Minor Leaguer Roster Eligibility

[Josh Hoppe]

With the discussion of rostered minors leaguers I would like to put forth an idea or two that may help remove judgement calls and make clear the path to roster eligibility. 
In my mind the draft in a dynasty league is a nearly sacred event that should be held as the primary mechanic by which teams acquire previously unowned players. 
We should, as a league be looking for a way to maintain the integrity of the draft pool and ensure that the picks that are being held have as much value as possible. 
So here's my idea:
If keeping a mid-season combined draft:
    1. All players signed to a contract by a major league ball club or it's affiliates from the start of the previous draft to the start of the current draft are not eligible for pickup from the FA/WW pool. They must go through a DLF draft before being rostered. (Exemption: any player signed to major league contract). This rule is largely in place already but I'm not sure that it's been codified. 
    2. All rostered players must have at least 50AB or 20IP by end of play 7 days before the draft. Any player rostered after that date under the threshold will be eligible for the upcoming draft. 
    3. FRAN tag can only be applied to players that have met or exceeded the 130AB/50IP threshold. Same as RFA 

Things get super easy with a single off-season draft since rosters will be cleared of the minor leaguers speculatively picked up during the season that fall under the RFA AB/IP thresholds. With a single offseason draft I would still put forth item #3 above and limit the FRAN tag to players at or above 130AB/50IP. Ideally we would move that direction. 

The goals above are to allow owners to still speculate and grab minor leaguers that may be called up in the near term but not to allow the draft to be drained of talent (either on purpose or not) by owners holding on to guys that are not playing in the big leagues.

[Erik Troutman]

Jul 18, 2023 17:08:40 GMT -5 Josh Hoppe said:

With the discussion of rostered minors leaguers I would like to put forth an idea or two that may help remove judgement calls and make clear the path to roster eligibility. 
In my mind the draft in a dynasty league is a nearly sacred event that should be held as the primary mechanic by which teams acquire previously unowned players. 
We should, as a league be looking for a way to maintain the integrity of the draft pool and ensure that the picks that are being held have as much value as possible. 
So here's my idea:
If keeping a mid-season combined draft:
    1. All players signed to a contract by a major league ball club or it's affiliates from the start of the previous draft to the start of the current draft are not eligible for pickup from the FA/WW pool. They must go through a DLF draft before being rostered. (Exemption: any player signed to major league contract). This rule is largely in place already but I'm not sure that it's been codified. 
    2. All rostered players must have at least 50AB or 20IP by end of play 7 days before the draft. Any player rostered after that date under the threshold will be eligible for the upcoming draft. 
    3. FRAN tag can only be applied to players that have met or exceeded the 130AB/50IP threshold. Same as RFA 

Things get super easy with a single off-season draft since rosters will be cleared of the minor leaguers speculatively picked up during the season that fall under the RFA AB/IP thresholds. With a single offseason draft I would still put forth item #3 above and limit the FRAN tag to players at or above 130AB/50IP. Ideally we would move that direction. 

The goals above are to allow owners to still speculate and grab minor leaguers that may be called up in the near term but not to allow the draft to be drained of talent (either on purpose or not) by owners holding on to guys that are not playing in the big leagues.

I'm on board

[Jim Geagan]

i disagree. Endy rodriguez was signed and didn’t make any immediate impact for over 3 months and yet was not dropped. The intent was never for immediate impact, the intent was only ever to shield him from the prospect draft - the same as everybody who signed a prospect who was not called up.

We can’t make assumptions about who is and isn’t going to reach 30 IP or 130 ABs. injuries happen - mason miller looked like a lock and now may not get it. juan soto and jose fernandez both skipped multiple levels. injuries happen. allowing some prospect to be signed and not others is ridiculous. either they’re all eligible or none of them should be eligible.

how hard is it to just wait until they get called up to sign somebody? if the intent is to allow minor league guys who could make an immediate impact to be signed, that should work for all parties.

[Jim Geagan]

i guess i don’t disagree. i mostly agree.

[Erik Troutman]

I have no problem with that, if we added bi-weekly faab runs or waivers.

The problem as it stands is that will turn into "who happens to be awake when the rosters kick to the next day and that player is live" for the best debuting players.

[Josh Hoppe]

@ LAD Lol I understand. The trick is that with a midseason draft you have to have some threshold to say they are eligible to stay on a roster vs getting exposed to the draft. That is something that can be adjusted. But keeping the ability of owner to make a speculative pickup in season while still not allowing the draft to be gutted is the goal.

[Josh Hoppe]

Jul 18, 2023 17:31:47 GMT -5 Erik Troutman said:

I have no problem with that, if we added bi-weekly faab runs or waivers.

The problem as it stands is that will turn into "who happens to be awake when the rosters kick to the next day and that player is live" for the best debuting players.

Yeah that just seems to add complexity and administration. A simple AB/IP threshold ahead of the draft keeps everything as is but allows the draft to maintain integrity. 

[Erik Troutman]

Jul 18, 2023 17:34:15 GMT -5 Josh Hoppe said:

Jul 18, 2023 17:31:47 GMT -5 Erik Troutman said:

I have no problem with that, if we added bi-weekly faab runs or waivers.

The problem as it stands is that will turn into "who happens to be awake when the rosters kick to the next day and that player is live" for the best debuting players.

Yeah that just seems to add complexity and administration. A simple AB/IP threshold ahead of the draft keeps everything as is but allows the draft to maintain integrity. 

I agree, im just saying, my issue with no speculative pickups has more to do with the fact that I'm not staying up until 2am to pick a guy up that will be gone tomorrow.

There were rumors Endy would make the team out of camp or be in the first wave of call ups, then he got hurt

[Josh Hoppe]

@phi Yeah you should be able to jump the gun on a guy if you have the spot available and think he's got value. In my case what's proposed would just mean he'd need to hit a certain threshold to not be kicked back into the mid-season draft.

[Jim Geagan]

i think the problem tho is with trying to jump the gun. i mean we’ve got what 60-65ish games left? who says dalton rushing doesn’t get called up and get enough ABs to be RFA eligible. how do you say it’s ok to jump the gun on one prospect but not another? how do we judge who’s close enough to sign on waivers and who’s not?

the “best” thing in my opinion would be to do an in season auction for any player that gets called up or say if you want to add a guy you can bid like we normally would in the off-season and that allows folks to try and out bid ya.

[Jim Geagan]

that seems like a lot of work tho, but i’d be willing to help out to make any positive changes happen.

and to be clear i never meant any ill-intent in signing rushing or salas. i was shocked to see endy get signed and didn’t see any rules against signing any prospects on waivers and grabbed the two best ones i could at a position i’ve been trying to fix since the league started.

[Josh Hoppe]

Jul 18, 2023 17:54:11 GMT -5 Jim Geagan said:

i think the problem tho is with trying to jump the gun. i mean we’ve got what 60-65ish games left? who says dalton rushing doesn’t get called up and get enough ABs to be RFA eligible. how do you say it’s ok to jump the gun on one prospect but not another? how do we judge who’s close enough to sign on waivers and who’s not?

the “best” thing in my opinion would be to do an in season auction for any player that gets called up or say if you want to add a guy you can bid like we normally would in the off-season and that allows folks to try and out bid ya.

In this case I’m proposing you can “jump the gun” so to speak and pick up whoever you want whenever you want. They just need to exceed a certain threshold to stay out of the mid season draft. If they make it through the draft unsigned then teams would be able to hold them through the season hoping they make the magic RFA/FRAN limit.
Keeps things administration wise to a minimum and lets the owners be as free as they want to be when grabbing guys that are unsigned.

[Andy Barnes]

Being on the team's official 40 man roster would work better, as that restriction, than most other possible options. If they aren't on the real 40 man, then you can't sign them in our pro league. Cuz if they aren't on the 40 man then they're not "close enough" to be a speculative add.

Also, immediate is subjective but perhaps you're focusing on the semantics too much Jim. To me, immediate is that specific season, which what the contract covers. It's not the first week, first month, first half. Just that season. That's it.

Guys like Endy, plus others, held speculative value for this specific 2023 season. If you believe Rushing does as well then that's your call. But I'm not sure many would agree with you on that. One of these examples was invited to spring training this year and flew through AA and AAA last season, the other barely played at High-A this year.

[Jim Geagan]

the point is we don’t know about immediate value. what if endy hadn’t been called up? would he be dropped before the draft? if you let people sign prospects that have gone through the draft and not been picked, you can’t be surprised when they do so. somebody who’s super talented but only in low a - especially international guys who aren’t as well known can make massive moves as we get real info on them stateside. look at how fast kevin matain dropped once we got a real look at him. is it that unlikely that rushing pulls a jose fernandez on us and dominating the bigs in a month? would it really be that crazy to franchise somebody like that? what if salas was signed before our draft and he made it through?

i think the cleanest fix is just making a rule that anybody signed off waivers has to be on the 40 man.

[Michael Visbeck]

Jul 18, 2023 17:08:40 GMT -5 Josh Hoppe said:

With the discussion of rostered minors leaguers I would like to put forth an idea or two that may help remove judgement calls and make clear the path to roster eligibility. 
In my mind the draft in a dynasty league is a nearly sacred event that should be held as the primary mechanic by which teams acquire previously unowned players. 
We should, as a league be looking for a way to maintain the integrity of the draft pool and ensure that the picks that are being held have as much value as possible. 
So here's my idea:
If keeping a mid-season combined draft:
    1. All players signed to a contract by a major league ball club or it's affiliates from the start of the previous draft to the start of the current draft are not eligible for pickup from the FA/WW pool. They must go through a DLF draft before being rostered. (Exemption: any player signed to major league contract). This rule is largely in place already but I'm not sure that it's been codified. 
    2. All rostered players must have at least 50AB or 20IP by end of play 7 days before the draft. Any player rostered after that date under the threshold will be eligible for the upcoming draft. 
    3. FRAN tag can only be applied to players that have met or exceeded the 130AB/50IP threshold. Same as RFA 

Things get super easy with a single off-season draft since rosters will be cleared of the minor leaguers speculatively picked up during the season that fall under the RFA AB/IP thresholds. With a single offseason draft I would still put forth item #3 above and limit the FRAN tag to players at or above 130AB/50IP. Ideally we would move that direction. 

The goals above are to allow owners to still speculate and grab minor leaguers that may be called up in the near term but not to allow the draft to be drained of talent (either on purpose or not) by owners holding on to guys that are not playing in the big leagues.

1) Personally I like the idea of having an innings/AB cap since my opinion is that in season waiver claims should principally be used to fill immediate in-season needs and anything else ultimately serves to de-value minors phase (rounds 3-6) draft selections and devaluing those picks is not in the interest of the league at large. I admittedly have some pause, as a guy who gets called up in late July could see regular playing time, and be a productive fantasy player down the stretch, but I would still err on the side of maximizing our draft's value in terms of building a team, vs the small chance that a player like that could provide immediate help. 

2) I would not be opposed to merging an AB/IP requirement with a 40 man roster requirement as I feel this would eliminate speculative waiver claims to players without a strong possibility of MLB impact.

To me Endy Rodriguez, Edouard Julien and others like that are reasonable speculative claims as both were likely early call ups in Spring, and had we not prevented FAB bids on Minors flagged players it's all but certain that they'd be currently rostered on a contract comparable to Eury Perez. Additionally Julien is a pretty strong example on why a spec claim like that can work out for a team in the immediate term, and I think someone like that would be a good faith use of an RFA/Franchise tag, so I would not favor closing that window entirely.

However, I would still argue that a player who doesn't meet a player not meeting the proposed 50 AB and 5IP should be released back into the draft pool, as  a speculative waiver claim on someone like that pretty clearly hasn't worked out and at that point the only incentive to keep them is to try circumventing the draft on the small chance they hit the 150 AB/50 IP threshold in August-September, which from my perspective is not a good faith use of the system. 

3) Somewhat unrelated to this discussion, but I also think the language should be expanded that the same eligibility requirements for RFA tags should be applied to franchise tags, as I cannot think of a strong argument for why a player who isn't RFA taggable would reasonably be worth using a franchise tag.