Reserve Clause Rules - Please Explain

[Chicagofan76]

Can someone explain how I should set these up for an existing 1901 MLB historical League and a 1871 Fictional League

[joefromchicago]

In the reserve era, contracts were renegotiated (or, in most cases, re-imposed) annually, so there weren't many multi-year contracts. A team could release a player and pay only ten days' salary in compensation.

In my fictional reserve-era league, I set the "remaining salary if player is cut" at ten percent. I set "multi-year contract given" for star players only. And I set "guaranteed contracts given" to "none." I think that's about as close as you can come to what was true historically.

[David Ball]

The season is a little over 180 days, so the ten percent option probably is the closest to the real cost of a ten-day severance payment, strictly speaking, but I always just set it to zero.

Strictly speaking, again, if you're following history an 1871 league shouldn't use the reserve clause. A limited reserve regime was introduced in the fall of 1879 and teams didn't start reserving virtually their entire roster until 1883.

And at any period, you don't need no stinkin' luxury tax, or a salary cap in any form. Thanks to the reserve, it's the entire group of players whose salaries are capped, and they are the ones who pay the tax.

[Charlie Hough]

Would love to see what someone's modern day MLB game would look like with JoeFromChicago's reserve clause settings. Wow!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

In the reserve era, contracts were renegotiated (or, in most cases, re-imposed) annually, so there weren't many multi-year contracts. A team could release a player and pay only ten days' salary in compensation.

That actually varied over the years the reserve clause was in effect. (Technically, it still is, but only applies to players with less than six years of Major League service.)

Before 1947, the termination pay was equal to ten days' salary (about 6% of the annual salary). From 1947-69 it was equal to thirty days' pay (about 17% of the annual salary). Starting in 1970 termination pay was equal to sixty days' salary (about 33% of the annual salary). Beginning in 1972 termination pay was sixty days' salary if released before May 15th and the full season's salary if released after that date. (May 15th was roughly one-quarter of the way through the regular season.) Finally, in 1976 players were entitled to their full salary for the season if released.

Note that players cut during the off-season or spring training received no termination pay at all prior to 1970. Starting that year, players were entitled to thirty days' pay if cut during spring training (off-season releases still received no severance pay). I'm not sure exactly when, but at some point offseason releases also became eligible for termination pay.

The current rules stipulate that a player subject to the reserve clause receives 30 days' pay if released during the off-season or the first half of spring training. If released during the second half of spring training the player is entitled to 45 days' pay. And if released during the regular season the player receives the remaining salary for the season.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by David Ball

The season is a little over 180 days, so the ten percent option probably is the closest to the real cost of a ten-day severance payment, strictly speaking, but I always just set it to zero.

Strictly speaking, again, if you're following history an 1871 league shouldn't use the reserve clause. A limited reserve regime was introduced in the fall of 1879 and teams didn't start reserving virtually their entire roster until 1883.

And at any period, you don't need no stinkin' luxury tax, or a salary cap in any form. Thanks to the reserve, it's the entire group of players whose salaries are capped, and they are the ones who pay the tax.

Thanx I had actually forgotten about that.
I have 2 historical leagues 1 at 1901 1 at 1871, I just didnt want to forget to change stuff for the 1871 league. Mostly i am just playing with 12 seeing which of my old leagues on 11 will work and trying my new league ideas on 12.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That actually varied over the years the reserve clause was in effect. (Technically, it still is, but only applies to players with less than six years of Major League service.)

True, but, as David Ball points out, there was no single reserve clause during the reserve clause era -- things evolved. There's no easy way, however, to recreate the system that existed in the early years whereby everybody (at least technically) became a free agent except for a small number of reserved players -- and there's really no reason to go to the trouble because owners tended to collude informally to limit players' abilities to sign with whoever would pay them the most (except when there were inter-league wars going on, like in 1882 and 1891).

It may be just laziness on my part, but I don't change my reserve-era settings (although increasing the termination pay in the later years sounds like a good idea) to reflect subtle changes in the historical reserve clause system. If others want to do that, I would be very interested in hearing about how it worked out for them.

[David Ball]

The details evolved over time, but the main line is a pretty simple progression. Until 1879 it was essentially a free agent universe, with no limitations. That fall, the NL implemented a relatively informal and flexible business agreement allowing each club to reserve five players.

When the new American Association appeared, it did not honor the reserve agreement. The NL clubs were able to keep most of their reserved players, but lost the cost containment and some of the roster stability the reserve was supposed to provide. As a result, in the spring of 1883 the NL and AA, along with the minor Northwestern League, created the National Agreement, the first form of what later became known as Organized Baseball. One of its key elements was a new and more formal reserve rule, expanded to allow each team to reserve eleven men. The first players were reserved under this rule at the conclusion of the 1883 season.

There was no player limit, but the reserve rule served as a kind of soft cap on roster sizes. Teams could and often would carry somewhat more players than the reserve rule allowed, but they could not hold them from season to season without bidding for them on the open market. During the course of the 1880's the reserve lists were increased a couple of times, rising to fourteen, but that merely kept pace with the rising size of rosters, especially pitching staffs.

After the merger into one big league in 1892 there was briefly a hard roster limit of thirteen, but that was soon lifted, and the limit on the number of players that could be reserved was completely done away with until some time after the turn of the century. Teams became careless enough that at one point St. Louis reserved its late shortstop Joe Sullivan. Treatment of the minors varied through the 1880's, but by the early 1890's the modern system was in place, with minor clubs allowed full reserve rights, subject to what we know as the rule 5 draft.

So, at least as far as the major leagues were concerned, the classic reserve regime was set in its essentials by the end of the season of 1883. It's just between 1879 and 1882 that you have a kind of halfway situation, with the five-man rule.

Somebody posted a thread some time ago talking about an idea for simulating the early years -- his idea was to turn reserve era rules on to prevent the AI from offering a lot of multi-year contracts, then release every player at season's end and allow all the clubs to bid on them; after 1879, you would simply choose five players on each team's roster and release the rest; after 1883, keep eleven players per team, releasing the rest, and so on. (actually, there were a fair number of multi-year contracts given out during the 1870's, as a way of dealing with the instability that comes with an entirely free agent universe).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

True, but, as David Ball points out, there was no single reserve clause during the reserve clause era -- things evolved.

Sure. But it doesn't mean you can't change the buyout/termination percentage to mimic the changes that happened.

Originally Posted by David Ball

The season is a little over 180 days, so the ten percent option probably is the closest to the real cost of a ten-day severance payment, strictly speaking, but I always just set it to zero.

In the early part of the 20th century, the 154-game season typically lasted about 177-79 days. In the 1920s seasons typically lasted 175 days. From 1930-58 (with the exception of 1933) the season lasted 167-68 days (24 weeks). In the 1960s the season lasted 175 days. In the 1970s the seasons generally lasted 179-80 days. In the early 1980s it was 180 days; by the mid-1980s it was 182 days, the same length as is used now (excluding the Sunday night opener that used to be scheduled).

So ten days' pay is 5.6% of a 179-day season while it is 5.9% of a 168-day season. Thirty days' pay is 17.9% of a 168-day season and 17.1% of a 175-day season.