Front office executives with multiple teams have asked Major League Baseball to explore the possibility of canceling the major league phase of the Rule 5 draft this year, report Kiley McDaniel and Jeff Passan of ESPN. Because the Rule 5 is part of the collective bargaining agreement, MLB would need approval from the Players Association to do so.
Ken Rosenthal and Jayson Stark of the Athletic wrote this afternoon that front office personnel “almost (unanimously)” support the Rule 5’s cancelation as the lockout continues. Both The Athletic and ESPN explore various reasons behind the thinking, but they all revolve around the discrepancy between major league and minor league play. MLB Spring Training games won’t begin until March 18 at the absolute earliest; minor league Spring Training is already underway, as players not on clubs’ 40-man rosters are unaffected by the lockout.
The major league phase of the Rule 5 draft — which typically takes place at the December Winter Meetings — provides an odd middle-ground regarding the 40-man roster. Only players not currently on a team’s 40-man are eligible for selection (assuming they’ve spent enough time in the minor leagues). If selected, however, they immediately jump onto their new club’s roster. With all 40-man transactions frozen by the lockout, the Rule 5 was suspended indefinitely on December 2. However, the players who would be eligible for selection are all able to participate in minor league camp, since they’re not on their current club’s 40-man.
That culmination of factors has led to most teams closing their minor league camp to scouts from rival teams. The fear is that they’d identify Rule 5 eligible prospects who have taken steps forward in their development over the offseason. Rather than allow clubs to spot and potentially poach improving young players for essentially nothing — selecting a player in the Rule 5 costs only $100K — many teams have shut scouts out entirely. McDaniel and Passan report that the Reds, Brewers, A’s, Mariners and Rays are the only teams still allowing other teams’ evaluators into their minor league camps — and those clubs have just formed a reciprocal agreement with one another.
ESPN writes that some evaluators have expressed concerns that teams shutting out scouts to keep their Rule 5 eligible players could have an unintended deleterious effect on the post-lockout trade market. Teams are shutting the doors to minor league camp entirely, as it’s not feasible to prevent opposing scouts from seeing only Rule 5 eligible players. Therefore, pro scouts are mostly prohibited from getting a look at prospects of all ages and levels. Some of those players could be trade targets — the Reds and A’s, in particular, are expected to move multiple established big leaguers for controllable young talent — but scouts are generally unable to get eyes on them right now.
Pulling off the Rule 5 draft would only become more challenging if the lockout lingers into April. The Triple-A regular season is scheduled to open on April 5. (Minor league schedules are unaffected by the lockout). Clubs presumably couldn’t keep scouts from attending those games; they’ll be open to the general public, after all. Selecting players out of regular season minor league play to report to big league Spring Training could prove difficult. If the MLB lockout remains in place when MiLB games start, the Rule 5 would figure to be in particular jeopardy.
That said, MLB’s inability to cancel the draft unilaterally may prove its best hope of happening this year. At its core, the Rule 5 is a player-friendly provision. It’s designed both to incentivize teams to add prospects to their 40-man roster within a few years — which teams still had to do last November — and to give players who aren’t getting an MLB opportunity in their current organizations broad exposure around the league.
Rule 5 draftees have to stick on their new team’s active roster or be waived and offered back to their original franchise if they clear. Those who break camp with their new team receive major league pay and service time, in addition to the opportunity to prove themselves against big league competition. Red Sox reliever Garrett Whitlock and Tigers outfielder Akil Baddoo, for example, both look to have broken through as long-term big leaguers after impressing as Rule 5 draftees last year. As JJ Cooper of Baseball America points out (on Twitter), even those who don’t stick with their new team receive higher minor league salaries upon being returned to their original organization because they’d previously been on a 40-man roster.
Because of those benefits, it stands to reason the MLBPA won’t be enamored with the idea of approving the Rule 5’s cancelation. Minor leaguers aren’t members of the MLBPA, but the union does have some amount of influence on provisions that would affect non-union players (i.e. its opposition to the league’s efforts to implement a draft for international amateurs). McDaniel and Passan report that the league and union haven’t discussed the Rule 5 draft’s fate to this point in CBA negotiations. At some point, there figures to be more clarity on the draft’s future, but its delay is yet another of the ways in which typical offseason business has been thrown off-track by the lockout. The Rule 5 draft, rather remarkably, has been conducted in some form every offseason since 1920.
read that as cancel the year
Gotta’ tell ya that those of us who grew up watching miLB ball in person most of the time, rather than big league games? it’s not that huge of a deal. Seeing kids play and looking at different aspects of the game.. Such as from a developmental aspect is as much fun as watching players at the top level of it if that makes any sense.
Makes a lot of sense, John. I agree. It’s a love of baseball. MLB is just a vehicle, an option, and both sides in this dispute are grossly underestimating exactly your sentiments. It’s similar to “junior hockey” in Canada, guys who are 17-20 playing for a shot at college or pro careers. It’s a refreshing, uncomplicated approach to hockey.
To your point, John, did anybody see the LSU vs. Oklahoma game last night? Great game.
Maybe if you’re a tiger fan it was a great game. As a Sooner, it wasn’t so fun.
True, AFSooner, but always nice seeing a well-played ball game. Sooners have a good team, too.
Depends on the level, John. If your local MiLB is A ball, then it’s pretty much business as usual. If it’s AAA, this year is going to be *weird*. They’ll be opening the year with up to 14 guys missing that would be there if not for guys on the 40 being locked out. The effect is that you’ll see a lot more retreads and guys in year 6 of their minor league career (last year before minor league free agency). That means less prospects, less chance that any of the guys you see are going to be future major leaguers.
The really tough part is if the lockout drags up a month or two of the season. Then those guys on the fringes will have gotten a start on the season, only to suddenly have to get cut as the more important prospects get put into place.
Our AAA team is generally trash anyway so at least it might add a certain sense of unpredictability this year
Truthfully I wish they did away with the Rule 5 all together, no other team gets hit harder than my team. Hopefully Garrett Whitlock wants to start eventually, and leaves Boston. He looked great last year. Everybody claims the Yankees have the worst prospects. Question why are all of their prospects taken during the Rule 5 draft then? It’s definitely interesting.
The Yankees always have one of the deepest systems. It’s the top of their system where the quality varies from year to year. The Yankees’ 17th best prospect is typically much better than almost anyone else’s best prospect.
The whole thing is silly.
Why would the players agree to cancel it?
Just one of the many, many downstream effects that few of the “leaders” in this negotiation process actually realize. It’s going to be a mess.
If the PA doesn’t agree to cancel the Rule 5 draft all the teams need to do is agree not to draft anyone. I’d like to see if all teams can come to an agreement among themselves.
Could that possibly constitute collusion though?
1. That would be collusion.
2. Why would you give up something that clearly puts you at an advantage?
3. Draft picks arent members of the MLBPA
They become members the moment they are drafted.
Its not like MLB owners havent done any collusion before
I don’t believe it’s collusion in the traditional sense. The players are under control by their teams. Often teams pass during the Rule 5…or work out trade deals. I believe that was the Josh Hamilton scenario. They aren’t colluding against the union.
They would absolutely be colluding against the union as anyone taken in the Rule V would be making a major league salary and paying union dues. And the extra year of service time that Rule V draftees who stick end up accumulating is also a good incentive for the players to want to keep the Rule V.
Isn’t that collusion?
The MLBPA should tell the owners to pound sand. Why should they concede anything while negotiations are going on?
I generally wouldn’t care but considering my team has first pick I would rather it not be cancelled. Though the Os haven’t done great with their rule5 picks (Still holding out hope on Anthony Santander). They picked Tyler Wells last year and he looks promising but lost Zach Pop. I’d rather have Pop
Wells was a good pickup. He has closer look all over. Pop didn’t do anything thing for the Marlins. Just a different opinion from a Orioles fan too.
Meh. Your chances of losing someone that you don’t want to lose, feels like it is about the same as picking up someone that is good. For every player that is lost, another player is found.
Joe- If the Red Sox valued let’s say Feltman more than a Rule 5 guy they have targeted, then they would simply add Feltman to the 40-man. Obviously, the targeted player (Bloom would be hoping for another Whitlock) must be view as more valuable, and with what seems to be superior scouting Bloom has a pretty good record so far. The Red Sox do have more to loose than they have in recent years however.
Not a chance. Having players jump ship part way through the season should be just one of the many unintended but not necessarily unforseen consequences of staging a lockout. It’s a player friendly device to dislodge stuck careers so don’t expect help for this by the folks you locked the door on.
Heh, You think the union wont sell out the 5 non union guys who might transfer teams?
A team that is looking at depth may be looking at a rule 5 (minimum salary) to fill that spot. You take that away, a lower FA may be signed, and that’s a union member, at more than minimum. Plus it may keep current players where they are by making trades more difficult. I doubt that most players want to get uprooted in the middle of the season.
If the Players dont want to cancel the R5 draft for this year, what would prevent the teams from just agreeing not draft anyone in the major league portion of the draft? No team is obligated to draft a player so I doubt the players could cry collusion if no elections are made.
Collusion and teams looking for an advantage over the others is what.
Can’t imagine why the MLBPA would agree to this without getting something back. While none of these players are union members at the moment, some can (and will) become union members when selected. The biggest problem is timing. Why and how will the MLBPA grant MLB’s request at this stage unless they get something in return.
One argument could be that the R5 eligible guys have an unfair advantage in making a team’s roster over current union members who might be displaced by R5 picks. Non 40 man players are in spring training now with club resources including the major league coaching staffs.
you cant really have the R5 during the minors season, which isnt far off. the players may not like it, but it’s a rational statement to make.
Why not? I don’t see any reason not to complete the draft and have them play in the abbreviated spring training and/or the claiming teams AAA club. Give 3-4 weeks to add them to the 26 man or offer to return.
I get that teams likely to lose players want some sort of compensation for the resources and commitment made to the players(s) this spring. Perhaps offer the losing team a player not protected on the AAA portion of the draft as a way to replace depth. That should not be subject MLBPA concurrence.
All in all I do not like the idea of a dozen players not get the opportunity to make a mlb roster because of a situation they have no responsibility in.
It is simply a puncher’s chance to make a roster. A lottery ticket. The energy expended by teams to avoid losing players and on which players to draft is not worth it. You are suggesting keeping a dinosaur around just because it might help a couple of players a year when that dinosaur costs millions of dollars a year, all told, when good evidence exists that it is not effective and may, overall, be counterproductive to player development of individuals and organizations
I’m not arguing the efficacy of the system overall. I’m suggesting that the opportunity those handful of players have earned can be accommodated with minimal effort. I suspect that this is simply an opportunity for some teams to gain an extra year of control over some talent and/or an attempt to create a little extra leverage for the negotiations.
I’ve seen Rocky. Its never bad to have a punchers chance!
Excellent article and one of the most concise and on point summations of the Rule 5 process
To break a thing that’s been around for more than 100 years, now that takes an extra special effort.
BlueSkies- They are not breaking anything, but rather taking a year off (would be my choice). In 1994 the World Series was not played because of the strike. Rule 5 is certainly not more important than skipping the WS, and the World Series has been around since 1903.
Please, no distinctions without a difference. They are “taking a year off” because they figured out how to break something that had worked for over a century. That’s progress in reverse by any definition.
Seems like the owners want everything. Can’t have your cake and eat it to.
The owners can, they’ll just buy the whole bakery….
Since the minor league season will be well underway by the time any agreement is made on a new CBA it only makes sense to cancel a draft that would have teams taking players off of active rosters
The Rule 5 is a failure. The data speaks for itself. Most players selected don’t even stuck with new clubs. Very few ever become ML starters, let alone stars. Big market teams don’t lose an inordinate number of players and poorer, small market teams don’t really benefit. In fact, I think a case could be made that small market teams that focus on player development are hurt by this draft as if they fo a good job they can’t protect all their prospects and they don’t have the money to buy veteran free agents. So many roster decisions are made to protect guys from the rule 5 when it doesn’t benefit the player or it’s ML team. Fixing the issues that are supposed to be but aren’t fixed by the zRule 5 is as simple as changing the time to become a minor league free agent. Guys under 19 when sign can be minor league FAs when they are 24. 19-21 year olds become FAs at 25 and guys signed at 22 or older become FAs after they turn 26.
Huh? Jabberwocky much?
Garrett Whitlock says hey..
Whitlock is a pretty lonely guy. The only reason he’s talked about is because it’s so rare.
George Bell, Joakim Soria, Josh Hamilton, Dan Uggla, Johan Santana, Whitlock, Zach Pop…
You make my case too….but the reality is that’s very few over time. And without being at the top or near it there’s little chance you’re not just adding mediocre depth.
Why not go all the way back to Roberto Clemente? The argument that these guys have ‘earned’ the chance to play in the majors is wrong. A good number of the guys are in low A ball, very few are up against a glass ceiling. Change the minor league free agency rules and let’s make this dinosaur extinct once and for all.
Roberto Clemente…
The simple fact of the matter is that evaluating talent is hard. So many teams place different values on players. Often there is a team that eyes a player in another organization differently. Opportunity is not a level field. The idea that if someone is good enough it will be obvious is pure mythology.
Interestingly Shane Victorino was taken twice and was part of three World Series teams winning two championships (although one was not with a team that claimed him)
In the words of General Akbar
“ITS A TRAP!”
You mean General Ross Stripling.
He was an Admiral.
Why does the league need approval of the players? It’s part of the collective bargaining agreement but at this point, there is no CBA.
Because there is no CBA and they’re locked out with no foreseeable end. They don’t want to crunch the Rule 5 in with whatever season they have left either.
Seems to me the simple fix is to allow teams to reset their 40 man rosters and then go ahead with the rule 5 draft.
Agreed. I would like it honestly if they expanded the rosters a bit to 50-man. I know the MLBPA wouldn’t like that because it would lock MiLB guys in a bit longer, but it would also provide opportunities for them for MLB appearances due to all the injuries we see instead of these guys getting sent back and forth across different states on Rule V options.
I would be surprised if any minor leaguer is concerned about travel when mlb opportunities exist. Expanding to 50 would likely result in 10 more young,higher ceiling, IFA kids being added. The older, more skilled, lower ceiling AAA types that get signed and released multiple times in a season are still better options, competitively speaking.
I think the expanded ML roster would cost the owners money and just replace one problem (Rule 5) with another (players protected from the Rule 5 when they are in A or AA exhausting their options and having to be DFA’d). Instead I think we should kill the ML portion of the Rule 5 draft and set the AAA protected list at 25 players and then keep the minor league R5 draft and change the minor league free agency rules as I indicated.
Cancel the season already. Enough of the drama
The players shouldn’t agree to this without a guaranteed concession in the collective bargaining.
If you were an Owner, what would you concede?
Rule 5 draft is like this Lockout: no one wins.
Well, I guess the guy who gets ML pay while missing playing time for a year wins: $570,500 last year,
How about an inverse Rule 5? Players can decide if they want to ship their owner to another team.
Sounds like a plan.
This sounds like an MLB ploy to make the MLBPA think they have something to negotiate with. Small thing that nobody really cares about, no real team wants to cancel it, just distraction and making the PA think they have something to negotiate that the owners really don’t care. MLB will give the PA something small in return and PA feels good
If they cancel the R5 they should allow teams to drop prospects that they put on their 40-man rosters this offseason for Rule 5 protection.
Teams DO want to cancel this. There are good players who are not quite ready for MLB that will get drafted. It rarely works out, even for the player, who often just sits on a ML roster.
The player does get (now) $570,500 for the year but misses development.
There is NO way the MLBPA will agree in this environment. They want money.
Complete crap.
There are talented players in the minors that should or could be up right now. Using this as an excuse to hoard players now that they know the universal DH is in play.
Please do not cancel Rule 5.
Load of BS.
If they cancel the Rule 5 draft, how will the Orioles complete their roster and stay within budget?
This is also pretty typical. Nowhere for the fans to weigh in. — You lock out players for over 40 days without responding or negotiating with them, then conveniently want to cancel the Rule 5. GFYM. The talent left unprotected this year has probably never been more. I wonder why. How about no? If you’re so worried about losing your talent, promote them. So sick of this BS.