Hembree Rule

[[e-mail]]

Don't mean to stir the pot, but I'm gonna.

I propose the elimination altogether of the Hembree Rule.

The league can police any potential abuses born from signing minor league players to the minimum 600K contracts, where players do not have the requisite at bats or innings pitched.

Furthermore, I propose as a replacement:

-If you have a minor league player, whose years are expired where they do not have the requisite innings pitched or at bats, you can sign them to the major league minimum up to 5 years.

-You have FULL-AUTHORITY to place said player(s) on any open waivers or cut them outright at any point, regardless of innings pitched or at bats eligibility.

-If player who does not have the requisite at bats/innings pitch limit, and he is cut, the player becomes a minor league free agent and can be targeted by any of us at the next Minor League Draft provided they have maintained their at bats/innings pitched ineligibility.

Like I said, abuses can be policed by us as a league.  What are some abuses that could occur?  One that comes to mind is someone having several minor leaguers, whose years have expired and are signed to Major League minimum contracts.  Well, teams still need to field an active Yahoo roster during regular play.  There is no way around this.  You will get fined if you are trying to stash expired MiLBs while fielding an inactive Yahoo roster.

You might say there is not enough penalty in signing an expired MiLB to an MLB minimum contract.  I say, "Phooey".  A team is making a conscious decision to have an active MLB slot be occupied potentially by an inactive signed minor leaguer. These are valuable roster spots.  That is a penalty in of itself.  Also, if you decide to cut the player, the team still incurs a financial loss, albeit against a 600K contract.  If player is put on waivers, again, these slots are valuable.  These things in my estimation are penalties-enough to warrant the elimination of the Hembree rule, as it is written, altogether.

So I am just going to leave this here for discussion.  Pot has been stirred.

Brew

[Minnesota Twins]

I vote no. Need a penalty to make it a tough decision whether to sign a minor guy out of yrs.

[Detroit]

I disagree Minny. The penalty is you carry 1 less major league player on your roster. The innings pitched limit penalty still applies. The penalty is your own luck, or stupidity.

My 2 cents.

[[e-mail]]

Minny,

If I take a leap in signing an expired minor league player to the MLB minimum, chances are that player really means something to me.

If I get to a point where I need to cut that player, I guarantee you that the decision on some level hurts/pains me.

This current rule looks to impart overbearing penalties, when potentially painful penalties already existed. The current rule, I have no question was very well-intentioned. But in my honest opinion went too far.

[[e-mail]]

Who owns Julio Urias. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't he a hembree? That person should chime with their thoughts on this because I would love to hear their thoughts.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

I don't think I was ever in favor of the rule. I think it was Chicago's idea. I may have supported it out of unity sake, but I see no reason why you can't just sign your own player if he is out of years.

[Deleted]

Gah

[Deleted]

I agree with the commish on this one. So what are  our choices here? Drop the rule and if your guy runs out of milb years, you either sign him or throw him back? I could go for that .To paraphrase Hall & Oates.

[Deleted]

Pittsburgh, remember when you traded for Desmond Jennings (MiLBer) near the end of the season when he had an expiring MiLB contract?? Old Chic made you release him because he did not hit the threshold of an MLB contract. Thresholds are thresholds. He did not have the ABs to be a MLBer. You need thresholds to sign a player in season to an MLB contract why is it different if you own a prospect?? It should not be. What if I used a first overall pick on Bryce Harper and he spent 5 years in the minors, was injured a lot and never got going but I believe he is still going to be a good player. I should lose a first overall pick because he didn't get a 150 ABs?? Hence the Hembree rule was created?? I pretty much came up with the rule but with hash penalties. It should only apply to a few players and hardly is used. To the new owners of this league rules/things have been setup over the years due to an issue that happened.

Milwaukee, what is the issue with the Hembree rule?? It was created to protect an owner having a superstar player the chance to keep that player. If you want thresholds create them but make them consistent.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Yeah, I pretty much remember the hembree rule being something i disagreed with but went along with because it would have been seen as self-serving if I disagreed.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

doincashmansjob.proboards.com/thread/5894/rule-situation

[Detroit]

Philly, you and I are usually lock step in agreement, but I have to disagree with you a little here.

For in season signings, sure, use the thresholds. This doesn’t have to pertain to someone that was drafted in one of our 2 annual drafts. Every manager is capable of independently managing their own team (or mostly at least).

I think the Hembree rule is stupid.

Do you know how many first round picks don’t make the majors or don’t make the majors in the years assigned to them? Players being signed in the DR at 16 / 17 years old are being drafted by our owners now. Most players don’t make it to the majors before they turn 22, so the odds are against signing someone too young. But, if you wanna sign them and use a bench spot for that, I’m ok with that.

Maybe there should be a limit to how many of these players you are allowed to sign, or a time limit to how long you can roster someone before they either have to reach the 50/150 threshold or be released.

Pitts signed Michael Chavis who is a good prospect, but blocked at the major league level. He is clogging up an active roster spot and he could do this for 5 years. Where is the penalty in that? He just goes with a shorter bench...

[Minnesota Twins]

He can't cut or waiver wire chavis is the penalty. I am fine with whatever but I think hembree rule has stood up pretty well over time.

[[e-mail]]

Philly, "Milwaukee, what is the issue with the Hembree rule?? It was created to protect an owner having a superstar player the chance to keep that player. If you want thresholds create them but make them consistent. "

Philly, my main issue is signing a MiLB that has not hit his limits to a financial contract where I dont have the same flexibility to do with him as I wish any other financial contract (waiver or cut). As stated above, penalties already exists as utilizing a waiver slot or cutting said player is already an existing penalty. If I need to do either, something did not work out for me and mine. And again, these spots on waiver and bench are finite and valuable.

Let's pretend Wander Franco was an expired contract without the limits having been hit. I sign him. I bench him. He becomes a stinker at AA. He's taking up bench space. I can't cut him. I cant waiver him. 13% of my bench space is dead in the water now for a guy I made a conscious decision to sign to an MLB contract at 5 years and 600K.

Sure I made a choice to roster someone with this penalty because, hey, it's Wander, the greatest prospect since Fran Mejia.

But you hinted at this notion that I really appreciate. Following our standards. Absolutely. We need these things. But when you sign someone to a normal MLB contract, that comes with a set of standards: You play them, bench em, waiver em, or you cut em. The exception are our few and far in-between Hembrees. That's simply what I am proposing. They have the same standards as a regular MLB contracted player.  Being consistent, as you put it.

[[e-mail]]

I gotta ask Philly here, turn the tables a little. What abuse was the league looking to combat when it stipulated for Hembrees that you can neither drop or waiver them? That's the part I'm fuzzy on.