Hembree Rule

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Go back to the roots...

Why do owners who want to sign their own player need to pay a penalty to do so? Why should they be punished? If you think there should be a penalty for owning a player that is not getting real world playing time (sort of a double penalty if you look at it that way!) then the Hembree rule makes sense.

I tend to think using up a roster/waiver spot is enough price to pay to keep a player like that.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

The penalty was a compromise between owners who felt you should not be able to sign the player and owners who felt you should be able to.

Does anyone still think you should not be able to sign those players?

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Now, if you don't mind, I have an 8 hour fantasy baseball auction to prepare for. The Phillies are tough to beat.

[[e-mail]]

If we cant sign them I wouldnt mind seeing some financial thing we could pay to assign more MiLB years. Maybe a million per year, up to of course 5 years?

So if I had expiring MiLB, 1 million per year, max of 5 mil for 5 years, provided you have the years-space of course.

[Minnesota Twins]

I guess I'm the lone grumpus who is still in favor of the hembree rule.

If we do away with the rule will anyone remember hembree?

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2019 11:27:50 GMT -5 Detroit said:

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...

[Deleted]

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 guess we don't have to have the same rule for all players (why would we want to do that). Let's exclude all players from the DR. Player who bat lefthanded and anyone with a last name starting S-Z. All those players can be signed to a contract all other must but release and go back into the draft. The best part is we can make exceptions for any and all rules.


I think the Hembree rule is stupid.

Sure. Tell me when you use a first round Cashman pick to a impact player, he blows out his ACL, needs glasses (MiLB year are counting down) then hits .240 for 2 years as a 23 year old at AA. You have to release him due to league rules and Pittsburgh drafts him and makes the All Star game and wins a league MVP and you finish second and had no chance to sign him because well the first 5 years didn't go good.


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.

Sure I do, in Cashman most team are getting a solid player in the first round who I think do hit the thresholds. For me signing a 16/17 year old player is not wise. Just throw that pick in the river or let your time expire. In the end you will have the same thing or face releasing him back to the MiLB draft.


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.

Why should there be a limit?? No one tells you how many beers you can drink. So if Pittsburgh has a great draft he should only be able to sign 2 players to his MLB roster because he drafted good?? We do have a limit 1-5 years


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...

Sure Michael Chavis is a good player but he didn't have 150 ABs. Who's fault is that?? Red Sox?? Pittsburgh?? Michael's?? Release him and let him be drafted again in the MiLB draft. I'll trade up.

Sure he is clogging up a roster spot. Isn't that a hurt enough when you could sign Shin Soo Choo. Someone who could be getting counting stats. 1 to 10 rbi could be like 4 points in the standings and that's just 1 category but got a dead roster spot because I didn't want to release him but he didn't hit the threshold. I want my cake and eat it too.

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2019 16:42:03 GMT -5 [e-mail] said:

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.

[Deleted]

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.

Why should you get the same flexibility as a player who hit the threshold?? I don't understand?? If we both work at the same job and are required to start at 8:00am why should 1 of us be allowed to be late without punishment and the other not have a word said??


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.

Sounds to me you made a bad choice but you knew what the consequences were at the time. Kind of like smoking,it's all is good, very cool at first then years later your realize that was a bad choice.


when you sign someone to a normal MLB contract, that comes with a set of standards:

Sure it does. It means that you hit all the requirement of 150 ABs or 50 ip.

They have the same standards as a regular MLB contracted player.

I guess I work 40 hours for health care and someone works 0 and gets free healthcare but let's make an exception and have the same standards for everyone.

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2019 17:37:46 GMT -5 ex-Pittsburgh Pirates said:

Go back to the roots...

Why do owners who want to sign their own player need to pay a penalty to do so? Why should they be punished? If you think there should be a penalty for owning a player that is not getting real world playing time (sort of a double penalty if you look at it that way!) then the Hembree rule makes sense.

I tend to think using up a roster/waiver spot is enough price to pay to keep a player like that.

Why do owners who want to sign their own player need to pay a penalty to do so?

Gee, IDK maybe they didn't hit 150 ABs or 50 IP requirement.


Why should they be punished?

No one should be punished. The is America. Best country in the world ever. This is where you don't have to work a day in your life and can be a fat cow, play the lottery and have 10 free cell phones.


I tend to think using up a roster/waiver spot is enough price to pay to keep a player like that.

It could be but we could also expand the WW to 5 spots, or if you trade or release a player open a WW spot, Maybe we could put players on other teams WW spots before they have a chance to use them. How about if we sell them. The best thing is we can change the rules to be for what ever we feel at the time.

[Minnesota Twins]

My general feeling is we want to discourage signing guys who aren't major leaguers. Hembree rule does that, or at least makes you think seriously about it.

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2019 17:50:16 GMT -5 ex-Pittsburgh Pirates said:

The penalty was a compromise between owners who felt you should not be able to sign the player and owners who felt you should be able to.

Does anyone still think you should not be able to sign those players?

We should take a another vote. Since the time of the Hembree rule we have 8 new owners and they all are smarter than the previous 8.

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2019 17:51:16 GMT -5 ex-Pittsburgh Pirates said:

Now, if you don't mind, I have an 8 hour fantasy baseball auction to prepare for. The Phillies are tough to beat.

More like 10 hours if Bruce asks who are we bidding on again for every other player,

[torontobluejays]

I agree with you Minny.

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2019 17:56:12 GMT -5 [e-mail] said:

If we cant sign them I wouldnt mind seeing some financial thing we could pay to assign more MiLB years. Maybe a million per year, up to of course 5 years?

So if I had expiring MiLB, 1 million per year, max of 5 mil for 5 years, provided you have the years-space of course.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I think Minny proposed a similar idea for expiring MLB contracts. These two rule proposals should be in the same thread so one grenade can kill them both.