Player Protection Notation

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Considering we're currently having some issues with minor league eligibility and the player protection notation system makes my head hurt a bit, why not change it? Right now two different sets of players, Minor leaguers and players in their first year of protection, receive the same notation (PP 0/5), while the final number (PP 5/5) is not used at all. What if the numerator of the fraction was used to represent the year of protection the player is currently on, rather than how many years he has used up? This would separate minor league-eligible players from those who aren't, and after using up year (PP 5/5), players would become free agents.

For example, I own Evan Gattis, who is currently (PP 0/5). However, he is ineligible for the minors due to major league service time. Changing this so he becomes (PP 1/5) would make this apparent to everyone, without any real negative consequences that I can see. Thoughts, other than that I clearly need an editor to make things like this shorter?

[Deleted]

Because Gattis hasn't yet completed a "defined" qualifying season... So putting the notation PP 1/5 doesn't make sense.

I think the rules need to be fixed one way or another... There needs to be consistency.

Either the MiLBer's can be eligible for minor league roster until the meet the defined standards for a qualifying season, or players salary reverts back to their real life numbers one they play in an MLB game.

We shouldn't have two definitions and resulting effects on players.

Either you're a minor leaguer who is eligible for MiLB roster, and must be paid the AAS you were won at until:

1) you play in one MLB game

Or

2) you meet the defined qualifying season

I don't see what's so hard about that, and the commish obviously did not write the rules clearly and thoroughly enough.

It's not that there is confusion, it's that the rules contradict themselves regarding this matter.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Apr 9, 2013 9:06:57 GMT -8 @joshualarimer said:

Because Gattis hasn't yet completed a "defined" qualifying season... So putting the notation PP 1/5 doesn't make sense.

This misses the point. I'm suggesting changing how the notational system is done to help eliminate confusion in this regard. Saying that my proposal doesn't make sense under the current system (Which I am proposing a change to) misses the boat entirely.

[Deleted]

Changing the notation misses the boat entirely.

The notation isn't what needs to be changed... They system needs to be changed to be consistent.

Rather than having a minor leaguer for MiLB roster purposes, and also a minor leaguer for salary purposes in two seperate ways doesn't make sense at all.

@pirates, so are you saying to just use PP 1/5 once a player plays in one MLB game? If so, I think that's a good idea. BUT, that still doesn't fix the overarching problem of the inconsistency in the minor leaguer definition for roster and salary purposes.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Apr 9, 2013 9:46:34 GMT -8 @joshualarimer said:

Changing the notation misses the boat entirely.

The notation isn't what needs to be changed... They system needs to be changed to be consistent.

Rather than having a minor leaguer for MiLB roster purposes, and also a minor leaguer for salary purposes in two seperate ways doesn't make sense at all.

@pirates, so are you saying to just use PP 1/5 once a player plays in one MLB game? If so, I think that's a good idea. BUT, that still doesn't fix the overarching problem of the inconsistency in the minor leaguer definition for roster and salary purposes.

That is the bulk of what I'm suggesting. I'm not intending to try to fix the majority of the things you've been talking about here. Just one small facet of them.

[Deleted]

Well I would agree that's not a bad idea, but like I said before - that's not the real problem at had. The problem is the descripancies and inconsistent statement of the rules. Just doesn't make sense how. Minor leaguer becomes MLB roster elig by playing one game, but doesn't regain their salary until moving out of minor league status by completing a qualifying season... If they are still a minor leaguer by not completing one qualifying season - then why are they not eligible for the minor league roster.

Serious flaw lol.

But good idea Pirates.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I like the combination of ideas here as this has been one of the most confusing things here.

I guess combining the ideas into one post.

Notation:
(year of protection currently in)/5

Meaning:
0/5 - Has not played in major league game, salary is their minor league signing salary, minor league roster eligible
Appears in major league game -> 1/5 (Would happen instantly)
1/5 - First year of protection, salary is according to Cot's, cannot be placed on minor league roster
(Normal eligibility conditions)...
5/5 - Last year of prospect protection, will be a FA after the season if they hit the correct conditions


I never understood why 5/5 wasn't used and why a player stayed at their signing salary when they could no longer be put on the minor league roster. This would take a bit of administration to change, but it would make more sense and lead to less confusion on what years of protection remain (5/5 would also make picking out expirings a lot easier).

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

This is a very timely post considering my current trade involving Bobby Parnell.

[Deleted]

Very nice contributions Tribe!

I agree, as long as the MiLB player instantly goes to 1/5 after appearing in an MLB game is ok with me.

The main points are that as soon as that prospect protection becomes PP 1/5 they:

1) become ineligible for the MiLB roster

And

2) revert to their real life salary

Like I've said time and time again, just need consistency one way or another.

(Although I do think its a little assbackwards that they are instantly ineligible for minor league roster simply after appearing in an MLB game - then if a team has a bunch of specs who may be close to bigs, they may be forced to move all their young guys to their big league roster and then have no MiLBer's. if that's the case maybe we need just increase cap a little and have a straight 50 man roster, idk. Food for thought)

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

How about we do away with PP 0/5 entirely?

A player is eligible for the 10 man minor league roster only if he has no notation whatever. Once he plays in his first big league game he goes to PP 1/5 and must move out of the 10 man minor league roster. If you see a player with any notation, you know he can't be on the 10 man minors roster

If for some reason that player doesn't meet the requirements for service he simply stays 1/5.

As Pirates suggest player is kept until he fulfills the 5/5 year then becomes a FA.

As to the 10 man roster, I would be strongly against losing it in favor of a 50 man roster. The existing rule keeps the big league rosters a little thinner than they otherwise might be. This promotes player movement. It forces teams to make tough choices and foster future development. Getting rid of it would just lead to stagnation and permanent power lineups.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

I'd like to bring this back up for an offseason change. I still feel it makes significant sense.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I agree. Clevelands' last suggestion makes sense to me.