligibility.
Does Jarred Cosart qualify?
They have Cosart listed as having 2.020 service time which would leave him short.
Weren’t the Astros about as obvious as anyone trying to repress Springer’s salaries?
And can we please get rid of this system? If you play in a fiscal year, it should count for service time (imo). Or some other way of doing this. It’s annoying watching teams get, good, young players down longer and saying they need more development time. Guys that could help them (Kris Bryant last year for example).
Kris Bryant played in 151 games last year, compared to 155 games this year. If they switched it like you said, many of the tops guys who come up in July or August would be held down until the following season. Teams would use the rationale of why waste a full year of control for a couple of months.
Why would they? Every employer in America uses a start date when calculating benefits not the year you started. Same principle here
The problem with super-2 and overall 6.000 vs. 5.171 issues like Bryant and others will face is that when things boil down to one day here or there teams can calculate ahead of time and, well, why on earth shouldn’t they? If it means you keep a projected star like Bryant on the roster guaranteed for 6.994 seasons rather than 6 seasons, you can hardly fault the team for doing it. It’s in the rules. It’s just not desirable because a talented kid sits in AAA for no reason other than starting the clock a tad bit later.
My solution would be to have a bit of a steeper scale in the pre-arb years and then replace arbitration with restricted free agency after year 4 if you don’t make a “QO” of a fair up and comer salary to a player he’s free to negotiate with other teams. And, after year 6 you can slap a “franchise tag” on a player, give him a very high one-year “QO”, and retain him for an extra season. If today’s ST considerations were still a problem we could use a calculation similar to super-2 to round guys like Bryant up to where they belong.