MLB Rule Changes for Abbreviated 2020 Season

zambonir 2020-06-26 16:59:57 UTC #21

I don't see how a trade affects anything for a player once they complete that initial trip. Living out of hotels and not seeing your family is normal and in this case it won't even be that long a time period. And it's only the NL and AL East teams who have the luxury of not flying a ton (or leaving their time zone).

Despite recent appearances (i.e. the Phillies leading their division the last two seasons) I've read a few stories showing that 60 games is actually fairly indicative of final standings for the most part, and any 60-game sample would be wildly imbalanced.

It sounds like any player in a game will have to be on the 40-man roster. Functionally, the 34 players (once rosters are fully reduced to 26) are no different than guys in AA or AAA, some are on the 40 and some are not. As I said in the other thread I don't think MLB has a roster contingency for an actual COVID outbreak, if it gets big enough to where you're run out of guys on your 40, you also aren't playing games.

But they could make the COVID IL like the 60-day DL.

andyb 2020-06-27 00:40:11 UTC #22

More on the new rules:

Biggest new thing for me is that anyone traded this year needs to be on the 60-man roster. So if you want to include a lower level prospect in a deal they will have to be promoted to the 60-man roster. That is a doable roster move, but just seems plain stupid to me. Sometimes MLB overthinks.

julio 2020-06-27 01:48:48 UTC #23

Thanks, andyb.

I'v added a link to this MLBTR page to our "Major/Minor Stats, Rules, Etc." page in the Baseball Links section - so if you want to see this summary a month from now, you won't have to go crazy trying to find a link!

zambonir 2020-06-27 04:25:19 UTC #24

Could easily be wrong, but this implies that once you put a prospect in the 60-man pool, he has to stay there, regardless of his service time or options. Like, you can't just send him "down" from the 60-man pool to minor league limbo - once he's in the pool removing him would be the equivalent of a DFA or release. If true perhaps it is deliberately meant to discourage teams from bringing in their greener prospects or trying to do back-door development when the priority should be playing the season - and only risking the safety of people participating in it.

If a player is removed from a 60-man player pool, he cannot be added back to that team’s pool but can be added to another team’s pool. Players cannot be freely removed from the 60-man player pool without roster implications. Put otherwise: other than injured list placement, suspension, and some other infrequent designations, teams will be forced to surrender (or risk surrendering) control over a player (trade, release, DFA, outright, etc.) to remove him from the 60-man player pool.

All the more reason why the trade rule is overkill, but there is probably some deliberateness there too - not to have an overly active trade market this year to discourage too much salary-dumping or teams basically giving up on 50% of the season (as opposed to a normal season where it's closer to 33%).

julio 2020-06-27 04:56:42 UTC #25

Well, it's not primarily about prospects, I don't think, but more about what we characterize as AAAA guys.

In a normal season, if a prospect is on the 40-man, but optioned, he can be recalled to the active roster and re-optioned repeatedly - but he's not typically removed from the 40-man. This summer, a prospect would be treated the same way, in general. If he's included in the 60-man pool, he can be added to the active roster, and returned to the inactive pool, repeatedly.

The difference is that, in addition to the fifteen-odd prospects that are on the roster, but on optional assignment, and can thus be rotated on and off the active roster, clubs have an extra 20 players - guys who are not on the 40-man roster - in their player pool. These are equivalent to the AAAA players that organizations stash in AAA in a normal season (it's essentially the whole AAA roster!)... and in a normal season, when these guys are brought up and sent back, they have to go through waivers. That doesn't really appear to be very different for 2020.

The wrinkle this season is that, with the AAAA players, a club can move them on and off the active roster freely, as long as they stay in the player pool. If they want to get the guy out of the player pool altogether... well, then that's a one-way decision. If the player is of little value, he might clear waivers, and remain club property... but would have to go home for the balance of the season. If he's claimed, he can be added to another club's pool.

But the more important point is that the player pool means clubs have increased flexibility with regard to these AAAA type guys. And as far as the real prospects on the 40-man roster (for the Phils, that's Deivi Grullon, and some pitchers - Medina, Romero, Cleavinger, E. Garcia, Llovera, maybe Sanchez), they can just stay in the player pool - if they're included on Sunday. I'm assuming that Gamboa will not be in the player pool, and some of the pitchers (Cleavinger? Llovera?) may not, either. In addition to the "normal" active 26 guys, the Phils' pool is likely to consist of about five real prospects currently on optional assignment, about nine marginal players on optional assignment, and about 20 eminently replaceable AAAA types.

If there's an "intent" here, it may be to discourage clubs from including young prospects, who are on the 40-man for Rule 5 reasons, in the player pool - because they don't belong there. Arquimedes Gamboa. If a club only includes the players on optional assignment who actually have a chance to help the club... well, generally that's only going to be a handful of players in each organization. The rest of the pool is the "deep reserve" of AAA players who typically get selected/ outrighted/ selected/ outrighted each season, but who can be moved in and out of the active roster repeatedly under the special rules. If a club wants to dump one of these guy from the pool completely, to make room for another such player, it's completely appropriate to require waivers; in a normal year, that player would be exposed to waivers every time he left the 25-man roster.

zambonir 2020-06-27 05:22:14 UTC #26

Well, I was referring to the speculation that multiple clubs intend to put their 2020 first-rounders and other top prospects on the 60-man, so they can get some work/instruction. And also Andy's theory that you could put a guy like Bryson Stott on and then remove him without consequence, whereas if you put Josh Harrison on and removed him he would no longer be Phillies property (even if another team didn't sign him). I still think it's possible teams do that because nobody actually needs 60 players, so you just treat players 56-60 the same as spring training invites, your most important guys who you want your best coaches working with, but are otherwise just bodies.

The ability to stash guys from the 40 without putting them on the 60 is another twist. But you still have to fit guys on the 40 if they are actually going to play. Gamboa, Nick Williams, Reggie McLain - they are going to lose their jobs to the AAAA/major league vet types if they aren't in the top 30, and then a few of the latter will eventually lose their 40-man spot to Bohm and Howard (and they would still have to clear waivers to go back on the 60, just like if they'd been sent to Allentown).

The trade thing seems like a much bigger deal. Let's say the Phillies are in first place but Haseley isn't cutting it and Quinn is hurt and the Dodgers somehow have a terrible season, so Mookie Betts is available at the deadline. If seven or eight of the Phillies Top 10 prospects aren't on the 60 can you get that deal done? What if you want a #3 starter from Detroit or Baltimore?

Granted, every other team that would be trying to acquire playoff help might be in the same boat.

Alternately, what if the Phillies are sellers (Realmuto, Arrieta, Gregorius, Bruce, possibly even Cutch and Neris) and the other teams don't have most of their Top 10 guys on their 60s?

andyb 2020-06-27 13:23:53 UTC #27

I don't think we will stash anyone on the 40-man roster that will not be on the 60-man roster. There will be a few on the DL of course, but that is different than stashing a prospect. Looking at our 40, Gamboa might be the only one not ready to play and he is just going to get removed from the roster and waived (50-50 at best that someone claims him). The other fringe prospects like Clevinger and Llovera and Romero are potentially in the mix for the bullpen at some point so they fit on the 60 (and as potential trade candidates). Reggie McLain is not worth stashing. He stays on merit but could easily be dropped from the 40 if they need a spot.

Nick Williams is interesting. I'd argue that he is worth keeping because of the DH. Remember what he has done before. He could end up being a superior bat compared to someone like Garlick. He could even be better than Bruce since he is in his prime and Bruce is a year older.

I think we put a half dozen prospects like Stott on and there is no consequence for removing them. I think to lose a player they will need to be eligible for the 40-man roster but not on it AND be eligible for minor league free agency. Even then they might have to declare that. A player might have signed a 6-figure minor league contract and would want to stay if the Phillies would continue to pay. Of course that player would leave if there is a chance another organization would pick them up.

I am just fascinated at the silliness of having to put an 18-year-old DSL prospect on the 60-man roster for a day to trade him as the third piece in a deadline deal. That just seems dumb and unnecessary to me.

Lucky_Beagle 2020-06-27 13:25:59 UTC #28

"Teams will travel with an unofficial 3-man taxi squad, the identity of which need not be disclosed. One player must be a catcher. There is no official designation or roster status associated with being a member of that group."

What is the purpose of this squad? I assume they can only be activated if someone from the active roster is taken off of it for a valid reason such as an injury. Does this just make it easier to have a player on hand to be available for the next day as opposed to having to have him fly in from the home city if the team is on the road?
Can it be used to "send" a player off the active roster and replace him with another person already on the 40 man roster. (like someone being sent to the minor leagues as in seasons past)? Even then this really just puts the guy in the same city as opposed to having him need to travel if on the road, right?
I guess since there aren't minor league games to be played (other than perhaps the inter squad rest of the 60 man squads games) this allows them to get batting practice etc?

julio 2020-06-27 13:41:18 UTC #29

In this scenario, the Phils would negotiate the deal, then add the prospects to the 60-man player pool. To do that, they'd have to clear space in the pool.

For purposes of this example, let's assume that the Phils' 60- man pool consists of the players now on their 40-man roster, plus their non-roster invitees. (There are 22 of them, but this is an example, not reality). So, if the Phils want to trade five younger prospects for Mookie Betts, they need to remove five guys from the pool. So, goodbye to Mahtook, Szczur, Martini, Gosselin, Liriano (or some similar bunch). This makes no difference to the Phils' chances in 2020, and these guys have no future with the club. The downside? The Phils would have to play September with only 29 players in their reserve pool, instead of 34.

If the Phils are on the other end of such a deal, it's a similar process. They're acquiring five young prospects for JT Realmuto. Those prospects have to go into the pool. So they clear a group of five nobodies, add the five prospects. They effectively have a smaller player pool now - but they're not making this deal unless they're out of contention, so again, there's no real cost.

It's a different process. But the player pool is large enough that I don't think it's really all that much of an impediment. The players that end up being cut from player pools and waived are basically the fungible guys who move around all the time.

andyb 2020-06-27 14:44:05 UTC #30

I think the 3-person taxi squad is there in case multiple players test positive the day of the game. They probably envision not just a catcher, but a backup starting pitcher on that squad too.

zambonir 2020-06-27 16:38:39 UTC #31

Julio, I suspect that's not correct. The point of these rules is not to control roster moves the way you would in a normal season. The point is to limit the number of players who get to participate in organized baseball for safety reasons. If you don't start off the season on a 60-man roster, following the MLB protocols that are in place at the ballparks and training locations, you don't get to appear on any teams 60-man roster at any point during the season. All player movement is limited to the players in that pool, with the possible exception of the free agent camp they might be setting up in Nashville. The 60-man roster itself is the injury/COVID insurance; it's not a pool that can expand to 65 or 70 as players get injured (again with the exception of plucking someone from Nashville).

I think that's also why the MLBTR article might be correct that you would lose a top prospect if you remove him from the 60. There's just no reason to do it because you can't randomly replace him with some other guy in your system. And if you do a two-for-three trade you'll just have to find someone to cut.

Now, what's dumb about that is that if you're trading a player who's not on your 60 and they can't be on the other team's 60, what's the harm? They're at home, and can stay at home. The team acquiring them isn't going to get to play or develop them this year anyway.

Seems to me the main purpose of the taxi squad is also safety, to keep the team in a quarantine bubble. If you have an injury or need to swap out a reliever on Day 2 of three-game road series, you're not allowed to just summon someone from your home city who then has to fly commercial (or take the train) or otherwise be out in the world separately from the rest of the team. Perhaps if it's absolutely necessary (like, the next day's starting pitcher got hurt and your bullpen just pitched six innings - though as Andy noted a starting pitcher will probably be on the taxi squad), but they could also put safety over competitive needs. Won't be an issue until rosters are finally down to 26 anyway.

You always liked Nick Williams Andy. Insurance for Jay Bruce and Harper as a LHB makes sense but I still don't see much opportunity for him. Garlick could actually still make the major league roster, even at 26 (can't remember if he has options?) if Bohm does not. But either of them are also expendable. Nick should really be on a bad team where he can play every day.

andyb 2020-06-27 17:16:47 UTC #32

Garlick should have at least 2 options left. And Williams put up a 955 OPS in AAA last season. It is not as if he is awful. His credentials are at least as good as Garlick if not better. Neither is that good defensively which is why the DH gives him more opportunity. Bruce is ahead of him. I just wonder if age catches up to Bruce in a hurry. He clearly has lost lots of batspeed and has had to remake himself as more of a 1-dimensional power hitter. We have seen how hitters like him can suddenly lose it like Chris Davis or Ryan Howard.

2020 Phillies Spring Training News, Notes & Discussion

julio 2020-06-27 17:17:18 UTC #33

Well, we don't know, since we haven't seen the actual rules documents promulgated by MLB. But that said, the MLBTR piece linked above states:

Teams may otherwise add already controlled or newly acquired players to their 60-man player pool.

"Already controlled" players who can be "added" to the 60-man player pool are (at least as I understand it) players under contract to the club who are not included in the initial 60-man player pool. In other words, anybody under contracct.

If that statement is correct, then my assumptions about how to handle prospect trades would seem to be correct. If MLBTR's document is not correct... well, all bets are off.

zambonir 2020-06-27 18:01:18 UTC #34

Ah, I hadn't gone back to the full MLBTR article, okay. Well, I guess it's probably more likely MLBTR was just being imprecise about removing players from the roster then.

So if this is the case it seems to me teams would have a motive to deliberately keep some useful players off their 60 too, even though it would cost them reps. Like, if you don't put Austin Davis (who is on the 40) or Kyle Dohy (who isn't on the 40) on the 60 they could still be added to it later.

I do still wonder how they would handle such a move. Would players have to quarantine for 14 days before reporting to camp, or just get tested on arrival (as is the case now) and quarantine until results.

And also: what the heck are our "controlled" players going to do all summer? I imagine the intent still must be to re-open the complexes eventually.

LoneStarPhan 2020-06-28 00:57:30 UTC #35

I did read something this past week about the taxi squad traveling with the team to avoid having to take a commercial flight if a player was needed while the team was on the road. I assume teams will be traveling by charter and will not have the exposure to random folks that commercial travel gives.

julio 2020-06-29 17:43:22 UTC #36

A copy of MLB's "2020 MLB Operations Manual," which is the formal document laying out 2020 special rule changes, as well as various on-field and off-field procedures to deal with COVID-19, is at this Scribd link. I've also linked this document in our Baseball Links section.

Most of this document (it's 100+ pages) is concerned with health procedures. Only sections 5 and 6 really pertain to on-field rules, transactions, rosters, etc.. I've extracted just those sections and converted them to a standalone, 11-page PDF document. There's a link to let you download or view that document in our Baseball Links section, click here. Scroll down; it's in the section titled "The Business Side."

zambonir 2020-06-29 17:58:59 UTC #37

Julio said he was going to upload this eventually be definitely some good info to be found. (EDIT: Ha, you were uploading it while I was writing this post!)

Retention bonus deadline is still 5 days before Opening Day.

One interesting quirk I noticed: teams are not required to carry more than 25 players on the major league roster. They'd get blasted for it, but a cheap (or tax-challenged) team could opt not to carry the 26th man part of the time (or even pass up the chance to have 28 or 30).

I still think if you put a player on your 60 and then take him off, he's gone, which is also why we haven't seen as many young prospects added. In the COVID-19 specific section it says that if a team needs to add more than 3 players to its pool due to replace players on the COVID-19 list, and those players are from within the organization, MLB may allow those substitute players to be removed from the pool "without requiring a release." (Those players would also only be at the secondary training site, if they were put on the 40 or 26 that would be a whole other story anyway.)

Basically, the word "option" does not appear as it pertains to players on the 40, and for players who aren't on the 40, trade or release are the only transactions that can happen unless you can game the restricted list (or there's an injury).

This would also be why it makes sense to not put Herrera on the list, once you have him you are stuck with him in the pool all year, and if you remove him from the pool he's a free agent (while still getting paid what the Phillies owe him)