This year’s Super Two cutoff point has been set at precisely two years and 116 days of service, MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes has learned. This marker will affect the financial value for players with between two and three years of service time.
For example, Yordan Alvarez, with two years and 113 days of service time, will just miss the cutoff, meaning the Astros slugger will not be eligible for arbitration until next offseason. On the other hand, Brewers infielder Luis Urias has two years and 120 days of service time, so he qualifies as a Super Two player and will head to arbitration for the first of four trips this winter.
Broadly, Super Two designation is one of the innumerable quirks to the ever-confounding (current) arbitration system. For the unfamiliar, Major League players earn “service time” for every day spent on an MLB roster. One year of MLB service is defined as 172 days, despite the fact that there are more days than that in the regular season.
Upon reaching three years of service time, all players become eligible for salary arbitration. Prior to that point, teams are effectively able to set (most) player salaries at any rate they wish, so long as it is north of the league minimum. Many teams have formulas they use to determine pre-arbitration salaries, and it’s quite rare for pre-arb players to earn even $1MM, barring a long-term extension. Arbitration is the first point at which players and their agents can begin negotiating with teams regarding their salary, though arbitration prices still typically fall shy of open-market value.
The “Super Two” wrinkle further complicates matters. The top 22 percent of players (in terms of total service time) with between two and three years of service also are considered eligible for arbitration and termed “Super Two” players. Any player who falls into that service bucket and spent at least 86 days of the preceding season on a 25-man roster or the Major League injured list become eligible a year early and then go through the arbitration process four times.
That fourth arb-eligible year puts a player in line for some extra salary immediately, and potentially millions more in earnings as their salaries continue to escalate through the arbitration process. Of course, since teams’ manipulation of service time has been such a point of contention for the players’ union, it remains to be seen if the current Super Two system will remain in place through the next round of Collective Bargaining Agreement talks.
For comparison’s sake, here are the Super Two cutoff points for the last 12 years….
- 2020: 2.125
- 2019: 2.115
- 2018: 2.134
- 2017: 2.123
- 2016: 2.131
- 2015: 2.130
- 2014: 2.133
- 2013: 2.122
- 2012: 2.140
- 2011: 2.146
- 2010: 2.122
- 2009: 2.139
3 days to go.
For Alvarez…
Isn’t 2 years plus 113/365 = 2.31?
The decimal is how many days you have not a real fraction. So 2.113 means two years plus 113 days. There’s about 185 days in the MLB service season and a full season is something like 170 days. So if you were in the majors for 172 of the 185 days you get one full seasons credit.
Thx
Must be new math.
No, it’s a bit of laziness that would be better understood by 2y,116d. It’s intuitively obvious to most people that the time now 6:50 ET is not half past six, though 6.50 would confuse people. I’ve seen it done with height, too, where 5.11 should be 5’11”.
2.116 DAYS of service? Wow, lots of arbitration coming now!
He also misspelled his own Boss’s name.
Man, you guys are rough on T.C.
All done with respect. We only jest,
And no, don’t call me Shirley.
Even if I like gladiator movies.
Aren’t you Kareem? My dad says you suck!
This system is a mess
At least they picked a nice round number …… 2.11116 or whatever. Lol.
Well it’s totally divisible by 4, so that explains it.
Lol
@tstats, agreed! The super 2 system benefits such a small number of players. In the new CBA, I’d like to see players earn the league minimum (which should be raised to $750k – $1MM IMO) in their first and ONLY year of pre-arb salary, and then be arb-eligible in their second year of play. This lowers the time frame big-leaguers have to wait to become FAs and…it allows good players who are not superstars to make some $ earlier in their careers. Can you tell which side of the “players vs. owners” dynamic I’m on?? Owners would never go for my proposal.
I like it but make it two years, a one year wonder shouldn’t be getting paid like a star
Good point. I’m good with two years
It’s not.
Imagine missing out on hundreds of thousands if not a million or 2 dollars because of 3 day. ouch!
I find it hard to be sorry for someone missing out on a couple million etc for 1-2 extra years. They make more in a year than most will in 10 years.
That’s why I think a work stoppage and lock out will hurt the sport. They should just agree on something like the universal designated hitter and than extend the agreement for a year.
It’s hard to justify $18 beers and $60 tickets to a game for a family of 4 than turn around and see the millionaire owners fighting with the millionaire players who both should end up with enough money that their grandkids shouldn’t have to work.
Billionaire owners vs millionaire players. Big difference.
Owners are not all billionaires but point taken. Look, I do believe a work stoppage will be detrimental to a sport that’s already declining in popularity somewhat. No matter what side one is on, the greater good is in play here. They know that yet it will still happen. The audacity…
The A’s owner is a billionaire several times over but spends on his team like a thousandaire! for no work stoppage.
Only if he makes those billions from the team should you expect him to put that money into the team. Hopefully he is putting money into those businesses that provide him that money. Expect payroll to be based on the revenue of the team, not the assets of the owner(s).
Being a billionaire, doesn’t mean they have an extra billion dollars laying around to spend whenever they want.
If you consider all assets (house, vehicles, possessions , IRA’s, 401k’s, etc) there are many millionaires around. But hardly any that can fork over a million in cash tomorrow.
This needs to change. In the new CBA, the Super Two should be permanent at 1.90yrs or something… round up, not round down. Too many cheap teams (like mine) constantly manipulate service time.
Making it permanent would make manipulation worse, not better
people dont realize this. the only way to fix these issues would be to scrap the system entirely, which doesn’t seem to be in the cards. the current system is convoluted, but it’s like that for good reason, and it has flaws, but could certainly have more.
Too many cheap teams (like mine) constantly manipulate service time.
=====================================
Everyone manipulates everything they reasonably can. All that counts are the contracts we enter into.
I knew it was an arcane system, but wow . . .Thanks for explaining.
It might be interesting to know how this number is calculated and why it changes annually. Then again, it might be totally boring.
BTW, error in the first sentence of the story. Years, not days.
It says in the story. Top 22% of players (in terms of service time) with between 2 and 3 years.
No, it says players with the top 22% average service time are ALSO qualified as super twos. How the service time number is created or why it changes isn’t described at all.
It’s presumably just an arbitrary result of collective bargaining. The owners had to give a little on including younger players in arbitration, so they suggested a number of days in a player’s 3rd year to qualify, the players chose another, and they compromised. This is why all collectively bargained contracts are inexplicably complex. Only way to do it.
Probably right, but the CBA must contain a formula to come up with this number that results in it changing some every year.
The formula is that it’s the top 22% in service time of those between 2 and 3 years of service time, like it says in the article. The 22% stays the same, but that translates to a different number of days each year depending on the statistics of when people were called up.
You missed a word, and the word is “also.”*
“The top 22 percent of players (in terms of total service time) with between two and three years of service also are considered eligible for arbitration and termed “Super Two” players.”
*al·so | ˈôlsō |
adverb
in addition; too:
It’s in addition to players with 3 full years of service time. 22% of the players between 2-3 years will be arbitration eligible, based on service time. 78% will not.
This is why all collectively bargained contracts are inexplicably complex.
======================================
A lot of things in the world work this way. I’ve bought new cars and wind up arguing about hub caps at the end of the day. Buy a house and negotiate over the furniture. I think what a lot of fans don’t understand is that, whenever either side gives an inch, they want 1.1 inches back in return.
I don’t blame either side. They are supposed to protect their own interests.
Solid use of the decimal by MLB, 13.31 minutes into the day.
Yep. Kind of like saying that a starter who pitches through one out in the 7th had “6.1 IP.”
It’s MLB math.
MLB math is definitely “a thing.”
Get rid of arbitration entirely, and drop Free Agency to 5 years. RETURN (they only changed it a few years ago, while nobody was paying attention) to forcing teams to 40-man roster college players in THREE years, high schoolers in FOUR. Just going back to that would free up more than 200 players a year for the Rule 5, and provide more opportunity. Raise the minimum 100K a year for 5 years. Provide Snickers for post-game snacks instead of Milky Ways.
Labor situation solved.
Excellent post: Snickers > Milky Way.
Scrapping arbitration like that would be a massive win for owners, especially small market ones. Most players never make it to regular (post-arb) free agency, and your way, even solid major league role players would never make more than minimum in their careers. The far-and-away biggest issue for the negotiations is getting more money to younger players without making it impossible for small market teams to operate. That’s a small needle to thread. Your suggestion just blows up the needle. How quickly a player qualifies for Rule 5 is by comparison immaterial, and in many cases players don’t particularly WANT to qualify, because it frequently means they get cut.
Scrapping arbitration is not a win for owners – it’s the opposite.
That depends on what arbitration is replaced with. If players have to play for minimum wage for 5 years, that’s an overwhelming win for owners. And the certain result is a strike until the proposal is withdrawn.
Players have gained two things more than anything in all the years of collective bargaining. Free agency after six years and arbitration after three years- now super two years. They’re not giving it up, period.
@Bob, please explain further. I don’t understand what you’re suggesting and am interested.
If they eliminate ARB completely, how do they structure salaries? (Sorry, I know you stated this but I’m not getting it). How do you differentiate between a superstar arb player and a “regular” player in terms of level of play? Or are you suggesting that they all make the same wages, based on number of years played, until they reach FA???? Thanks in advance!
I missed the decimal in the headline at first glance and thought:
“Two thousand years????? Shots fired by the owners in the CBA negotiations!”
Tony would negotiate it down to 1,000 years and consider it a win.
If the Astros are smart, they will take care of Alverez ahead of time. The dude can rake and I think he warrants an act of good faith
Dear Lord. These comments.
Sheesh.
Dear Lord, this comment. Sheesh.
TC, first sentence…2.116 days. Shouldn’t that be two years, 116 days?
While Alvarez missed by three, Matt Beatty missed by one. Not that he is any good, but missing by one day has to hurt.