Rule 5/ 40 man roster?

[zambonir]

Further restricting player agency (by tinkering with the Rule 5 draft to give clubs longer control) is, to me at least, backsliding toward the reserve clause era.

Like I said, for me it should be the opposite. Rule 5 is not real free agency just like the QO system isn't real free agency. But where the latter just costs some older players $ (or the teams that sign them assets) I don't think there are very many good outcomes for Rule 5 players. They die on the vine if they're being stashed, or struggle in roles they aren't ready for if they get used, or they suffer for having bounced between two teams (or more).

Of course you could also argue that it just means they weren't good enough players to begin with, and most teams get that right. The Herreras and Jorge Bells are rare.

[julio]

Of course you could also argue that it just means they weren't good enough players to begin with, and most teams get that right.

If most teams get that right, that mostly means that most Rule 5 draftees just spend Spring Training with a different club (and in a major-league camp), then return to where they were. It only becomes a problem for a prospect's career if they're stashed on a major-league roster when they need AAA time to develop (kind of like Johan Rojas - which suggests that this isn't just a Rule 5 thing!). If the drafting club judges correctly, they either have a useful player, or they send him back - or in some cases, they work a deal with the player's former club, acquire rights to the player, and send him down (Victorino).

Moreover, we are, by and large, talking about relatively marginal prospects here. It's not at all clear to me that some of these guys (some of those who do get stashed, and "lose development time") aren't just as well off getting a year of major-league salary, and possibly some additional seasons, as opposed to being in the minors for that year. If they weren't drafted, some of them might never actually get to a 40-man roster. For instance, Castellano. If he had not been drafted this week, would he have been in the Phils' 2025 plans? Not obviously. Throw in a shoulder injury in AA, sometime this summer, and he might never, ever see a major-league paycheck. Stuff happens.

Jorge Bell was an anomaly, because the Phillies knew full well that he was a blue-chip prospect. They tried to play a stupid game - thinking everybody else would believe he was injured, working him out "in private" - and they got burned. That was not due to a flaw in the Rule 5 process; that was incompetence (which the Phils' organization at the time, lest we forget, was really good at!) That was up there with "throwing in" Ryne Sandberg in what was otherwise a straight-up swap of shortstops, to get rid of a guy who rubbed some folks the wrong way.

We should all remember where the Phillies organization has been...when we set out to complain about where they are now!

[zambonir]

If most teams get that right, that mostly means that most Rule 5 draftees just spend Spring Training with a different club (and in a major-league camp), then return to where they were

Well, mostly, they just don't get drafted in the first place I mean, let's be conservative and say every team has just three players on their roster who might be worth taking (or call it an average, since some clubs are deeper than others). That's 90 players. There were 15 picks. And then probably 10 of those will be returned.

Last year there were 10 picks. 1 was returned in March, and three more during the season. Plus one trade. In 2023 there were 15 picks, 8 returns, two trades and one injured guy who surived the year but then was released and re-signed to a minor league deal.

It's a whole lot of process for something that only ultimately changes the trajectory of 3-4 players a year, and not always in a good way (other than the $ and service time they earn in that first year).

[julio]

It's a whole lot of process for something that only ultimately changes the trajectory of 3-4 players a year, and not always in a good way (other than the $ and service time they earn in that first year).

It's not all that much process, IMHO. And Rule 5 changes the trajectory of more players than just those who are drafted; it also pushes organizations to add prospects to their 40-man roster, and actually pay those prospects a living wage, when in the absence of Rule 5, most clubs would just hold those prospects in AAA, off the roster, as long as possible - and those players and their families would continue to rely on SNAP. Management isn't going to make moves that increase player compensation unless they have to.

[andyb]

Nobody is really suggesting doing away with the rule 5 draft. It IS a lot of process though those procedures are designed to make it harder to stash and underpay talent. We get all that.

The main point I am making is that the game has changed and the way players are developed has evolved - so the roster rules should evolve with that. I'd rather have more players paid a bit more on the 40 (or 42) man roster than bouncing between clubs on waiver claims.

It is decidedly NOT about stashing players these days. That was more the case when there were a half dozen players on the active roster that barely got used. We need more players now. There are more injuries. There is less room on the roster because we need all these pitchers. Players will still get put on the roster at roughly the same rate as in the past because of the clocks on player options and minor league free agency (which has not changed even as the 5th year was added for rule 5 protection).

[Deadgmwalking]

[Note that I'm not characterizing the Phillies as an incompetent organization. Not now, at least. For a long time, in the Giles era, they pretty obviously were exactly that.]

You're being entirely too kind to the Giles era organization.

Kidding aside, one of those unrepentant serial arm abusers (Torre) found a nice job in the commissioner's office.