A player who signs a contract extension prior to making his major league debut is not eligible for the prospect promotion incentive, reports JJ Cooper of Baseball America. He specifically mentions Jackson Chourio of the Brewers and Colt Keith of the Tigers, who both signed extensions with their respective clubs this offseason, as players who are not PPI eligible.
The latest collective bargaining agreement introduced the PPI to encourage clubs to carry top prospects on Opening Day rosters, rather than hold them down in the minors to gain an extra year of control, a move generally referred to as service time manipulation.
A major league season is 187 days long and a player needs 172 days in the big leagues to earn one year. By holding a player down in the minors for a few weeks, a club can prevent that player from getting to the one-year mark. Since a player needs a full six years of service to qualify for free agency, the club can gain an extra year of control over a young player by doing this. Some of the oft-cited examples of this practice are Kris Bryant of the Cubs and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. of the Blue Jays, both of whom were top prospects who were called up a few weeks into their respective rookie seasons, thus coming up just short of one year of service.
In an attempt to curb this behavior, the CBA introduced the PPI system, whereby teams could earn an extra draft pick by promoting certain players early in the season. To qualify, a player had to be on at least two out of the three top 100 lists at Baseball America, ESPN and MLB Pipeline, as well as being rookie eligible and have fewer than 60 days of service time. If such a player was called up early enough in the season to accrue 172 days of service the traditional way*, they would be PPI eligible and could net their club an extra pick just after the first round. To earn a pick, a PPI eligible player has to either win a Rookie of the Year award or finish in the top three of voting for Most Valuable Player or Cy Young prior to qualifying for arbitration.
(*There was another new measure in the CBA to disincentive service time manipulation, whereby a player could earn a full year of service even if called up too late. If they were otherwise PPI eligible and finished in the top two of Rookie of the Year voting, they could be bumped up to a full year, but they would not earn their clubs an extra pick. This situation arose with Adley Rutschman of the Orioles in 2022, who finished second in American League Rookie of the Year voting despite missing the first few weeks of the season. He earned a full year of service but the O’s would not have received a bonus pick for that if he had finished first.)
This new detail provides an extra wrinkle, as Chourio and Keith would have been in play for PPI picks. Both of them are top prospects who signed offseason extensions and then cracked Opening Day rosters. However, this new development means they won’t be in play for those bonus picks after all.
On the flip side, Cooper adds that Michael Busch of the Cubs and Joey Ortiz of the Brewers are PPI eligible. When Matt Eddy of Baseball America outlined the PPI rules back in February, he noted that players who debut in the majors and are then traded do not have PPI status with their new club. Busch debuted with the Dodgers last year and was traded to the Cubs this winter while Ortiz debuted with the Orioles before being flipped to the Brewers. Eddy provided a further update today, stating that they are PPI eligible since they were not moved via midseason trades.
This makes no sense. Corbin Carroll signed an extension before Opening Day but netted the Diamondbacks a draft pick for winning Rookie of the Year.
Carroll made his MLB debut in 2022. This rule doesn’t apply to him.
Ridiculous that the timing of the extension would make a difference. He was still rookie eligible and PPI eligible entering 2023.
If you enjoy something like the CBA, you like legal language, right? MLB debut are the words, not rookie eligibility status.
The problem is the MLB debut part only applies to players signing extensions, not the rest of the system. Like people have said (that I originally forgot) Carroll made his MLB debut in 2022 but despite that was PPI eligible entering 2023 and got the Diamondbacks a draft pick.
Is why teams have been giving guys a game or two at the end of the season then? If they then sign an extension, they’re still PPI eligible?
The rule applies to any player who made their debut before signing a contract. It is incentive to let them debut before signing the contract.
Only potential Superstars sign deals before they debut. This give the club an incentive to call a guy up in the first couple weeks of the year instead of leaving the player in the Minors for 2 weeks and then getting an extra 5 and a half months of service from him. The change is that when guys are good enough to sign a multi year deal before their debut the club loses this additional draft pick for selecting the kid in the first 2 to 3 weeks of the season.
I’m not sure why you’re struggling with what is written here to help you understand Carroll’s case.
Players disqualified are those who sign extensions prior to his MLB debut. Was Opening day last year the MLB debut for Corbin Carroll?
Sounds like you aren’t as much of a CBA enjoyer as you thought
The system is not explained in the CBA 🙁
It is explained in a different manual that MLB hasn’t shared with the public since 2021.
That’s unacceptable! Especially when someone enjoys collective bargaining agreements.
You’ll just have to expand your hobby to other industries. Maybe pour a glass of whiskey and enjoy the reading the auto industry CBA or the new Hollywood CBA
Or read the entire Warren Commission Report… or the Affordable Healthcare Act, I don’t think anyone except the lawyers for the medical insurance companies read that one to find all the loopholes.
Their bribes…er, campaign contributions, made sure those loopholes were in there.
How do you say “I’m not getting laid” without saying “I’m not getting laid”.
The most common term for “I’m not getting laid” without saying “I’m not getting laid” is “ElitebFour3”. There, now that clears it up for everyone.
Amen,Jesus!
It’s no longer “Amen” it’s “AThem” now. BTJesus is inclusive and accepting of all.
Thats why I have these rockin’ sweater cannons.
BigTiddy I like your name
Release the cannons!!!
How do you write an entire article about PPI without even including what PPI stands for? What an oversight.
Prospect Performance Incentive
Yeah that’s a good point
I read what it stands for in 0.14 seconds
The fact that you mentioned an oversight is hilariously ironic.
To be fair, it’s generally good practice to include the phase you’re abbreviation, followed by the abbreviation if you intend to use the abbreviation again. E.g. “…to be fair (TBF).” Not gonna lie that’s pretty nitpicky, but sometimes those kinds of rules can be helpful.
Reynaldo, the fact that you’re complaining about a non-existent oversight that said “oversight” is right there in the first freekin’ sentence of this post is just sad. Plus, you have two other comprehension-deprived souls giving you thumbs up agreeing with you! Come on people! For the love…
Points per….
People per…
Park p…
I give up!!!
This is a joke of a rule that will almost definitely lead to further service time manipulation
I don’t see it that way. If I player is offered a nice extension before he starts, he has already won. The idea is to offer an incentive if a team loses a year of eligibility, which does not apply in this scenario.
Right, but the team is losing out on a potential draft pick by agreeing to the extension. This will lead to teams either waiting until the season starts to offer extensions or not offering them at all, which could in turn affect the players. It just seems like an unnecessary hurdle to getting top prospects to the big leagues
How? If a player performs well enough to get ROY and net the team a draft pick they will require a larger contract. They get a substantial payout from the fund pool for getting ROY. So pre-debut extensions tamper that amount.
If anything this will encourage more teams to extend incredibly promising rookies.
“ If anything this will encourage more teams to extend incredibly promising rookies.”
Not really.
As it stands it seems like the criteria is “debut”
Well hell, if you have an incredibly promising rookie like Churio or Keith just call em up in September a year early, give them 1 plate appearance as a PH and debut done. Offer them an extension after the season and they still qualify for ROY.
If anything you’ll see more guys debut in September recording at least 1 plate appearance regardless of experience just to teams can say they debuted prior to offering said extensions.
MLB is creating more problems than it’s solving with this one. Teams will exploit the debut language.
And if you give an incredibly young high profile prospect ranked top 100 on multiple boards a few PA in September then engage their agent on extension talks after the season, you don’t think an agent that isn’t complete dogsh!t will see that and push for more money?
Top prospect agents represent big names and know how it would work.
Team: here’s an extension
Player/agent: no
Team: cool see you in about a month after season starts to delay service time and make sure you don’t get a full 172 days.
The whole system is designed so teams bring guys up and stop service time manipulation. You’re essentially pushing for teams to go back to that system with your demand more money take.
When a guy makes his “debut” has 0 bearing on extension talks. So your response makes little sense to no sense in reality.
When a player debuts does affect a teams ability to gain extra draft picks. Them calling someone up to debut a player and then promote the player when they are ready will have 0 bearing on extension talks.
Agent: why’d you call him up for a few PAs?
Team: so we don’t get screwed out of a draft pick when your client wins ROY
Agent: ah makes sense.
Had Brewers and Tigers known this they’d probably have called them up to debut at some point last year and gone the same path they did- sign an extension they’re starting opening day- and at no point would calling them up to debut have affected anything but teams getting draft picks.
I read your last short story and responded, I refuse to read that garbage. Especially in script form.
You’re not thinking from any aspect but the teams.
“I don’t have a counter argument”
Your defeat is accepted.
You aren’t concise. You meander around a point in order to obfuscate. I responded with a paragraph and a sentence. You wrote a screenplay.
Your response first response was subpar. Your second response was vastly inferior to the first.
Your comments contradicted each other. You incorrectly surmised
“ If anything this will encourage more teams to extend incredibly promising rookies.”
Only to follow that up by an even worse assertion of
“ you don’t think an agent that isn’t complete dogsh!t will see that and push for more money?”
You’ve clearly demonstrated this topic is beyond your intellectual abilities. Good day to you sir. May god have mercy on your soul.
They should have included the other new added thing that players can earn bonuses in their first season aswell. The whole idea of the is that players don’t earn what they should in their first 2-3 seasons depending on if they hit super 2 and get an extra arb year. The idea here is that the very very best prospects will still get there full year and the top preforming prospects earn money from a bonus pool each season
The pre-arbitration bonus pool it’s called
25 guys got a 500k or more bonus at the end of the season with 10 earning over 1M up to a high of 1.8m.
You ate confused.
Silly, stupid, and confusing rule.
Wtf? So mlb is incentivizing teams to promote prospects to earn 1st rd picks
But are penalized if they sign that same prospect to an extension?
Mlb is doing everything it possibly can to say screw you to teams and screw you to fans
How are teams penalized by signing prospects to an extension?
Because the teams aren’t eligible to get the draft pick if the player wins rookie of the year.
That is not the case. The team doesn’t get the pick if the player is extended prior to their major league debut. Like Luis Robert with the White Sox
I just don’t think teams give a rats tookis about the rookie of the year award. They certainly don’t use it as a reason to extend or call up any player. If a team wants to manipulate service time they are going to do it regardless of the small chance to gain a 1st round pick.
Hardly any players are signed to Major League contacts before they debut in the first place, and if a team really cares about signing a guy that early while also trying to get that draft pick, they can just wait until after Opening Day to finalize the contract.
So why not wait until the day after the player makes his debut to finalize the extension?
That’s one way to get the draft pick.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. I get the idea of the rule, but just have a handshake agreement and finalize the extension after opening day.
Pretty much.
Have the framework in place. After 1st game of the season announce extension.
Player gets extension
Fans get to see young promising rookies
Team has chance to get picks if rookies perform well.
The entire point of PPI is to incentivize promoting top prospects rather than manipulating service time. There’s no manipulating service time when a contract has already been signed. I understand the point of the rule.
What a mistake.
My idea to get around service time manipulation has always been to make a player eligible for free agency after six years of service time, plus the season they make their major league debut. Whether they debut in the first or last game a season, it’s that year and six more after that.
It would basically be like the idea of burning the first year of an entry level deal in the NHL.
The union would never agree to something that could potentially delay free agency for a player by a year.
In theory I agree with you, but it’s already happening anyway, so at least this way the players are getting extra days of service time (i.e. closer to pensions) and major league pay.
Depending on when you get promoted it wouldn’t necessarily delay your path to free agency anyway, it would just eliminate the need to keep good players in the minors for service time reasons.
MC
A better way is to end the idea of service time
No draft. Everyone is a free agent. They sign contacts. When that contact expires they are a free agent again.
There’s too much risk for the teams here. They have no idea when a 16 or 18 year old will be ready.
Jcant
“There’s too much risk for the teams here”
Don’t care
Why would anyone care?
Right now all the risk is on the player
No draft? That is not a better way to end service time.
A better way to end service time (and coincidentally help the parody in the mlb) would be to incentive teams to call up rookies by allowing the team the opportunity to offer the most years on an extension and limit number of years any other team can offer when they do hit free agency (limit years not $$$ you can pay them to be clear).
We know most years on these mega contracts are for lowering avv and deferring money purposes.
Say Dodgers were only limited to 10 years on Ohtanis contract but angels could have offered him 12 for instance. Or 12 and 14 respectively.
We not only need to incentive teams calling up rookies we also need to incentive teams to keep these players around instead of shipping them off when they become too costly.
Definitely more needs to be done but incentivizing teams to call them up and keep them around should be the goal which would be good for baseball.
JSC
“That is not a better way to end service time.”
Yes. It is
It works just fine in your field right? Or you’re calling for a draft for home window installers (or whatever)?
No. It is not.
Reason we have a draft is so nobody hoards all the good players.
If there was no draft Yankees dodgers etc would just out bid everyone for every player. Your idea has 0 checks and balances.
Your idea would literally kill baseball by declaring everyone a free agent to sign with whomever.
My field like all jobs is regulated by anti monopoly laws. Same reason leagues have drafts. You’d understand this if you had a job instead of living off your parents.
I actually like this idea. That’s basically how it works in the NBA with max offers and Bird Rights so you might be on to something.
There’s no perfect solution but I think there are definitely ways to improve it.
HDC
Yes. It is
The reason there is a draft is to remove leverage from the players so teams can have cheap labor.
“Your idea would literally kill baseball by declaring everyone a free agent to sign with whomever.”
No. It would not
“You’d understand this if you had a job instead of living off your parents.”
You’re attempted insult is noted
Also noted is that you have to lie to insult me
No it’s not.
Your idea is horrible and will kill the game.
The reason there is a draft is so teams who aren’t as good have the best chance to improve. That’s why drafts exist. So leagues can create more contenders, in theory.
“Cheap labor”
MLB nba nfl all have rookie scales cause it’s understood rookies (like minimum wage employees) need to earn their paydays (like everyone else).
So you can dish insults
“ It works just fine in your field right? Or you’re calling for a draft for home window installers”
But can’t take insults. Noted. People with weak mental fortitude are usually that way. Like a child who instigates things, gets punched, and cries trying to play victim to adults.
HDC
Yes it is
No it won’t
“The reason there is a draft is so teams who aren’t as good have the best chance to improve. *
Ahh…to be do naive
What insult?
All you calling for a draft in your field? Or do you like being able to choose your employer?
Considering that prospects usually need at least two to three years in the minors before they’re ready, 6 years is too short. It would also just create an even worse problem of lots of prospects getting called up before they are truly ready for the Majors.
Unless I’m misunderstanding your point, how would that mean that more prospects would get called up before they’re ready? The minor league development time would still be the same; in my (hypothetical) scenario, the clock doesn’t start until they make their major league debut.
Unless you mean that teams would call their top prospects up on opening day to milk as many games as possible out of them in that seventh year, but that’s also the opposite of the problem we have now so I don’t even know if that would be a terrible thing either. I doubt that a team would be willing to risk stunting a player’s growth to get 150 games out of them as opposed to 130, when they’re already okay with keeping them in the minors for a few weeks at the beginning of the season under the current rules.
That isn’t what they are doing today? 6years plus up to 172days? Or 7th year?
The fact that fans are even discussing the stupidity or non stupidity of this rule is stupid. If you aren’t a player or team owner why do you care?
Enjoy the game – yes for fans it is JUST a game. A great game but yet still, a game. It’s official OD – relax and enjoy the game.
Let the one or 2 players – soon to be classified as multi-millionaires if not already via signing bonus, worry about the details.
It’s about the player being on our team for another year. Not the money.
PPI is not related to service time manipulation- apples and oranges.
Respectfully disagree
“ The latest collective bargaining agreement introduced the PPI to encourage clubs to carry top prospects on Opening Day rosters, rather than hold them down in the minors to gain an extra year of control, a move generally referred to as service time manipulation.”
PPI was created crafted written in the CBA with the intent it would help service time manipulation situations.
The story is about players signing extensions pre mlb debut are not eligible for PPI. The story isn’t about the invention of PPI.
If you depart from the storyline you can ultimately get almost anywhere.
“ PPI is not related to service time manipulation- apples and oranges.”
It is. Saying they’re not related is wrong. PPI was created in response to service time manipulation.
If you don’t like the response don’t say incorrect things.
Had you said
PPI doesn’t apply if a player signed an extension prior to their debut, you’d be correct. Which that’s what the story is about when PPI applies and when it doesn’t.
But that’s not what you said and here we are.
Yet please read to the post I was responding to for context – “it’s about the players being on our team for another year. Not the money.”
Context. I was telling that person that PPI had nothing to do with service time manipulation in context with his reply to me.
It does.
PPI is meant to reduce service time manipulation.. that’s why it exists
The person I responded to was saying that making a player ineligible for PPI because he signed an extension before debut was about keeping the player another year.
That is the context of my response: once a player has signed an extension pre- debut, PPI is out per CBA
That fact alone has nothing to do with service time manipulation – it is only related to PPI benefits which no on get apply.
I’ve never denied that PPI wasn’t invented to address service time manipulation.
My post simply started as saying that fans debating the stupidity or non stupidity of whether or not a player that had been extended pre debut is or is not eligible for PPI is stupid in itself.
Don’t cherry pick to avoid context to create an argument. Read the entire string of communication between me and the one I responding to originally.
Let me help clear this up
Long: If you aren’t a player or team owner why do you care?
jCant: It’s about the player being on our team for another year. (why fans care about PPI rules and service time manipulation).
Long: PPI is not related to service time manipulation- apples and oranges (weird response considering JCant was answering why fans care about PPI rules). At no point did you make any indication you were referring to extension players and PPI rules. At no point did JCant bring that up either.
You can type out all you want trying to defend your bad take as a misunderstanding but it was a bad take.
That’s dumb. The point of the incentives is to get team to act in the player’s best interests. Players agree to these deals willingly; they believe the deals are in their best interest. This disincentivizes teams from offering these deals so it works against player interests. .
Teams never made those kinds of offers to gain a draft pick in the first place. Their reasons for doing so are the same as they were before the PPI became part of the CBA.
Meanwhile, players with those kinds of contracts gain Major League service time no matter what, so service time manipulation was never a problem in those situations.
Even better would be to not have any years of team control. It doesn’t exist in other sports and the games operate just fine. If the player is good at 18 or 20 or 22 pay him to keep him rather than paying him at 32 when he’s in decline.
The others sports do have their own versions of it, and it’s a necessary evil for competitive balance. The small markets would never be able to compete if they couldn’t develop their own young stars on relatively cheap salaries.
That’s a fallacy promoted by the skin flint owners and their media mouthpieces. There’s ample money to go around. Soccer has no such thing (outside of the US) and the game thrives just fine.
For over two years Baseball America has been reporting this information incorrectly. Just this morning they had both Jackson Chourio and Colt Keith being eligible for the pick. However, how can Milwaukee and Detroit not now the rule? Give Keith and Chourio the extensions after the first game of the season and both would be eligible for the pick.
This is assuming that Chourio and Keith would sign those extensions once they’ve already made the major league roster.
It all sounded good and would have got a lot of players promoted early until this:
“To earn a pick, a PPI eligible player has to either win a Rookie of the Year award or finish in the top three of voting for Most Valuable Player or Cy Young prior to qualifying for arbitration.”
This killed it. All the teams that do not get those extra picks every year would have good reason to promote early until they read the above and realize they are very unlikely to get that draft pick.
The Pirates and Rays? ROFLOL! Not even a consideration for them. They want that extra year always.
This rule was made for the elite, “can’t miss” prospects.
It’s not intended to encourage teams to have all of their prospects on the major league roster on opening day.
The draft pick and slot money that comes with it might be more valuable than the extra year. Maybe.
So does this mean that when Kyle Harrison wins the Cy Young and ROY, that the Giants will be givin 2 draft picks?
We can dream
So in theory, instead of doing “late season call ups”, it’s better to have the rookie on the major league roster on opening day, give them a 60 day trial to see if they have it, and then either keep them or send them down for the entire season.
It wouldn’t need to be for 60 days, and you could always call him back up later in the season if needed (as long as he spends a total of two weeks in the minors), but yes, that’s a potential strategy.
I’m assuming this rule is to prevent Japanese or Korean signings from awarding teams the draft pick.
Probably, plus the teams already have plenty of incentive to carry players with guaranteed Major League contracts on the Major League roster, as they gain Major League service time either way.
Adley Rutschman was injured during ST an was ready for opening day in 22 so his situation is not applicable to this.
I believe Vlad was also injured, so the service time manipulation didn’t really apply.
How effective is the Prospect Promotion Incentive (PPI) system in preventing service time manipulation and promoting fair opportunities for young prospects in Major League Baseball?
The problem, which the Orioles are aware of, is that the extra draft pick doesn’t have the same value as an additional year of service, so it actually makes it more difficult for a valued prospect to be promoted early.
In Baltimore, the last thing they want is for Jackson Hall to win rookie of the year, and I would imagine that the old regime was privately annoyed that Rutschman was so successful that he ruined their plan and got his extra year of service time anyway.
Plus it requires him to actually win Rookie of the Year.
Even if Jackson Holliday is the best overall prospect and plays well, that doesn’t mean he’s going to have the best rookie year.
Only time I remember seeing a team actually get awarded this bonus pick was the Mariners and Julio Rodriguez.
Brewers fan here…
This is an odd rule all the way around. Chourio wasn’t even drafted, so that would’ve been an interesting reward for the team if he were eligible.