Question about rule 5 picks

[sporrer17]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

[dew1679666265]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

[sporrer17]

Thank you. Some guy on the cubs.com board (that may explain it) is basically telling me I'm wrong, but I could have swore that we could work out a trade for him and just keep him.

[wilk]

Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

No, that's true. Any Rule 5 pick is exposed to waivers before a return trade and then those teams can roster the player with Rule 5 restrictions. They still can't send him down though until he fully clears waivers and the original team declines return or trades him, or he spends the year on the active roster (90 days + DL).

[sporrer17]

Thanks guys.

[sporrer17]

So wait, if he were still on our roster like he is, he wouldn't have to clear waivers for us to make the trade and keep him, correct?

[dew1679666265]

So wait, if he were still on our roster like he is, he wouldn't have to clear waivers for us to make the trade and keep him, correct?

 

To my understanding, that is correct.

[davearm2]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers.

 

Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves.

 

So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers.

[davearm2]

So wait, if he were still on our roster like he is, he wouldn't have to clear waivers for us to make the trade and keep him, correct?

 

To my understanding, that is correct.

Nope that's incorrect.

[dew1679666265]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers.

 

Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves.

 

So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers.

 

Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him.

[davearm2]

If the Cubs wanted to option Patton to the minors this season, here's what would have to happen:

 

FIRST, Patton would have to pass through waivers.

 

SECOND, Patton would have to be offered back to the Rockies OR the Cubs and Rox would have to work out a trade that kept Patton on the Cubs.

[davearm2]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers.

 

Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves.

 

So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers.

 

Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him.

http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html

 

And the Cubs wouldn't be trying to trade Patton. They'd be trying to keep him, but option him to the minors.

Edited July 7, 2009 by davearm2

[dew1679666265]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers.

 

Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves.

 

So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers.

 

Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him.

http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html

 

The only mention of trading a player is this:

 

Occasionally, the drafting club will work out a trade with the player's original team, allowing the drafting club to retain the player but send him to the minors.

 

With no mention of that player going through waivers. The only mention of the waiver process is returning the player back to the original team.

[sporrer17]

Yeah, those rules are very vague in that regard. I'm so confused.

[davearm2]

Yeah, those rules are very vague in that regard. I'm so confused.

It's not confusing.

 

If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen.

 

If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash).

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, those rules are very vague in that regard. I'm so confused.

It's not confusing.

 

If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen.

 

If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash).

 

That was the original question that I responded to - whether Patton would have to pass through waivers if the Rockies and Cubs worked out a trade.

 

I said no waivers would be involved in a trade, you disagreed.

Edited July 7, 2009 by dew

[chuckywang]

This came up on another board, and I can't remember the rules regarding this.

 

The Cubs could offer a player to the Rockies in exchange for Patton and he'd be ours (without the rule 5 restrictions), right? Basically we could trade for him without him going through waivers or anything, correct? Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers.

 

Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves.

 

So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers.

 

Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him.

 

The purpose of the Rule 5 draft is to prevent teams from keeping good players in the minors when other teams are more than willing for them to play in the majors. If a Rule 5 player didn't have to pass waivers before being traded, what's to stop teams from drafting players during Rule 5 drafts and immediately flipping them in a trade, and therefore getting a player for nothing (ok, $10,000 or whatever it costs to draft)?

[davearm2]

The only mention of trading a player is this:

 

Occasionally, the drafting club will work out a trade with the player's original team, allowing the drafting club to retain the player but send him to the minors.

 

With no mention of that player going through waivers. The only mention of the waiver process is returning the player back to the original team.

Read the preceding paragraph.

 

The only way the Cubs and Rox will be discussing Patton's immediate future is if no other team in baseball wants him under the Rule 5 restrictions, which that team would assume if they claimed the guy off of waivers.

[dew1679666265]

The purpose of the Rule 5 draft is to prevent teams from keeping good players in the minors when other teams are more than willing for them to play in the majors. If a Rule 5 player didn't have to pass waivers before being traded, what's to stop teams from drafting players during Rule 5 drafts and immediately flipping them in a trade, and therefore getting a player for nothing (ok, $10,000 or whatever it costs to draft)?

 

That's what we did with Josh Hamilton when we dealt him to the Reds and I don't recall any waiver process.

 

And the question here is working out a trade with the original team anyway, not the Cubs trading Patton to some random team.

[davearm2]

Yeah, those rules are very vague in that regard. I'm so confused.

It's not confusing.

 

If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen.

 

If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash).

 

That was the original question that I responded to - whether Patton would have to pass through waivers if the Rockies and Cubs worked out a trade.

 

I said no waivers would be involved in a trade, you disagreed.

Patton would have to first pass through waivers before the Cubs and Rox could discuss such a trade.

[dew1679666265]

The only mention of trading a player is this:

 

Occasionally, the drafting club will work out a trade with the player's original team, allowing the drafting club to retain the player but send him to the minors.

 

With no mention of that player going through waivers. The only mention of the waiver process is returning the player back to the original team.

Read the preceding paragraph.

 

The only way the Cubs and Rox will be discussing Patton's immediate future is if no other team in baseball wants him under the Rule 5 restrictions, which that team would assume if they claimed the guy off of waivers.

 

That's a paragraph about returning a player to his original team. Does that have to happen in the event of a trade? That's what is not clear.

[wilk]

The purpose of the Rule 5 draft is to prevent teams from keeping good players in the minors when other teams are more than willing for them to play in the majors. If a Rule 5 player didn't have to pass waivers before being traded, what's to stop teams from drafting players during Rule 5 drafts and immediately flipping them in a trade, and therefore getting a player for nothing (ok, $10,000 or whatever it costs to draft)?

 

Exactly! I've seen this debated endlessly and since there are no good official sources it's always left "unsettled." davearm2 is explaining it accurately! The Rule 5 draft is supposed to be for the benefit of the eligible players and that's why every team gets the chance to put him on the active roster before he's just stashed back in the system!

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, those rules are very vague in that regard. I'm so confused.

It's not confusing.

 

If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen.

 

If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash).

 

That was the original question that I responded to - whether Patton would have to pass through waivers if the Rockies and Cubs worked out a trade.

 

I said no waivers would be involved in a trade, you disagreed.

Patton would have to first pass through waivers before the Cubs and Rox could discuss such a trade.

 

My confusion (and sporrer's it seems) is that's never stated anywhere. The only way the waiver process would come into play would be if the player is returned to the original team before a trade was made. If that's the case then ok, but it's not clear on that point.

[sporrer17]

Yeah. It's really clear that if we were to return him, he'd have to pass through waivers. I just don't get why if he were to stay on our roster, and we were to offer the rockies a player in exchange for him right now, while he's on the roster, why he'd have to pass through waivers.

[wilk]

I just don't get why if he were to stay on our roster, and we were to offer the rockies a player in exchange for him right now, while he's on the roster, why he'd have to pass through waivers.

 

Because the whole draft and process is intended for the benefit of the player. The thought is that if there is another team who is willing yet to put him on the active roster, that is better for the player's career than still being stashed away in a different system. So if a team will give the player the opportunity, that is given priority to a team that will bury him anyway.