Designated HitterAugust 03, 2006
Death, Taxes, and Major League Waivers
By Keith Law

MLB's rules are complex and convoluted, but they're not hard. I've heard various people in front offices referred to as "rules experts" or - my favorite "waivers experts." The rule on waivers (Rule 9) runs nine pages, a large part of which revolve around resolving the order of claims. We're not talking Finnegan's Wake here; anyone with the rules and perhaps a pen and paper can figure these out pretty quickly. The problem is that the rules aren't very public, and as a result, members of the media and the average fan are all at a disadvantage when it comes to some of the more esoteric rules or to baseball's inconsistent nomenclature.

Here are a few rules that seem to cause a lot of confusion with my best efforts at explaining them.

Waivers

I'll never forget something I saw this spring on a message board I won't name, when Chris Snow of the Boston Globe (and now director of hockey operations for the Minnesota Wild) reported that Hee Seop Choi couldn't be sent to the minors without clearing waivers. Because most fans weren't familiar with the rule in question, the immediate assumption was that Snow was wrong. And one poster in particular ripped Snow, saying it was just "sloppy reporting" and then saying how every beat writer should learn the transaction rules.

Except, of course, Snow was right. How odd that the professional should know what he was talking about.

There is a rule rarely invoked in baseball that creates a situation where a player who has options remaining still has to clear waivers to be sent on an optional assignment. If the assignment is to begin at least three full calendar years from the date of the player's first appearance on a 25-man roster, then the player can not be sent on an optional assignment without first clearing major league waivers. These waivers are revocable, and players usually clear those waivers without incident.

There are three kinds of waivers in MLB:

  • Unconditional release waivers. These are self-explanatory. A player on release waivers can be claimed for $1, and the claiming team assumes the player's contract. The player does have the right to refuse this claim and become a free agent.
  • Outright or special waivers. The name changes depending on the time of year, but the effect is the same. These are the waivers you use to kick a player off of your 40-man roster. They're also the waivers to use when you wish to send a player who is out of options to the minors (thereby also removing him from your 40-man). These waivers are irrevocable, meaning that if you place a player on outright waivers and he is claimed, you can not pull the player back off waivers.
  • Major league waivers. These are the waivers in question during August. Between 4 pm on July 31st and the end of the season, players must clear major league waivers to be assigned to another major league club. These waivers are revocable, and they are also the waivers required for players in Choi's situation, who have options remaining but are more than three calendar years removed from their debuts on major league rosters. Although these waivers are revocable, if a player on major league waivers is claimed and the waiver request is revoked, a subsequent major league waiver request in the same waiver period will be irrevocable.

So, as of the day that this article first appeared, any player who first appeared on a 25-man roster prior to August 3rd, 2003, must now clear major league waivers to be optioned to the minors.

Service time

Some bullet points on service time...

  • One year of major league service is defined as 172 days of service, but a major league season actually runs around 183 days. A player can only accrue 172 days of service during a season, but he doesn't have to be on a roster from wire to wire to get that many days. This means that a team that wishes to hold a player in the minors long enough to push his free agency date back by one season must wait at least eleven days (and probably about two weeks, just to be safe) before recalling him.
  • Days spent on optional assignments shorter than ten days don't count against your service time. If you're sent down on Friday and are recalled on Monday, you get Saturday and Sunday's days of service as well.
  • The cutoff for "super-two" status (referring to players with between two and three years of service who are eligible for salary arbitration) is not fixed; all players with at least 2 years and 0 days of service but no more than 2 years and 171 days (2.171) of service are ranked in descending order by total service time, and the top 16% are granted super-two status. The cutoff is usually somewhere between 2.130 and 2.135; to the best of my knowledge, it's never been below 2.120, so a player recalled after June 5th or so is in the clear.

When an option isn't an option

If a player is sent out on one or more optional assignments during the course of a season, but the total number of days spent on those assignments is fewer than twenty, then he's not charged with an option. So there.

The fourth option

Everyone knows that a player who is added to a 40-man roster for the first time may be sent out on optional assignment in up to three years, which are commonly referred to as "option years" or just "options." But once in a while, a player ends up receiving a fourth option year. Here's the text from the MLB rulebook:

"Contracts of Major League players who, prior to commencement of the current season, have been credited with less than five seasons in professional baseball ... shall be eligible for a fourth optional assignment, without waivers, during that season. For purposes of this Rule 11(c), 90 days or more on the Active List during a championship season shall constitute a 'season of service.' ... [if] a player is placed on the disabled list after the player has been credited with 60 or more days of service in any particular season, the Disabled List time shall be counted to the player's credit."

So what are we saying here?

  • A player who is currently entering his fourth or fifth pro season and already has been optioned in three separate years gets a fourth option. Delmon Young has been optioned in three years (2004, 2005, 2006) and he'll get a fourth option in 2007, which he's doing his best to earn.
  • A player who has missed one or more seasons to injury - meaning an entire season, or enough time to accrue fewer than 90 days on an active roster - may get a fourth option if, exclusive of those injury-shortened years, he has fewer than five full seasons in pro ball. A season in which he's on an active roster for 60 days or more and then gets hurt still counts as a full season, but a season in which he's hurt and then comes back and gets 60-89 days of service after the injury does not.
  • Seasons spent entirely in short-season leagues (the New-York Penn, Northwest, Pioneer, Appalachian, Gulf Coast, and Arizona Rookie Leagues, as well as the Dominican and Venezuelan Summer Leagues) don't count as seasons for the purposes of a fourth option.

As you might imagine, more players are eligible for fourth options than you might have realized, but they often don't come to light because the players are low-profile or because they're kicked off of 40-man rosters before the fourth option comes into play.

Prior outrights

The first time a player is placed on outright/special waivers, he must accept the outright assignment if he clears. All subsequent times, however, he has the right to reject the outright assignment and become a free agent, or he may accept the outright assignment but become a free agent at the end of the season (unless he's back on a 40-man roster at that time).

In addition, a player with at least three years of major league service may also reject an outright assignment at that moment or at the end of the season, regardless of whether he has a prior outright. Players receive these rights under Article XX of the Basic Agreement, and are sometimes referred to as Article XX free agents within the industry, although they're more often lumped in with minor league free agents in the press because the time of their free agency is similar.

As you can see, MLB's roster rules aren't difficult, just complex. I think MLB could do a better job of explaining the rules to fans, since there's a huge appetite for information on rosters, waivers, and service time, but I hope this has at least cleared up a few of the more common quirks in the system.

Keith Law is the senior baseball analyst for Scouts Inc. Before joining ESPN, Law served as special assistant to the general manager of the Toronto Blue Jays and was a writer for Baseball Prospectus. His writes for ESPN.com and for ESPNdeportes.com, and he has appeared on ESPNews' The Hot List and the Pulse, ESPN's Outside the Lines, and on ESPNRadio.

Comments

Keith -

Great article. I've long looked for an explanation of this stuff...Do you know how I can get a copy of the rules?

Keith, one particular area of confusion involves the priority of waiver claims for major league waivers. I've heard from numerous sources that the AL/NL distinction has been eliminated, but multiple news articles (and Steve Phillips just yesterday) say that the claim priority still goes AL teams, then NL teams, for a player waived by an AL team, for example. Which is it?

A couple questions:


"Days spent on optional assignments shorter than ten days don't count against your service time. If you're sent down on Friday and are recalled on Monday, you get Saturday and Sunday's days of service as well."


I thought that when a player was sent down, he had to spend at least 10 days there before being recalled. An interesting, related anecdote from this season: the Brewers claimed Chris Mabeus off waivers from the A's, where he had been at AAA Sacramento. The Brewers assigned him to their own AAA affiliate, Nashville, and then tried to call him up a couple days later, only to be informed by MLB that, because he had technically passed through the Brewers' ML roster before being sent to Nashville that they had to wait until the ten-day period was up before recalling him, even though he'd spent the entire season (indeed, career) in the minors.


Okay, next question.


"If a player is sent out on one or more optional assignments during the course of a season, but the total number of days spent on those assignments is fewer than twenty, then he's not charged with an option. So there."


So an option year can be conserved by simply not optioning the player?

So an option year can be conserved by simply not optioning the player?

If a player is not optioned at all during the season (i.e., spends the whole season on the Active Roster or on one of the major league DLs), then he does not lose an option year. For example, Barry Bonds still has three options left!

Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks. So what about the 10 days thing?

bkow, I'm not sure I understand your question.

By the way, I learned something new myself, courtesy of an MLB insider who'd prefer not to be named: A player can only earn super-two status if he had at least 86 days of service in that most recent championship season. So if a player has service time of 2.115 entering 2006, then gets 35 days of service to get to 2.150 (a number that would ordinarily guarantee that he became a super-two player), he wouldn't become a super-two because he didn't reach the 86 days required in the current season.

Don't worry about it, I answered my own question. I was confused about the 10 day requirement, but I didn't know that a player could be recalled before the 10 days was up if he was traded or if a player on the 25-man roster went on the DL.

Keith,

I have a question about this with regard to what happened to Josh Towers earlier this year. This is something that came up a few times on a Jays forum. If Josh Towers had elected to become a free agent when he was outrighted instead of accepting a minor league assignment, would Towers have forfeited his guaranteed contract? Or would the Blue Jays have been forced to eat the whole thing? This would have been at least the second time he'd been outrighted in his career.

So in the case of a Major League waiver (the post deadline type), when a player is claimed, do they get the player outright or is there some sort of obligation to work out a trade or compensation?

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the rules Keith has discussed?

If Josh Towers had elected to become a free agent when he was outrighted instead of accepting a minor league assignment, would Towers have forfeited his guaranteed contract?

Yes. And since that contract had about $4 million left on it and runs through 2007, Towers took the assignment.

So in the case of a Major League waiver (the post deadline type), when a player is claimed, do they get the player outright or is there some sort of obligation to work out a trade or compensation?

That's up to the team that currently has the player and placed him on waivers. They can just let him go for nothing, or they can negotiate a trade, or they can pull him back. But if he's claimed and they pull him back, then a subsequent attempt to secure major league waivers on him will be irrevocable.

Nolan, I don't believe these rules are publicly available.

It should all be here in the basic agreement, I think.

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm#2002basicagreement


That document doesn't include the Major League Rules, although it does have some of the information on things like service time. Waivers, the Rule 4 and 5 drafts, and optional assignments are all covered in the Major League Rules.

Question about the Jones-waiver issue. Buster Olney has talked about Jones being claimed and a potential trade could be going down. However, Jones has not passed through waivers, he was claimed. According to what I've read, Jones would go to whoever claimed him basically for nothing. The claiming team would get Jones but must accept all his financial obligations. That would, in essence, be the compensation that Atlanta gets, to rid itself of Jones' contract. Can you have a real, traditional trade take place after July 31st? If Houston has the claim on Jones, can he be be sent to Houston for Roy Oswalt? Thanks

Can you have a real, traditional trade take place after July 31st? If Houston has the claim on Jones, can he be be sent to Houston for Roy Oswalt?

No, not really. Oswalt would have to clear waivers, too.

If the Astros claimed Jones, the Braves have the right to take him back, work out a so-called trade with that team, or let him go. Should they choose the first option, then it's as if nothing ever happened. If they opt for the second option, then the compensating player (in your example, Oswalt) would have to be put on waivers and go through the same process as Jones. [In the "old days," teams would wink at one another like 'don't touch my guy and we won't touch yours next time' and such *trades* would be made.] In the event of the third option, then the acquiring team must pick up that player's contract in full whereas they could negotiate the compensation as part of any deal in the second option.

Players, including star players, are placed on waivers all the time. It is a way for teams to judge interest in their players. There is a lot of gamemanship that goes on as well. Teams will put players on waivers (1) in the hope that they are claimed, (2) to lay the groundwork for a trade, and/or (3) to deke teams and keep them honest. Remember the Red Sox placed Manny Ramirez on irrevocable waivers after the 2003 season. The team's sole purpose was to dump his bloated contract and he went unclaimed.

As a Red Sox fan, I remember that very well and was openly rooting for someone to take him.

Thanks for the clear-up, now I can stop acting like a moron when I speak on this subject.

I'll never forget something I saw this spring on a message board I won't name, when Chris Snow of the Boston Globe (and now director of hockey operations for the Minnesota Wild) reported that Hee Seop Choi couldn't be sent to the minors without clearing waivers. Because most fans weren't familiar with the rule in question, the immediate assumption was that Snow was wrong. And one poster in particular ripped Snow, saying it was just "sloppy reporting" and then saying how every beat writer should learn the transaction rules.

Except, of course, Snow was right. How odd that the professional should know what he was talking about.

If you had any experience with the hockey media, the assumption that he was wrong would be a lot safer to make. I'm not defending the SOSH types, only pointing out that people in the media are wrong all the time, particularly when they're discussing something technical like waiver rules.