(1) No Rule-5 Flip Rule, (2) Clarify a line in the Constitution

[JRamirez]

Dave already made a suggestion that applied to "no flip" of any player, within certain time limits.

(1) My suggestion refers only to Rule-5 drafted players and preventing teams from being able to "flip" them, and my suggestion is:

_______________________________

A player drafted in the Rule 5 draft and subsequently returned to the original team may not be traded or sold back to the drafting team at any time and by any team until the start of the offseason.
_______________________________

(2) And my second suggestion is to clarify to the league what this line in the Constitution means.

In addition, Rule 5 picks cannot be sold or traded to any team in order to circumvent Rule 5 restrictions.

The context of this is preventing abuse of the Rule 5 draft.

As I personally read it—and I am very possibly incorrect—it is hard not to think of a pair of transactions in which (1) the drafting team sends a Rule-5 drafted player back to the original team, and then the original team trades/sells that very same player back to the drafting team. This set of transactions seems, to me, specifically designed "in order to circumvent Rule 5 restrictions."

But, please absolutely correct me.

In the meantime, my suggestion prevents this, and it prevents not only the original team, but any subsequent team who acquires the player that season from doing this. I believe my suggestion is within the intended spirit of how the Rule 5 operates in the BBA.

Note that to say something happens in the MLB is not the same as describing what's permissible and/or desirable in the BBA.

[Lane]

As I personally read it—and I am very possibly incorrect—it is hard not to think of a pair of transactions in which (1) the drafting team sends a Rule-5 drafted player back to the original team, and then the original team trades/sells that very same player back to the drafting team. This set of transactions seems, to me, specifically designed "in order to circumvent Rule 5 restrictions."

But, please absolutely correct me.

The way I see it, your interpretation here is clearly incorrect.

Manipulating the R5 in OOTP would be a team drafting a player, and sending them back to the original team. Because of the way OOTP handles R5 returns, this allows the original team to retain the player for an additional year without adding them to the 40 man roster.

The situation of a R5 pick being returned to the drafting team is essentially a trade of a player that was placed on waivers. It's no R5 manipulation. It just removes the requirement of the drafting team keeping them on the active roster for the season, and provides compensation to the original team.

[BaseClogger]

Both parties still have leverage when negotiating a trade to return a player to the drafting team because you’re highly incentivized to lose those restrictions. Not many players drafted in R5 actually get carried on the active roster for the full season. Most players get returned. You’ve got to be willing to call the bluff.

So once again, I just don’t understand what issue is being addressed by this. Point to the historical fail cases this resolves.

[aaronweiner]

I don't actually see the need for a rule like this. That doesn't mean we can't do it, but it doesn't seem utterly necessary to make it into an extra step. There's no reason why this kind of move is, or should be, illegal.

I have no problem with a small monetary penalty ($250,000 should be plenty) for this kind of thing at worst.

[chicoruiz]

So, team a has a prospect rated, say, 55 potential, but hasn’t played above short season ball and is nowhere near ready for upper level. With no room on their 40-man, they expose him to rule 5, and he gets picked by a crappy team.

The GM of the crappy team contacts the GM of the first team and says, “Hey, I sure would like to send this guy down to an appropriate level… I’ll give you something for his rights. Otherwise I’ll stash him on my crappy ML team and you get nothing”. The first GM has the option to take the deal or call the second GM’s bluff.

Is that what we’re talking about here? Because, as the GM of several crappy teams, I’ve done that a few times, and I don’t see who’s getting hurt here.

[Trebro]

This isn't needed.

[RonCo]

I guess I'm open to ideas, but for the life of me I still don't understand the problem. If I lose a guy to R5, then get him back, he's not on my 40 man. If I lose a guy to R5 and I want him back, I can trade something for the team to send him back, and he stays off my 40 man. If I lose someone to R5 and I don't want him back, I can get something else I want more.

No manipulation.

Heck, I just drafted 3b Parra from CLG. I did not want to keep him on my major league team, but I wanted to keep him in my minors, so I offered to return him and trade something for him. Kevin was interested, but we couldn't agree on a price, so I just returned him.

Simple business. Yes, it happens in real baseball. I don't understand the problem.

[RonCo]

In OOTP, the mechanism for "offer a return" is to release the player, who then gets replaced in the original team's minor league system, just like he was before he was drafted. Just like he would be in the MLB. The only thing that does not happen in OOTP is the need to waive the player first, which is fair to request, but would take manual review to police and seems like more overhead than value.

[RonCo]

Example: Trevor McGill

From his Wiki:

On December 12, 2019, Megill was selected by the Chicago Cubs in the 2019 Rule 5 draft.[6] Observers speculated at the time that Megill's exposure to Rule 5 eligibility was larger the result of the Padres' deep farm system.[7] On July 17, 2020, Megill was returned to the Padres organization. After being returned, the Cubs traded cash considerations to reacquire Megill.[8]

Megill did not play in a game in 2020 due to the cancellation of the Minor League Baseball season because of the COVID-19 pandemic.[9]

On April 26, 2021, Megill was selected to the 40-man roster and promoted to the major leagues.[10] He made his MLB debut that day, pitching a scoreless 6th inning against the Atlanta Braves. In the game, Megill also notched his first major league strikeout, punching out Braves second baseman Ozzie Albies.

I honestly don't understand the problem.

[RonCo]

Another difference for us is that we don't have to pay anything to draft a player in Rule V. So it's essentially a free look. This is why in the MLB there are relatively few players taken in the draft, but in BBA there are many. Some BBA teams draft five, or six, or ten guys.

If a team had to pay $100K per player for guys they were more likely to return, we probably wouldn't have as many draftees.

So the costless nature of Rule V increases the instances of this kind of deal for us simply because there are more opportunities for them.

[BaseClogger]

^^true. But it’s fun, right?