Looking for Bryant-Like Service-Time Manipulations in 2016
A year ago, Kris Bryant’s failure to make the Cubs Opening Day roster made a good deal of news because (a) Bryant, 23, had dominated the minors and was clearly ready for the majors, and (b) by holding him down for a couple weeks, the Cubs prevented Bryant from recording a full year of service time in 2015, which also prevented him from recording the necessary six years of service time for free agency before the end of the 2021 season. Bryant was the number-one prospect in baseball at the time, but he was not the only player kept in the minor leagues at least in part due to service time considerations. Carlos Correa, Maikel Franco, Francisco Lindor, Carlos Rodon, Addison Russell, and Noah Syndergaard all spent time in the minors last year before succeeding in the big leagues. There has been little uproar this year regarding service time shenanigans. While there is no Bryant-like player, the potential for some service-time manipulation is still there.
To identify players who are ripe for manipulation it’s best to begin with the very best prospects. Of the players mentioned above, six of seven appeared among Kiley McDaniel’s top-200 prospect list last year; only Franco appeared outside the top 20, down at 38 overall. Taking a look at Baseball America’s top 20 prospects this season, we can get a good start in identifying players.
Let’s eliminate the players who started the year in the majors.

| BA Rank | Age | Service Time | Final 2015 Level | 2016 Level | 2016 Projection (wRC+, FIP) | |
| 1 | Corey Seager | 22 | 0.032 | MLB | MLB | 103 |
| 2 | Byron Buxton | 22 | 0.113 | MLB | MLB | 92 |
| 13 | Steven Matz | 24 | 0.099 | MLB | MLB | 3.45 |
These players are part of the reason why there is no Bryant-like player this season. Buxton and Seager are the top two prospects in baseball, and they already have major-league service time due to call-ups from last season. Buxton has been sent back down, but it seems highly unlikely that it has anything to do with his service time; he would need to remain in the minors until nearly September for the Twins to gain another year of team control
The next group we can safely eliminate are the guys who have a great deal of potential, but are still a ways off from the majors.

| BA Rank | Age | Service Time | Final 2015 Level | 2016 Level | 2016 Projection (wRC+, FIP) | |
| 3 | Yoan Moncada | 21 | 0 | Low-A | High-A | 57 |
| 15 | Andrew Benintendi | 21 | 0 | Low-A | High-A | 77 |
| 17 | Dansby Swanson | 22 | 0 | Short Season-A | High-A | 45 |
| 18 | Rafael Devers | 19 | 0 | Low-A | High-A | 55 |
| 19 | Anderson Espinoza | 17 | 0 | Low-A | Low-A | 5.35 |
| 20 | Francis Martes | 20 | 0 | Double-A | Double-A | 4.85 |
While it is possible that a few guys on this list, like Benitendi and Swanson, could force their way into the majors at some point, this is a young group of players who were not ready to make the jump to the majors.
The next group of players features guys who are getting closer to the majors, and could see MLB time this year, but for whom more minor-league development also seems reasonable.

| BA Rank | Age | Service Time | Final 2015 Level | 2016 Level | 2016 Projection (wRC+, FIP) | |
| 6 | J.P. Crawford | 21 | 0 | Double-A | Double-A | 91 |
| 8 | Orlando Arcia | 21 | 0 | Double-A | Triple-A | 81 |
| 11 | A.J. Reed | 23 | 0 | Double-A | Triple-A | 102 |
| 16 | Lewis Brinson | 22 | 0 | Triple-A | Double-A | 86 |
Orlando Arcia and J.P. Crawford might be better than the players ahead of them in the majors right now — Crawford, in particular. While Triple-A time is not a prerequisite to earn the call to the big leagues, the 21-year-olds had not seen any time in Triple-A before 2016 and they are not sufficiently impressive upgrades to render their non-contending teams into contenders. A.J. Reed could probably hold his own with the bat and be of some service to the Astros either at first base or designated hitter. That said, Tyler White might be his equal right now with the bat, and the team wants to give Evan Gattis a shot at designated hitter. It might not be the best baseball decision, but it is a common one not necessarily related to service time.
Next, we have pitchers who are just waiting for an injury or having their innings preserved.

| BA Rank | Age | Service Time | Final 2015 Level | 2016 Level | 2016 Projection (FIP) | |
| 4 | Julio Urias | 19 | 0 | Triple-A | Triple-A | 3.62 |
| 5 | Lucas Giolito | 21 | 0 | Double-A | Double-A | 4.22 |
| 7 | Alex Reyes | 21 | 0 | Double-A | SSPD | 4.14 |
| 14 | Tyler Glasnow | 22 | 0 | Triple-A | Triple-A | 3.65 |
Urias could probably be pitching in the big leagues right now, and given the Dodgers injury troubles, they could probably use him. However, he has only pitched around 80 innings per year over the last two seasons, and if the team feels he can be asset at the end of the season, he could be better served having his innings monitored in the minors. Giolito should be up once one of the Nationals pitchers go down or become ineffective, the latter scenario perhaps less likely now given Tanner Roark’s recent amazing outing. The Pirates have some struggling starters and Tyler Glasnow could serve an improvement right now. Ryan Vogelsong is currently in the sixth spot out of the bullpen, but it would seem only a matter of time before Glasnow is called up to help Pittsburgh. Alex Reyes is current serving a suspension for testing positive for marijuana. He’s got 20 games to go, although the suspension would end if he were placed on the 40-man roster. He likely would not be the first choice should a starter go down, but his time will likely come later in the year.
That leaves just three players:

| BA Rank | Age | Service Time | Final 2015 Level | 2016 Level | 2016 Projection (wRC+, FIP) | |
| 12 | Blake Snell | 23 | 0 | Triple-A | Triple-A | 3.89 |
| 9 | Trea Turner | 22 | 0.045 | MLB | Triple-A | 103 |
| 10 | Joey Gallo | 22 | 0.063 | MLB | Triple-A | 103 |
Blake Snell is the obvious candidate. He and the Tampa Bay Rays had talks in Spring Training about a contract extension that likely would have placed him in the Opening Day rotation. He looks ready for MLB action, having recorded his major-league debut on the first day he could do so without accruing a full year of service this season. The team has gone with essentially a four-man rotation with only Erasmo Ramirez making a start after the Rays’ top four, and he has spent most of this season in the bullpen. While Snell was sent back down immediately following his start — thus dampening potential criticism — if the Rays call him up within 20 days of his demotion, Snell will receive service time for his recent time in the minors. A cursory glance at the schedule makes it seem the Rays will need another fifth starter on May 10, which would land within that 20-day window. It’s hard to believe that service-time considerations were not paramount in Snell’s delay in reaching the majors.
Joey Gallo might represent an upgrade over Mitch Moreland or potentially Prince Fielder, but when he came up to the majors last year, his problems with strikeouts made him a liability. At some point, he is going to have to play in the majors to see if he can make more consistent contact at the big-league level. He’s still just 22, and does have some development time if he needs it. If the Rangers are thinking about his service time, keeping him down until the middle of June will ensure they get that extra year. Given his struggles last season, it’s hard to determine if his time in Triple-A is due to service time or skills and personnel. An injury for the Rangers in the next month could be revealing.
The final player to discuss is Trea Turner. After getting 44 plate appearances in the majors last year, there is a very reasonable argument to make that Turner is the best shortstop the Nationals have available. Danny Espinosa is a poor hitter producing worse results currently than even his meager preseason projections called for. While Turner might be more second baseman than shortstop, the same could be said of Espinosa. Turner’s bat should be pretty close to average, and he is already tearing the cover off the ball in Triple-A. At this point it’s hard to see why he’s still in minors when he presents a real upgrade to a contending team. Of course, if he stays down for another month, the Nationals will secure a seventh year of service time, keeping him through the 2022 season before free agency.
There were not any service-time cases as clear as Kris Bryant’s last season — and it’s difficult to conceive of a scenario in which there’d be any that were more clear in the future. However, there are still service-time games occurring as teams walk the line between fielding the best product, contending, rebuilding, and getting a precious free-agent season for keeping players down for just a few more weeks. This season, it would appear that Blake Snell and Trea Turner are the two players most disadvantaged by the system.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
I’m always looking Craig, but you keep looking too. Fight the good fight!
The Bryant fiasco last year was a pitiful farce. It’s obvious the Cubs were just using a broken service time system to their advantage, but that was the most egregious example ever seen. It was so bad that it made a mockery of Bryant’s hard work and of the notion that sports is a meritocracy.
Essentially, I could understand that move if this were done by Tampa, but the third biggest market in America shouldn’t have to pinch pennies for what happens six (!!!!!) years down the road they clearly had much to gain by calling up their best player instead of letting him rot in the minors for a couple weeks. They had much to gain because they were projected to be right on the fringes of playoff contention but decided to keep him down anyway. The Braves in 2010 did the right thing with Heyward. They were on the fringes of contention, broke camp with their best player on the roster (crazy notion, amirite?) and they made the playoffs by one game.
If I were Kris Bryant and Scott Boras I would’ve informed the brass that this farce would mean I’m bolting the organization as soon as possible. That’s what I don’t get. The Cubs had the resources to not worry about the six years later occurrence but have damaged their relationship with their best hitter. I’m rooting for the Cubs to win the World Series but I’m also rooting that Bryant would never, ever resign with them once 2021 is done.
This is wrong, getting an extra year of control isn’t pinching pennies. It is just delaying free agency. Keeping a prospect down past the super 2 cutoff is pinching pennies as you are delaying arbitration when you already have the extra year of control. Getting an extra year of control of an in prime player is the goal of every team. Bryant now hits free agency at 30 instead of 29 and the team can decide if the money is best spent on shorter term deals than a 7 yr deal in which you only get 2 tail end prime years and pay out the ass for decline years as well.
A player’s prime is unpredictable. It is no certainty that the player will even be serviceable by the time they reach the last year of team control. Playing to win is the only correct way to run a team and manipulating service time does not fit that model.
They traded 2 weeks of 2015 Bryant for a year of 2021 Bryant and ended up reaching the NLCS anyway.
Seems like it worked out pretty well for them short term and long term.
This is a top prospect, not some unknown. It’s fairly reasonable to expect him to produce in his 20’s. Playing to win is mortgaging the future for short term gains. Which is an unbelievably stupid business model in a multibillion dollar business. Under your thinking the braves should have signed greinke so that they can pay him 30 mil a year for a 70 win team and then continue paying him 30 mil a yr for his decline yrs when the team MIGHT be competetive. The cubs window is essentially infinite the way they have handled things.
It doesn’t need to be certain. Nothing is certain, for example Bryant’s contribution doing anything for the cubs in the time he was held down is not certain.
It’s a calculated risk that the value of that extra season is > the value of 10 games.
What exactly were the odds of the Cubs keeping Bryant after free-agency if they DIDN’T send Bryant down for service time purposes?
Remember, his agent IS Scott Boras.
Well, they may keep him, but they weren’t going to get a pre-free agency extension, so really there was nothing to gain.
Fix the system, give the team 7 years, but even one day on the MLB roster counts as a year. Start arbitration after 3 years for everyone. Problem solved.
And what do the owners get in return for agreeing to this?
I would go 31 days for a service year (does September count?). Owners could eliminate Super Two in exchange.
I think the system is fine, it only effects the good players who will wind up doing just fine financially in the long run. The system is designed for vets to make the most money and for a team to keep control through all of a players development years.
The owners get up to 7 full years of team control instead of 6+. For guys that actually do bounce back and forth from the majors, they aren’t really that valuable.
I guess you would also have to rejigger the arbitration process a little; the baseline for first time through arbitration would need to be a bit lower. I actually think it is bullshit arbitration doesn’t start sooner, even if it were just to separate out from league minimum to something like $2 million max.
So, because the cubs are a large market team they should be less savy with how they spend money? That makes a ton of sense.
To “bolting as soon as possible”…that’s just absolutely stupid. As you’ve mentioned the cubs are a big market team, why would you eliminate any bidders, let alone one with deep pockets.
You sound like a petty child
I do believe that the song dance of making him stay in the minors is ‘cutting off the nose to spite the face.’ — Intentionally pissing off your most valuable asset to worry about six years from now is illogical, especially when you’re right on the cusp of playoff contention. It’s illogical because a huge market like Chicago can afford to resign him, even against the Yankees and the Dodgers.
And no, I wouldn’t want to publicly eliminate bidders. I mentioned that I would inform the organization only that I would never resign with a team that would so brazenly, so openly lower my earnings. And also, I prefer the term ‘petulant child.’
Last year they didn’t plan on competing to that extent. Sure they can resign him but will it be wise to give him the 7 or 8 years he would command in free agency? Also they have guys like Russell, soler, Schwarber, Rizzo with roughly the same amount of control. They can’t afford to keep them all to the 5,6,7,8 year contracts those guys might end up demanding. Doing anything other than what they did would be illogical.
You can’t resign him for a 1 year deal at 29. You are completely missing the benefit that a team gets from getting an extra year. It is no surprise to me that you don’t understand how this can be a big deal in 6 years and why planning for that now, is important.
Did it seem to hurt KB that he had to spend a couple weeks in the minors? Sure doesn’t seem like it.
You said that you would have told the brass that you’re walking as soon as possible. That’s eliminating someone (the cubs) that would be a future bidder (possibly). Or you’re going to threaten them into bringing you up? I can’t understand what else it is that you are trying to say.
If it’s the later, that is also stupid because that would be bad for his image. You know his reputation has an effect on his ability to make money outside of mlb.
I’m not really sure what you see the benefit of your scenario is for the cubs organization. Kris Bryant is going to play baseball as well as he can because that affects his earning potential. He’s not gonna cross the cubs off his list should they bid for him in free agency because again, it affects his earning potential. And bringing him up 2 weeks earlier wasn’t going to result in some team friendly contract for the cubs because scott boras is his agent and again, that would affect his earning potential.
So I ask, why would the cubs do this?
@ Señor victorvran
the 2015 projections for both PECOTA and FanGraphs had the Cubs ONE game out of the 2nd wild card. Essentially a coin flip! It was in their every interest to help sway that coin flip odds by having their best player on the roster for those two weeks. In 2010, the Braves did the smart moved and broke camp with Heyward. They made the playoffs by one game, partly because he had an OPS of over 1.000 in those first two weeks (including two 9th inning game tying hits for games they eventually won.)
More importantly – they needlessly antagonized their best player. I say needlessly because they’re in a position to match any offer after Boras had pushed him to the open market.
They intentionally made their team worse when they were right on the most important part of the win curve!! They needlessly hurt their future negotiations with their best player!
1) assuming Bryant was their best player without any ml at bats is pretty funny.
2) if he is their best player they gained an extra 140 games of him on aggregate.
3) just because someone can afford something doesn’t make it the best use of resources. Payroll is a finite number and it doesn’t make sense to just sign every player to 7 yr deals. By the time Bryant hits free agency Harper could have a 500 million dollar contract. The cubs won’t resign Bryant to the 35 or 40 mil a year he might end up asking for.
I don’t understand how anyone can argue against this, it’s an over reaction to the win curve. Would you rather have your best player when you are 50:50 on making the playoffs or when you are projected as the best team?
Anybody who thinks KB was antagonized hasn’t been paying attention to the team. Have you seen the way the team interacts? He and the rest of his teammates love it here. Boras & Theo are both very rational people. Boras knows exactly why the Cubs held KB down, and Theo knows exactly why Boras operates they way he does and doesn’t sign early. They’re are the same person on opposite sides. There’s no bad blood. They all understand the business side of it all. If KB is worth the money, the Cubs will pay what it takes. If it’s a bad deal, they’ll let him walk. Management and agents don’t think the same was as fans and make decisions based on emotion.
JediHoyer said pretty much everything. I’ll reiterate that the cubs have taken a more long term view and not short term. That’s why it makes sense to the cubs to deal with the bryant situation as they did. A season of 29 yr old Bryant is more valuable to the franchise than 10 games of rookie kris bryant.
I’m not sure they’ve antagonized him either. You think he’s going to remember this when he becomes a free agent and lets it affect where he signs? I guess we’ll see, but I don’t believe that.
Additionally, I’d ask you to find me any hard evidence that the cubs would have won more games with KB in the lineup for those ten games.
@victorvran, You and Jedi have explained it very well. I don’t think casual fans and fans from other cities totally understand how rational and bottom line the Theo regime is. They think about every scenario and don’t make reactionary decisions. They know all the pros and cons and make the best decision for the club.
You mention Heyward a few times, because he’s probably the best example of a top prospect who started the seasons in the big leagues instead of manipulating service time, and they made they playoffs by such a large margin.
But the flip side is two-fold. The first fold is that he didn’t sign a long-term contract with them, due to their early-career generosity. He still wanted to be paid market value, so there was no goodwill on his part. The second fold is that they would be in a better position right now if they had held him back 2 weeks in his rookie season. They traded a year of him to the Cardinals, in a package headlined by Shelby Miller. If he had two years left on his contract, rather than one, then they would have received a much better package. So yes, it helped them in the short term, but it hurt them in the long term. It’s a calculated risk, and the Cubs obviously calculated correctly because they still made the playoffs last year, and they have Bryant for one extra prime season.
To add to my other comment, a good Front Office will balance the short term with the long term rather than just listening to the casual fan base demanding immediate action.
I know a lot of Mets fans who were pissed with the team a few years back for not upgrading their OF. They had a dreadful OF in 2012, and a lot of my friends didn’t see why they didn’t sign two clear upgrades. They wanted Bourn in CF and Swisher in RF, rather than going the cheap route. Those two guys made, what, $25MM/year? Instead, they went into the season with Lagares (who nobody really knew about) in CF and Marlon Byrd in RF, and kept their draft pick. Lagares put up more WAR than Bourn/Swisher combined (and both have since been released due to poor performance), Byrd put up a very good season and netted them their 2B of the future in a trade, and the draft pick turned into (potentially) their 1B of the future. By not overreacting, they significantly helped their long term chances.
^^^ Yes! Exactly!
Is there really any evidence of this manipulation hurting the relationship down the road? The two events are a long time apart.
Nah, the thing to do if you’re Boras is to whisper in the Cubs ear that some other player he represents (that they want) is reluctant to sign there because he see the way they’re treating Bryant and it worries him about the way the organization will treat him.
I would love to see Boras try to say that with a straight face.
He fell outside the BA top 20 but Berrios is close. In Minnesota’s defense, they have SP injuries and need a starter but Berrios could have started the year in the Majors (I think but don’t know for sure) and we’re safely past 13 days into the season.
Berrios had an unimpressive spring training unlike Kris. Plus two other SP’s went down. While possible, I feel that if he had dominatedST, he would have been up.
Am I missing something on Giolito? In most publications he is the #1 pitching prospect, yet his projected FIP is the at 4.22? His K/BB is terrible, his WHIP has never been elit and his MILB ERA is really not that impressive. What makes anyone think this guy is going to be a #1? For the record, I’m asking because I have never seen him pitch. Just looking at the numbers.
100 mph fastball, great curve. Last year baseball America voted him to have the best fastball and best curve in all of the minors. 2 elite pitches+ shows some feel for change is as good a place as any to start with a pitching prospect.
Scouting… His stuff is amazing. Prospect guys will tell you not to scout the stat line. A lot of times minor leaguers are working on something, like a certain pitch or trying to clean up their mechanics so performance is secondary to mastering the skill.
Thanks guys
The Cubs paid Kris Bryant a $6.7 million dollar signing bonus after drafting him #2, still the biggest bonus to any player under the current draft rules (2012-present). They promoted him to starting 3B of the MLB team after 201 minor league games. They kept him at third despite many scouts opinion that he was really more of an outfielder. During his debut, he batted cleanup.
After Kris won Rookie of the Year, the Cubs rewarded him with a $652,000 salary, despite the fact that he has less than one year of service time. This practice is contrary to standard industry practice of paying the minimum or very close to it (see: Gerrit Cole).
The notion that the Cubs and Bryant don’t have a good relationship is categorically false. Epstein just isn’t going to debut a rookie on opening day when doing so incurs quicker free agency. He isn’t that stupid.
Exactly, and it’s not just Kris Bryant. The Cubs also went out and insulted Heyward, Zobrist, Lackey, and Fowler with lowball offers over the winter.
Danny Espinosa was quite decent last season. This season he has drawn more walks and struck out less than his career norm (even when you remove the 3 IBBs). His BABIP sits at .225. There is nothing particularly alarming about his batted ball profile. He is playing at least average shortstop defense so far.
All this is to say that, being on Fangraphs, it’s probably more reasonable to expect improved performance from Espinosa than to make sweeping claims about his lack of offensive and defensive prowess.
And errors notwithstanding, Espinosa is (and has been through his career with the Nats) viewed internally as a plus-plus defender at short – which Turner is most emphatically not, at this point. That’s the real reason he’s still down – he needs a fair amount more work everyday at SS in order to reach his ceiling of being a maybe-average defender there. Given Ben Revere’s injury and the Nats’ current lack of a real leadoff hitter, (and the fact that Daniel Murphy at 2B does no favors in up the middle defense) Turner would be up already if they had faith in him as being ready to be an everyday SS – they don’t, so he’s not.
Regarding Snell, I think that a team can almost always justify keeping a starting pitcher off the opening day roster for fairly legitimate reasons.
With the way that the workloads of young pitchers are monitored these days, few if any teams are going to bring up a highly-touted young pitcher and allow him to throw 200 innings in his first MLB season by taking his turn in the rotation all year. So if the full season workload is going to be monitored and limited, why not start him in AAA where’s it pretty easy to limit the innings per start. The early season MLB schedule also pushes toward that decision, because of all of the off days. As mentioned with the Rays, the off days means that a team can often get by using a 4 man rotation with normal rest for the first 2 or 3 times through the rotation.
Service time considerations also push in that direction, of course. But it’s a different situation than with a position player. A position player can be expected to log a lot more MLB playing time if he’s on the Opening Day roster, so if he’s ready that does help the team (as a purely baseball decision). With a starting pitcher, I don’t think that a team can really expect more innings by having him there on Opening Day.
By our calculations (http://www.draysbay.com/2016/4/1/11345732/rays-four-man-rotation-mlb-opening-day-2016) over at DRaysBay, The Rays won’t need a regular 5th starter until May 24, not May 10.
That should PROBABLY be past the Super-2 date. If he’s called up right then and becomes the fifth starter, then that will seem that this was about service time, but if Erasmo steps in there regularly, then not so much. Erasmo was slated to pitch Snell’s start, but a weird long game made the Rays use him out of the bullpen two days before, so they had to quick change plans and option B was Snell.
By the way the heading on the bottom chart is incorrect – “Pitching Prospects Waiting for an Opening” but shows Snell, Turner, and Gallo. Just a heads-up!
thanks. accidentally copied the prior one. fixed.
“Turner’s bat should be pretty close to average, and he is already tearing the cover off the ball in Triple-A. At this point it’s hard to see why he’s still in minors when he presents a real upgrade to a contending team.”
How much should we care if Turner is tearing the cover off the ball in AAA 4 weeks into the season? I don’t know if a gaudy AVG is all that meaningful at this point. Obviously service time is likely an important factor, but couldn’t it be possible that the Nationals are having him work on something in the minors that they noticed was an issue during his MLB time last year? I don’t know if that’s the case, but it doesn’t appear that this question was addressed in the article, and I don’t think it should be ignored.
Ok, I’ll be arguing for the millionaires against the billionaires, and then arguing against both of them, kinda:
Sure, Bryant got hosed by a rule that is loopholey and exploitable. Dude had 650 plate appearances, and since a plate appearance is pretty service-y, being service-y 650 times (45th most in all of baseball last year) and effectively getting ZERO years of service time for your trouble? Lame. Boo the billionaires!
I do hope the players get a better deal in the coming CBA agreements. They deezurb, take a few more bucks from the cartel. But how about us?! the commoners? the jerks? The peasants unite! Maybe see what we can do about those beer prices and ticket prices and whatever? Maybe snag a couple of bucks outta the pockets of the millionaires and the billionaires. Who’s with me!
(Runs triumphantly, whooping and shouting, in no meaningful direction…)
(Crickets)