Rule 5 Draft Eligibility

CobaltJays · 03-23-2007, 08:59 AM

For some players, their Rule 5 Draft Eligibility states that they are ineligible because they have more than six years of pro experience. There is no such limitation in real life. It's not uncommon for a player with a lengthy professional career to be taken in the Rule 5 draft. Off the top of my head, Kim Batiste, Chad Ogea and Jason Smith have all been taken in the Rule 5 draft despite having more than six years of pro experience. Smith was taken this past offseason despite having ten pro seasons under his belt.

disposableheros · 03-23-2007, 03:39 PM

are you sure there's not some sort of limit? i'm under the impression that if a player is not taken in 3 subsequent drafts, he is no longer available. admittedly, i was told this by someone and didnt read or experience it myself.

CobaltJays · 03-23-2007, 06:43 PM

If there is a limit in real life, I've never seen it. I do know for a fact, however, that the limit presently in the game doesn't exist.

Jordan · 03-24-2007, 01:04 AM

If I had to guess, I would say this feature is made to represent as closely to real life as possible. However, I think this language taken from wikipedia explaining eligibility would be hard to implement

Quote:

Players who are not currently on their team's 40-man roster are eligible to be selected in the Rule 5 draft, but only after a standard exemption period has elapsed. Players signed at age 19 or older are exempt from the Rule 5 draft for four years after being drafted (in the Rule 4 draft) or signed by their current organization; players drafted or signed at age 18 or younger are exempt for five years. For example, players drafted in 2004 (or later) at age 19 (or older) will be exempt from the 2007 Rule 5 draft, as will players drafted in 2003 (or later) at age 18 (or younger).

tysok · 03-24-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

For some players, their Rule 5 Draft Eligibility states that they are ineligible because they have more than six years of pro experience. There is no such limitation in real life. It's not uncommon for a player with a lengthy professional career to be taken in the Rule 5 draft. Off the top of my head, Kim Batiste, Chad Ogea and Jason Smith have all been taken in the Rule 5 draft despite having more than six years of pro experience. Smith was taken this past offseason despite having ten pro seasons under his belt.

Because he has MORE than 6 years? That doesn't make sense... the whole point of the rule V is to give players that are stuck in the minors because the big club has no room a chance to find a job elsewhere.

Of course, he should be a minor league free agent at some point as well... I don't know anything about these rules though.

What Jordan put up would make sense if it's saying he's ineligible because he has LESS than 6 years, but wouldn't work for being ineligible because of MORE than 6.

CobaltJays · 03-24-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tysok

Of course, he should be a minor league free agent at some point as well... I don't know anything about these rules though.

Sometimes players who just signed a minor league contract with one club wind up getting taken in the Rule 5 draft. In Chad Ogea's case, he had been negotiating a minor league contract with both Detroit and Tampa Bay, but ultimately elected to sign with Detroit. Tampa Bay, apparently not willing to take "no" for an answer, took him in the Rule 5 draft shortly afterward.

Simplified eligibility requirements might not be too bad, and with feeder leagues it might be easier now to implement. Basically you could make it so that players drafted out of high school aren't eligible for five years, and players drafted out of college aren't eligible for four years.

Le Grande Orange · 03-24-2007, 09:19 PM

Cobalt Jays is correct, there are no service year limitations or restrictions on Rule 5 draft eligibility. I got an e-mail back from someone with an actual copy of the MLR rulebook who checked out the relevant MLR section.

Nutlaw · 04-03-2007, 07:46 PM

Did one of you guys TT this? It seems an important one.

Nutlaw · 04-06-2007, 11:18 AM

I'll take that as a no. Logged as TT 3303 and put some emphasis on it.

Nutlaw · 04-23-2007, 05:51 PM

This one was marked "Ignore" by the men upstairs. Perhaps we interpreted the rule wrong?

Curtis · 04-23-2007, 06:04 PM

*sigh* It's more likely they did.

What probably happened was that Markus decided that the way he has it now is easily understandable and not 'broken', so it isn't worth fixing. He's mentioned in threads before 2007 was released that it's simply not worthwhile to try to take into account every arcane nuance (my term — not his) of the of the roster rules.

I understand that position, especially since he's the guy who would have to code it, then debug it (and some people do disagree on how some rules work, sohow does he know which version of the rule to follow). Being that I am one of the 'completists', I respectfully disagree with his conclusion, but I lose, and that's the way it should be.

CobaltJays · 04-25-2007, 09:15 AM

At the very least the silly rule that makes players with more than six years of pro experience ineligible should be removed. It's a rule that simply doesn't exist in real life, and it makes the Rule 5 draft largely useless by greatly cutting down the pool of talent to draw from.

I can live with having standard eligibility criteria for all players, but the six years experience limitation has no business being in the game.

Nutlaw · 04-25-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

At the very least the silly rule that makes players with more than six years of pro experience ineligible should be removed. It's a rule that simply doesn't exist in real life, and it makes the Rule 5 draft largely useless by greatly cutting down the pool of talent to draw from.

I can live with having standard eligibility criteria for all players, but the six years experience limitation has no business being in the game.

Yes, I agree. I am attempting to appeal.

Nutlaw · 04-30-2007, 06:39 PM

Great news. The six year Rule 5 Draft eligibility cap was claimed removed/fixed for the next patch.

03-23-2007, 08:59 AM	#1
CobaltJays All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 706	Rule 5 Draft Eligibility For some players, their Rule 5 Draft Eligibility states that they are ineligible because they have more than six years of pro experience. There is no such limitation in real life. It's not uncommon for a player with a lengthy professional career to be taken in the Rule 5 draft. Off the top of my head, Kim Batiste, Chad Ogea and Jason Smith have all been taken in the Rule 5 draft despite having more than six years of pro experience. Smith was taken this past offseason despite having ten pro seasons under his belt.

03-23-2007, 03:39 PM	#2
disposableheros Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,332	are you sure there's not some sort of limit? i'm under the impression that if a player is not taken in 3 subsequent drafts, he is no longer available. admittedly, i was told this by someone and didnt read or experience it myself. __________________ 2 Wild Cards, 11 Division Champs, 4 League Champs, 3 World Champs, and 3 Best GM awards Baseball Maelstrom - New York Mets - 180-149 .547 Corporate League Baseball - Coke Buzz - 889-649 .578 Western Hemisphere Baseball League - Santiago Saints - 672-793 .459 Record - 2428-2271 .517

03-23-2007, 06:43 PM	#3
CobaltJays All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 706	If there is a limit in real life, I've never seen it. I do know for a fact, however, that the limit presently in the game doesn't exist.

03-24-2007, 09:19 PM	#7
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	Cobalt Jays is correct, there are no service year limitations or restrictions on Rule 5 draft eligibility. I got an e-mail back from someone with an actual copy of the MLR rulebook who checked out the relevant MLR section.

04-03-2007, 07:46 PM	#8
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	Did one of you guys TT this? It seems an important one.

04-06-2007, 11:18 AM	#9
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	I'll take that as a no. Logged as TT 3303 and put some emphasis on it.

04-23-2007, 05:51 PM	#10
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	This one was marked "Ignore" by the men upstairs. Perhaps we interpreted the rule wrong?

04-23-2007, 06:04 PM	#11
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	sigh It's more likely they did. What probably happened was that Markus decided that the way he has it now is easily understandable and not 'broken', so it isn't worth fixing. He's mentioned in threads before 2007 was released that it's simply not worthwhile to try to take into account every arcane nuance (my term — not his) of the of the roster rules. I understand that position, especially since he's the guy who would have to code it, then debug it (and some people do disagree on how some rules work, sohow does he know which version of the rule to follow). Being that I am one of the 'completists', I respectfully disagree with his conclusion, but I lose, and that's the way it should be.

04-25-2007, 09:15 AM	#12
CobaltJays All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 706	At the very least the silly rule that makes players with more than six years of pro experience ineligible should be removed. It's a rule that simply doesn't exist in real life, and it makes the Rule 5 draft largely useless by greatly cutting down the pool of talent to draw from. I can live with having standard eligibility criteria for all players, but the six years experience limitation has no business being in the game.

04-30-2007, 06:39 PM	#14
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	Great news. The six year Rule 5 Draft eligibility cap was claimed removed/fixed for the next patch.