Pendleton

MLB Free Agency: New MiLB Roster Rule Leaves Some Veterans Struggling For Contracts February 9, 2024 J.J. Cooper If you’re a veteran free agent, even one with multiple years of MLB experience, this is proving to be a tough offseason to find a job. We’re not talking about unsigned premium free agents. Even though they haven’t signed yet, Cody Bellinger and Blake Snell aren’t worried about securing a contract. They’re trying to find the best fit and the best possible deal. But this is a tough offseason for players several levels below them on the pecking order. These are the veterans with upper-level minor league experience, and in some cases MLB experience, angling for a MiLB deal with a non-roster invite. These types of contracts have always provided a wonderful foot in the door for players who aren’t perceived as worthy of a 40-man roster spot. Every year, some of those players take a step forward and grab an opportunity. Others struggle and are released at the end of spring training. But the door has slammed closed this year for some of those players. As part of the new collective bargaining agreement agreed between MiLB players and Major League Baseball, MLB had the right to reduce the in-season player limit for domestic MiLB players to 165 players beginning for the 2024 season, which means there is an offseason limit of 175 MiLB players per organization. As expected since the moment the MiLB CBA was agreed upon, MLB has exercised that right. That’s a reduction from the 180 player in-season and 190 player off-season limits from a year ago. In other words, there are 450 fewer domestic U.S. roster slots for players this February compared to this time last year. That means that players who would have signed deals last year with outside shots of making big league teams coming out of camp can’t even land MiLB contracts this offseason. That may not actually mean that there are 450 fewer players on rosters, as not every team has always gone right up to the roster limit in the past. But multiple MLB front office officials said they are getting calls from agents daily trying to find spots for veteran players. In many cases, they have to tell them they have no roster room to sign them. “You can’t take fliers on guys anymore,” said one MLB front office official. Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Other MLB front office officials say teams can always create roster room through releases. They believe players with a clear shot at MLB roles are still easy decisions. After all, if a player has a real shot at a big league role, are you going to turn him down to keep a 19 or 20-year-old role player? But structurally, this year is very different for MLB teams when it comes to MiLB roster management. While the door is opening for teams to move MLB 40-man roster players to the 60-day MLB injured list which frees up additional 40-man roster spots, teams won’t be able to take advantage of the 60-day MiLB injured list until mid-March. So with many teams sitting at or very close to the 175-player limit currently, those teams are in a situation where signing a non-roster invitee means releasing a younger player to clear a roster spot. It’s a conundrum many of these teams have not really faced before. There’s another odd development from these roster changes. In the past, spring training was the time where players had to battle to make a roster. Before the MLB takeover of the minors in 2020, teams had much larger offseason MiLB rosters, because for every short-season and rookie-ball team a club had, they had 35 additional roster spots. So a team like the New York Yankees, which had two domestic complex league teams, a rookie-ball club and a short-season team, could bring close to 250 players to camp. Now, making the offseason roster may actually be tougher than surviving spring training cutdowns. Each team is allowed to move up to 15 players to the 60-day MiLB injured list in mid-March. Those 60-day IL players will not count toward the roster limit until they are activated off that list. In the case of most teams, there are a number of players, most notably pitchers rehabbing from Tommy John surgeries, who are guaranteed to move onto the 60-day IL as soon as they are eligible to do so. With a 175-player offseason limit and a 165-player in-season limit, a team with 11 or more players slated for the 60-day IL will actually find themselves with roster spots opening up in mid-March. It’s conceivable that a team could break camp on MiLB spring training without releasing anyone. This is a source of frustration for some MLB front office officials who note that having an offseason roster limit hinders their flexibility to try to build the best roster that they can. Teams that used to bring numerous players to spring training in hopes of finding an unexpected bounce-back candidate or a diamond in the rough say that now, they’re much more limited in what they can do. International players do not count toward the player limit until they set foot in the U.S., so the new rules also incentivize teams to wait to bring over players from their complexes in the Dominican Republic until after spring training is over and full-season rosters are sorted out. While this change is somewhat significant, no one can say it was completely unexpected. Both sides collectively bargained this in the first-ever MLB-MiLB Players Association collective bargaining agreement. As is true in any collectively bargained agreement, both sides got some of what they wanted and gave on other aspects. MLB agreed to raise minimum salaries for MiLB players dramatically, guaranteed housing improvements and assure MiLB players that there will not be any contraction of MiLB teams during the life of the current CBA. In return, MiLB players agreed to a 180-player in-season roster limit (and a 190-player offseason limit) and gave MLB the right to reduce that to 165 players in-season and 175 players in the offseason after one year. That phased-in reduction has taken place as expected.

Yeah but might actually be good for his career, at least in terms of getting plenty of opportunity to rebuild value as a starter.

Stripling dealt from the Giants to the A's. Should see a wide open opportunity to start in Oakland.

And their response to you would be something along the lines of "well at least I didn't have to buy her"

Sort of does seem like they've been active for the sake of being active. I don't see a clear improvement to their roster

Dickey at his best threw one version of the knuckler in the high 70s to low 80s and another that was mid 50s to high 60s

Latest reports are suggesting one year plus mutual option, will be interesting to see the financial terms.

It looks like a team that could compete for playoffs with the right amount of good fortune

Someone slap together a lineup and rotation of remaining FA's. Is it a contending club? Pitcher and catcher workouts start in less than three weeks, it's weird how many players still don't know where they are living in April.

He's had a weird trajectory. Was considered a top 5-10 guy heading into his draft year, then had a disappointing season and went late 2nd round. Rebounded the next year and was again tracking as a top prospect, was given the short NHL trial to start his age 19 season. Led the Ducks in scoring in the pandemic shortened 2020-21 season while still just 21 YO. In the two seasons to follow, he found no consistency and looked visibly out of shape. Completely fell off from looking like a legit young top six winger

Comtois isn't one of the five, he's legitimately out of the league based on merit. Couldn't stay in the lineup on a dogshit Ducks club last year, team was pretty public about calling him out for work ethic issues.

Yeah that's just what Bauer needs, advice from a creep

I'm not surprised that the guy who boasts about trips overseas to "shop for women", would sympathize with a predator. Sees through a similar lens.

Only a true creep would be here analyzing how physically developed the fourteen year old girl was. You truly are a sick, twisted f***, and you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

Dude was basically untouchable for the last half of the season, easily worth the money if he pitches like that. But that's a massive "if" given his prior track record, 33M definitely is a huge guarantee for a veteran reliever with next to no consistent track record of success.

Expect him to be with the Bisons to start the year, working on getting stretched out.

Can you send Spanky the email address you use for Fantrax via PM?

Fantrax

Want to join the board fantasy hockey league? Just had a spot open up, pretty solid club

Definitely agree he's currently the top of the 3B depth chart as it stands, and would be looking at 100+ starts there if the season started today. I think they signed him with the idea that he raises the ceiling at 3B based on the current internal options - but at the cost and with his versatility, they are not prevented from continuing to pursue other options either. 7.5M isn't bench guy money but it isn't quality starting 3B money either, pretty much exactly in line with what you would pay a good utility player who can start as much as needed.

Do you just pull names from a hat for these? Thielbar turns 37 in a couple weeks, and there are many similar FA arms available. Absolutely no justification for giving up that kind of return.

I think the guarantee would come in around that total, but included in that would be a buyout or club option for year three. So two years at $15M with a club option for a third year at $13M or $3M buyout.