Fan Shot by Bill D’Angelo
Service time manipulation was possible under the old CBA. There were not rules against it, but the optics could be bad. I think there is a way to address it and slightly tip the service time issue in the players’ favor.
For the purpose of this article, let’s make Super 2’s out of scope. It could remain on changed or tweaked.
Given: Players are eligible for Arbitration after 3 years and Free Agency after 6.
Given: There are well defined rules on which minor leaguers need to be added to the 40-man roster, in order to protect them from the Rule 5 Draft.
Proposal: Make players eligible for:
(a) Arbitration
1) After 3 years of Service
or 2) After 4 years on the 40-man roster
(b) Free Agency
1) After 6 years of Service
or 2) After 7 years on the 40-man roster
Why am I choosing the 40-man roster? A team adds a player to the 40, protecting them from the Rule 5 draft, because they fear that another team might draft him AND that player “could” be in the majors all season (which, as an aside, would give that player a year of service time).
Vientos was added to the 40 in December. If he makes the OD roster then there would be no change to the current eligibility process. If he does not make the OD roster, what is the reason? Was he not ready? Or were the Mets manipulating his service time?
This proposal would eliminate any benefit to trying to manipulate his service time by keeping him in the minors for 2 months or whatever.
What if Vientos really needs a full year at AAA? This would be a negative for the owners. Vientos would be eligible for arbitration (and free agency) a year earlier. Is that unfair to the owners? Maybe, probably. But I’ll come back to this.
Mauricio was added to the 40 in December. There is no real chance that he makes the OD roster. He’ll go to AA this season. He is a real beneficiary of this proposal. He gains this year toward the “4 years on the 40 man roster”, at AA. Assuming next year he is at AAA … he’d be in Viento’s situation and might gain a second year towards the “4 years on the 40 man roster”. This seems very unfair to the owners. But I’ll come back to this.
Going back to Example #1. That might be unfair to the owners. Substitute
Kris Bryant‘s name for Vientos’. Does it still seem unfair? The old rules were in the owners’ favor. This proposal is in the players’. In my opinion, this example does not see an unfair all of a sudden.
Going back to Example #2. This is unfair to the owners. Substitute
Francisco Alvarez‘s name for Mauricio’s. Maybe still somewhat unfair to the owners. But wouldn’t we, as fans, want the Mets to be encouraged to bring Alvarez to the majors, as soon as they think he’s ready?
NET: If a player is good enough to be protected from the Rule 5 draft, it means that you think another team(s) think he might be major league ready. Shouldn’t the player get some credit for that? Using the 40 man roster as a criteria, there would be no debate about whether extra draft pick(s) is a motivation not to manipulate service time.
* * * * * * * *
This Fan Shot was contributed by MMO community member Bill D’Angelo. Have something you want to say? Share your opinions with the best and most diverse Mets community on the web! Send your Fan Shot to [email protected].
