MLB’S refusal to discuss service time is unsettling
If Mookie Betts would’ve hit free agency one year earlier, the Red Sox would’ve found themselves in quite the pickle.
They had just won a World Series in 2018, when Betts had a 30-30 season with a
.346 average and won the
Gold Glove in right field. He would’ve been entering 2019 with one year remaining of team control and the Red Sox would’ve had little choice but to lock up their superstar for the long haul.
They’re certainly not going to trade the American League MVP shortly after a duck boat parade.
Why are we doing this exercise and cutting Betts’ service time clock by one year? Because MLB finally produced an offer to the MLBPA last week, marking the first time the two sides talked about the core economics during the lockout. And according to multiple reports, most notably ESPN and The Athletic, MLB’S proposal included a lot of minor changes, but the owners are refusing to adapt in regards to the years it takes young players to reach free agency for the first time.
It’s an important issue for them, with The Athletic reporting the players “haven’t shown a willingness to drop those requests,” despite the league’s refusal to negotiate.
Why would MLB want to change it? They have it easy when it comes to service time.
The first three-plus seasons of a player’s major league career are spent making the league minimum salary or close to it, since the players have no power. The team then has control for an additional three years with salaries determined by arbitration, which is based on comparing their statistics to those of similar players in the past.
By the time most players reach free agency after six-plus seasons, they’ve often exited their prime years or already spent a few of them playing for less than market value.
One could argue this actually hurts the teams, who then have to commit long-term contracts to top players in their late-20s that extend into their late-30s.
Rookie contracts in the
NFL last just four years, in the NHL just three years (or less, depending on age) and in the NBA just two years (with team options for two more years).
Here’s what MLB is reportedly working on with regards to service time: a system that would award teams in draft pick compensation if they promote prospects to the majors at the beginning of the season and if that player wins rookie of the year, or finishes in the top-three of MVP or Cy Young voting in the next three seasons.
It sounds great at first, given teams often keep their best prospects in the minors as long as possible to manipulate their service time; if they call up a player in June instead of in April, they’ll get an extra year of team control.
But the new system would have holes.
Look at Betts, for example. Would the Red Sox have called him up in the middle of the 2014 season if they could’ve waited until 2015, then let him start the year on the Opening Day roster, finish top-three in MVP voting the very next year and been awarded a firstround draft pick?
Of course not. Betts would’ve almost certainly never seen the field in 2014. And what good is that doing for baseball?
But it also hurts the average players who make little money in their prime, then are easily replaced by younger players who aren’t much worse and can be paid minimum salary for years, starting the cycle all over again.
There are several Red Sox players who had solid careers but never got paid because of service time issues. Brandon Workman comes to mind, as he put up one of the best seasons by any MLB reliever in 2019, but wasn’t set to hit free agency for another year. The Sox traded him for Nick Pivetta and Connor Seabold and watched him burn out in Philadelphia just before free agency. He signed for pennies with the Cubs the following year and was eventually released.
Daniel Nava is another one who comes to mind. He had parts of five seasons with the Sox, never making more than $1.85 million, before he was waived as a 32-year-old in
2015. He bounced around for a bit, but never signed a lucrative deal before retiring.
Cutting one year of service time off team control could lead to a lot of interesting scenarios.
It could force teams to make decisions on star young players one year sooner, perhaps driving more players to stay with the team they were developed with throughout their career, a connective part of the sport that is nearing extinction.
It could give the average ballplayer a chance to sign a multiyear contract one year earlier.
It could spruce up free agency with younger players reaching the pool sooner, and give teams more flexibility on the back end of contracts.
And it might help save baseball’s middle class, which is being squeezed out by teams who want to stockpile young players, run them into the ground until they cost money/ suffer career-altering injuries and then replace them with new ones.
It’s too bad MLB doesn’t want to discuss it.