Delaying control time a year …

[Scooterfletcher]

How many days in AAA do we have to keep down the following guys for an extra year of control?

Wiemer

Mitchell

Ortiz

Gasser

Hall

Thanks for your help in understanding this !

[wiguy94]

5 minutes ago, Scooterfletcher said:

How many days in AAA do we have to keep down the following guys for an extra year of control?

Wiemer

Mitchell

Ortiz

Gasser

Hall

Thanks for your help in understanding this !

Wiemer and Gasser - Minimum number of days. Don’t know exact number but it’s like 15?

Mitchell - 56ish days 

Ortiz - 46ish days 

Hall - 90ish days 

[Oxy]

This is only relevant for players who are likely to command medium to large multi-year free agent contracts once they are eligible.  By the time most guys reach their 6th year of control they are barely worth their arbitration/one year contract salary, so it's not like another year of control is that advantageous to a club.

Still, if one of the young guys really hits and becomes a perennial all-star yet also will not sign an extension, that year could make a huge difference.

[Scooterfletcher]

It makes a ton of sense to start Wiemer and gasser in aaa then id guess.   And kf we keep Adames , prob wait til late May for Ortiz also..,,

[Playing Catch]

On 2/23/2024 at 12:01 AM, Oxy said:

This is only relevant for players who are likely to command medium to large multi-year free agent contracts once they are eligible.  By the time most guys reach their 6th year of control they are barely worth their arbitration/one year contract salary, so it's not like another year of control is that advantageous to a club.

Still, if one of the young guys really hits and becomes a perennial all-star yet also will not sign an extension, that year could make a huge difference.

Based on this list, the only guys I'd consider manipulating service time would probably be Wiemer, Gasser, and Ortiz. I don't see keeping Mitchell down two months, unless he really stinks by June, and at that point, the risk of losing the extra year wouldn't matter that much.

Wiemer and Gasser because it's only 2 weeks, and Ortiz because I can picture him becoming Adames-level good, where an extra year is pretty nice to have.

I've avoided making many predictions about the opening day roster/total ABs this season because it seems to me that the scope of possible performance outcomes are so, so broad, and of course... injuries. But I would predict Wiemer will need to put together a month or two of strong AAA production with his new swing before the Brewers would consider him for the 26-man. I also think that Gasser and the rest of the pitching depth will be shuttled in order to manage all of their innings/inconsistent performance.

Ortiz, however, I expect to be a regular rotation guy. A soft-platoon guy. However, I'm also looking at all of the IF depth they've brought to Spring Training, and feel like if Ortiz and Turang look good this Spring, they'll move Adames.

[monty57]

On 2/23/2024 at 12:01 AM, Oxy said:

This is only relevant for players who are likely to command medium to large multi-year free agent contracts once they are eligible. 

I don't necessarily agree. Look at someone like Tyrone Taylor. He bounced back and forth for a few years so we got a lot of years' of cheap service out of him. He played for the Brewers for 2019, 20, 21, 22, and 23, and he still only has 3.093 years of service time, won't be arby eligible until 2025, and has team control until 2027. 

If we didn't have a surplus of OF, he would still be a viable option as a MLB OF for around league minimum. Since we have so many OF, he had trade value largely due to how much cheap control he still has. 

My point is that below-value service time matters for any viable major league player, even if they're only utility guys or middle relievers. It's not the only factor, but it is certainly a factor.

[Outlander]

Taylor was arbitration eligible this season but agreed to a contract with the Mets for $2 million. However, the point still stands, the brewers did get parts of 5 seasons for the minimum with him. 

[Axman59]

Manipulating service time is a violation of the CBA. The practice needs to be stamped out. The cavalier way people view it is troubling.

[Oxy]

1 hour ago, Axman59 said:

Manipulating service time is a violation of the CBA. The practice needs to be stamped out. The cavalier way people view it is troubling.

Don't blame me! Blame OOTP!😉

[KeithStone53151]

11 hours ago, monty57 said:

I don't necessarily agree. Look at someone like Tyrone Taylor. He bounced back and forth for a few years so we got a lot of years' of cheap service out of him. He played for the Brewers for 2019, 20, 21, 22, and 23, and he still only has 3.093 years of service time, won't be arby eligible until 2025, and has team control until 2027. 

If we didn't have a surplus of OF, he would still be a viable option as a MLB OF for around league minimum. Since we have so many OF, he had trade value largely due to how much cheap control he still has. 

My point is that below-value service time matters for any viable major league player, even if they're only utility guys or middle relievers. It's not the only factor, but it is certainly a factor.

Did the Brewers ever keep him down to manipulate his service time? I don't think service time manipulation was ever a factor for Taylor, and that's just how it tends to work out. Teams shouldn't really worry about this for fringe roster guys. Odds are pretty good the fringe guys aren't going to stay on the MLB roster without any stints down. There are so many other factors at play, the minimal amount of value the Brewers got for a guy like Taylor...5-6 years down the line...is not worth any value lost in the present.

[KeithStone53151]

1 hour ago, Axman59 said:

Manipulating service time is a violation of the CBA. The practice needs to be stamped out. The cavalier way people view it is troubling.

I couldn't agree more. Think of this in terms of the shift. Everyone knew it sucked, but you gotta change the rules otherwise you can't blame the team for operating within the rules. Even if it hurts the Brewers, I'd love to see some change here. 

[Scooterfletcher]

We manipulated JJ hardys and ultimately got the fun times of Carlos Gomez and then Hader plus for doing so.   Contreras is only a brewer due to the manipulation of JJ.  Remember that.

[Playing Catch]

12 hours ago, Axman59 said:

Manipulating service time is a violation of the CBA. The practice needs to be stamped out. The cavalier way people view it is troubling.

I don't disagree with the idea that the rules need to be changed, but this has been an open secret for years. And what about the big-spending teams? Are all of the Dodgers in AAA truly not "ready" for MLB? Or is it fine for them to not promote guys because they are blocked by better players? If Wiemer starts the year in AAA is it service time manipulation? Or is it justified due to performance?

I just think that the whole service time manipulation problem is way overblown, and only affects a handful of players.

Again, I think the system can be changed, I just don't think this is as big of a deal as everyone makes it out to be.

[monty57]

12 hours ago, Axman59 said:

Manipulating service time is a violation of the CBA. The practice needs to be stamped out. The cavalier way people view it is troubling.

I use the term for the connotation. It's a term used by the union to make owners/management look like a bunch of evil overlords for doing something that they agreed to in the CBA. It's a practice that is sometimes used by teams to get more service time, but is also justified in many cases. If it were a violation of the CBA as you state, there would be a lot of grievances filed. To my knowledge, Bryant's filing against the Cubs is the only example, and he lost that case even though it was obvious that the Cubs kept him down just to get an extra year's service time. 

As to it being justified in many cases, Wiemer has the potential to be a very good player, but the Brewers would be fully justified to start him out in the minors due to his offensive performance last year. He was on the MLB roster all year last year, so he has one full year of service time. Therefore, he'd only need to be down for something like 15 days to gain a full year's service time. If the Brewers start him in the minors, and then bring him up after a few weeks to replace another player who is struggling, is there any manipulation?

I've never wanted to be in a union because I'd never want to let someone else negotiate my compensation for me. That's not the case in baseball. The players are in a union, and they negotiated a contract that says they have to be on the 26 man roster for 172 days in order to count as a full year, and that the team can move them on and off the active roster as long at they still have options. That was negotiated in and agreed upon by both sides. Who exactly should "stamp it out?" If it can be "stamped out," then can anything else in the contract just get "stamped out?" Wouldn't that make the entire contract worthless?

[KeithStone53151]

50 minutes ago, monty57 said:

I've never wanted to be in a union because I'd never want to let someone else negotiate my compensation for me. That's not the case in baseball. The players are in a union, and they negotiated a contract that says they have to be on the 26 man roster for 172 days in order to count as a full year, and that the team can move them on and off the active roster as long at they still have options. That was negotiated in and agreed upon by both sides. Who exactly should "stamp it out?" If it can be "stamped out," then can anything else in the contract just get "stamped out?" Wouldn't that make the entire contract worthless?

I'm guessing he's referring to simply changing/fixing the rules either now, or for the next CBA. They have tried adding incentive to not manipulate service time in the last CBA, though I can't remember what exactly they did offhand. Maybe this is something fans care more about than the players. The primary people impacted are the stars, and at the end of the day I don't think this decision results in owners paying any less than they already would to the players...so I guess long story short maybe the players/owners/teams don't really want to fix it that badly.

[monty57]

7 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I'm guessing he's referring to simply changing/fixing the rules either now, or for the next CBA. They have tried adding incentive to not manipulate service time in the last CBA, though I can't remember what exactly they did offhand. Maybe this is something fans care more about than the players. The primary people impacted are the stars, and at the end of the day I don't think this decision results in owners paying any less than they already would to the players...so I guess long story short maybe the players/owners/teams don't really want to fix it that badly.

They added the rule that gives a team a draft pick if they put a rookie on the opening day roster, he accrues a full year's service time, and he wins Rookie of the Year. This could make the Brewers decide to add some of their promising rookies to the opening day roster rather than holding them down for an extra year's service time.

Service time manipulation certainly exists, but while it may seem to be a bad thing to do to a person, it is within the rules negotiated in the CBA, and the owners aren't going to give it up for nothing. It's important to the union, but apparently not as important as some other things, and not important enough to give up whatever they'd have to give up in negotiations in order to get it changed. 

[Playing Catch]

At the risk of overemphasizing my previous point, I'll reiterate. How would you feel if you're Michael Busch, drafted by the Dodgers? You were the 31st pick overall, you mashed your way to AAA, and went on to play in over 200 AAA games in your age 24 and 25 seasons, before finally getting traded to a team that will play you. IMHO, that's a lot worse than delaying FA for a season because you actually value, and want to keep the player.

If I were a top draft prospect, I'd make the big money teams pay through the nose to sign me. Dude has legit MLB dreams and never gets a chance because the Dodgers just sign superstars.

[olga.botezatu]

Typically, a player must remain in the minor leagues for a certain number of days to delay their eligibility for free agency by an extra year. This number of days is usually around 172 days in a season. However, the exact number can vary based on specific rules negotiated in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

[monty57]

6 hours ago, olga.botezatu said:

Typically, a player must remain in the minor leagues for a certain number of days to delay their eligibility for free agency by an extra year. This number of days is usually around 172 days in a season. However, the exact number can vary based on specific rules negotiated in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Welcome to the board Olga.

172 is the number of days the player has to remain in the majors in order to gain a full year's service time. The season is 187 days long, so if they are in the minors for over 15 days, they do not get a full year's worth of MLB service time.