Future of the Rule V Draft

[patrickgpe]

Was thinking about this last night, I think its time to re-look at the rules here. It does't seem to be helping anyone in its current form.

 

This was Counsell's comments on the Varland DFA:

Quote

The difficult part about being a Rule 5 pick is there’s just a lack of roster flexibility," Brewers manager Craig Counsell said. "When there is that, that means you have to carry your share of the load. And the nature of that pick is it’s somewhat of a developmental pick. So it’s a challenging thing to do for six months. In my view, if at any point it could affect how other people are able to do their jobs, then it’s kind of untenable in our current situation.

Maybe its time to eliminate it? Remove the rule that they have to be offered to their preview team if they can't stick on for an entire season? Allow a limited number of minor league call downs? Allow minor leaguers not on the 40, with a certain amount of service time free agency rather than get drafted in the V? Expand the 40? There has to be a better way. 

[Playing Catch]

Rule V seems like a vestige of an earlier era. When do minor leaguers earn free agency? It looks like 6 years. And 4 years before being eligible for the Rule V draft (5 for international FAs). So presumably, the point is to provide big league opportunities for players that are "good enough" to be on a big league roster. But the issue is that "good enough" to play for the A's is very different than "good enough" to play for a competitive team.

Will Gus go from earning a big league paycheck to a non-40 man minor league paycheck? Maybe the Dodgers should have to continue to pay him a big league salary even if they retain his rights?

I dunno. Baseball's service time and roster rules are labrynthine.

[Thurston Fluff]

The draft helps teams rebuilding and allows players careers to move forward. That's a good thing all around. I don't think it wasn't meant for teams in the Brewers situation.

That said, if it's supposed to help the player blocked from a 40 man roster spot it seems like they should adjust the rules so the player can move forward with their careers in the best possible situation. I can't help but think being moved to a team that doesn't have 40 better options than you does that. Perhaps it's time to dump the mandatory full season and go with a set number of days they need to be on the major league roster.

[Outlander]

I still like the rule 5 draft because it forces teams to add guys to their own 40 man that deserve to be and once there it is an easy call to the big leagues. It basically ensures that guys that are deserving are added and not just in the system for 7 years. If they are not added it is usually for a good reason and there are rarely more than a couple of success stories each year. Noda of the A's is another Dodger minor league that has shown he can hold his own and is playing well in the bigs.

[brewcrewdue80]

I think the tweek that needs to be made is due off a players age. Don't think it's fair for the 16-18yr old signed/drafted to be eligible for Rule 5. They should add a year before eligible. Teams/players should also have like a red shirt year where they can be protected and not be put on the 40 man.  The requirements would need the player to have been injured for any total longer than 5months of potential games played. Basically losing a minor league year in development. Saving some 40man spots would allow more room for Rule 5 selections vs protecting. Older FAs at the ML level to be signed that are AAAA types to be on a 40man vs a AAA minor league contract that requires a team to jettison someone off the 40man to add to the ML team.

Maybe create a twice a year Rule 5 draft 6months apart. Where the player has to be playing through 1 half the season or the other half depending which draft they were selected. Doing so they can be kept then.

[patrickgpe]

I do agree that there is a place for the rule V draft. I think it needs to be tweaked to help the player and team. The 2 moves that I'd make is I'd expand the 40 man roster to 42.  The MLB roster went up to 26, why not allow teams to protect 1 or 2 more players. I also would allow one call down for a 30 day period for development / fix a roster crunch. 

 

[CheezWizHed]

I also agree that Rule V/5/(whatever) is good because it pushes clubs to add people to the 40 man roster. Adding one or two more to the 40-man limit also seems like a good idea.

So if the idea is to move a player from a stacked roster to a less stacked one, perhaps they make the full-year requirement a little less onerous? Perhaps you can option the player once in the season, but must be on the MLB roster X days (75%?) of the year or he is offered back. 

[jerichoholicninja]

There's enough roster churn throughout the league of the 35th-40th roster spots that the rule 5 is pointless now. Rule 5 picks get where they are because they're either continuously injured or just not MLB material. Either way they don't deserve to be in the bigs.

[patrickgpe]

18 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

There's enough roster churn throughout the league of the 35th-40th roster spots that the rule 5 is pointless now. Rule 5 picks get where they are because they're either continuously injured or just not MLB material. Either way they don't deserve to be in the bigs.

the hit rate on these picks is miniscule.

[Jopal78]

I know a lot of teams make a choice in the Rule 5 draft but it’s kind of dumb for teams with the intention to compete to make a choice. It usually winds up like Varland, guy with an intriguing arm/tool/etc. but not yet fully formed gets dumped because the roster spot is needed for bodies to help the big league club win. 
 

If they wanted to make the Rule 5 draft something to get more players on 40 man rosters (and dues paying members of the MLBPA) plus help the competitive balance,

Allow the picks made my teams who missed the postseason be permanent regardless of 26 man roster status and allow a team to make as many selections as they have open 40 man roster spots for. 

Every year there are well regarded minor leaguers left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft because they’re too far from the major leagues to make it probable they stick all year. 
 

A good way to redistribute potential talent to those who need it most. 

[SomewhereInTime]

I mean have Rule 5 draft picks ever been common for contending teams?  Obviously its going to be tough to stash a guy when all the games matter

[jay87shot]

One thing that is going to make the rule 5 tough for a couple years is that everyone missed the 2020 season (my guess is most going through this year were to far away for the minor league cap). So guys will be a little farther developmentally behind. If a guy like Varland had an extra year of development and had been in AAA last year he might have been worth the risk.  Thankfully he blew up in a 9-1 game and didn't cost us a game. I like the current form but maybe make it so you can option the rule 5 to the minors like 1 time for 15 days or so.

 

[nate82]

Probably best to either eliminate the Rule 5 draft or increase the 40-man cap from 40 to 42-44.

Another option would be to instead of having to add the player to your 40-man you can exchange international signing or amateur draft money to the team that loses a player in the Rule 5 draft.  The slot value for a Rule 5 draft would be $50k which would be $100k under a 10th round pick.  A team could draft 3 players in the Rule 5 draft and would be basically giving up a 10th round pick for those 3 players.  

[jerichoholicninja]

Without looking up the history of the rule 5 I would assume it came about when there was only 20 some teams and teams weren't regularly promoting guys before they turned 25 so there was probably quite a bit of talent that was stuck in the minors without getting a shot at the bigs. That's no longer the case. More MLB teams, 26 man roster, constant roster churn and injuries. There really just aren't talented players not getting shots. It's the opposite if anything when look at some of the guys that are getting shuttled back and forth to the minors and in constant DFA limbo.

[Playing Catch]

In terms of the 40-man, I think it should be increased, in part, because of the 2020 10-day IL (still 15 for pitchers). I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but it sure seems like teams have been more willing to put guys on the IL.

Since the Rule V draft is for guys that aren't on the 40-man, it would make sense that so long as guys are on the 40 (and not just the 26-man active roster) they don't have to be returned to their original team. I think this would be good for both players and organizations.

[Outlander]

Getting rid of the rule 5 draft would be bad. Again, it isn't really there for teams to get top prospects it is there to ensure players get added to the 40 man. The actual rules of what happens after a player is drafted certainly can be updated/changed but taking a big step backwards getting rid of it.

[Axman59]

The most egregious use of a Rule 5 pick was Wang Chung by the Brewers in 2014. He was totally out of his depth given his age and lack of experience and was thrown into the bullpen of a playoff contending team. That's not how Rule 5 picks should be used.

I'm still angry about that.

[patrickgpe]

1 hour ago, Axman59 said:

The most egregious use of a Rule 5 pick was Wang Chung by the Brewers in 2014. He was totally out of his depth given his age and lack of experience and was thrown into the bullpen of a playoff contending team. That's not how Rule 5 picks should be used.

I'm still angry about that.

But it did give us Wei-Chung Wang Wednesdays! I still think that was a top reason we failed to make the playoffs that year, we were running one man down. 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, Axman59 said:

The most egregious use of a Rule 5 pick was Wang Chung by the Brewers in 2014. He was totally out of his depth given his age and lack of experience and was thrown into the bullpen of a playoff contending team. That's not how Rule 5 picks should be used.

I'm still angry about that.

That 2014 team was not a playoff contending team. 

[sveumrules]

16 minutes ago, nate82 said:

That 2014 team was not a playoff contending team. 

Yeah, the Brewers came up seven wins short of the playoffs in 2014. Sure, Wei-Chung may have cost them a couple two tree wins between his poor performance and the residual effects of being a pitcher short for the three months he was on the 25 man roster, but he didn't set them back over a half dozen wins.

[wiguy94]

19 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, the Brewers came up seven wins short of the playoffs in 2014. Sure, Wei-Chung may have cost them a couple two tree wins between his poor performance and the residual effects of being a pitcher short for the three months he was on the 25 man roster, but he didn't set them back over a half dozen wins.

Looking back on that roster on paper it actually wasn't that bad of a team. 

C - Lucroy - 131 OPS+

1B - Reynolds - 87 OPS+

2B - Gennett - 107 OPS+

SS - Segura - 70 OPS+

3B - Ramirez - 108 OPS+

LF - Davis - 106 OPS+

CF - Gomez - 129 OPS+

RF - Braun - 113 OPS+

Bench - Weeks - 123 OPS+, Maldonado - 95 OPS+, Overbay - 84 OPS+,  Herrera - 74 OPS+, Schafer - 55 OPS+, Parra - 96 OPS+

SP - Peralta - 107 ERA+, Lohse - 107 ERA+, Gallardo - 108 ERA+, Garza - 104 ERA+, Nelson - 77 ERA+, Estrada - 87 ERA+, Fiers - 178 ERA+

BP - Rodriguez - 125 ERA+, Smith 103 ERA+, Duke - 155 ERA+, Kintzler - 117 ERA+

If Segura and Braun hadn't had down years that could have been a playoff team. Segura went from 4.1 bWAR to 0.9 bWAR. Braun went from 1.7 bWAR (61 games) to 1.2 bWAR (135 games) and that's even with one of the worst 1B position in baseball that season.

[wiguy94]

18 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

Looking back on that roster on paper it actually wasn't that bad of a team. 

C - Lucroy - 131 OPS+

1B - Reynolds - 87 OPS+

2B - Gennett - 107 OPS+

SS - Segura - 70 OPS+

3B - Ramirez - 108 OPS+

LF - Davis - 106 OPS+

CF - Gomez - 129 OPS+

RF - Braun - 113 OPS+

Bench - Weeks - 123 OPS+, Maldonado - 95 OPS+, Overbay - 84 OPS+,  Herrera - 74 OPS+, Schafer - 55 OPS+, Parra - 96 OPS+

SP - Peralta - 107 ERA+, Lohse - 107 ERA+, Gallardo - 108 ERA+, Garza - 104 ERA+, Nelson - 77 ERA+, Estrada - 87 ERA+, Fiers - 178 ERA+

BP - Rodriguez - 125 ERA+, Smith 103 ERA+, Duke - 155 ERA+, Kintzler - 117 ERA+

If Segura and Braun hadn't had down years that could have been a playoff team. Segura went from 4.1 bWAR to 0.9 bWAR. Braun went from 1.7 bWAR (61 games) to 1.2 bWAR (135 games) and that's even with one of the worst 1B position in baseball that season.

Obviously Segura had a sick baby who passed away in July of 2014 which more than likely contributed to his awful season but from a pure on paper perspective, that 2014 team actually was a pretty darn good team.

[Axman59]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

That 2014 team was not a playoff contending team. 

They were in first place on August 31st. If that's not in playoff contention I don't know what is. They folded in September, but for 5 months they were mostly in 1st place.

[Axman59]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, the Brewers came up seven wins short of the playoffs in 2014. Sure, Wei-Chung may have cost them a couple two tree wins between his poor performance and the residual effects of being a pitcher short for the three months he was on the 25 man roster, but he didn't set them back over a half dozen wins.

I never said he cost them a playoff spot (though he certainly did not help in any way). I said he had no business being on a roster for a team competing for the playoffs.

Rule 5 players like Wang are for trash teams panning for gold. Not playoff contenders.

[homer]

I think there were maybe two national writers that thought the Brewers had a punchers chance of getting the 2nd wild card before 2014. Internally, Melvin probably thought they were a year away from contending. Still an odd move even if you think you're a .500 team.