There’s a still-growing list of notable players that have decided to opt out of the 2020 season due to COVID-19 concerns. That raises the question: what if any of these players, for whatever reason and at whatever point in time, changes his mind?
The answer depends upon the particulars, according to reporting this morning from The Athletic’s Jim Bowden and Jayson Stark (links to Twitter). And the policy may yet be subject to change.
The general rule is that there’s no going back. Once a player opts out of the 2020 campaign, he’s ineligible to play in the regular or postseason. That player would then simply step back into the remainder of his contract situation (or enter free agency) at the conclusion of this season.
That said, there is a notable carve-out for those players that are deemed personally “high-risk” for coronavirus infection. Such players — who receive salary and service time even if they opt out — are permitted to submit a request to return. Per Stark, there’s some kind of process involving team physicians and a joint committee to determine whether to honor the request. (Precisely what steps are required and what factors are considered isn’t entirely clear.)
So, what of players not placed in the personal “high-risk” category? They’ve got to make an in-or-out choice, for the moment. But Stark notes that there has at least been some amount of chatter surrounding the idea of creating a path back to participation in 2020. Again, it’s not clear what that might entail — e.g., whether the player would need to demonstrate some change in circumstance to justify the change of heart.
I would think that, at most, you might be talking a dozen players here who could be affected by such a scenario. As contentious as negotiations between MLB and the MLBPA can/do get, I’m not sure it’s even a subject worth discussing. The two sides seemingly agreed to this; let it lie.
Agreed. I’d rather they get a head start on negotiating the next CBA, since it seems it will take a *lot* of time to work through all their issues.
That’s exactly what I was thinking! Gut feeling – if we thought the COVID negotiations were brutal… then let’s buckle our seat belts .
It’s hard to believe that when making provision for players to opt out, be paid, and earn service time that they forgot to consider the possibility of a player changing his mind.
I have little doubt that if the situation changes, rules will be waved.
Neither the Players Union or MLB are so inflexible they would not allow rules to change based on new data.
I wish the opt-in extended throughout the season. As I understand it, a player can play for a bit, change his mind (conveniently after getting enough to move his service clock up), and sit out the rest of the year. Joel Sherman wrote a post on it here: nypost.com/2020/07/11/expect-many-more-mlb-players…
I don’t really like the service time games teams play, so if it was just the players and owners involved, fine. As a fan, though, I’d feel a bit cheated.
Thanks for the link – the article is spot on.
If Mike Trout were to opt out and decide in early September he wanted to come back, who says no? This season is completely unprecedented so there are no hard and fast rules. 60 man rosters, taxi squads, runner at 2B to start extra innings. If conditions improve significantly ( not holding my breath), I suspect MLB will let players who want to return come back. But for the moment can’t see it happening
I would say no. 100%.
Of course you would. No one in their right mind would say no.
rules ard rules
This is a fluid situations. The information on the virus 30 days from now is likely not going to be the same on the information on the virus today.
The information on MLBs safeguards 30 days from now is not going to be the same as the information today.
If the information changes, so should the rules.
If a manager or player dies because of this, MLB and the Players Union are going to change their rules.
They are not going to say “rules are rules”
well they just did
If something changes they are not going to change the rules? If so, baseball is pathetically stupid.
The only reason I can think of to not allow players to return is to try to make leaving in the first place a harder decision.
That said, even with the rule in place if a player wanted to return I don’t see a reason not to waive it.
I would say “no” also. I’m a huge fan, and this is going to feel more like an exhibition season than a true year. That said, I think it’s unfair to the other teams if a star / superstar basically sits it’s out until the end of the year, then comes back for the playoffs.. I hate this in the NBA, and I don’t think it should be allowed. I have no issue with someone taking the year off due to health concerns, but if they truly feel that way, then they need to honor it for the season. No paycheck, no service time and no deciding they want a chance at a ring at the 11th hour.
In a 60 game season, there’s no reason to allow someone “back in.” If you opt out, you should be out. End of discussion.
“Lengthy list?” I see only 12 active players on that list., out of something like 1,800 players.
13 now with Joe Smith, but yea. Less than .05%.
It was suboptimal phrasing, I agree.
Thanks Jeff. I’m going to remember “suboptimal phrasing” and borrow (unless trademarked) for my own professional use. I’ll be very gentle, promise to be careful and utterly discerning about when I use it.
She’s a beauty of a phrase and in good hands.
Kind regards
Boris….
Hey, Jeff, thanks for the update to the article and the classy response.
A lot of journalists get testy when critiqued (I come from a journalist background myself), and it’s nice to see one open to legitimate feedback.
@renbutler
Agreed, I find it gratifying when the MLBTR guys take the trouble to write below the line too. It genuinely sets them apart from most sites.
But tickle me “suboptimal phrasing” is a beauty and both can and should be used where possible…. apologies if I came across as overly sarcastic.
I thought about this a few days ago with David Price. I’m sure there are others, for ex the Nationals had multiple guys opt out
But come Oct. maybe going to just one other city than your own at a time is seen as more acceptable, especially bc it’s the playoffs. Where in reg season you’re in a new city every 3-4 days, maybe less. But for now sounds like, at least for Price, it’s a not gonna happen
This disease is still a fluid situation. If someone wants to opt back in, it should be allowed. A month from now things may change.
Hello @ Halo11Fan….
I’m not so cool with opting back in, I don’t think it’ll be that much of an issue with guys needing to ramp back up, but my attitude if someone knocked on the door on Oct 1st when you’ve won the division fancying a few swings?
However, the issue of players manipulating service time would be a welcome novelty…. as @Hyrax pointed out
Just to make it clear I have no problem with players opting out – I’m all for somebody being comfortable in their workplace especially in this unique environment.
Teams have made moves to fill 30 man slots and potentially balance payroll concerns.
Why should a team need to trade or dfa someone just because a guy decides he wants back in?
Why should one team get an expanded 31, 32, or more man roster because someone opts back in if you don’t think requiring a dfa/trade isn’t fair to be forced into because of a player decision if everyone else is held to 30? (Or if we’re at 26, 27 man rosters whatever it is at that point)
You opt out, you’re out. It’s a serious decision, treat it as such.
@AtlSoxFan
I was pretty much going to say the same thing.
No need for MLB/MLBPA to get cute with this, either you’re in or you’re out. That’s the way I look at it.
I don’t know how many people are taking this season seriously anyway.
Again, fluid situation. If things change next month, why shouldn’t they be able to opt back in.
In 30 days, if there is a drug found more effective than the current treatments, no one in their right mind would still hold these players out.
@Halo11Fan
Hypothetically, you have a good point.
Realistically, I don’t think it will matter. It sounds like they’ll be extremely lucky to have an effective drug before the end of the year. It looks like it’s going to be quite a while before FLA, AZ, and southern CA get back under control, and that assumes no other major hot spots pop up in other parts of the country in the meantime. There’s only 2 1/2 months until the regular season is scheduled to end.
If you’re going to opt-out, I seriously doubt the landscape changes that quickly to where you want to opt back in by late Aug/early Sept. But I’m not a doctor, so I could be wrong.
And what if zero new MLB player cases are found?
This is a fluid situations, I fully expect MLB and the Players Union to adapt accordingly.
@Halo11Fan
That I could see. But even if zero new MLB player cases are found, you still have to look at the country as a whole, outside the game. Just because there aren’t any MLB cases at a specific moment in time, all it takes is one person to start a raging COVID-19 wildfire that could take out pretty much a whole team.
If it really got to a point where COVID-19 was miraculously under control in the U.S. by the middle or end of Aug, I suppose. I mean, this season’s so out of whack anyway, I suppose it wouldn’t be that big of a deal if they made that rule change. But it doesn’t seem realistic. Granted, I don’t have Dr. Fauci on speed-dial, so I can’t get his take on this, but I just don’t see it get to a point where opting back in would be a choice these players would want to make.
I’m just saying things change and I don’t expect MLB and the Players Union to be ridged on this.
The data we have today is not going to be the same as the data we have 30 days from now. An unbending policy doesn’t make much sense.
@halo
You don’t need to repeat your opinion every time someone else gives theirs. Just shows your lack of tolerance to disagreement.
I get your point.
When someone directs an I.M. to me. I usually reply back.
I do that in every facet of my life. It doesn’t always work on message boards.
And on this I am unbending. A rigid policy in a fluid environment makes no sense.
On this, I’m embarrassingly redundant.
It’s like I have ten different conversations going with ten different people and repeating myself to each person.
I’m glad someone brought it up.
@Halo11Fan
I get exactly what you’re saying with the redundancy responding to several people. I’ve had that situation many times I’ve been on this message boards, MLBTR and other sites in the past.
As for your stance, I’m not saying you’re wrong. Not at all. You just have a different view, and I applaud you for taking that stance. Differing views can lead to good conversation, if handled in the right way.
If a player ( such as Trout) wanted to return, someone would have to be removed from the active roster. Most likely a player with options would be optioned to the satellite camp. Assuming a teams 40 man roster was full, someone would be designated for assignment off the roster. No team will be allowed to play with extra players
@geotheo
That would only matter if you brought up a player to replace Trout if that player wasn’t already on the 40-man roster. If players were allowed to opt back in, the Angels would most likely just leave that spot on the 40-man open just in case Trout decided he wanted to come back. Sure, it’s a risk not to fill that spot, but one I would definitely take if I were the Angels GM.
If Trout were to come back ( all speculation since he hasn’t opted out), he could replace anyone on the roster-not necessarily the person who replaced him. With injuries and poor performances, usually spots become available
So, if I read that correctly, opting out has no impact on service time?
You did not read it correctly. Opting out means you don’t get any service time unless you have a pre-existing condition that makes you high-risk. The high-risk players still get paid and get their service time.
This would open a huge can of worms! Players would probably opt out more if they knew it was a temporary decision. Teams would be potentially twisting players’ arms to come back with all sorts of enticements if they think they have a shot at the postseason and more. It’s a bad precedent. kind of like you-know-who (oops, politics, oh my).
That’s a good point, but still. If the situations changes, the players deserve a right to change their minds.
If the safe-guards prove effective, players should be able to change their minds. And of course if they get it, recover, have the anti-bodies, they should be able to change their minds.
To drop a wall on their ability to come back is silly. Things change.
People are catching it multiple times. We don’t know if they are still spreading it to other people but the antibody idea is not really working. I just worry about the conflict of interest where a player could be enticed into coming back. Like an old girlfriend, the breakup should be permanent. I know, bad example.
I think it’s a great point. I just think it is outweighed by information we obtain in the next 30 days about the virus.
We are going to have so much more information about the quality of MLB safeguards in the next 30 days. If they are completely successful, a player really can’t change his mind?
So if they are horrid, a player can’t change his mind?
Things change.
I would think this would depend on whether the team removed the player from their 60 man roster.
If Trout were to announce he was opting out, and the Halos decided to just let him keep that roster spot, how could anyone deny him a return to baseball?
Edit – of course, the Angels would then have to pay Trout while he was away, so I guess this is very unlikely to happen.
Is it that simple? When a player opt out for the season don’t they have to sign something? If he announced he was opting out, he opts out….. I think this could turn into situation that resembles guys in the fantasy baseball leagues that like to “stream” pitchers
As always just my opinion
Now if they were to add trout to the 60 man, and assign him to the “taxi” squad, he could sit out until they need him correct?
He would be the most expensive placeholder in the history of Mankind
do we know exactly who falls into that “high risk” catagory yet? obviously somewhat private, but its still a curious question.
Highly doubt we’ll ever know, unless the player himself comes out and says he has an auto-immune disorder.
Suppose Mike Trout opts out of 2020 due to their upcoming birth of a child, doesn’t play at all during the 60 game regular season, and then the Angels make the playoffs.
Could he return for the postseason?
No. Currently, if you opt out, it counts for both the season and postseason.
I just don’t think hard & fast rules are helpful at all right now.
I realize that my experience is rather trivial in light of what MLB is taking on. I do. That doesn’t change the fact – however – that my partner and I have successfully navigated our company (knocks on skull) through this.
I’ve seen numerous other companies fail.
It takes flexibility, resourcefulness, & communication. MLB *seems* to be making efforts in those directions.
This is good!
There is a ton of “figuring it out as it goes along” involved on a day to day basis. In our case it’s all kinds of things that have never arisen; meeting with building inspectors via Skype, crane operators out sick, delays in building materials due to Covid-19 hitting manufacturing facilities, etc.
Difficult? Yeah for sure.
Impossible? Not at all.
I remain hopeful that some lucky fan base will be celebrating a World Series title this Autumn.
I wonder if that would still be the case if the vaccine they are having mild success with actually ends up as a complete success? Meaning if by the grace of God the disease gets cured or at least significantly tempered sometime in September, would players be allowed back? I don’t believe that will happen, but the possibility is there.
Wouldn’t allowing players to opt back in for the playoffs make for excellent hype? Isn’t the MLB trying to create headlines?
I don’t think players will be ready. But if things change, and there is an opt in, there should be a date prior to the playoffs that allows them to be playoff eligible.
If information changes, and Price (I hate the Dodgers) opts in by Sept 10th. Then let him play the post season.
If players want to leave the door open, they’ll just do what Joe Smith is doing – go on the restricted list. You don’t get paid, don’t accrue service time, but can come back whenever you want to.
Everyone who opts out is placed on the restricted list. It’s protocol, not a player choice.
they just don’t have to report a decision. and the team will put them on the restricted list.
So, let’s say David Price orders a sandwich without mayo, then decides that he wants it, he’s stuck with a dry sandwich ?
Did you REALLY just draw a comparison between a sandwich and a potentially lethal virus?
Not to mention, he can always get mayonnaise. It’s available at literally millions of locations. Things change. :)
Yes, as the scripture clearly states, “Only ill timed sandwich humor can truly defeat potentially lethal viruses” Mikey 3:16. Calm down overly sensitive busybody, just a joke.
And obviously a very poor one, since it had to be explained later!
Not to defend a bad joke here, but sometimes having to explain things later is more of an indictment of the listener than of the joke.
When a player opts out of the season does it open a spot on the team’s 40-man roster? I.e. is it treated in a similar manner to putting a player on the traditional 60-day IL?
If so, a team could add a replacement player to its 40-man roster and that player could then join the big league squad. But then the team would need to re-open a 40-man roster spot before the original player can opt back in.
Players who opt out are placed on the restricted list, which like the long-term IL does not count against the 40-man roster (or 6o-player pool). Under baseball Rule 16, “A Restricted List player shall be reinstated immediately upon receipt of application for reinstatement, in writing or by approved electronic means, from the player’s Major or Minor League Club (to the commissioner’s office).” So letting someone opt back in would seem to be a team decision based on that, though it sounds like there may be other rules/agreements for handling these specific cases.
@nightmare
Let’s just not feed the trolls at either end of the spectrum.
That way the rest of us (which is almost *all* of us) can move forward with the important things.
Not directly related, but I looked at the list, and it doesn’t seem like anything too concerning to the owners. 3 names that the owners probably hope opt out, and several fringy bench/starter players, The only big loss so far is Posey.
Price is the really interesting one. He is too expensive to be considered a big loss, but too good to easily replace.
Further, and most importantly, how does that impact the RS? I assume they are on the hook for $16M for 2020. Sorry if it has already been discussed, but if he is definitely opting out, does that mean the RS now have another $16M (prorated) to spend in salary?