Eric Hosmer, Super Two and You
A lot of the discussion of Eric Hosmer's callup centers around the financial impact on the Royals. If Hosmer qualifies for arbitration after his second year (so-called Super Two status), the Royals will potentially find themselves paying more for Hosmer than if he'd come up a week, a month or two months later.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation spreading around on what Super Two is and how it may affect Hosmer. This post serves to try to clear some of that up.
My Biases:Since biases seem to be driving a lot of the initial reaction to the deal, it's only fair to state mine. I like the move, but not because I think the Royals will contend this year. I think waiting until we're on the verge of contending to bring up prospects would mean never bringing them up. I'd also rather have them spaced out so we don't have to deal with a wave hitting free agency at once, and so it seems that bringing up a hitter in 2011 was a good idea. I originally expected Moose, but it seems to me that, at least since Spring Training, Hosmer has been considered the most advanced hitter, (see John Sickels February interview with GMDM) so he's the first one up. If a couple weeks would have made a significant difference in cost in the out years, I think it would have obviously been better to wait.
What is Super Two status?
1) What it is not
There are two incentives for a team to keep a player who's ready down on the farm. One is team control. Teams control players (that is, players can not declare free agency and can negotiate contracts with only the one team) for the player's first six full years in the majors. Under the collective bargaining agreement, a full year is 172 days. However, there are actually between 180 and 185 days in a season, so a team that wants to maximize their control over a player needs to keep a player down on the farm for at least a couple weeks so that the player accrues less than 172 days the first year and doesn't get his first full year until the following season. Any GM who had a highly-touted prospect break camp with the big-league club should be sued for malpractice (Brian Sabean did this in SF this year, although the prospect, Brandon Belt, is already back in AAA after stinking it up).
2) What is is
The second incentive to keep a ready prospect down on the farm is delaying arbitration. A player who's not eligible for arbitration is going to be making around the minimum salary ($414,000 for 2011). Once a player become eligible for arbitration, that number goes up by somewhere between several hundred thousand and several million. Arbitration costs teams a lot of money.
Every player under team control (i.e. less than six full years service time) is eligible for arbitration after 3 full years of service time. In addition, the players that are just a few days short of 3 full years also get arbitration. This group is the so-called Super Twos. I'm guessing that this was put in to punish teams that were bringing up players in late April in order to avoid a full service year and maximize team control. In effect, this rule says "you may be able to delay free agency with that trick, but you can't dodge arbitration."
The rule is more complicated than "a few days short of 3 full years." It actually says that, of all the players with at least 2 and less than 3 service years, and at least 86 days in the most recent season), the top sixth of that group will be eligible for arbitration. Unlike gaming service time for free agency (where the exact number, 172, is known), figuring out how long to wait to avoid Super Two status is much more complicated. Making an educated guess on the cutoff requires estimating how many prospects will be called up (one sixth of how big a class?) and how many will be sent back down and for how long (only time on the 25-man roster counts for service time). To be safe, teams often wait halfway through the season, to late June.
Will Eric Hosmer be a Super Two?
There are three ways Eric Hosmer could avoid Super Two status:
1) Get sent back down
Since only time on the 25-man roster counts, any time Hosmer spends back in Omaha (after being optioned back there -- a rehab assignment after a trip to the DL wouldn't count) pauses his service clock. A player called up in May but sent down for a month later will have the same service time accumulated as a player called up in June who stays.
Some people think the front office is calling him up to show him what he needs to work on to get ready for MLB pitching. Other people think the front office is clueless but Hosmer is not ready. Either way, a trip back to Omaha would significantly reduce the chance Hosmer becomes a Super Two
2) Have been called up late enough
Hosmer could stay in the Majors straight on through, but it may be that, at the end of 2013, when they look at the class of players with 2 to almost 3 years of service and at least 86 days of service time in 2013, Hosmer is not among the top sixth of service time. If Hosmer stays up, he will accrue 2 years 146 days of service time, according to MLB Trade Rumors. Right now the projected Super Two cutoff for 2013 is 2 years 146 days, according to a major player agent firm. In other words, Hosmer is right on the cutoff. If the projection moves up by a day, Hosmer will not be a Super Two.
3) Have Super Two expand/contract/disappear
The current collective bargaining agreement expires at year end. One of the topics of the negotiation for next year is changing the Super Two formula or getting rid of it altogether. It's hard to predict the outcome, but neither the players nor owners like the current Super Two setup. If some sort of Super Two eligibility remains, it still may affect Hosmer. If the eligiblity is tightened, he may not qualify. If it's loosened, it may be that he would have qualified even if we'd kept him in Omaha until July. Any signficant change to Super Two status reduces the downside to calling a player up early this year.
How much is being a Super Two worth?
If Hosmer does become a Super Two, how much extra does he cost the team?
How arbitration works
In the arbitration process, the player and the team submit contract proposals to a panel of arbitrators, the two sides argue over whose is more fair, and then the arbitration panel picks one or the other. It's designed to encourage both sides to submit offers they genuinely believe are fair because an extreme position will just result in the arbitrator picking the opposing side.
What can be considered by the arbitrators?
The collective bargaining agreement, in Article VI, Section (12) [pdf], lays out what should be considered by the arbitrators. Technically anything is fair game (except five exclusions in paragraph (b)), but the agreement directs the arbitrators' focus for young players:
The arbitration panel shall, except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service, give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group.
So Super Twos get compared to 2nd and 3rd year players, Third-year players get compared to 3rd and 4th year players and so on. Once a player has five full years complete (for Hosmer, this is after 2016), contracts are compared to all MLB players.
In practice, not surprisingly, players tend to get compared primarily to others who play the same position, so what really matters for a Super Two first baseman is how much money do 2nd- and 3rd-year first basemen make.
So how much would Hosmer make as a Super Two?
In the last two years, there have been 5 first basemen who've signed contracts after their 3rd full season:
- In 2010, James Loney signed a 1 year contract for $3.1M [source: Cot's 2010 ]
- In 2011, Dan Johnson signed a 1 year contract for $1M [source: Cot's 2011]
- In 2011, Kendry Morales signed a 1-year contract for $2.975M
- In 2011, our very own Billy Butler signed a 4-year contract for $30M
- In 2011, reigning MVP Joey Votto signed a 3-year contract for $38M
Since multi-year contracts are buying out more expensive years, you can't just divide by 4 and say Billy would've made $7.5M on a one-year deal, but it's clear that Butler and Votto would have made much more than Loney, Johnson, or Morales on one-year deals.
It's not clear how much Super Twos are hurt by being compared to players in their same year of service time -- after all, those are second-year guys and almost all are making major league minimum. However, if Hosmer proves his critics here at RR wrong and produces at a Billy Butler level, it seems fair to guess he'll likely cost the Royals $3 to $6 million to play the 2014 season if he achieves Super Two status versus about $0.5 million if he doesn't.
Does being a Super Two increase your subsequent arbitration awards?
At first glance
On the surface, the answer is no. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement requires an increases in salary from year to year. (There is a provision that limits the maximum salary reduction in arbitration to 20% over one year and 30% over two years).
Players tend to increase from the arbitration after their 3rd to their 4th to their 5th full years (sometimes described as 40% / 60% / 80% of the major league average), but this has more to do with aging curves -- the player's production is likely increasing and the players forming the salary comparison (players with the same or one year more experience) are getting better and earning more money.
The case for saying yes -- Ryan Braun
Ryan Braun signed a contract with the Brewers in his first full year (2008) for 8 years at $45 million. It contained a clause that would have increased the value to $51 million if he'd qualified as a Super Two. If $6 million is more than he would have made in his Super Two year, then the remainder is extra value that Super Two status brings for his later arbitration years.
The case for saying no -- recent history
In addition to the superficial look at arbitration mechanics above, recent history suggests that Super Two status does not affect arbitration awards in the third year.
Using the Cot's salary data, I pulled all the 2011 contracts signed by arbitration-eligible players with at least three but less than four years of service time (note Cot's indicates service time as #years.#days so 3.126 is 3 years, 126 days), and I compared contract awards between players who had been eligible for arbitration as Super Twos in 2010 and those who hadn't. I set aside multi-year contracts rather than arbitrarily assign a portion of the value to 2011. I don't believe it made a difference overall.
Right-handed pitchers -- 24 players / 22 signing 1-year contracts; average salary: $1.76M
The biggest contract (Matt Garza, $5.95M) and the two smallest (Jared Burton, $0.75M and Joey Devine, $0.56M) were signed by players who'd been Super Twos the year before. In between were 21 other RHPs signing for between $0.8M (Edward Mujica) and $3.9M (Mike Pelfrey) In addition, four Super Twos who'd signed one-year contracts the year before were not up for arbitration. The Giants signed 2 year deals with both Tim Lincecum ($23M) and Brian Wilson ($15M) during 2010, which will cover them for 2011 and 2012 seasons. At the other extreme, Super Twos Matt Albers and Dustin Nippert were both released. Also of note, Jared Burton's contract for 2011 was smaller than he signed for 2010 as a Super Two.
Left-handed pitchers -- 11 players signing 1-year contracts; average salary: $1.6M
Dallas Braden signed the biggest deal at $3.35M. The two Super Twos from 2010, Tom Gorzelanny and Rafael Perez both came back for middle-of-the-pack 1-year contracts. $2.1M for Gorzelanny and $1.33M for Perez.
Outfielders -- 15 players / 13 signing 1-year contracts; average salary: $2.4M
2010's Super Twos included Hunter Pence, to whom the arbitrators awarded the biggest 1-year contract of any player in his service year -- $6.9M (the Astros offered $5.15). The other two Super Twos from his class were Carlos Gomez, who signed for a below-average $1.5M, and Rajai Davis, who signed a 2-year deal for $5.75M. If that money is prorated according to the conventional wisdom (players make 40% of MLB avg in 3rd year and 60% in 4th year), his 2011 money would put him in the middle of the pack. To return the context to Hosmer for the moment, there are some very good hitters in this class. In addition to Pence, Shin-Soo Choo got $3.975M for one year and Nelson Cruz got $3.65M
Infielders -- 17 players, 14 signing 1-year contracts; average salary $1.75M
Super Twos in the infield did not represent. Alex Gordon led the way at $1.4M, Mike Fontenot got $1.05M, and Jesus Flores got his 2010 salary again -- $0.75M. The big one-year contracts were signed by Martin Prado ($3.1M) and Kendry Morales ($2.975M), and this group also includes Votto and Butler, as mentioned above.
In Summary:
Among these players (arb-eligible with at least three but less than four years service time), the average one-year contract signed by those who'd been a Super Two in 2010 was bigger ($2.23M) than those who hadn't ($1.85M). However, the median salary for Super Twos ($1.36M) was lower than the median salary for the others ($1.39M). The Pence salary really skews the average.
All in all, I don't see any apparent pattern of Super Twos getting bigger contracts their third year than players who are newly eligible for arbitration. If there were going to be a difference, it should be most dramatic here. Some have suggested that Super Twos would get 50% more salary (60% of the MLB average instead of 40%) in their third year than non-Super Twos while others have suggested 25% more (50% of the MLB average instead of 40%). I see no evidence for either proposition here.
What about the last two years of arbitration?
Regular (i.e. non-Super Two) players get a boost in their third arbitration year (after their fifth full service year) because they are no longer compared to their peers' salaries but instead to all MLB players. Some have suggested that Super Twos, who have four arbitration years instead of three, would get that benefit in their third and fourth years. That is not the case.
As I hope I've made clear above, the collective bargaining rules dictate treatment based on a player's years of service, not how many years of arbitration. A player who was once a Super Two is treated the same way after four full years of service as one who was not, even though it's the third arbitration year for the former Super Two and the second arbitration year for the other
Conclusion
The chance that the Royals would have saved any money by delaying Hosmer by a month or so is far less than 100%. We can only speculate, but Dayton has access to information on both the state of the CBA negotiations, and, of course, whether he plans to send Hosmer back down to Omaha at any point (some have suggested during interleague play, to allow Hosmer to continue to hit every day). For me, I'd say that, between the 3 causes outlined above, there's about a 50% chance that the Super Two issue will end up costing the Royals money, primarily because I expect it to change in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
As for the amount of money at stake, I'd estimate $5M, almost entirely in 2013. And that doesn't bother me very much. Glass will come under pressure to raise payroll, and in the early years of the youth movement, the only ways to do that are to bring in free agents or buy out players' arbitration years. If we can sign more folks to Billy Butler-type contracts, I'd say that's great, but I don't know that that's gonna happen in time to meaningfully affect 2013 spending. While it would be nice to save money for the future, I don't think that's realistic, especially when small market hoarding becomes a higher profile issue in CBA negotiations. I think at least $40 to $45M is going to get spent on the 2013 Royals, and I don't have faith in Dayton to spend it wisely on free agents. If it goes to Hosmer instead, I'm not too troubled. If I believed that this move would meaningfully raise spending on Hosmer in 2014/5/6, I would be more concerned, but I don't believe that's the case.
65 comments
|
22 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very well done
Certainly does shed some light on Super-2 and what it really means for organizations.
Might also explain why there isn’t a bigger expanse of clubs that hold top prospects in the minor leagues to “game” service time.
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
Very well explained
I like the data you pulled up for this. All relevant and useful.
by Prime2U on May 7, 2011 7:31 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Applause
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there is a man on base. — Dave Barry
So....
We can say with 100% certainty that this is an awful move, Dayton Moore has the IQ of a goldfish and that the holocaust never happened? If not, I’m confused. I thought those were divine and indisputable facts……
Turning Kool-Aid to Jesus Juice since 2009.
Some questions
I just want to clarify here. Were these the two groups of players you were comparing?
Second arbitration year Super Two’s
vs.
First arbitration year non-super Two’s
Did your methodology accurately capture those two groups? I’m not saying it didn’t; I’m just asking.
And is there a significant sample size problem here by just looking at one season of contracts. There were only 32 position players in your population, and even fewer first basemen of course. And position comps are the very nature of the arbitration system. This isn’t a tit-for-tat, but for the sake of intellectual consistency when I used 55 data points for part of a recent study, you said that given the sample size, " I’m wondering how much stock we can put in these conclusions." The 40/60/80 and 30/50/70/90 rules of thumb were developed by looking at many years of data. I find it hard to toss out those conclusions based on looking at 2011 data only.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
The comparison is among 3rd year players
Those who were Super Twos (and therefore are in their second arbitration year) versus those who weren’t Super Twos (and therefore were in their first arbitration year).
You’re right that a larger sample might pick up an effect that isn’t evident in a smaller sample size. However, this is hypothesized to be a huge effect (50% increase in salaries) and the bigger the effect, the smaller the sample size you’d expect to need to demonstrate statistical signficance (not that I’m testing statistical signficance). The difference between your study and mine is that I’m rejecting the hypothesis of a cause and effect and saying we can’t really see anything here, and that’s always easier, statistically, than claiming we can see a relationship in the data here. That (plus the fact that I was tired) is why I cut this study off at one year. Maybe I just got a very anomalous year and somebody else will do a bigger one and find Super Twos do make more money but since it seems to go against the structure of arbitration and since I looked in the year where there should be the biggest divergence and didn’t find any, I decided to call it a day.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
You’re right that a larger sample might pick up an effect that isn’t evident in a smaller sample size. However, this is hypothesized to be a huge effect (50% increase in salaries)
By whom is this hypothesized? The only rules of thumb I see in sabermetric writings is 40/60/80 for regular three arb. year players and 30/50/70/90 for Super Two’s? So for that first arb year (second for super two’s) we’re talking about an increase of 25%.
With regard to the difference between our studies, you appear to be dismissing the sample size issue because you are attempting to falsify a hypothesis. But that still doesn’t deal with the issue of whether this is a sufficient sample size for you to draw the conclusions you did. I didn’t see many caveats or qualifiers in your conclusions. From your writing it appeared that you were saying that from this small sample and one season’s data, you have proven that Super Two status leads to little increase in arb costs. Is the sample size large enough really come to that conclusion? I don’t know what the sufficient sample size would be. But I think your conclusions need to be heavily qualified. I think this is doubly true when the 30/50/70/90 rule of thumb came from looking at multiple years of data. I don’t think one season of data trumps that. Oh, and how many super two’s were in your data set (particularly in the position player group – Hosmer’s group)?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
!
“I didn’t see many caveats or qualifiers in your conclusions.”
That’s a pretty amusing complaint coming from you, Scott.
by BlueEyes_Austin on May 7, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
When I do a study, as was done above, I try to recognize caveats, limitations and qualifiers. When the OP pointed out sample size issues with one of my studies, I agreed fully that it was a significant issue and that my study was far from the last word on the issue. What he wrote above wasn’t just some off the cuff internet opinion spouting (which for the most part is what we mostly do in comments). He attempted to do a study to find some real truth behind an issue and I applaud that. And I just gave a bit of critique, pointing out issues and limitations.
Do you see the difference between an actual study and quick comment or opinion? Or did you just feel like doing a little mud-tossing this morning?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Also, this isn't meant to be a comprehensive look at Super Twos salaries
I’m only doing this for the purposes of Hosmer, and, as I say above, I think there’s a pretty good chance that Super Two status doesn’t end up making a difference for him beyond one year’s salary difference.
I did a first-level look at what it would mean if it does make a difference, and that’s enough for my purposes. If I was writing a look how Super Two status affects salaries in the 2nd to 4th arbitration years for Beyond the Box Score, I’d ramp it up and include more years of data. I’d also try to figure out how to handle multi-year contracts. I’d also try to figure out how to compare players only to their peers instead of all others at their position. But that’s not what I’m trying to do here. I’m not trying to get an exact answer. For here, it’s enough to say that the effect of Super Two status on 4th/5th/6th year salaries didn’t seem to be much, if at all.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
I did a first-level look at what it would mean if it does make a difference, and that’s enough for my purposes. If I was writing a look how Super Two status affects salaries in the 2nd to 4th arbitration years for Beyond the Box Score, I’d ramp it up and include more years of data. I’d also try to figure out how to handle multi-year contracts.
So you’re saying your study limits its conclusions to that one arbitration year (second for super two and first for non-super two’s). So you’re not dealing with potential increases in arb. awards in the other arb years for super two’s. So if you’re only looking at that arb. year, then how can you conclude Super Two status isn’t going to have much of an effect on Hosmer’s cost to the Royals? It looks like you looked only at one arb year and then drew a large conclusion about his total cost over his cost controlled years.
Now, let’s deal with that one arb. year that you dealt with. Do you really think that one season of data is sufficient to draw these conclusions? Basically you’re saying that if costs weren’t much higher for Super Two’s in that one arb. year for one season, then it should be true for Hosmer. Don’t you need more seasons of data to draw that conclusion. And, on what do you base your conclusion that your sample size is sufficient? I bring this up because you have shown a feel for sample sizes in the past. What makes you feel that 32 position players is a sufficient sample? And I ask again how many of those 32 were Super Two’s. You are comparing the Super Two’s to non-Super Two’s, correct? So is the sample size down to 10 Super Two’s compared to 22 non-Super Two’s? Arent’ we then talking about ridiculously small sample sizes? Does that tell us anything reliable?
I’m not criticizing you for not undertaking a mega-study. I’m just wondering if your conclusions are warranted by the study you did undertake.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't understand why you're digging in your heels on this point
I looked in the place, where, according to your theory, the effect should have been the strongest. I cut the data a couple different ways, and I didn’t see any consistent effect. So I said I don’t see any reason to believe that there’s this effect.
The rules say that people with the same service time are treated the same. If you, or anyone else, wants to argue that that’s not the way it works in practice — that, between two players with the same service time, one will get more if they were arbitration eligible after their second year — then the burden is on you to produce evidence of that effect. So far as I can tell, nobody has ever done that.
Despite finding no evidence where there should have been lots, I’m still not saying that the effect doesn’t exist. I’m saying that since I can’t find evidence of it here, it’s likely small if it exists.
Maybe it’s not fair that the burden is higher for people trying to claim there is an effect than people claiming that they don’t see one, but I don’t make the rules. In scientific terms, I failed to reject the null hypothesis. That conclusion is valid even if the sample size is one.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
If your conclusion was simply “my study did not find the effect to exist” then that would be fine. Your conclusion was much more than that. Heck you even went so far as to quantify it for Hosmer (only 50% chance that this costs the Royals, and estimating $5M). You really have scant support for those numbers, or your larger conclusion that Super Two don’t get more arbitration money other than whatever they get in their first arb. year. I think this study is a good start. But your conclusions, in my opinion, go far beyond your limited data.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
My conclusions
“All in all, I don’t see any apparent pattern of Super Twos getting bigger contracts their third year than players who are newly eligible for arbitration.”
…
“As for the amount of money at stake, I’d estimate $5M, almost entirely in 2013”
I concluded that I didn’t see a pattern, and despite no evidence that there was any effect in later years, I threw in an “almost.” I don’t know what more qualifications you want, but I don’t think they’re needed.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
I also need to reiterate for the tenth time
That the biggest thing against the idea that Super Twos get more money each year isn’t the data. It’s the fact that there’s no proposed mechanism for how that would work. The rules say players with the same service time are treated the same. The data do not conflict with the rules.
If you have some evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, this is data and rules on one side versus nothing on the other.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
I can't find any studies backing up 30/50/70/90
AxDxMx and Gopherballs have both cited 40/60/80/100 as the progression.
My conclusion is that I’m not seeing an effect, and I don’t understand the mechanism by which it would happen. I don’t think I need to qualify that.
If somebody can point me to studies drawing a different conclusion, I’ll go back and ramp this up, but so far it seems like speculation based on a misconstruction of how arbitration works. “No effect observed at this level” doesn’t preclude more analysis, but I disagree that it needs qualifications.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
So in the absence of any other study, the existence of this study is necessarily sufficient proof for your conclusions? Don’t you still need sufficient data to support fairly large conclusions? What if I looked at just one Super Two and one non-Super Two in one season. That would clearly be insufficient. Is your sample sufficient for your conclusions?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
As long as the players were chosen at random, the answer is yes.
It takes much more evidence to conclude (as you have, without any evidence presented) that a relationship exists than to conclude (as I have, based on evidence chosen to maximize the chance of seeing an effect but still failing to show one) that there’s no evidence to believe a relationship exists.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
"a sample size of one"
I think that’s all I need to know. I think I’m done now.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think that's any great loss
If you’ve got evidence or a mechanism, present it. If you’ve got some statistical text that says you can’t fail to reject the null hypothesis with a sample size of one, let’s see it.
If all you’ve got is indignation because you don’t like the conclusion, I don’t think we have anything more to discuss.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Scott, as best i can tell, here is the source of 30/50/70/90
“The Super Two status throws a wrench into our value calculations since our standard formula for arbitration awards, 40%/60%/80%, are based on a three-year model. The easy solution is to keep those in place and just assume that the fourth year of arbitration would be around 100% of market value. My gut feeling however is that since arbitration awards are more focused on the playing time of the player rather than his stats, that this is not the most realistic solution and that something more like 30%/50%/70%/90% is more likely for Super Two’s. I will present the math under both assumptions so that we can get a better range of values. "
Fangraphs: Cole Hamels Joins the Party by Matthew Carruth – January 19, 2009
You say that “the 30/50/70/90 rule of thumb came from looking at multiple years of data” so perhaps you can point me to something else, but this was the only piece I could find that gave any basis for 30/50/70/90 at all. I discounted it because there’s no data at all. He’s just pulling numbers out of the air.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Don't know what the source is
But even from googling, I can find many other instances of its use. I’m pretty sure this came from multi-year data, but I don’t have the source.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Everything else points to fangraphs and that's the earliest I can find.
If you’ve got the study, I’d love to see it. Heck, even another source saying that it’s based on data would be something.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
And
There are other contracts like Braun’s. For instance, David DeJesus’s long-term contract extension with the Royals had a series of annual salaries if he became a Super Two and a lower series of salaries if he did not. I just didn’t want it to seem like the recognition of the value of Super Two status in player contracts is some kind of odd anomaly in Braun’s contract.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
I should have been more clear on that
I picked Braun’s because, among the contracts I could find, it was the only one where the difference between the value with and without Super Two status was way more than the expected value of the Super Two year itself if you allocated the value on the traditional 40/60/80. In DDJ’s contract, the value difference ($1.95M) between Super Two status and not seems to be the straight difference between the Super Two year and a regular major league minimum year that year
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Good analysis
Only thing I would add is that you need to apply a discount rate to future dollars.
by BlueEyes_Austin on May 7, 2011 11:35 AM EDT reply actions
Time Value of Money
Inflation is part of it.
by BlueEyes_Austin on May 7, 2011 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
delayed gratification is more costly than spending today
hence why interest is charged for loanable funds. That seems, at first glance, an opposite of a guaranteed multiyear contract. Promising today that I’ll pay you 5MM over 4 years each and I’m guaranteed out $20MM in today’s equity. Inflation certainly helps though.
I’m interested to read more and dig through it. Any links would be appreciated.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
by Kyled85 on May 7, 2011 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Very well done
Supporting the Kenji Jackson Approach for every day situations.
by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on May 7, 2011 11:57 AM EDT reply actions
FWIW
Dayton Moore has shown more than a little willingness to ignore this aspect of prospect management when he deems it appropriate.
If I am remembering right, he did not mind the implications for Davies, Hochevar, Gordon, and now Hosmer.
(Not commenting on his policy, per se – just pointing out his management style. He seems to promote when he thinks a guy is ready, and the service time issue is not all that relevant to his decision)
"We're gonna win with pitching and defense" General Manager Dayton Moore, circa winter 2009
"Where did all these Indians come from?" General George Armstrong Custer, circa summer 1876
Crow
is another one: a prudent, fearful GM would have started him and Jeffress in Omaha, as both can project as starters and potentially expensive habits some years down the road. This year’s idea does seem to be ‘promote when earned and an improvement’. I like that. Meritocracy.
by Jim Fetterolf on May 7, 2011 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
not quite
you have to be a Moor eguy too
Hosmer was promoted aggresively back in 2009, when he was sucking
How
has that worked out? I admit that I don’ reflexively judge every action on whether or not GMDM did it. That kind of filtered thinking can’t work well, the “anti-Moore” as blind as the “pro-Moore”. In Hosmer’s case, didn’t he get some eye surgery and could all of a sudden see? Might that have affected both his performance and speed of promotion? Things change, which lowers the value of the past.
by Jim Fetterolf on May 7, 2011 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Please don't do that
Don’t pretend that anyone and everyone who has a problem with some thing or things Dayton Moore has done, or anyone who thinks he’s a bad GM just judges every move he makes on reflex. Can’t one have an honest poor opinion of Moore and also have an honest, poor opinion of something he does or has done? If you like something Moore does, should I just assume you are a knee-jerk, pro-Moore apologist fanboy? I don’t think I should.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
"you have to be a Moor eguy too"
That seems fairly broad and fairly clear, clearly lacking any qualifiers.
Personally, I think Moore has made a lot of mistakes, but is showing that he might be growing into the job with some good moves so far this year. Of course, having a boatload of talent coming up will make any GM look smarter:) I could probably walk in now using Greg’s prospect site, the fan graphs site you turned me onto, and the things I’ve learned about advanced metrics while visiting here, and make similar moves to what GMDM will the rest of the year. The dominoes are lined up and starting to fall, so the main job is not screwing the process up. Duffy comes up, Monty comes up, Cain comes up, Lough, Gio or Z-Man, some old guys get traded, some 4A guys go to Omaha, some AA guys earn a trip to AAA, getting close to going on autopilot. As long as he can avoid a reverse Greinke he should be fine. Then next year we can all believe he’s a genius, because that is what the previous year told us.
by Jim Fetterolf on May 7, 2011 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
This year’s idea does seem to be ‘promote when earned and an improvement’. I like that. Meritocracy.
Please tell me what about Crow’s 2010 performance earned him a promotion to the majors.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Crow
earned the promotion in SP and has shown that he deserved it. The opening was there and he took it. Jeffress had a little more of a track record. Teaford and Duffy, two possibilities in SP, didn’t manage to earn it, although Duffy is making his case now in AAA as being an improvement over one of the starters. Promote when earned and an improvement. Enron is coming to mind again.
by Jim Fetterolf on May 7, 2011 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
So all you have to do to "earn it" is have a good spring training?
So you can take an entire minor league season, but your idea of a good meritocracy means that a good ST should just completely trump that. That’s one hell of a screwy meritocracy.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 7, 2011 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
This argument is blinded by bias
Your measure of merit is different than the organization’s measure of merit. As long as you keep making arguments as if they’re the same, you be having some parallel conversation. The org measures merit as who looks most like he could contribute at the major league level. It’s not ERA, BA, HRs…it’s scouting reports. Crow’s scouting reports were always very good even though his results were not. From a scouting perspective, Crow’s 2010 was very good.
by billexgordler on May 7, 2011 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Crow’s scouting reports were always very good even though his results were not. From a scouting perspective, Crow’s 2010 was very good.
Not the scouting reports I read. Significant control problems. Massive deficiencies in his curve and change. He really didn’t look good last year and not just from a numbers perspective. And this isn’t from my amateur scouting eye; it’s from sources like BA, Goldstein and Sickels.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 8, 2011 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
you may as well be citing hosmer's scouting reports as a shortstop...
every scouting report that i read about crow started with: “the stuff is still there”. Scouting reports said that his fastball and slider were very good and that he looked like he’s probably a reliever. And, surprise, that’s exactly what the Royals have acted on. I’m glad to pull up examples of this phrase if you’d like, but i’m pretty sure you’re aware of them.
by billexgordler on May 9, 2011 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
You're acting as if the only thing on a pitcher's scouting report is stuff
Aren’t control and mechanics also important pitching tools mentioned on every scouting report. For instance, from this year’s BA Prospect Handbook,
Crow’s problems were largely mechanical, as he sped up the start of his delivery and opened up too quickly. As a result, hitters saw the ball early, his fastball flattened out and his command slipped. . . Crow’s 84-87 mph slider is still a plus pitch with good bite, but his command issues gave him few chances to use it.
If you’re looking at stuff alone, for two pitches only, his 2010 season was a success from a scouting perspective. But of course scouting reports don’t just look at stuff. If you include mechanics and control, his 2010 season really wasn’t a success from a scouting perspective. I don’t think there is any scout that would tell you Crow’s 2010 season was a success.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 9, 2011 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
this is a stupid argument
Goldstein, from last fall: Crow might also be an optimistic projection based on the 2009 first-round pick’s major struggles this year, but his stuff is still good, and scouts still think he can figure things out.
Perhaps he figured things out very quickly. Perhaps by keeping him in his two-pitch comfort zone he was able to improve his command and mechanics. Scouts saw enough in 2010 to think he should be given a chance to compete for a bullpen role in the bigs. He confirmed that assessment in spring training.
by billexgordler on May 10, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s a stupid argument to point to his control and mechanics as well as his stuff? Ok, if you say so.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 10, 2011 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
no it's stupid because we're having two separate arguments
i’m arguing that his scouting reports were good for a major league relief pitcher, you’re arguing that his scouting reports were not good for a starting pitcher.
by billexgordler on May 10, 2011 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
This Meritocracy
is working. Would you prefer to deny present reality based on last year in the minors trying to develop a 3rd and 4th pitch to be a starter? FO saw a reliever who could improve the team, especially important with a bad rotation, and Crow not only earned the job but has exceeded expectations by becoming a successful, high-leverage reliever. You do realize that Crow, had he failed in a small sample, would have been shipped back down fairly quickly. Like Kila, you can earn your way up or earn your way down. Looks like meritocracy to me.
by Jim Fetterolf on May 7, 2011 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
What is your theory on why Getz keeps starting?
If you think that this is all meritocracy, why do you think Getz is still starting? We have better options, and Getz is not performing.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Getz
does the little things, like scoring the runner from 3rd 4 of 5 times with less than two outs, having decent OBP, turning the DP, has some speed, and having a better glove than Aviles. After Kila, Getz is probably next to get benched. He’s already getting sat down in favor of Aviles sometimes, last night as I remember. His ultimate slot is probably back up IF id Aviles is traded and Gio or Z-Man comes up.
What better options, plural, do you see? And why do you claim Getz is ‘not performing’, a rather absolute claim.
by Jim Fetterolf on May 7, 2011 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions
What better options, plural, do you see?
Betemit at 3B (for as long as he’s hitting) and Aviles at 2B.
And why do you claim Getz is ‘not performing’, a rather absolute claim.
He’s hitting .235/.319/.296 for a wOBA of .292. 6 SB (with 1 CS) helps a little, but only a little. Pretty good defense at 2B has helped a little also, but it isn’t near enough to make up for his massive offensive shortcomings.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 8, 2011 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you arguing that Crow didn't deserve to make the MLB bullpen?
Did you follow this spring? The competition wasn’t close. Spring training is always an open competition for the last 5 or so bullpen roles. Crow and Collins were the first men in after the locks in Soria and Tejeda. Try to name 8 relievers who out-competed Crow this spring or deserved a pass in spring due to career achievement.
Very nice explanation.
I think the best part of this is that you explained it. And you made the caveat a few times that the CBA is probably going to change this. So I can definitely see why you would not waste your time looking at several years of data.
I think most of us are just grateful for the fact that you explained Super Two. And not everybody is trying to make their way into the Sabermetric Hall of Fame.
by hawkinscm87 on May 7, 2011 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I'd say the absolute worst case scenario...
is a Ryan Howard type arbitration decision, so the maximum downside is around $10M. After going through all the major young Super 2 hitters from 2006-2008 (Morneau, Cabrera, Cano, Howard, Mauer, etc), I can’t find a case where they went to arbitration in years 3-4. Every case had the player signing a multi-year contract buying out the arbitration years and, in some cases, free agency. It seems as if the major downside of Super 2 is that it increases the leverage of the player to gain a multi-year deal earlier.
I think something like the Cano 4yr/$30M buying out the arbitration years is something reasonable to expect for Hosmer. The deal escalates 3/6/9/12M, under this deal, I don’t think the Super 2 cost you the 2.7M difference in the 1st year (3M-300K), but nothing in any other year because the arbitration would be similar to 6/9/12 in those years regardless. It might even save you money vs arbitration in the first year given the Cabrera (7.5M) and Howard (10M) awards.
Of course, all this assumes Cabrera/Howard type production, which is probably dreaming a bit. But it’s probably also the worst case financial scenario.
good information
The two biggest arbitration requests I found for third year players were:
Ryan Howard, 2008: player $10M; team: $8M — player wins arbitration
Prince Fielder, 2009: player $8M; team $6M — arbitration nullified by signing of 2-year $18M contract
If we assume that Super Twos are treated no differently in their second year than third-year players are in their third year, these levels represent the worst case scenario of the one-year cost to the Royals of triggering his Super Two status.
Thanks for doing the research on the other contracts. It seems to match my findings. There could be a salary inflation effect here, but I think the data are going to be so sparse (due to multi-year contracts and the difficulty of establishing comparables) that it would be difficult to ever establish it.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
I think the most relevant issue...
is that this probably pushes up the timetable for a contract buying out the arbitration years.
I’m not sure there is any evidence either way on Super Two’s 3-4 years and non-Super Two’s 2-3 years. Basically, if you’re good, you get paid has been the case and it seems like both the teams and the players like to lock in their salaries prior to arbitration.
Baseball fans are always amazing with facts / stats ect...
I never considered myself that knowledgeable on the aforementioned but thank you for explaining in depth on this whole jargon & what not. Very well done sir
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on May 7, 2011 3:19 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Well-written and rec'd
Always nice to have clear presentations of reasonable positions from whatever “side.”
A couple of notes:
- Just to add the the confusion 30/60/etc. confusion, when I was reading up on Super Two in the off-season, I remember finding something about a study showing that Super Two arb awards to follow a 20/40/60/80… Can’t remember where. Sorry.
- I’m not sure exactly how I feel about this particular aspect, but here it is: while Super Two status gives the player more bargaining power when negotiating for a pre-arb extension, given that Hosmer is represented by Scott Boras, that particular thing shouldn’t be too much of a concern…
- I’m not sure what will happen with Super Two with the new CBA; it is a pain in the butt. Personally, I think they should eliminate it and jack up the minimum annual salary to at least $1 million, but then again, I’m a union stooge who doesn’t understand the financial plight of guys like Jeff Loria and David Glass.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on May 7, 2011 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Minimum Salary Up
That’s the direction I hope they go.
Very nice work
Hey, Will and Jeff, why isn’t this guy getting paid to provide content?
"¿Por qué no te calles?" --King Juan Carlos
I thought Alex Gordon showed us the folly of rushing young prospects.
This is only my third fanpost (and nobody liked the second one). I try to contribute where I can, but I’m miles behind Jeff and Will and Scott and Matt and Old Man Dugan and the other excellent writers/analysts who make this place what it is.
I don’t think of myself as the kind of guy who stays up until 4:30am writing, but I did last night because I wanted to do a good job on this. The standard here is pretty high, and it feels good to have gotten several recommendations. I don’t have the discipline (or the ideas) to be a regular blogger, so I really enjoy that this site lets any of us post our own fanposts from time to time.
Thanks for the kind comments, everyone.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Great post
Thanks for shedding some light on the situation
for when I'm too lazy to come here, http://twitter.com/AtTheWall
by AtTheWall on May 8, 2011 7:00 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
wow, well written, well organized, and well researched.
really a great contribution, even if the final conclusion is just a very educated guess of $5m, and a list of the important uncertainties. great work.
by Paris_of_the_Plains on May 9, 2011 10:56 AM EDT reply actions

by 
















