The Financial Considerations in Calling Up Prospects Like Brett Jackson and Anthony Rizzo

Top prospects are called up to the big leagues for the first time (or, for the second/third/fourth time, but, like, for good) for a variety of reasons.

They’ve crushed it in the minor leagues, and there’s nothing left there for them to accomplish. They’re too old to continue destroying younger players. They’re pressed into service by an injury on the big club. They are being rewarded late in the season. They are necessary for a second half push on a team that is surprisingly competitive. And so on.

There are a number of reasons a kid is brought up to the show, and any number of those reasons could be involved in a decision to call up two of the Chicago Cubs’ top prospects – outfielder Brett Jackson and first baseman Anthony Rizzo – this season. Both are expected to see time in Chicago this year, but when? Is it possible to state with confidence when they will or will not be called up, given all the variables involved in the decision?

Well, absent a rash of injuries, it’s fair to say that, yes, we can comfortably assume neither Jackson nor Rizzo will be in Chicago at any point before midseason. How can we be so confident?

Because there’s another consideration when calling up top prospects, one that I didn’t list above: service time.

It is, perhaps, an uncomfortable consideration because it has nothing to do with ability or need, and few like to acknowledge the consideration because it can ultimately take money out of players’ pockets. But it is a legitimate consideration, and one that will directly impact when we see Jackson and Rizzo this year.

Let me explain.

In broad terms, a player’s salary is directly impacted by his time in the Major Leagues. More specifically, while he has zero to three years of service time, he makes very little. From three to six years of service time, he makes a fair bit more (in arbitration). The player is eligible for free agency once he reaches six years of big league service time. Then, his salary goes way up – if you can keep him at all, that is.

By way of example, if Brett Jackson started this season with the Cubs, he’d make the Major League minimum this year, and then something just north of that in 2013 and 2014. Then he would be eligible for arbitration in 2015, 2016, and 2017. And then, finally, he would be a free agent before the 2018 season.

But … what if he didn’t start the season with the Cubs? Well, then that entire timeline changes.

In the Cubs’ favor.

In that case, Jackson wouldn’t accrue enough service time to reach free agency in 2018. Instead, he’d still be under the Cubs’ control that year. In a way, the Cubs would have just grabbed an extra year of control (in Jackson’s prime, mind you), at a rate much cheaper than what he would presumably cost on the open market. This is not an insignificant consideration.

There is one more wrinkle to the financial equation. Even if you delay a prospect a hair at the start of a season (which ensures you an “extra” year of team control), you may end up paying him a little more in arbitration than is typically the case. Why? Because you might have lined him up for “Super Two” status.

You’ve probably heard folks discuss “Super Two” status and the fourth year of arbitration (Matt Garza, for example, is now in his third of four arbitration years because he was a “Super Two”). All that means is that there is a group of young players who haven’t yet reached three years of service time, but nonetheless qualify for arbitration. It doesn’t change how many years you control him, it just gives the player an extra arbitration year (thus the “fourth” arbitration year). For such a player, his years would look something like: first year is partial, and he makes the minimum; second year he makes just north of the minimum; third year he makes just north of that; fourth year is his first year of arbitration; fifth year is his second year of arbitration; sixth year is his third year of arbitration; and seventh year is his fourth and final year of arbitration.

Who qualifies for Super Two status? Well, the new CBA actually changed the classification slightly, making the group larger. Previously, the top 17% (in length of service) of players in that more-than-two-but-not-quite-three-years-of-service-time group would get qualify as Super Twos. Now, that has been bumped up to 22%.

So, there are two “deadlines” to consider when addressing the financial ramifications of calling up a prospect. First, how early can you call him up without losing the extra year of control? Second, how early can you call him up without having him qualify for Super Two status? Where the player is a brand new call-up, with no MLB experience (and where you plan on keeping him up for the rest of the year), the answers to those questions are: late April, and mid-to-late June, respectively. Where the player has some service time already, or where you plan on shuffling him up and down throughout the year, the timeline changes a bit.

How does this all impact Brett Jackson and Anthony Rizzo, specifically? MLBTR put together a chart of top prospects who might see action this year, and looked at their specific service time situations. Jackson’s situation is simple enough – as a player with no service time, the Cubs would retain control of him through 2018 so long as they wait until late April to call him up, and they avoid him reaching Super Two status so long as they wait until late June to call him up. Jackson needs some more time in AAA anyway, so keeping him in the minor leagues until late June is not out of the question – indeed, Jackson’s first appearance may well come in late July if the Cubs trade someone in their outfield at the deadline.

Rizzo’s situation is slightly more complicated.

Because Rizzo was called up for a portion of 2011 by the Padres, he has accrued some Major League service time – 68 days, to be precise. For that reason, if the Cubs want to retain an “extra” year of control of Rizzo, they’ll have to wait until late June to call him up. If the Cubs want to prevent Rizzo from reaching Super Two status, they’d have to keep him down until late August. In other words,  he’d have to be a mere September call-up. Few expect that will actually happen, though it is plausible if Bryan LaHair is healthy and productive.

Thus, ultimately, if these financial considerations drove the Cubs’ call-up decisions with respect to Jackson and Rizzo, we probably wouldn’t see either of them, at the earliest, until late June.

All of that said, there are still a number of reasons we could see Jackson and/or Rizzo in the big leagues before mid or late season, as discussed at the outset of this piece. If Bryan LaHair suffers a season-ending injury in late May while Rizzo is tearing up AAA, he probably gets the call. If the Cubs suddenly find great deals out there for Alfonso Soriano and Marlon Byrd in early June, combined with an injury or two, and maybe they’re forced to pull the trigger on Jackson earlier than they’d like. Nothing is certain.

And, let’s be clear: these are real people (both the prospects and the management). Keeping kids down to save future money is a practice easily discussed on paper, but perhaps not quite as easily implemented in the real world. It’s a consideration in the promotion decision, but it is not the only consideration.

But you can be confident that, if all other things were equal, because of the financial considerations discussed here, the Cubs would greatly prefer not to see either of Jackson or Rizzo in Chicago for a little while yet.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

31 responses to “The Financial Considerations in Calling Up Prospects Like Brett Jackson and Anthony Rizzo”

  1. BD

    I think big market teams shouldn’t factor in service time. Development/readiness/ability to help the team should be the factors. And maybe the service time works out in the team’s favor. But if not, that’s OK too. It’s not like the Cubs are hurting for money.

    1. TC

      But why waste money if you don’t have to? Letting them hit super two status could cost the team tens of millions of dollars. Yes, the Cubs have that money, but thats not a reason to ignore that amount of money.

      1. Smitty

        I agree with both arguments. If the kid is going to help you get to the playoffs then I would say play him and don’t worry about service time. If you are rebuilding, as we are, then why just throw the money away if you have a capable productive option available.

        1. WGNstatic

          I would add that the Cubs should be doing what is best for these young players development. There could be damage done to these guys by keeping them down too long (i.e. they start pressing trying to hit 4 HR every night to get the attention of the front office).

    2. hansman1982

      Yes, let’s waste a year of team control and (potentially) tens of millions of dollars just because we aren’t “hurting for money”. The rich don’t stay rich by using that philosophy.

      Even if Jackson MASHES in Spring Training, I see no reason to call him up before May 1 – no sense in burning that year of team control just because we need to “act” rich.

      With Rizzo I would wait until late-June to call him up for two reasons, 1. Give LaHair an extra long leash to see what he can do and 2. Get that extra year of team control. If one of our trio of 1b prospects drafted last year pan out, that will only serve to increase Rizzo’s trade value down the road.

      1. EQ76

        To me, unless there’s some serious injuries, it won’t matter… we’re set up perfectly for them to be called up later in June… LaHair is gonna get his chance and will get more than one month to prove it and we are still loaded in the OF. I am 90% sure Byrd will be dealt at the deadline, opening up a spot in the OF for Jackson.. as far as LaHair goes, I can see him being moved into the outfield when Rizzo takes over, or moved in a trade. I expect LaHair to do well and he may be our best power bat this year.

  2. cubsin

    Free agency is a lot more expensive than an extra arb year. Even if LaHair is on the DL, I’d expect to see Rizzo called up, then sent back down for 70 or so days after LaHair comes back. But if an outfielder or two goes down or is traded late in Spring Training, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jackson called up in late April.

    1. Smitty

      I could see them keep Rizzo down if it is just a 15 day stint on the DL and let Baker cover first. Now if it is longer, I agree, call Rizzo up.

  3. Papi

    Great post and detailed explanation Brett, especially the realization that these are people making decisions not just Bloomberg Sports computers

  4. spencer

    Sounds like Rizzo will be a Super Two, which is ok.

    1. WGNstatic

      I agree completely. It would have to take some combination of LaHair succeeding and Rizzo struggling to have him stay in AAA until September.

      That damn SD GM calling up Rizzo last year… That jerk is going to cost the Cubs millions on that move!

      1. Cub scout

        Why just sign him to a long term deal when he proves he is ready.

  5. OkieCub

    Thanks for the education Bret! Started following you this winter and am a better Cubs fan for it!

  6. DocWimsey

    The other issue regarding the years of control is the value of the players in trades. A player under team control for X years is worth more than one under control for X-1 years. So, by keeping these guys in the minors a while longer, they will be worth more in trades (should the Cubs opt to go that way) in, say, 2016.

  7. ty

    As the big boys get ready to move up the street a couple impressions: Junior Lake is so very impressive-hitting with power off of live pitching. This youngster may be better than Castro in the near future. Best arm in organization-speed-glove-line drive hitter to all fields and now power. Watch him this spring and enjoy the potential. Ian Stewart is a wait and see-ball does not jump off his bat but it is early. Soriano is actually moving around–watched him all these years stand behind other players rather than go get a ball in left fieldand all of us here around Fitch knows that is factual. Lou or Quade never could get him actively involved here and he always came in deconditioned. Sveum is up his butt!

    1. CubFan Paul

      nice.

    2. hardtop

      wait… who swaim up whose butt?  ouch!

    3. Don

      Lake, Vitters, Castro and Rizzo sound like a great infield in the future! I can’t wait to check out these players when I head to spring training!

  8. Cub scout

    Brett,

    There is a way to solve that in their 3 year of play sign them to a 5 yr deal. Jackson would be 32 and Rizzo would 30. So the cubs would control them through their prime.

  9. Cliffy

    QT @JimBowdenESPNxm: Jed Hoyer just told us the Red Sox will get the slightly better player in the future exchange of PTBNL from the Theo Epstein deal XM 89

  10. die hard

    Great explanation as to the front office dilemma of who to move and who to keep as it impacts minor leaguers in general and these two kids in particular. I wonder what the downside effect is of keeping a ready player down. Does the player lose something permanently if not brought up when ready? I cant think of any specific examples but do recall many examples of players being brought up too soon and suffering as a result. Felix Pie and Corey Patterson come to mind. Casey Coleman is a recent example of too soon. Maybe there is no harm in keeping a ready player down too long?

  11. AP

    Hey everyone, I have some family coming into town at the beginning of May who want to go to a Cubs game. Does anyone know a good place to get disounted, single game tickets?
    Thanks

  12. baseballet

    Question: in the above Brett Jackson scenario, if he achieves Super Two status, would his fourth year of arbitration (seventh year in majors) ALSO be his free agent year? If so, doesn’t free agency trump the value of a fourth year of arbitration?

  13. Brett Jackson Impressing Early, But Could It Be Enough? | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] unlikely to break camp with the big club thanks to the need for some seasoning at AAA and the Chicago Cubs’ probable desire to net an additional year of control, Brett Jackson is turning heads in [...]

  14. Another Sign that Dale Sveum “Gets It”: Brett Jackson Will Not Ride the Big League Bench | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] be much worse off, not only because it could stunt Jackson’s development, but also because it could cost the Cubs a year of control of Jackson. Absent a trade, then, Jackson is almost certain to start the year at [...]

  15. Rumor: Marlon Byrd’s Name Popping Up in Cubs Trade Talks … and He’s Not Alone | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] go up) will absolutely kill you, and, in turn, your confidence). And, yes, I want the Cubs to gain that extra year of control on the back-end of Jackson’s first six years in the bigs. The value the Cubs gain, and Jackson gains, by just one more month in AAA far outweighs the loss [...]

  16. Marlon Byrd Rumors Persist, Could the Red Sox Make Sense as a Trade Partner? | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] a deal (1) until Jackson is clearly ready (and has missed just enough time in the bigs this year to ensure the Cubs get an extra year of control over him (and also possibly avoid him reaching Super…)); and (2) while Byrd is at the nadir of his value. Byrd is under contract for this year only, and [...]

  17. Flight of the Baseball: Mailbag #1 « The Cubs Aren't Rocket Science

    [...] in Iowa.  One is service time and delaying the contract clock.  For a full explanation, visit Bleacher Nation or MLB Trade Rumors.   Basically, the Cubs want to keep Jackson and Rizzo (and any young player [...]

  18. Anthony Rizzo Could Be Called Up Within a Few Weeks and Other Bullets | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] incredibly short-sighted. (For more details on the “extra year of control” issue, see this post from back in February which projected this very issue [...]