If you claim a player and DFA them within a certain timeframe, the player receives 100k payout from the team that dfa’d them. Problem solved. Not significant enough to harm the baseball economy but significant enough to cut down on this nonsense.
I think it is easier to just isse each team a certain number of waiver claims each season so they need to conserve them incase someone comes along they really want
@@chrisreddick7783 I know I'd move across the country for a few weeks if I got paid $100k for the trouble. Maybe not enough money to make a millionaire baseball player feel like he's been properly compensated, but if you're getting paid a lower (even minor-league) salary, that's good money.
As an Angels fan, I saw Tyler getting bounced back and forth and thought that was strange, but didn't realize the extent of how he'd been shuffled around. Putting a monthlong cooldown on waiver claims seems to be a pretty neat fix, but I wonder if the players themselves couldn't be granted some form of autonomy, perhaps being able to waive (sorry) that cooldown themselves if they think that they could persuade another team to take them on the 40-man and actually play.
I kinda like them being able to waive the cooldown themselves, but since these are usually young players that are viewed as fringe roster guys, there could be an issue of a player doing that causing teams to not want him more and getting him labeled a "rock the boat" guy. There's very little leverage for players like that.
Update: Kyle Tyler was optioned back to AAA El Paso on 4/15. He remains on the Padres 40-man roster for now. As of 4/16, he has still not thrown a pitch in the majors or minors this season and didn't appear in any Spring Training games for the Angles, Red Sox, or Padres. Update 2: Tyler stayed in AAA El Paso while on the Padres 40-man until June 9th where he cleared waivers. He was then put back on the 40-man on June 12th and called up to the MLB roster. He pitched in two games and then was sent back down to AAA June 17th. He was then DFA'd on July 3rd and released on July 6th. He then signed a minor league contract with the Giants on July 13th and sent to AAA. He was released by the Giants on August 7th.
I'm sorry but this new idea does not solve the problem, like at all. All you have done is change the loop. Instead of "Waivers, minors, new team" and repeat, the pattern is now "Waivers, minors, new team, jobless, maybe new team?" Yup, new rule will make it harder for a Kyle Tyler to even have a job. You know what's worse than uprooting a person and his family multiple times in a month? Uprooting a person and their family by having no income at all. Yeah I'm sure they still receive like half of the salary of that year's contract and smaller percentages of each year after, but by all means convince yourself you'd be ok with taking only half of the money you get from your videos. That's how stupid this idea is because you would never take only half. You're literally the three guys talking to Billy Bean but with even less of an idea of the problem. Here's the REAL problem: The intent of picking up a guy off waivers is to use him in the majors, even if for the sole purpose of "I need a backup." They found waivers as a loophole to take a guy with a MAJOR LEAGUE CONTRACT and trying to MAKE HIM A MINOR LEAGUER! You said it best yourself: "They no longer want them on their 40 man roster." You said this every single time in every single example with both guys. It's the only constant before moving to a new team. That's how I know this is the problem. Now what's the fix you may ask? Well that's the simple part actually: You just picked up a guy for nothing but his contract. You didn't have to fork over additional money or other players or future draft picks. If you need a guy that badly you're willing to go to waived players, you shouldn't be allowed to waive them, and if you choose to release them, you immediately pay out the entirety of their contract on the spot if there is no good reason. My idea in full is that for the rest of that year, if a player is picked up from waivers, he cannot be re-waived, EVEN IF TRADED!! If released during a year he was waived, reason must be legally required as to why he was released. If no reason is given (because it's likely a shit reason in the first place) his entire contract must be immediately paid out to that player. Yeah this is incredibly strict. Yes it could be very costly to an owner. I can't stress this enough though, so I'm going to caps it... IT WILL ONLY AFFECT TEAMS WHO WISH TO BEND THE RULES IN THEIR FAVOR AND ABUSE A PLAYER'S CONTRACT!! If a team legit wants a player to use in the majors, this rule will never bother them. They will grab somebody and put them on the team and use them like any other player. And hey, if he ends up being disruptive or actually not performing up to standards, you can give out your valid reason, and you don't have to pay out the full contract. P.S.: Why am I not making baseball videos? If I can come up with a better idea in 30 minutes than the video maker, why not start right? I mean I had a great idea in 30 minutes, and you must have taken what... a week or two to make this video? Yeah I can definitely do it better.
Player receives financial compensation if waived in a certain window of time (the same way a severance package works if you're laid off in the corporate world).
simple fix, picking up a player on waivers automatically causes a contract renegotiation. it'll cut down on this a lot if every time it happens, one team has to pay out for the rest of the old contract, and the other has to cough up a signing bonus.
In the NHL if a player is claimed on waivers and then his new team waives him within 30 days, his old team has first dibs at claiming him and can send him down to the minors without waivers. It seems like a no-brainer for the MLB to do the same thing
The major problem I see here is collusion between teams. I'm just getting back into the NHL, so I don't know if it's an issue or how big, but we could just have the Nottingham thing all over again.
@@HistorysRaven it’s not and the AHL and ECHL aren’t run like cattle ranches like the MLB. If players in the minors got paid more or had stronger 2way deals like the NHL, MLB teams wouldn’t be able to cheese the money.
@@HistorysRaven it’s not an issue in the nhl. The original team has all of the leverage and now teams only make waiver claims if they want the player on their big league roster
The downside to what you've suggested seems to me would be if a player gets released he may find himself simply out of a job. If he cannot find a club with a need for his specific skill set. Even more importantly, from a team's perspective, a place to put him on their roster. Every last spot is precious and so limited. He may end up having to sign a minor league contract just to stay close to the show.
I think a better solution would some sort of monetary penalty where the money ends up with the player. For example, if you place a player on waivers within the first 10 days it cost you 200k. 10-20 days 100k, 20-30 day 50k, and maybe 30-90 days 25k. Something like that
Something similar to the Rule 5 draft should be implemented. If a team claims someone off waivers that player should be added to the 40-man roster and can’t be DFAd or optioned unless they are active for a minimum amount of time
There's something we can look to already in the Rule 5 draft, where picks cost the picking team money, and if that team attempts to remove their drafted player from the 26-man roster, the player must be offered back to the original team, also at a cost. I wonder if a escalating scale of DFA waiver claim costs, where each successive claim after the first in a season costs a multiple more than a base fee, would remove this flippancy with players' lives and livelihoods.
I came here to comment the same thing, the rule 5 draft type rule implemented would stop teams from taking someone with the plan of dropping them off the 40 man since they would lose the player to the first team. Problem is would the other team need them to clear wavers again since they have no room on the 40 for them.
So... perhaps a Rule-5 type of addendum to the Nottingham rule, where if a player is claimed to the 40-man roster, they cannot waive him for the remainder of the season (30 days is too short). - You could still allow for optioning if they have remaining options. - Or... you could have one where a player can be waived as many times as teams want... for one day in the season (with the rest of the rules applying afterward). E.g. Player gets waived by the Red Sox, picked up by the Padres, waived to the minors, picked up by the Angels, waived, and picked up by the Braves, and waived (this is an addendum to the Nottingham rule, so a team couldn't pick him up again if they waived -- to prevent an infinite loop of waiving players)... after the day is over, the player knows which organization he will be with until the end of the season, and pack accordingly. - In both scenarios, if a team does decide they really want to get rid of him off their roster at that point, they can release him (and try and re-sign him to a Minor League contract, but that's up to the player at that point, so, no need to add anything further), and he'll be a free agent. - Perhaps we could limit how many times a player is traded while we're at it. Casper Wells in 2013. Mariners - DFA (picked up) Blue Jays - DFA, then Traded Oakland - DFA, then Traded White Sox - Waived. Phillies - End of Season, Outrighted, Signed to another team. Cubs (is where his 2013 calendar year ended)...
4:46 Another possibility: if you claim a guy off waivers, and you try to put him back on waivers, you have to pay the player *double* that player's reasonable relocation expenses
happened to adam rosales between oakland and texas a few years ago... DFAed after the deadline from oakland, went to texas but didnt play, DFAed back to oakland where he played one game and then DFAed back to texas for the rest of the season
There's a guy on the Orioles in spring training, Lewin Diaz. Since the trade deadline last season he has been on 6 teams (Orioles twice since December) because he keeps getting claimed, then waived again a few days later. Quite a few teams wanna give him a shot but don't want him on the 40 man roster. I mean it kinda sucks but I'm sure it's not as bad as no one wanting you and just sitting on the free agent list for a few years.
The big issue with your suggestion is with a release all of the sudden the player doesn't get paid. And needs to find a contract to get paid. At least with hot potato, he's still getting his checks. My opinion for best option..if someone is claimed off waivers, the new team can assign him directly to the minors without him having to clear waivers again. Of course that'll lead to teams snatching up better than mediocre players to prevent them from going to another team. So to curtail some of this, have a limit on number of waiver claims, but have a still penalty for exceeding as opposed to outright banning.
@@Austin101123 but unless you have signed an extension, hit free agency, or get released during an arbitration season (as opposed to during the off season) you are not guaranteed any money under contract.
@@michaellhoover94 Automatic/minimum contracts you aren't due anything, yes. If they are a FA they might be able to get a MiL deal with signing bonus from another team instead of being claimed and waived right away.
Here's my solution. If you claim a player from waivers, you are forced to keep him/her on your 40man until the end of the season including applicable postseason.
Either increase the player salary by 5% each time a player is claimed, or similarly to the rule 5 draft, force the team to keep the claimed player on the major league roster for the entirety of the season.
You should do a video about players that were traded to a team, but never actually played for that team. Recent example would be Kiner-Kalefa (?) of the Yankees/Twins/Rangers.
@Baseball's not Dead - When industries try to fix problems like this, there is usually a "compensation" addition, "penalty" condition, or "consequences" addition to the rule. Let me explain: Compensation addendum - Player is awarded: Claiming team must purchase the player's home, so the selling is finalized and not the responsibility of the player already inundated with moving logistics. And/or player is awarded a bonus payment over and above his contract. I.e. 100,000$ roster bonus. These items would ensure the claiming team does in fact want him. Penalty addendum - Each time the player is claimed, the claiming team must keep him for an increasingly extended period. Example: Fist time waiver, claiming team needs to hold player for 2 weeks. 2Nd claim off waivers, new claiming team needs to hold onto player for an additional 2 weeks (current total now 4) after this has expired, the 3rd claiming team must now hold onto the player for an additional 2 weeks (current new total is 6 weeks) Note: these numbers are purely for example, and the player's association would bargain a more realistic amount Consequence - The player now is afforded a say in the claiming process. Examples: Contract items such as "no trade clauses" and "accrued expenses" are now added onto the process. There are lots more addendums the player's association can bargain for, but you see that as the player gets claimed more often, addendums are added to retain the player's dignity as a human, and to ensure the sincerity of the claim. As I have listed here, the process could have any/all of these added to the process. The down side: Adding deterents, may impact the player's career, as teams wishing to claim him, are now leary and may not pick him up. My thoughts here are for the player to have a say in the process. and/or if the claiming is done too quickly, the club is on the hook for any/a;; expenses including the purchase of homes and moving expenses. Also as I've listed here . . . there is no easy solution :-P BnD - Nice vid bud !!! Keep up the good work !!!
In Soccer players have multi year contracts with clubs, to end one of those you need to buy out the contract, e.g. pay the outstanding wage in one go. Soccer also has transfer windows. A transfer window is a month long period, one in winter dec-jan and one in summper jun-jul where clubs can do transfers. During the season there are no transfers and clubs need to build squads with an expectation of injuries. Note, Soccer teams have reserve teams that function like minor league teams and are usually filled with reserve players and youth players and keep them active and match fit. Players returning from injury often play a few games for the reserves at low intensity before joining the first team. The important consequences is that A) players can only move once per window. To make that move happen you need to sign what is usually a multi year contract or a loan contract for a shorter time. B) players have much more job security, since players have contracts they can't be arbitrarily moved or arbitrarily have their salary reduced. If you want to ensure player's rights, perhaps this is the place to start?
How about when a player is added to the 40 man roster, they are guaranteed 28 days of pay on the 40 man. If they are removed from the 40 man ( via DFA or option ) before the 28 days are up, they are paid the remaining prorated amount immediately on the transaction completion. The clock restarts on each claim. At the player minimum or so, 4 weeks pay is a low enough that it is not really going to effect a team's player movement but if a player gets bounced around in a short amount of time, they will get a nice bump for the year.
Here is how you solve the entire problem...Any player claimed on waivers must stay on the 40 man roster for 90 work days (cba)or the claiming team forfiets their 2 highest draftpicks for the next season, PLUS is barred from signing players in the international market for 2 full seasons!
The solution isn't to screw around further with waiver rules. The solution is to require each and every team involved in such shenanigans to fully compensate the player for every last penny of conceivable expense involved in forcing him and his family to relocate over and over again. They should have to pay for every broken lease or property sale, every cost of packing and unpacking including insurance, every cost of moving including hotel and meal expenses during the interim, every cost of items being placed in storage, every cost of additional items purchased due to not having full access to one's usual property, and most important, every last dollar of damage done to the player's spouse having their own life and job situation repeatedly disrupted. That could run them a lot more than just the 100k someone suggested below and force these teams to be more realistic. Also players like these need to be realistic themselves. There is a reason a famous baseball player was once nicknamed "Suitcase". Until the finally make it and get established, they should expect to be moved around a lot, and strategize their own lifestyle to be as mobile as possible. Or else just ask to stay in the triple A's until they fully develop rather than jump at any opportunity that comes along to be in the show for fifteen minutes.
Simple solution, similar to yours: 1). When a player goes on dfa the team either put him in minors or on waivers 2) if assigned to minors, kept there a minimum of 2 months. All expenses to move paid by the team 3) after such time, if the team decides to put him on waivers, that team will pay for all moving expenses of that player to the new teams area 4) a player picked up on waivers MUST be put on the 40 man roster and will remain on that roster a MINIMUM of three months. After such time, said player will be kept on the roster, sent to minors or put on waivers. The process will be repeated as outlined above as each new waiver pickup is enacted
No one designed this similar to the Rule-5 draft? The MLB radio claimed the option limit of 5, was a good thing. The GM's already got around the option limit. So DFA actually means Odubel Herrera may be in Philly AAA even though he's been pushed off the MLB roster. Thanks for the video.
I think a better idea would be do it like the Rule 5 roster exemption, where they have to keep the player on their major league roster and, if no team claims him, then he goes back to the minor of the original team. Have waivers at every level rather than just the majors, just like how there are minor league rule 5 drafts amongst levels
In the late 1990s the Cardinals tried to send David Bell to Memphis but needed waivers. He passed 28 of the 29 teams but was claimed by Cleveland. The Indians traded him to Seattle before the season was over. Rule 5 Claims have to spend the rest of the year at the Major League level or be offered back to their old club for $25,000.
Seems like the easy solution is just the same as the Rule 5 Draft. If you claim a player he must remain on your 40 man roster for a year, if you remove him he returns to the team and immediately clears waivers for them. Add in paying the player a small fee as another commenter here mentioned, and I think you've got the perfect solution to stop this from happening.
They can also limit the number of waivers a team can use in a season, they would be less likely to use a waiver claim unless they were serious about the player.
This is a great example of the problem of using targeted rules to solve a highly specific case. See tax law for great examples of rules that end up causing more problems than they solve and providing opportunities to game the system. The idea of workshopping new rules for ways they can be used to game the system before they are implemented is incredibly important, and I wish we would think about that more in politics as well.
Yeah I can't imagine this DFA circus happens *that* often. No doubt, it sounds crummy for the guys experiencing it. But I just can't imagine there are many situations where a team waives a player with the hope of keeping him. It reminds me of service time manipulation. Sure, it happens and it affects the future earnings of certain players. But it's usually the Grade A-can't miss prospects. I can't think of a guy who had his service time manipulated that didn't end up signing a massive contract later on. I'm supposed to think it's unfair that Kris Bryant could've had another 10-15 mill from the Cubs when he ended up getting 7 years, 182 mill from the Rockies? We gotta think about the actual factors in play here: if new rules are bargained for in the next CBA regarding service time manipulation, what should the rest of the player's union agree to give up so that the highest tier of players get even more money? It's a negotiation, nobody gets something for nothing. There's already an enormous gap in pay we can't ignore. Why should players earning around the league minimum (the majority) agree to any concessions that would only benefit players likely to earn $25-30 million a year, (the minority)?
The problem is the player is going from major league play time to major league play time so they can't put up stats so when they come up for their first contract negotiation they can't negotiate for money. Every time you put a player on waivers you must pay them $100k. That's the new rule we will instate. That will stop them from randomly fucking people over. Sure that's not a lot compared to other major players, but $100k would help them for the year and their family can survive in one location and not be moving. Let them keep moving players around, that can become a new way to make money. Teams won't balk at $100k and the player will be less pissed they are moving so much if they are paid well for it.
You are given one "free" DFA per year. This player is then put onto a special 41st roster spot. They may play for the team's MLB and Triple A club, but no lower. If the player remains in that roster spot for over a month, they are guaranteed a $1m or whatever their contract has a their 40 man salary, whichever is greater. If a team has a player in the roster spot on July 1st, they can either clear a spot on their 40 man roster for him or release him with a designation that he is guaranteed a spot on a 40 man roster until August 1st. After that time, he can be signed to a minor league deal. Any other player designed as a DFA is guaranteed $100k upon being claimed by a team. If that team places him as a DFA that season (including during spring training), they forfeit their lowest round pick and pay that player an additional $250k. Any team that has forfeited pick(s) this way is assessed a fine of $250k per pick lost.
A bit late but I feel for these players.. feeling like they’ve made it, and yes they have. Even being tossed around in the Majors and even the Minors, you have made it my friend. But there has to be some hardship there… like okay this team doesn’t want me, but this team does I’ve found my home! 2 days later they waive you and you feel the same and go through that cycle more times than 3 is just painful.. not just for the family and the moving situation, but on their mental well-being. These players want a home and 2-5 days isn’t going to cut it. We all have great performances and we all have bad performances. Give these players a true chance and you might just see the great in them
Time frame will cause less players getting picked up on waivers which will cause a lot of guys to be out of the league all together. The less risk by the team creates more opportunity for players who aren’t clearly ready for the MLB. A good possible fix would be two rounds of waivers with a time frame. The first round would be for teams that have the intention of putting him on the roster and must hold to that for X amount of time. If player is not picked up in X time frame then player is free to be picked by any team with the intention of going to the minors. This way it takes a bit of the uncertainty away for the player. It will stop the shuffling without purpose. The player in both scenarios have a higher % of being able to play well and better their position. It’s all about reps and opportunity.
I think an easier way to fix it is to alot each team a certain number of waiver claims each season. That way they need to think long and hard before using the claim, and they won't play these games, using multiple waiver claims on the same player unless they REALLY want him, because someone useful could come along later and you don't have any claims left.
If every team used up their waiver claims then the players would get hurt worse by it. The point of 40 man roster waivers is to let the fringe players have a chance to get to the Show with any team & not let some originations hoard that talent
Of all of the horrible deeds these teams have done to these players, the most cruel thing they've done is made them play for a team called the "Chihuahuas".
The NFL has a rule where if you sign a player from another team's practice squad he has to stay on your active roster for so many weeks. MLB has the Rule 5 Draft where a player selected either has to stay on the 26-man all season or be offered back to the previous team.
The party disadvantaged here is the player not either team. A AAA player averages $70K for the season. Why not pay him handsomely for the inconvenience? Say a $50 K moving bonus - $25 K from his first team for being waived from the 40 man roster and $25 K from the team selecting him. If the new team waives him, he gets another $25 K and so on. Upon the 3rd waiver in one season the player can either take the waiver money or become a minor league free-agent and choose to negotiate with any team. He gets 5 days to explore his options. The Front offices can still play the roster games, but the player is reimbursed for the trouble. It is a big deal for him but a small fee for the team.
I saw the issue as soon as the rule was presented: It doesn't matter what team your going to, you're still having to move. And unless another team has a need, they probably aren't going to pick up the waiver, so you're just going to get passed between 2 teams anyways.
Here's my two cents, if a player is put on waivers, then claimed by another team, who then turns around and DFAs them, within a specific time frame (30 days?) then that player is owed a monetary reward ($10k?) and if the player is then claimed by another team, they get the option to decline. Mind you the rule above would still apply to the new team.
Ok the Tyler situation is absolutely unacceptable. Absolutely ridiculous. There definitely needs to be a rule to stop teams ping ponging players like that
the fix is simple : make teams pay a progressive fine for waiving players (50% goes to the players, 20% to the league and 30% I'll explain right after). the progression should use at least two scaling metrics : the first is "how many different players has the team already waived in the season?" with some leniancy for short term injuries (like the team pay for accomodations of the player until either the injury goes long term and he's kept or the injury heal and he goes back to his previous team), a team with a such big number would have to pay every preceding players a bonus (here comes the 30%) just for their overall bad behaviour (ala luxury tax in NBA) and the second metric would be "how many time did this player got waived?" to reduce such occurences and ensure some stability to the player's life (at least not moving 3 times a years accross thousands of miles).
Addition to that rule if the release the player they still have to pay out his contract or whatever it is for minors and must play in 1 game a week before a team can release them
Once claimed the team who claimed him is responsible for his salary for the entire length of his contract or until traded. So it would count against any salary caps.
Do what the NHL does, if a waiver claim is placed back on waivers within a month the original team can reclaim them and assign them to minors (equivalent to removing from 40 man roster) without using waivers again
DFA - Designate for assignment. Means take off the 40-man roster but aren't 100% sure where he is going to go. In 7 days they must either be traded, released, or assigned to the minors. Waived - To send a player without any options left to the minors, you need to waive them, which is allowing every team in the league to get a shot to put them on their 40-man roster and assume their contract. Options - Number of times a team can send someone down to the minors without DFA/Waiving them. DFA/Waiving are two things that happen together a lot of times, but don't necessarily have to happen together.
The problem is there is little consequence for the teams using the player as a commodity. So the player automatically gets ? $50,000? next move costs $100,000 next move costs $150,000.
If a team claims a player the options should be at a major or minor league level. No drops. No wasting time, resources and lower the carbon emissions. Make the executives and owners sweat and feel the progressive pressure of the next generation to come cos we all deserve to do and be better.
I think an easy solution would be that any DFA player that's picked up must be paid the league minimum on the 40 man and it's money that's immediately put against their cap (which I think its 500k roughly at this point). Teams still run the gamble of loosing their prospects by DFA-ing them, and it would end the whack a mole scenario altogether because any team that picks up a DFA player may as well keep them on their 40 man because that money is already held against them. Its not a perfect solution and would probably hurt prospects in the long run because teams would have to be very choosy. Hell, my A's couldn't even afford to pay a starter 500k, let alone a DFA prospect. But, it's the only thing that really jumps out that both penalizes teams from doing this and giving a benefit to a player having to go through the stress of it.
I have a good idea, I a guy is sent to one team to another, then put on wavers, the team pays the player $250k and the MLB $250k, per reassignment. So dude would make $1million in transfer fees to be bounced back and forth 4 times.
There needs to be some dollar impact. If you pick a player up on waivers, you should be required to pay him for at least one season at the roster level, regardless of if they waive him, even if he ends up in their AAA.
The rule ought to work for the players, so they ought to have a say in the matter. I like the idea of mandatory compensation to players for early DFA, so how about this: Players who are claimed on waivers can't be claimed by the same team through waivers that year, at all (eliminates the stalemate of two teams bouncing players back and forth amongst themselves). Team can't DFA a player within a month, unless the player agrees to take a payout to do it.
im not going to lie, your idea is super "pie in the sky" but it IS the solution. the problem is that a rule that does that would never ever be ratified... its too bad because if such a rule was put into play it might make other leagues rethink their waivers shenanigan's
The real problem is that MLB treats human beings like assets without regard for their lives. It's only possible because MLB has a legal monopoly in the USA. This is because MLB players are not allowed to become free agents until they spend 6 years playing at the major level. It's a form of servitude that exists nowhere else outside the military. The farm system should not be socially acceptable. Big owners make money off even minor league revenues. Those people, the players, aren't cars or tanks or airplanes you can just move around at will. Owners should be responsible for signing a contract and treating players like people. None of this will happen because there is nowhere else for players to turn. The system is rigged and locked down hard.
The issue I see is releasing them means they no longer have a guaranteed contract. And if everyone is trying to get them (for free); just to put them in the minors; outright releasing them may result in a lot more players who would have been still in the MLB system ending up with no contract offers and the end of their season; with the likely possibility that if only 1-3 teams is willing to take them FOR FREE just to put them in the minors and hope they clear waivers; it’s highly likely 0-0 teams will be willing to sign a contract with that player. I don’t think the player(s) (who are among the most superstitious athletes in sports) will see this potential of being an unsigned and knowingly not sought after player; will scare all those players into thinking they will not get resigned and their career will be over. I know for a fact they’d rather move 10X in a month than risk that proposition.
hmmm, maybe: the team claiming a player does have to (mandatory) deposit 1/12th of his salary in an account that is not refundable (Include a moving fee as well) . They waiver their right to him playing for them, the player keep the deposit and is free to look for other "employment"... if another team claim him and repeat the process, well, in a few days he got 2 or more 1/12th of his annual...
For those of you that don't know. in 2022 the minimum salary for being on the 40 man roster was 700,000. This is why it is a big deal (among many other things to be added to the 40 man roster), and why teams don't always use all 40 of their 40 man roster spots to protect players prior to the rule 5 draft, (because they make a lot less on a minor league contract). If a player is claimed on waivers the new teams assumes their salary, and in a case like Kyle Tyler has to add them to their 40 man roster. If a team places a player on waivers and he is not claimed they owe him his whole contract since MLB/40 man contracts are guaranteed. In the video the question was asked about relocated for your job several times in a short period, and done in a very deceptive and dishonest way. So let me ask the question in an intellectually honest way. The team pays for your travel expenses (not moving, travel), would you have an issue relocating as this man did 5 times in three weeks with no say from you for 700k/year. Keep in mind that he didn't have to relocate 5 times EVERY three weeks. Just 5 times in one three week period, and perhaps a couple more throughout the year?
This is really ridiculous and I feel bad for these guys. Your theory is good but I’d also suggest a monetary punishment as well that would make teams stop
How about something where if the original team claims him, then they need to keep on the 40 man roster? Or, after 2 DFA the player can choose to be released and a free agent. Or a player claimed from the DFA should get paid a type of signing bonus of some kind.
Yes but if he's released there's no guarantee he'll be able to sign a new contract. Even if he's guaranteed a pay out, having a contract is much more valuable
no player should be treated like this PERIOD! they should either keep him like stated for at least 30 days and then release him as a free agent and not shuffled him around for no obvious reason.
Only problem I see with your rule is that if a player is outright released because the team has no other option, it's possible he would never get another contract.
I agree with your ruling, except, rather than a team being able to waiver a player after one month, he should remain with the team for the rest of that season. You brought up a good point. Being "bounced around the country like a pinball machine" is fine for me, I'm single. But, it's "cruel" to expect that of a player who has a wife and with kids in school!
Players go through waivers once per season. Once every team has had a chance, they get outright released. A claiming team can still dfa but not reclaim them again, if every other team passes, the player is outright released to choose where to go. The point of the waiver process is to help bad teams get better (worst teams get first crack on the waiver wire). This still works for good players and if ones not good enough for your 40 man, this has been accomplished and the player now has the choice. Like they said, identify the problem.
"sign a contract with any team" - but isn't that the thing, teams don't want him on their roster? Perhaps MLB an have a two-tiered roster, 40 men for the team and 100 men for the system. But then this same issue will come up for their 101st man.
The problem with your analogy is that it rarely....IF EVER....works that way. You can't name one single player who has been waived, uprooted his family, secured new housing, moved all his worldly possessions + dependents to a new major league city....THEN....within a few short days, been waived again, picked up again by a different club, and had to uproot his family, secure new housing, move all his worldly possessions + dependents to a different new major league city. In short, THAT AIN'T HOW IT HAPPENS. Professional baseball players know the system they are in. They all knew full well how disruptive this business can be with respect to relocating their family. That's why when mid-season moves are made, players routinely arrange for their spouses and children to remain in place at their original location until the off season when they have more certainty as to where they will end up next year. Without even checking, I can guarantee you that Tyler's wife and family (if any) absolutely 100% STAYED PUT throughout all that ping-ponging around between LA, Boston, SD, El Paso, etc., etc. etc. There is no way this side of China they accompanied him on each of those moves. Did....Not....Happen. Now that has nothing to do with the inconvenience and uncertainty that derives from bouncing a player around like this. And just from a simple "respect" perspective, it would be a good idea to put some kind of restrictions on this kind of movement. But that nonsense about uprooting the family and packing and repacking all your stuff? Absolute non-issue because that absolutely does NOT happen the way you described in the video.
Potential fix: - Team A waives player for the purposes of assigning to minor leagues. - Team B wants to claim player put on waivers by Team A. Team B must declare if the claimed player is to be placed on the MLB roster, or is destined for their minor league club. If Team B declares MLB roster, the player must be placed on the active roster for a minimum of 30-days. If Team B declares minor league, the player is left on waivers until the waiver time has elapsed, or either of the following occurs: - Team C claims player for MLB roster, thus overruling the initial claim by Team B. - No other team places a claim on the player, therefore allowing Team B to place claimed player on their minor league roster immediately. - Team A retracts their own waive and is allowed to place player on their minor league roster immediately without having to pass thru waivers a second time, as long as another team has not claimed the player for the MLB roster, but the retraction must be done before the end of the waiver window. Overall, a claim for MLB roster takes the priority. If it's a battle of who wants this player in their minor league system, the waiving team is the deciding factor. Should the waiving team allow the player to be claimed (waiver time elapses), the first claiming team gets the player's rights and they get put in the minor league system as intended, without all the back and forth of the waiver system. More stability for the player and more control to the team with his rights. I'd imagine in most scenarios, a player being DFA to the minors would most likely be kept by the team they're currently on, but this at least allows other teams a chance to grab the player in the event that the current team has no real interest in keeping him.
Easy fix. If the team picks up a player on waivers then if they place him on waivers they pay him 100000 and the same with the next and the next. If you make it financially painful they will stop.
DFA first time $ 10,000 compansation. DFA from the next team with in a year $100,000 moving expense . 3 or more times within a year $333,333 moving expense.
I guess that’s the job. I would be concerned but they make more then 100,000 a year. When you make 50 k a year and you get laid off no one cares and no one changes rules and laws.
What about if a player is DFA'd, goes to another team, that team can't DFA them. If they do, the player then returns to the original team that DFA'd him albeit within their minor system, not on the 40 man. Kinda like how Rule 5 picks are treated.
If you claim a player and DFA them within a certain timeframe, the player receives 100k payout from the team that dfa’d them. Problem solved. Not significant enough to harm the baseball economy but significant enough to cut down on this nonsense.
Also enough to cover the struggle of moving across the country at the drop of a hat for the player.
I think it is easier to just isse each team a certain number of waiver claims each season so they need to conserve them incase someone comes along they really want
That's a good idea I don't think 100K is enough of a fine to deter teams from doing it
@@chrisreddick7783 I know I'd move across the country for a few weeks if I got paid $100k for the trouble. Maybe not enough money to make a millionaire baseball player feel like he's been properly compensated, but if you're getting paid a lower (even minor-league) salary, that's good money.
@@chrisreddick7783 but for a player that this happens to, that's enough to justify them
As an Angels fan, I saw Tyler getting bounced back and forth and thought that was strange, but didn't realize the extent of how he'd been shuffled around. Putting a monthlong cooldown on waiver claims seems to be a pretty neat fix, but I wonder if the players themselves couldn't be granted some form of autonomy, perhaps being able to waive (sorry) that cooldown themselves if they think that they could persuade another team to take them on the 40-man and actually play.
I kinda like them being able to waive the cooldown themselves, but since these are usually young players that are viewed as fringe roster guys, there could be an issue of a player doing that causing teams to not want him more and getting him labeled a "rock the boat" guy. There's very little leverage for players like that.
Update: Kyle Tyler was optioned back to AAA El Paso on 4/15. He remains on the Padres 40-man roster for now. As of 4/16, he has still not thrown a pitch in the majors or minors this season and didn't appear in any Spring Training games for the Angles, Red Sox, or Padres.
Update 2: Tyler stayed in AAA El Paso while on the Padres 40-man until June 9th where he cleared waivers. He was then put back on the 40-man on June 12th and called up to the MLB roster. He pitched in two games and then was sent back down to AAA June 17th. He was then DFA'd on July 3rd and released on July 6th. He then signed a minor league contract with the Giants on July 13th and sent to AAA. He was released by the Giants on August 7th.
On July 16, 2022, Tyler signed a minor league deal with the San Francisco Giants. He was released on August 7.
I'm sorry but this new idea does not solve the problem, like at all. All you have done is change the loop. Instead of "Waivers, minors, new team" and repeat, the pattern is now "Waivers, minors, new team, jobless, maybe new team?" Yup, new rule will make it harder for a Kyle Tyler to even have a job. You know what's worse than uprooting a person and his family multiple times in a month? Uprooting a person and their family by having no income at all. Yeah I'm sure they still receive like half of the salary of that year's contract and smaller percentages of each year after, but by all means convince yourself you'd be ok with taking only half of the money you get from your videos. That's how stupid this idea is because you would never take only half. You're literally the three guys talking to Billy Bean but with even less of an idea of the problem.
Here's the REAL problem: The intent of picking up a guy off waivers is to use him in the majors, even if for the sole purpose of "I need a backup." They found waivers as a loophole to take a guy with a MAJOR LEAGUE CONTRACT and trying to MAKE HIM A MINOR LEAGUER! You said it best yourself: "They no longer want them on their 40 man roster." You said this every single time in every single example with both guys. It's the only constant before moving to a new team. That's how I know this is the problem. Now what's the fix you may ask? Well that's the simple part actually:
You just picked up a guy for nothing but his contract. You didn't have to fork over additional money or other players or future draft picks. If you need a guy that badly you're willing to go to waived players, you shouldn't be allowed to waive them, and if you choose to release them, you immediately pay out the entirety of their contract on the spot if there is no good reason.
My idea in full is that for the rest of that year, if a player is picked up from waivers, he cannot be re-waived, EVEN IF TRADED!! If released during a year he was waived, reason must be legally required as to why he was released. If no reason is given (because it's likely a shit reason in the first place) his entire contract must be immediately paid out to that player.
Yeah this is incredibly strict. Yes it could be very costly to an owner. I can't stress this enough though, so I'm going to caps it... IT WILL ONLY AFFECT TEAMS WHO WISH TO BEND THE RULES IN THEIR FAVOR AND ABUSE A PLAYER'S CONTRACT!! If a team legit wants a player to use in the majors, this rule will never bother them. They will grab somebody and put them on the team and use them like any other player. And hey, if he ends up being disruptive or actually not performing up to standards, you can give out your valid reason, and you don't have to pay out the full contract.
P.S.: Why am I not making baseball videos? If I can come up with a better idea in 30 minutes than the video maker, why not start right? I mean I had a great idea in 30 minutes, and you must have taken what... a week or two to make this video? Yeah I can definitely do it better.
@@TehGamesaver If you wrote all that at 5PM on Thanksgiving, maybe you should be making videos.
@@BaseballsNotDead If i write this at 5:30 AM the day after thanksgiving all I want to say is Dark Turkey>Ham all day
I swear I saw it say Kyle Tucker
Player receives financial compensation if waived in a certain window of time (the same way a severance package works if you're laid off in the corporate world).
simple fix, picking up a player on waivers automatically causes a contract renegotiation. it'll cut down on this a lot if every time it happens, one team has to pay out for the rest of the old contract, and the other has to cough up a signing bonus.
In the NHL if a player is claimed on waivers and then his new team waives him within 30 days, his old team has first dibs at claiming him and can send him down to the minors without waivers. It seems like a no-brainer for the MLB to do the same thing
The major problem I see here is collusion between teams. I'm just getting back into the NHL, so I don't know if it's an issue or how big, but we could just have the Nottingham thing all over again.
@@HistorysRaven it’s not and the AHL and ECHL aren’t run like cattle ranches like the MLB. If players in the minors got paid more or had stronger 2way deals like the NHL, MLB teams wouldn’t be able to cheese the money.
@@HistorysRaven the thing is, with the Nottingham thing it could have kept going, in the nhl ruling it stops at 1 bounce back.
The only issue with that is the MLB rule has a rule to limit how many times a player can optioned. That could circumvent that
@@HistorysRaven it’s not an issue in the nhl. The original team has all of the leverage and now teams only make waiver claims if they want the player on their big league roster
The downside to what you've suggested seems to me would be if a player gets released he may find himself simply out of a job. If he cannot find a club with a need for his specific skill set. Even more importantly, from a team's perspective, a place to put him on their roster. Every last spot is precious and so limited. He may end up having to sign a minor league contract just to stay close to the show.
I think a better solution would some sort of monetary penalty where the money ends up with the player.
For example, if you place a player on waivers within the first 10 days it cost you 200k. 10-20 days 100k, 20-30 day 50k, and maybe 30-90 days 25k.
Something like that
Something similar to the Rule 5 draft should be implemented. If a team claims someone off waivers that player should be added to the 40-man roster and can’t be DFAd or optioned unless they are active for a minimum amount of time
There's something we can look to already in the Rule 5 draft, where picks cost the picking team money, and if that team attempts to remove their drafted player from the 26-man roster, the player must be offered back to the original team, also at a cost. I wonder if a escalating scale of DFA waiver claim costs, where each successive claim after the first in a season costs a multiple more than a base fee, would remove this flippancy with players' lives and livelihoods.
Not a bad idea there.
And the fee should specifically go to the player.
I came here to comment the same thing, the rule 5 draft type rule implemented would stop teams from taking someone with the plan of dropping them off the 40 man since they would lose the player to the first team. Problem is would the other team need them to clear wavers again since they have no room on the 40 for them.
@@kevin1153 I’m pretty sure claimed already cost 47K
So... perhaps a Rule-5 type of addendum to the Nottingham rule, where if a player is claimed to the 40-man roster, they cannot waive him for the remainder of the season (30 days is too short).
- You could still allow for optioning if they have remaining options.
- Or... you could have one where a player can be waived as many times as teams want... for one day in the season (with the rest of the rules applying afterward). E.g. Player gets waived by the Red Sox, picked up by the Padres, waived to the minors, picked up by the Angels, waived, and picked up by the Braves, and waived (this is an addendum to the Nottingham rule, so a team couldn't pick him up again if they waived -- to prevent an infinite loop of waiving players)... after the day is over, the player knows which organization he will be with until the end of the season, and pack accordingly.
- In both scenarios, if a team does decide they really want to get rid of him off their roster at that point, they can release him (and try and re-sign him to a Minor League contract, but that's up to the player at that point, so, no need to add anything further), and he'll be a free agent.
- Perhaps we could limit how many times a player is traded while we're at it.
Casper Wells in 2013.
Mariners - DFA (picked up)
Blue Jays - DFA, then Traded
Oakland - DFA, then Traded
White Sox - Waived.
Phillies - End of Season, Outrighted, Signed to another team.
Cubs (is where his 2013 calendar year ended)...
4:46 Another possibility: if you claim a guy off waivers, and you try to put him back on waivers, you have to pay the player *double* that player's reasonable relocation expenses
happened to adam rosales between oakland and texas a few years ago... DFAed after the deadline from oakland, went to texas but didnt play, DFAed back to oakland where he played one game and then DFAed back to texas for the rest of the season
There's a guy on the Orioles in spring training, Lewin Diaz. Since the trade deadline last season he has been on 6 teams (Orioles twice since December) because he keeps getting claimed, then waived again a few days later. Quite a few teams wanna give him a shot but don't want him on the 40 man roster. I mean it kinda sucks but I'm sure it's not as bad as no one wanting you and just sitting on the free agent list for a few years.
This is one of the best videos on baseball and its underlying economics that I've ever seen. Thanks for putting in the time.
Glad you liked it!
The big issue with your suggestion is with a release all of the sudden the player doesn't get paid. And needs to find a contract to get paid. At least with hot potato, he's still getting his checks. My opinion for best option..if someone is claimed off waivers, the new team can assign him directly to the minors without him having to clear waivers again. Of course that'll lead to teams snatching up better than mediocre players to prevent them from going to another team. So to curtail some of this, have a limit on number of waiver claims, but have a still penalty for exceeding as opposed to outright banning.
You are due the entire amount of the contract if you get released.
@@Austin101123 but unless you have signed an extension, hit free agency, or get released during an arbitration season (as opposed to during the off season) you are not guaranteed any money under contract.
@@michaellhoover94 Automatic/minimum contracts you aren't due anything, yes. If they are a FA they might be able to get a MiL deal with signing bonus from another team instead of being claimed and waived right away.
Here's my solution. If you claim a player from waivers, you are forced to keep him/her on your 40man until the end of the season including applicable postseason.
It's like musical chairs to the chicken dance.
How bout after he’s waived the 3rd time. He becomes a free agent.
Teams should have to write a 500 word essay on why they want this player each time they reclaim him.
Either increase the player salary by 5% each time a player is claimed, or similarly to the rule 5 draft, force the team to keep the claimed player on the major league roster for the entirety of the season.
You should do a video about players that were traded to a team, but never actually played for that team. Recent example would be Kiner-Kalefa (?) of the Yankees/Twins/Rangers.
@Baseball's not Dead - When industries try to fix problems like this, there is usually a "compensation" addition, "penalty" condition, or "consequences" addition to the rule.
Let me explain:
Compensation addendum - Player is awarded: Claiming team must purchase the player's home, so the selling is finalized and not the responsibility of the player already inundated with moving logistics. And/or player is awarded a bonus payment over and above his contract. I.e. 100,000$ roster bonus.
These items would ensure the claiming team does in fact want him.
Penalty addendum - Each time the player is claimed, the claiming team must keep him for an increasingly extended period.
Example: Fist time waiver, claiming team needs to hold player for 2 weeks. 2Nd claim off waivers, new claiming team needs to hold onto player for an additional 2 weeks (current total now 4)
after this has expired, the 3rd claiming team must now hold onto the player for an additional 2 weeks (current new total is 6 weeks)
Note: these numbers are purely for example, and the player's association would bargain a more realistic amount
Consequence - The player now is afforded a say in the claiming process.
Examples: Contract items such as "no trade clauses" and "accrued expenses" are now added onto the process. There are lots more addendums the player's association can bargain for, but you see that as the player gets claimed more often, addendums are added to retain the player's dignity as a human, and to ensure the sincerity of the claim.
As I have listed here, the process could have any/all of these added to the process.
The down side: Adding deterents, may impact the player's career, as teams wishing to claim him, are now leary and may not pick him up.
My thoughts here are for the player to have a say in the process. and/or if the claiming is done too quickly, the club is on the hook for any/a;; expenses including the purchase of homes and moving expenses.
Also as I've listed here . . . there is no easy solution :-P
BnD - Nice vid bud !!! Keep up the good work !!!
The downside to your suggestion is now you have players bouncing from Home Depot or McDonalds to the MLB
In Soccer players have multi year contracts with clubs, to end one of those you need to buy out the contract, e.g. pay the outstanding wage in one go. Soccer also has transfer windows. A transfer window is a month long period, one in winter dec-jan and one in summper jun-jul where clubs can do transfers. During the season there are no transfers and clubs need to build squads with an expectation of injuries. Note, Soccer teams have reserve teams that function like minor league teams and are usually filled with reserve players and youth players and keep them active and match fit. Players returning from injury often play a few games for the reserves at low intensity before joining the first team.
The important consequences is that A) players can only move once per window. To make that move happen you need to sign what is usually a multi year contract or a loan contract for a shorter time. B) players have much more job security, since players have contracts they can't be arbitrarily moved or arbitrarily have their salary reduced.
If you want to ensure player's rights, perhaps this is the place to start?
Trust me: the baseball players union has ZERO interest in going back to the reserve system, or anything like it.
@@teebob21 All it takes is one American Bosman to sue and the system can change.
Simple: Clubs have to give each player $100,000 every time they're waived OR signed...
How about when a player is added to the 40 man roster, they are guaranteed 28 days of pay on the 40 man. If they are removed from the 40 man ( via DFA or option ) before the 28 days are up, they are paid the remaining prorated amount immediately on the transaction completion. The clock restarts on each claim.
At the player minimum or so, 4 weeks pay is a low enough that it is not really going to effect a team's player movement but if a player gets bounced around in a short amount of time, they will get a nice bump for the year.
Here is how you solve the entire problem...Any player claimed on waivers must stay on the 40 man roster for 90 work days (cba)or the claiming team forfiets their 2 highest draftpicks for the next season, PLUS is barred from signing players in the international market for 2 full seasons!
The solution isn't to screw around further with waiver rules. The solution is to require each and every team involved in such shenanigans to fully compensate the player for every last penny of conceivable expense involved in forcing him and his family to relocate over and over again. They should have to pay for every broken lease or property sale, every cost of packing and unpacking including insurance, every cost of moving including hotel and meal expenses during the interim, every cost of items being placed in storage, every cost of additional items purchased due to not having full access to one's usual property, and most important, every last dollar of damage done to the player's spouse having their own life and job situation repeatedly disrupted. That could run them a lot more than just the 100k someone suggested below and force these teams to be more realistic. Also players like these need to be realistic themselves. There is a reason a famous baseball player was once nicknamed "Suitcase". Until the finally make it and get established, they should expect to be moved around a lot, and strategize their own lifestyle to be as mobile as possible. Or else just ask to stay in the triple A's until they fully develop rather than jump at any opportunity that comes along to be in the show for fifteen minutes.
Oh wow, it’s so weird how corporate America treats people as if they have no inherent value beyond their potential to add shareholder profit…
Simple solution, similar to yours:
1). When a player goes on dfa the team either put him in minors or on waivers
2) if assigned to minors, kept there a minimum of 2 months. All expenses to move paid by the team
3) after such time, if the team decides to put him on waivers, that team will pay for all moving expenses of that player to the new teams area
4) a player picked up on waivers MUST be put on the 40 man roster and will remain on that roster a MINIMUM of three months. After such time, said player will be kept on the roster, sent to minors or put on waivers.
The process will be repeated as outlined above as each new waiver pickup is enacted
No one designed this similar to the Rule-5 draft? The MLB radio claimed the option limit of 5, was a good thing.
The GM's already got around the option limit. So DFA actually means Odubel Herrera may be in Philly AAA even though he's been pushed off the MLB roster. Thanks for the video.
I think a better idea would be do it like the Rule 5 roster exemption, where they have to keep the player on their major league roster and, if no team claims him, then he goes back to the minor of the original team. Have waivers at every level rather than just the majors, just like how there are minor league rule 5 drafts amongst levels
In the late 1990s the Cardinals tried to send David Bell to Memphis but needed waivers. He passed 28 of the 29 teams but was claimed by Cleveland. The Indians traded him to Seattle before the season was over.
Rule 5 Claims have to spend the rest of the year at the Major League level or be offered back to their old club for $25,000.
Seems like the easy solution is just the same as the Rule 5 Draft. If you claim a player he must remain on your 40 man roster for a year, if you remove him he returns to the team and immediately clears waivers for them. Add in paying the player a small fee as another commenter here mentioned, and I think you've got the perfect solution to stop this from happening.
They can also limit the number of waivers a team can use in a season, they would be less likely to use a waiver claim unless they were serious about the player.
This is a great example of the problem of using targeted rules to solve a highly specific case. See tax law for great examples of rules that end up causing more problems than they solve and providing opportunities to game the system. The idea of workshopping new rules for ways they can be used to game the system before they are implemented is incredibly important, and I wish we would think about that more in politics as well.
Yeah I can't imagine this DFA circus happens *that* often. No doubt, it sounds crummy for the guys experiencing it. But I just can't imagine there are many situations where a team waives a player with the hope of keeping him.
It reminds me of service time manipulation. Sure, it happens and it affects the future earnings of certain players. But it's usually the Grade A-can't miss prospects. I can't think of a guy who had his service time manipulated that didn't end up signing a massive contract later on. I'm supposed to think it's unfair that Kris Bryant could've had another 10-15 mill from the Cubs when he ended up getting 7 years, 182 mill from the Rockies?
We gotta think about the actual factors in play here: if new rules are bargained for in the next CBA regarding service time manipulation, what should the rest of the player's union agree to give up so that the highest tier of players get even more money? It's a negotiation, nobody gets something for nothing. There's already an enormous gap in pay we can't ignore. Why should players earning around the league minimum (the majority) agree to any concessions that would only benefit players likely to earn $25-30 million a year, (the minority)?
Not to mention the Brewers, some 50 years ago, started as the Seattle Pilots....suspect lol
The problem is the player is going from major league play time to major league play time so they can't put up stats so when they come up for their first contract negotiation they can't negotiate for money.
Every time you put a player on waivers you must pay them $100k. That's the new rule we will instate. That will stop them from randomly fucking people over. Sure that's not a lot compared to other major players, but $100k would help them for the year and their family can survive in one location and not be moving. Let them keep moving players around, that can become a new way to make money. Teams won't balk at $100k and the player will be less pissed they are moving so much if they are paid well for it.
You are given one "free" DFA per year. This player is then put onto a special 41st roster spot. They may play for the team's MLB and Triple A club, but no lower. If the player remains in that roster spot for over a month, they are guaranteed a $1m or whatever their contract has a their 40 man salary, whichever is greater. If a team has a player in the roster spot on July 1st, they can either clear a spot on their 40 man roster for him or release him with a designation that he is guaranteed a spot on a 40 man roster until August 1st. After that time, he can be signed to a minor league deal.
Any other player designed as a DFA is guaranteed $100k upon being claimed by a team. If that team places him as a DFA that season (including during spring training), they forfeit their lowest round pick and pay that player an additional $250k. Any team that has forfeited pick(s) this way is assessed a fine of $250k per pick lost.
A bit late but I feel for these players.. feeling like they’ve made it, and yes they have. Even being tossed around in the Majors and even the Minors, you have made it my friend. But there has to be some hardship there… like okay this team doesn’t want me, but this team does I’ve found my home! 2 days later they waive you and you feel the same and go through that cycle more times than 3 is just painful.. not just for the family and the moving situation, but on their mental well-being. These players want a home and 2-5 days isn’t going to cut it. We all have great performances and we all have bad performances. Give these players a true chance and you might just see the great in them
any team tells me I'm going to go play for the chihuahuas...I might just have to retire lol
Time frame will cause less players getting picked up on waivers which will cause a lot of guys to be out of the league all together. The less risk by the team creates more opportunity for players who aren’t clearly ready for the MLB. A good possible fix would be two rounds of waivers with a time frame. The first round would be for teams that have the intention of putting him on the roster and must hold to that for X amount of time. If player is not picked up in X time frame then player is free to be picked by any team with the intention of going to the minors. This way it takes a bit of the uncertainty away for the player. It will stop the shuffling without purpose. The player in both scenarios have a higher % of being able to play well and better their position. It’s all about reps and opportunity.
I think an easier way to fix it is to alot each team a certain number of waiver claims each season. That way they need to think long and hard before using the claim, and they won't play these games, using multiple waiver claims on the same player unless they REALLY want him, because someone useful could come along later and you don't have any claims left.
If every team used up their waiver claims then the players would get hurt worse by it. The point of 40 man roster waivers is to let the fringe players have a chance to get to the Show with any team & not let some originations hoard that talent
How about teams also have to pay a signing bonus every time they pick up a player like this.
Of all of the horrible deeds these teams have done to these players, the most cruel thing they've done is made them play for a team called the "Chihuahuas".
As someone who isn’t very knowledgeable on the rules of baseball, I was watching this whole thing thinking “this is bullshit for the player”
The NFL has a rule where if you sign a player from another team's practice squad he has to stay on your active roster for so many weeks.
MLB has the Rule 5 Draft where a player selected either has to stay on the 26-man all season or be offered back to the previous team.
The party disadvantaged here is the player not either team. A AAA player averages $70K for the season. Why not pay him handsomely for the inconvenience? Say a $50 K moving bonus - $25 K from his first team for being waived from the 40 man roster and $25 K from the team selecting him. If the new team waives him, he gets another $25 K and so on. Upon the 3rd waiver in one season the player can either take the waiver money or become a minor league free-agent and choose to negotiate with any team. He gets 5 days to explore his options. The Front offices can still play the roster games, but the player is reimbursed for the trouble. It is a big deal for him but a small fee for the team.
I saw the issue as soon as the rule was presented: It doesn't matter what team your going to, you're still having to move. And unless another team has a need, they probably aren't going to pick up the waiver, so you're just going to get passed between 2 teams anyways.
Kyle Tyler is a relatively good pitcher too, pitching in 7 games in the bigs, with a sub 2.5 era.
Here's my two cents, if a player is put on waivers, then claimed by another team, who then turns around and DFAs them, within a specific time frame (30 days?) then that player is owed a monetary reward ($10k?) and if the player is then claimed by another team, they get the option to decline. Mind you the rule above would still apply to the new team.
Ok the Tyler situation is absolutely unacceptable. Absolutely ridiculous. There definitely needs to be a rule to stop teams ping ponging players like that
the fix is simple : make teams pay a progressive fine for waiving players (50% goes to the players, 20% to the league and 30% I'll explain right after). the progression should use at least two scaling metrics : the first is "how many different players has the team already waived in the season?" with some leniancy for short term injuries (like the team pay for accomodations of the player until either the injury goes long term and he's kept or the injury heal and he goes back to his previous team), a team with a such big number would have to pay every preceding players a bonus (here comes the 30%) just for their overall bad behaviour (ala luxury tax in NBA) and the second metric would be "how many time did this player got waived?" to reduce such occurences and ensure some stability to the player's life (at least not moving 3 times a years accross thousands of miles).
This is why many baseball players live in hotels.
Addition to that rule if the release the player they still have to pay out his contract or whatever it is for minors and must play in 1 game a week before a team can release them
Once claimed the team who claimed him is responsible for his salary for the entire length of his contract or until traded. So it would count against any salary caps.
The consequence should be for placing a player on waivers at all... not on placing them on waivers only AFTER picking them up from waivers.
Do what the NHL does, if a waiver claim is placed back on waivers within a month the original team can reclaim them and assign them to minors (equivalent to removing from 40 man roster) without using waivers again
Can someone explain to me what waivers and DFA are?
DFA - Designate for assignment. Means take off the 40-man roster but aren't 100% sure where he is going to go. In 7 days they must either be traded, released, or assigned to the minors.
Waived - To send a player without any options left to the minors, you need to waive them, which is allowing every team in the league to get a shot to put them on their 40-man roster and assume their contract.
Options - Number of times a team can send someone down to the minors without DFA/Waiving them.
DFA/Waiving are two things that happen together a lot of times, but don't necessarily have to happen together.
Yeah, that happened to me. I kept getting DFAed in Little League. I hate that.
The problem is there is little consequence for the teams using the player as a commodity. So the player automatically gets ? $50,000? next move costs $100,000 next move costs $150,000.
If a team claims a player the options should be at a major or minor league level. No drops. No wasting time, resources and lower the carbon emissions. Make the executives and owners sweat and feel the progressive pressure of the next generation to come cos we all deserve to do and be better.
I think an easy solution would be that any DFA player that's picked up must be paid the league minimum on the 40 man and it's money that's immediately put against their cap (which I think its 500k roughly at this point).
Teams still run the gamble of loosing their prospects by DFA-ing them, and it would end the whack a mole scenario altogether because any team that picks up a DFA player may as well keep them on their 40 man because that money is already held against them.
Its not a perfect solution and would probably hurt prospects in the long run because teams would have to be very choosy. Hell, my A's couldn't even afford to pay a starter 500k, let alone a DFA prospect. But, it's the only thing that really jumps out that both penalizes teams from doing this and giving a benefit to a player having to go through the stress of it.
I have a good idea, I a guy is sent to one team to another, then put on wavers, the team pays the player $250k and the MLB $250k, per reassignment. So dude would make $1million in transfer fees to be bounced back and forth 4 times.
There needs to be some dollar impact. If you pick a player up on waivers, you should be required to pay him for at least one season at the roster level, regardless of if they waive him, even if he ends up in their AAA.
The rule ought to work for the players, so they ought to have a say in the matter. I like the idea of mandatory compensation to players for early DFA, so how about this: Players who are claimed on waivers can't be claimed by the same team through waivers that year, at all (eliminates the stalemate of two teams bouncing players back and forth amongst themselves). Team can't DFA a player within a month, unless the player agrees to take a payout to do it.
im not going to lie, your idea is super "pie in the sky" but it IS the solution. the problem is that a rule that does that would never ever be ratified... its too bad because if such a rule was put into play it might make other leagues rethink their waivers shenanigan's
The real problem is that MLB treats human beings like assets without regard for their lives. It's only possible because MLB has a legal monopoly in the USA. This is because MLB players are not allowed to become free agents until they spend 6 years playing at the major level. It's a form of servitude that exists nowhere else outside the military. The farm system should not be socially acceptable. Big owners make money off even minor league revenues. Those people, the players, aren't cars or tanks or airplanes you can just move around at will. Owners should be responsible for signing a contract and treating players like people.
None of this will happen because there is nowhere else for players to turn. The system is rigged and locked down hard.
The issue I see is releasing them means they no longer have a guaranteed contract. And if everyone is trying to get them (for free); just to put them in the minors; outright releasing them may result in a lot more players who would have been still in the MLB system ending up with no contract offers and the end of their season; with the likely possibility that if only 1-3 teams is willing to take them FOR FREE just to put them in the minors and hope they clear waivers; it’s highly likely 0-0 teams will be willing to sign a contract with that player. I don’t think the player(s) (who are among the most superstitious athletes in sports) will see this potential of being an unsigned and knowingly not sought after player; will scare all those players into thinking they will not get resigned and their career will be over. I know for a fact they’d rather move 10X in a month than risk that proposition.
hmmm, maybe: the team claiming a player does have to (mandatory) deposit 1/12th of his salary in an account that is not refundable (Include a moving fee as well) . They waiver their right to him playing for them, the player keep the deposit and is free to look for other "employment"... if another team claim him and repeat the process, well, in a few days he got 2 or more 1/12th of his annual...
For those of you that don't know. in 2022 the minimum salary for being on the 40 man roster was 700,000. This is why it is a big deal (among many other things to be added to the 40 man roster), and why teams don't always use all 40 of their 40 man roster spots to protect players prior to the rule 5 draft, (because they make a lot less on a minor league contract). If a player is claimed on waivers the new teams assumes their salary, and in a case like Kyle Tyler has to add them to their 40 man roster. If a team places a player on waivers and he is not claimed they owe him his whole contract since MLB/40 man contracts are guaranteed. In the video the question was asked about relocated for your job several times in a short period, and done in a very deceptive and dishonest way. So let me ask the question in an intellectually honest way. The team pays for your travel expenses (not moving, travel), would you have an issue relocating as this man did 5 times in three weeks with no say from you for 700k/year. Keep in mind that he didn't have to relocate 5 times EVERY three weeks. Just 5 times in one three week period, and perhaps a couple more throughout the year?
Total sense and we’ll said.
This is really ridiculous and I feel bad for these guys. Your theory is good but I’d also suggest a monetary punishment as well that would make teams stop
It seems ill advised to move your family in a sport where you change teams frequently.
How about something where if the original team claims him, then they need to keep on the 40 man roster?
Or, after 2 DFA the player can choose to be released and a free agent.
Or a player claimed from the DFA should get paid a type of signing bonus of some kind.
You should only be allowed to be waived 2 times in a season, with a cooldown after 82 games
Yes but if he's released there's no guarantee he'll be able to sign a new contract. Even if he's guaranteed a pay out, having a contract is much more valuable
no player should be treated like this PERIOD! they should either keep him like stated for at least 30 days and then release him as a free agent and not shuffled him around for no obvious reason.
Only problem I see with your rule is that if a player is outright released because the team has no other option, it's possible he would never get another contract.
I agree with your ruling, except, rather than a team being able to waiver a player after one month, he should remain with the team for the rest of that season. You brought up a good point. Being "bounced around the country like a pinball machine" is fine for me, I'm single. But, it's "cruel" to expect that of a player who has a wife and with kids in school!
Players go through waivers once per season. Once every team has had a chance, they get outright released.
A claiming team can still dfa but not reclaim them again, if every other team passes, the player is outright released to choose where to go.
The point of the waiver process is to help bad teams get better (worst teams get first crack on the waiver wire). This still works for good players and if ones not good enough for your 40 man, this has been accomplished and the player now has the choice.
Like they said, identify the problem.
"sign a contract with any team" - but isn't that the thing, teams don't want him on their roster?
Perhaps MLB an have a two-tiered roster, 40 men for the team and 100 men for the system. But then this same issue will come up for their 101st man.
Take a page from hockey and if you lose a guy on waivers you pay half his salary
Does that really solve the problem of a team wanting the player but not on their 40 man roster?
The problem with your analogy is that it rarely....IF EVER....works that way. You can't name one single player who has been waived, uprooted his family, secured new housing, moved all his worldly possessions + dependents to a new major league city....THEN....within a few short days, been waived again, picked up again by a different club, and had to uproot his family, secure new housing, move all his worldly possessions + dependents to a different new major league city. In short, THAT AIN'T HOW IT HAPPENS. Professional baseball players know the system they are in. They all knew full well how disruptive this business can be with respect to relocating their family. That's why when mid-season moves are made, players routinely arrange for their spouses and children to remain in place at their original location until the off season when they have more certainty as to where they will end up next year. Without even checking, I can guarantee you that Tyler's wife and family (if any) absolutely 100% STAYED PUT throughout all that ping-ponging around between LA, Boston, SD, El Paso, etc., etc. etc. There is no way this side of China they accompanied him on each of those moves. Did....Not....Happen.
Now that has nothing to do with the inconvenience and uncertainty that derives from bouncing a player around like this. And just from a simple "respect" perspective, it would be a good idea to put some kind of restrictions on this kind of movement. But that nonsense about uprooting the family and packing and repacking all your stuff? Absolute non-issue because that absolutely does NOT happen the way you described in the video.
Potential fix:
- Team A waives player for the purposes of assigning to minor leagues.
- Team B wants to claim player put on waivers by Team A.
Team B must declare if the claimed player is to be placed on the MLB roster, or is destined for their minor league club.
If Team B declares MLB roster, the player must be placed on the active roster for a minimum of 30-days.
If Team B declares minor league, the player is left on waivers until the waiver time has elapsed, or either of the following occurs:
- Team C claims player for MLB roster, thus overruling the initial claim by Team B.
- No other team places a claim on the player, therefore allowing Team B to place claimed player on their minor league roster immediately.
- Team A retracts their own waive and is allowed to place player on their minor league roster immediately without having to pass thru waivers a second time, as long as another team has not claimed the player for the MLB roster, but the retraction must be done before the end of the waiver window.
Overall, a claim for MLB roster takes the priority. If it's a battle of who wants this player in their minor league system, the waiving team is the deciding factor. Should the waiving team allow the player to be claimed (waiver time elapses), the first claiming team gets the player's rights and they get put in the minor league system as intended, without all the back and forth of the waiver system. More stability for the player and more control to the team with his rights. I'd imagine in most scenarios, a player being DFA to the minors would most likely be kept by the team they're currently on, but this at least allows other teams a chance to grab the player in the event that the current team has no real interest in keeping him.
To be fair, Seattle (Pilots) turned into the Brewers
All is good.
This seems like an extension of service time manipulation
Easy fix. If the team picks up a player on waivers then if they place him on waivers they pay him 100000 and the same with the next and the next. If you make it financially painful they will stop.
DFA first time $ 10,000 compansation. DFA from the next team with in a year $100,000 moving expense . 3 or more times within a year $333,333 moving expense.
And now he’s back with the Mariners😂
Not fun for the player, but pretty damn funny for baseball fans. 😂
Maybe what needs to happen is the new rule.. A player can only be DFA'd once/year and if DFA'd a second time.. can opt for UFA status instead...
I guess that’s the job. I would be concerned but they make more then 100,000 a year. When you make 50 k a year and you get laid off no one cares and no one changes rules and laws.
your making the assumption that none of these teams told the player their plans. Don't move until "until we know where you are going"
What about if a player is DFA'd, goes to another team, that team can't DFA them. If they do, the player then returns to the original team that DFA'd him albeit within their minor system, not on the 40 man. Kinda like how Rule 5 picks are treated.
Life is life business is business .
60 day non waiver after claim, outright release if sooner
Limit the number of waiver claims?