Broadly, Super Two designation is one of the innumerable quirks to the ever-confounding (current) arbitration system.

Possibly the "(current)" was meant in regard to "might change soon in the new CBA" but the arbitration system has been the same for a long time now. And it's not at all confusing that there needs to be some mechanism to keep teams from calling up all their young players one day after the season starts and getting the "extra" year. I wouldn't consider super-2 to be confusing either but will admit the deadline definition and the way it keeps shifting such that you don't know when it is until that offseason is confusing. But of course making it simpler like fixing it at 2 years, 120 days just creates the same problem as "all but 1 day on the roster is less than a year."

And it's not at all confusing that there needs to be some mechanism to keep teams from calling up all their young players one day after the season starts and getting the "extra" year.

Wouldn't simply saying "one day on the roster = one year counted" do the trick?
If a team doesn't want to bring up a player, then they don't bring him up the entire year. If they really do want him there, then they might as well bring him up for the first game of the season as there is no benefit to delaying his arrival that season.

It’s called a compromise. The union doesn’t want players rotting in the minors and the owners don’t want to lose service time for calling someone up for a cup of coffee.

Wouldn't simply saying "one day on the roster = one year counted" do the trick?

Not really. Players develop at different rates. If one day equals one year, then players who are ready at midseason or later will be held down to give teams the extra year of control.

Not really. Players develop at different rates.

Which is why arb and free agency should be dated from the date of original professional signing, with adjustments for age at drafting. Say 16-y.o. signees get 12 yrs. of team control, arb after 8. 20 y.o. signees are controlled for 8 years, arb after 5, etc. Reward the teams that develop their players better and get them to the major faster.

Which is why arb and free agency should be dated from the date of original professional signing, with adjustments for age at drafting. Say 16-y.o. signees get 12 yrs. of team control, arb after 8. 20 y.o. signees are controlled for 8 years, arb after 5, etc. Reward the teams that develop their players better and get them to the major faster.

Under that system, it's possible Bryce Harper still hasn't reached free agency.

Because players develop at such different rates, there is no perfect system.

Under that system, it's possible Bryce Harper still hasn't reached free agency.

Maybe not, but if the last 5 seasons were arb, he still would have made $100M. Super stars will get paid as long as you get them to arb reasonably quickly.

But Harper wouldn't have been in arb "reasonably quickly" under your system. He was signed in late 2010, became arb-eligible at the end of the 2014 season. Under your proposal, he's not arb-eligible until 2018 or even 2019. At a minimum, any age-based or organizational service time-based system needs an "arb after Z years of team control or X years in the majors, whichever comes first" clause.

I've suggested it many times -- service time starts with addition to the 40-man. The MLBPA already covers the 40-man so you avoid issues of the union negotiating what happens to non-members. There is already an organizational service time-based rule for when a player must be added to the 40-man or be made available (along with all the other service-time rules around minor-league FA). A simple change of benefit to players would be that if a player passes unselected through rule 5 then they become a minor-league FA ... or, compromise, rule 5 applies only once to a player. You could also sensibly amend rule 5 so that the drafting team only needs to add the player to their 40-man (which starts/keeps their service time clock running).

But Harper wouldn't have been in arb "reasonably quickly" under your system. He was signed in late 2010, became arb-eligible at the end of the 2014 season. Under your proposal, he's not arb-eligible until 2018 or even 2019. At a minimum, any age-based or organizational service time-based system needs an "arb after Z years of team control or X years in the majors, whichever comes first" clause.

I said 8 years to arb for a 16 y.o. An 18 y.o. would be less, maybe 5-6 years.

I think you could actually make it pretty fair by age. Arb at 23-24, FA at 27-28. I think that works for virtually everybody.

I think you could actually make it pretty fair by age. Arb at 23-24, FA at 27-28. I think that works for virtually everybody.

You can't. You can surely make some improvements, but as long as a) players develop at different rates and are ready at different points in the season, and b) arb/FA only exists in the offseason, there will be players who benefit/those who don't from whatever system you employ. It's unavoidable.