Question about rule 5 picks

[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.

 

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.

You've got it backwards. The waiver process precedes the offer-back-to-the-original-team process.

 

Look here it is:

 

Patton is Cubs property so long as the Cubs conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If the Cubs don't want to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then they have to put Patton on waivers. Any team can take the player, if that team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If no team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then the Cubs have to offer Patton back to the Rox. The Rox can say yes or no. If no, then Patton remains a Cub and can be optioned to the minors. If yes, then either the Cubs let Patton go back to the Rox, or the Cubs offer some sort of trade that would send someone else to the Rox instead of Patton. This is the only trade scenario involving the Cubs and Rox.

[dew1679666265]

You've got it backwards. The waiver process precedes the offer-back-to-the-original-team process.

 

Look here it is:

 

Patton is Cubs property so long as the Cubs conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If the Cubs don't want to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then they have to put Patton on waivers. Any team can take the player, if that team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If no team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then the Cubs have to offer Patton back to the Rox. The Rox can say yes or no. If no, then Patton remains a Cub and can be optioned to the minors. If yes, then either the Cubs let Patton go back to the Rox, or the Cubs offer some sort of trade that would send someone else to the Rox instead of Patton. This is the only trade scenario involving the Cubs and Rox.

 

Ok. Your explanation makes sense, the rules are just vague on a trading scenario.

[chuckywang]

You've got it backwards. The waiver process precedes the offer-back-to-the-original-team process.

 

Look here it is:

 

Patton is Cubs property so long as the Cubs conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If the Cubs don't want to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then they have to put Patton on waivers. Any team can take the player, if that team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If no team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then the Cubs have to offer Patton back to the Rox. The Rox can say yes or no. If no, then Patton remains a Cub and can be optioned to the minors. If yes, then either the Cubs let Patton go back to the Rox, or the Cubs offer some sort of trade that would send someone else to the Rox instead of Patton. This is the only trade scenario involving the Cubs and Rox.

 

Ok. Your explanation makes sense, the rules are just vague on a trading scenario.

 

FWIW, this is what Wikipedia says, and it does make sense.

 

Any player chosen in the Rule 5 draft may be traded to any team while under the Rule 5 restrictions, but the restrictions transfer to the new team. If the new team does not want to keep the player on its 25-man roster for the season, he must be offered back to the team of which he was a member when chosen in the draft.

[Bull]

The point is that every team would have the opportunity to keep him in the majors before he could be traded and sent to the minors. The whole point of the Rule 5 draft.

[dew1679666265]

You've got it backwards. The waiver process precedes the offer-back-to-the-original-team process.

 

Look here it is:

 

Patton is Cubs property so long as the Cubs conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If the Cubs don't want to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then they have to put Patton on waivers. Any team can take the player, if that team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions.

 

If no team is willing to conform to the Rule 5 restrictions, then the Cubs have to offer Patton back to the Rox. The Rox can say yes or no. If no, then Patton remains a Cub and can be optioned to the minors. If yes, then either the Cubs let Patton go back to the Rox, or the Cubs offer some sort of trade that would send someone else to the Rox instead of Patton. This is the only trade scenario involving the Cubs and Rox.

 

Ok. Your explanation makes sense, the rules are just vague on a trading scenario.

 

FWIW, this is what Wikipedia says, and it does make sense.

 

Any player chosen in the Rule 5 draft may be traded to any team while under the Rule 5 restrictions, but the restrictions transfer to the new team. If the new team does not want to keep the player on its 25-man roster for the season, he must be offered back to the team of which he was a member when chosen in the draft.

 

That still doesn't directly relate to sporrer's question, but it's close enough to further prove intent, I guess.

[NCCubFan]

I brought up the Hamilton situation myself when a similar issue was raised a few weeks ago. I think the difference (and the reason Hamilton didn't have to go through waivers) is that Hamilton was still subject to Rule 5 restrictions, while with Patton we're talking about the Cubs keeping his rights without the restrictions. Different situation, so different rules.

 

By now it's really a moot point anyway (it would have been very relevant a week or so ago). Since Patton has spend 90 days on the 25-man roster, he can be kept on the DL the rest of the year and the restrictions will have been met. So there would be absolutely no motivation for the Cubs to want to work out an arrangement with the Rockies anymore.

[dew1679666265]

I brought up the Hamilton situation myself when a similar issue was raised a few weeks ago. I think the difference (and the reason Hamilton didn't have to go through waivers) is that Hamilton was still subject to Rule 5 restrictions, while with Patton we're talking about the Cubs keeping his rights without the restrictions. Different situation, so different rules.

 

By now it's really a moot point anyway (it would have been very relevant a week or so ago). Since Patton has spend 90 days on the 25-man roster, he can be kept on the DL the rest of the year and the restrictions will have been met. So there would be absolutely no motivation for the Cubs to want to work out an arrangement with the Rockies anymore.

 

This is true. But it's fun to have a discussion on a completely moot point. :)

[NCCubFan]

I brought up the Hamilton situation myself when a similar issue was raised a few weeks ago. I think the difference (and the reason Hamilton didn't have to go through waivers) is that Hamilton was still subject to Rule 5 restrictions, while with Patton we're talking about the Cubs keeping his rights without the restrictions. Different situation, so different rules.

 

By now it's really a moot point anyway (it would have been very relevant a week or so ago). Since Patton has spend 90 days on the 25-man roster, he can be kept on the DL the rest of the year and the restrictions will have been met. So there would be absolutely no motivation for the Cubs to want to work out an arrangement with the Rockies anymore.

 

This is true. But it's fun to have a discussion on a completely moot point. :)

No argument there.

[sporrer17]

I brought up the Hamilton situation myself when a similar issue was raised a few weeks ago. I think the difference (and the reason Hamilton didn't have to go through waivers) is that Hamilton was still subject to Rule 5 restrictions, while with Patton we're talking about the Cubs keeping his rights without the restrictions. Different situation, so different rules.

 

By now it's really a moot point anyway (it would have been very relevant a week or so ago). Since Patton has spend 90 days on the 25-man roster, he can be kept on the DL the rest of the year and the restrictions will have been met. So there would be absolutely no motivation for the Cubs to want to work out an arrangement with the Rockies anymore.

 

This is true. But it's fun to have a discussion on a completely moot point. :)

No argument there.

 

It's why we're all here, because no matter how much we discuss what we should do, or what should be done with the Cubs, we ultimately have little to no impact other than by providing ticket money.