Re: Gabriel Arias, SS, CLE

[EastCoastGonzo]

5yrs @ $2m

$10m

So the rules don't allow for a minor league under 23 to receive major league contract, specifically to avoid circumventing the bonus system. Arias is 22, turns 23 this week and technically he was recalled by the Guardians in September and finished the year on the MLB roster. His BR page also lists him as in the majors. Therefore this will be allowed.

[jimw]

So the rules don't allow for a minor league under 23 to receive major league contract, specifically to avoid circumventing the bonus system. Arias is 22, turns 23 this week and technically he was recalled by the Guardians in September and finished the year on the MLB roster. His BR page also lists him as in the majors. Therefore this will be allowed.

I am biased because I dropped him accidentally and was trying to win him back. But if he was 22 when auction started I don't think a MLB contract should be allowed as you've explained the rules. He has not passed the rookie threshold and who knows if he will be on an active MLB roster 4/1

[ndog]

The rule isn't clear then.  You said in a PM that no minor leaguer under 23 can be offered a contract.  Yes, Arias is on active roster but that's because he's on the 40 man.  He likely makes the 26 man but there is no guarantee.  There are many minor league players on the 40 man to be protected from the rule 5 by teams.

He was 22 when FA started and is 22 now when the auction was started. 

What is the rule?  If it's going to be allowed just because a player turns 23 during free agency that needs spelled out and shouldn't be thrown in after the fact. 

[EastCoastGonzo]

This is honestly the first time this has come up in the last 5 years.

This isn't a rule I wrote, but I think the very easy thing to point to is that he played in MLB last season, he has MLB service time officially. I think that alone qualifies him as a major leaguer at this point. The fact he turns 23 in a couple days I think is instructive and helpful but if that was the only thing going for him I would say no he doesn't qualify.

We can make the rule clearer, but I have to think that the rule was intended to mean prospects whoever never accrued service time, because otherwise you'd be right that any guy added to the 40Man under 23 could be given a major league contract. Which, honestly also would make sense. 

[jimw]

So any player with an ab is available?

[Vik]

This is honestly the first time this has come up in the last 5 years.

This isn't a rule I wrote, but I think the very easy thing to point to is that he played in MLB last season, he has MLB service time officially. I think that alone qualifies him as a major leaguer at this point. The fact he turns 23 in a couple days I think is instructive and helpful but if that was the only thing going for him I would say no he doesn't qualify.

We can make the rule clearer, but I have to think that the rule was intended to mean prospects whoever never accrued service time, because otherwise you'd be right that any guy added to the 40Man under 23 could be given a major league contract. Which, honestly also would make sense.

So any player with an ab is available?

I see both sides here, and agree a more clear rule could be useful. I do like the idea instead of basing on age, we simply go by simply requiring at least 1 AB/Inning pitched and therfore the change can make cases like this valid and avoiding any future gray areas.