Yesterday, the Athletics claimed outfielder Alex Hassan from the Rangers, marking the fifth time in the past seven months that Hassan has been claimed. Since November, Hassan has been property of the Red Sox, then the Athletics, then the Orioles, then the Athletics again, then the Rangers, and then the Athletics for a third time.
To outside observers, Hassan’s lengthy recent transaction history is merely a curiosity, but as Brian MacPherson of the Providence Journal wrote in a lengthy piece that we highlighted earlier today, frequent claims and DFAs can be a significant problem for players, both personally and professionally. MacPherson writes that the MLBPA is likely to address the issue in negotiations for the next CBA, and it’s easy to see why the union is concerned. In recent years, players like Hassan, Adam Rosales, Gonzalez Germen and Alex Castellanos have been designated for assignment several times in short periods. While the waiver loop in which Hassan found himself is a minor problem in the grand scheme, it clearly was not a minor problem to him, and it served little purpose for all the teams that claimed and then designated him.
Some employment uncertainty is a necessary and understandable aspect of playing pro baseball, but players on the fringes of 40-man rosters have a particularly difficult time. Unlike players who are frequently moved back and forth between Triple-A and the Majors, players who are frequently designated and claimed often must move from one set of unfamiliar environs to another.
Also, while they’re in DFA limbo, they can’t play. That might not be a big deal for a player who is designated once, but it’s a problem for a player who is repeatedly designated in a short span of time. For example, as I noted in a post on this topic in early 2013, a series of DFAs prevented outfielder Casper Wells from playing in a game in 2013 until late April (April 23, to be exact), even though he was healthy. (Wells got designated for assignment again a week after I wrote that post.) The worst aspect of Wells’ situation was that he was in DFA limbo for a full ten days between when the Mariners designated him March 31 and the Blue Jays claimed him April 10, and another eight between April 14, when the Jays designated him, and April 22, when they finally traded him to the A’s.
One easy fix the MLBPA could consider suggesting, then, is to shorten the maximum DFA limbo period, as an MLBTR reader proposed in the comments to my 2013 piece. The current ten-day wait seems unnecessary and anachronistic. Even waiver periods in fantasy leagues usually only last a day or two. And teams shouldn’t need much time to collect information about a player they’re considering claiming once he’s in DFA limbo, because he’s no longer playing and thus cannot be scouted, except through video.
Unlike Wells, Hassan never had to spend anywhere near the full ten days in limbo. But he still felt behind in his routines, particularly since he bounced around so much since the start of Spring Training. “You’re just behind,” he tells MacPherson. “I’m like, ‘Man, honestly, it’s not my mechanics. It’s not anything like that. I just feel behind.’ The frustrating thing about that is that there’s no real fix for that other than going out and playing and getting the at-bats. … I can’t simulate that.”
This is especially unfortunate for Hassan, since the reason he and players like Wells keep getting designated and claimed is because they’re on the fringes. A series of odd breaks from their routines over the course of a month or two might not sound like an insurmountable obstacle, but for a fringe player, it might make or break his career. Equally problematic, as Hassan points out elsewhere in MacPherson’s article, is the fact that a player in his position must perform well immediately after being claimed, or risk being designated for assignment again.
At its best, the waiver system allows fringe players to find situations for which they’re best suited. A good recent example is that of Stolmy Pimentel, an out-of-options reliever who couldn’t break camp with the Pirates but got claimed by the Rangers, who had greater flexibility in their bullpen than Pittsburgh did. Pimentel has mostly performed well in Texas so far.
At its worst, though, the system is disruptive, and one potential problem is that a team can claim players it has no intention of using on its big-league roster and essentially take a free shot at trying to sneak them through waivers again and use them as minor-league depth. That might have been what the Blue Jays were trying to do with Wells and several other players during that period, and we might be seeing it again with, say, the Dodgers’ recent claims and immediate outrights longtime Reds farmhands Daniel Corcino and Ryan Dennick. The possibility of outrighting Hassan was surely at least part of the reason Hassan got claimed so many times. If it was, the teams who claimed him were behaving rationally, given the rules currently in place. They claimed him and tried to sneak him through waivers; as long as they didn’t mind him occupying a roster spot for a few days or weeks, they didn’t lose anything as a result of having claimed him, and were no worse for wear when their attempts to sneak him through waivers didn’t work.
In my 2013 post, I suggested that a team claiming a player should have keep him on its 40-man roster for 30 days before designating him again. That would have been an improvement over the current system, but upon reflection, it might not have given teams an appropriate amount of flexibility, since injuries can crop up at any time and force teams to change their plans.
An alternate possibility, then, might be to make every player designated for assignment eligible for free agency if he has previously been claimed in a specified time frame — say, the last 60 days. Such a player could also again receive the right to opt for free agency if he’s outrighted as a result of that DFA, even if he’s being outrighted for the first time. That would free the player to sign wherever he liked, as quickly as he liked, and allow him to find the situation and contract that fit him best. It would also disincentivize the practice of claiming a player purely to try to sneak him into the minors.
Great article. The situations with players like Wells and Hassan are almost borderline criminal. While I concede the point that as a professional baseball athlete you know what you are getting into when you sign on the dotted line, the multiple DFAs and claims take a significant toll mentally, physically, and of course, financially.This is definitely an area that is in dire need of fixing and I hope something is done to prevent this nonsense in the future.
Thanks!
I think the 30 day minimum on the 40 man roster is the best solution. I know that DFAing players can end up working out for the player, but there always seem to be a handful of teams with an open 40 man spot that play musical chairs with a couple of players until a couple of those teams get lucky enough to stash those guys in the minors. There is no incentive for teams to pass on the guy that they know will be the first guy DFA’d.
I can see this being beneficial, but people always look for loopholes. Here’s one. Imagine a player is picked up off waivers and put on your 40-man roster. He’s sent to AAA, and for whatever reason, it’s not a match. Maybe attitude, work ethic, philosophy, whatever.
The team knows in 30 days they’re going to DFA him. They don’t want to give any innings or at bats to that player because it slows development of players they plan on keeping in the organization. So now he’s going to sit on the bench for a month. Now the player still isn’t getting reps and now has to wait a month before being exposed to waivers again.
I have no idea how to close that potential loophole up. I was trying to just stop teams from constantly picking up guys they know they will DFA as soon as someone else becomes available ( usually about every day).
If the team doesn’t want him, they can just release him. DFA means they want him they just want the free roster spot
Shortening the DFA Window is nice, but it won’t reduce the number of claims/DFA’s. I think the 30-day period is the right idea… add to that an exception to the rule for 60-day DL stints only and you have flexibility in case of injury.
Agreed, there needs to be exceptions in case some teams have a lot of injuries( ’14 Rangers).
This is a good update. I keep thinking of the Casper Wells article whenever Hassan goes somewhere. For my part, I think there are a lot of valid options on how to fix this:
1. Shorten the DFA period, especially on successive DFAs
2. Require an acquiring team to hold the player for a certain amount of time before DFAing again
3. Prevent the same team from claiming a player again (or allow them to only with restrictions like #2)
4. Allow players in some situations to enact their own Outrights after the first or second DFA so they can at least just play in the minors
Maybe you require a team to hold the player 30 days, but, allow an exception in case of a 60-day DL stint… allows for injury flexibility.
Due to the nature of the off-season, teams should be able to DFA players as they see fit as they are now. But between March 1st through the end of the World Series, teams who DFA a player, should forfeit the ability to claim them off waivers later. This would have prevented the A’s and subsequently the Rangers from reclaiming Rosales last August. In Hassan’s case, it would mean that the A’s wouldn’t have been able to claim him this time, but the rest of his off-season would have been exactly the same.
I actually like this idea a lot, because not every team wants that certain player, so he’d more than likely make it through waivers with someone if his previous claiming team(s) couldn’t reclaim him. The offseason shouldn’t matter because he’s at home or training, so he could be claimed 10 different times and essentially wouldn’t affect him until Spring Training.
I also think if he has an apartment or something somewhere, the team claiming him should have to cover any financial issues he encounters while moving, like the lease issue Hassan talked about after repeatedly being claimed. They may already do this, but I don’t know exactly how they handle those things.
I think I have an even easier solution:
The original team that designates him for assignment puts the guy in their AAA team immediately upon the DFA. He then goes through waivers, might get claimed, that claiming team either has to activate him to MLB team or put him through waivers to demote and activate him in AAA. The player only leaves his original team (where he is playing in AAA) once he is fully activated by the claiming team. He might get stuck in DFA limbo, but he is playing in AAA to stay sharp and in shape.
That might create a problem with the AAA team, though, right? I mean, what if they don’t have a spot for him? What if their outfielders are all really good prospects; would they be forced to play Hassan? AAA teams are often trying to win games, too and entertain fans. It seems like the easiest solution is to just lessen the DFA window, from 10 days to 2 or 3. Most of these guys have been scouted before, and MLB has a central scouting database.
You can shorten the DFA window at the same time. The point is, the player should only move to a new team once he is activated. Just like a player only moves to a new team once a trade is finalized. The player should stay with the original team until the deal is final and the new team takes him on and takes all of the responsibilities of the new player, including finding a spot for him in AAA if they elect to DFA him.
Shortening the window is nice and all, but it won’t decrease the number of DFA’s and subsequent claims.
No, but it will benefit the players who would like to get back on the field and playing again; these are fringe guys and every chance to play is beneficial to them.
Maybe the solution is a declining number of days a player can be DFA’d in the season. The first time, ten days isn’t unfair because he’s under contract. he’s getting paid, the initial team is responsible for his salary, and maybe they needed to make a roster move and the player had a rough start. Like a Salatamacchia–give the Marlins time to try to find a trade partner. But subsequent DFA’s should be shorter spans–maybe five days, and then three days, and after that Free Agency if the player wants it. The problem in requiring the team who picks up the player to hold him for thirty days is that it makes it harder for a team that has a regular go on the DL to be replaced by a DFA’d player. You end up with a roster crunch after fifteen days, and perhaps another player has to be DFA’d
Why change anything the system works fine.
It doesn’t work at all for the players
How about if a guy gets DFA for a second time within a week or so, the player automatically goes to the next team in priority that may have claimed him during his first DFA period. If no one claimed him, he gets outrighted to the team that first DFA’d him. This way teams can’t claim players just try to outright them to the minors.
Doesn’t work that well. Injuries happen every week. A team that didn’t need that player during the first DFA might have a significant need for them the next DFA.
Agree that this needs to be changed. The Dodgers stole two minor league players from the Reds because of injury/roster crunches. That’s not the intent of the waivers/DFA system, it’s to give players a chance to make it on another team’s roster. But if they’re DFAed less than a week later, the original team should have the right to get them back. So I like the 30 day rule and/or if you DFA a player you recently claimed, the original DFAing team (if clearing waivers) has the right to assign that player to their minor league system, and if they pass than the 2nd (or 3rd, etc.) team can assign them to their minors.
I have to wonder whether just paying the DFA’d player some amount of money is the solution. Something like $50k would be trivial to the team and it probably wouldn’t change their behavior, but it would certainly help players with their financial uncertainty.
This is not a bad idea. Reduce the window and have teams fork over some money. That will stop the careless claims and subsequent DFA’s
Every system is going to have a few examples that fall through the cracks–in this case it’s players right on the cusp. In the FA system it’s the Steven Drews. No matter how carefully the competing interests are balanced, there will always be one or two examples of players that are right in the grey area; not good enough to stick, but not bad enough to release. The key is finding a system that balances all of the interests, and is finely tuned enough to minimize these scenarios. You’re never going to eliminate them completely.
Not sure I follow. Drew didn’t land a contract because he insisted on a salary higher than his market value. Sucks for baseball, but that’s how free agency works.
I think that the point he was trying to make is that players whose apparent market value is really close to the qualifying offer number, and have that QO picked up, end up having their effective market value reduced, because draft picks have a monetary value to the teams. So you end up with teams seeing such players as having a lower market value than they place on themselves. OTOH, if a player of around the same potential market value does NOT get a QO, his effective market value in free agency ends up being higher due to the lack of a draft pick tied to signing him.
The end result is that players whose apparent market value prior to getting a QO is around the value of the QO an end up in limbo because of it.
Is this a crack, a gray area in the FA system? Of course. Is there a flaw in the DFA system? Yes. I think that are ways to minimize these flaws though, if both sides are willing to look for them. At the moment though, it seems that in both cases, it’s only the players who are taking the brunt of these flaws, and I can see no downside for the teams. So, other than good will with the players, I don’t see what incentive the teams have to try to help fix these flaws.
I don’t think it’s a crack or a grey area. The system already has a safeguard for that; the player can accept the QO instead. Drew played the market wrong and wound up sitting in the cold as a result. Bad for baseball, of course, but it’s on the player.
I have to disagree. Players simply do not want to take a single year contract when they’re heading to free agency. They just don’t. They want job security. And being “forced” to take a 1 year deal or face being devalued by having a draft pick tied to you just because your market value is around that of the QO is a flaw in my book.
Did the players’ union accept this? Yes. But they shouldn’t have. They should find a way that doesn’t leave these borderline players in a real jam. Every year there’s at least 1-3 players who get boned by this system and are left unsigned for far too long. It’s unfair that borderline guys have their value significantly reduced by the draft pick, whereas guys who are actually lesser players and simply aren’t going to get a QO and don’t end up making out better.
I’m not a bleeding heart union guy here, but I feel for the players in this situation, as well as the DFA situation in the article.
I was specifically thinking of the 2014 summer where the QO made it difficult for him to find a contract. The QO made it difficult for him to find “market value” because for teams there was an extra cost–the draft pick–that he didn’t get the benefit of. So while his “market value” was $13mil (that’s what he got, anyhow), he couldn’t actually get that because he cost $13mil PLUS a draft pick.
He’s one of the few who fell through the cracks. That’s all I’m sayin’.
Aside from shortening the DFA window/timeline, won’t these other changes make it less appealing to claim a player? More of these fringe 40-man guys will probably drop off of 40-man rosters at that point, winding up with a lower salary and a tougher path back to the big leagues.
I say, shorten the timeline, maybe give the players a small bonus for expenses, but otherwise, don’t mess with the system.
That would be a problem for guys who cannot refuse an outright (and I forget all the rules on that). If they don’t get claimed because of new restrictions, they’ll be off the 40 with the downside associated with that–they’d have to be put back on the 40 to be promoted–and stuck in the same organization that didn’t want to keep them on the 40. For guys who can refuse an outright or get released, it is probably a wash or better in that some benefit more from free agency that a waiver pickup to a new 40 man roster.
I think there is a related issue of all minor leaguers not on 40 man rosters who are without options getting buried there because to promote them, you need a slot and then they have to clear waivers to demote them. I understand that this should make them available on waivers to other teams but in practice it prevents teams from bringing them up in the first place. The Mets could have used Fernando Tatis in the outfield in 2007 but they left him in AAA as insurance against a Wright injury, knowing they could lose him on waivers if they needed to send him back down.
I think it is worth it for the union and MLB to take a look at everything in the player transaction/rights/waiver/options system in the next CBA negotiations. I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t find some mutually beneficial changes to make. They’ve been making changes at the margins for decades to the point that some rules just make no sense. We have rules that come into being before arbitration and free agency. Circumstances have changed. I know that baseball is cautious and conservative and likes to tinker at the margins. It just doesn’t seem to work in this case.
Wow, what an interesting read. I had never given this much thought before, but clearly the current system is detrimental to the development of players right on the cusp of breaking in to the major leagues for real, which in itself is a huge adjustment for players. To have such a fractured playing experience during such a vulnerable stage of growth no doubt risks major setbacks for players who get tossed around like a hot potato all year.
Make the team who DFA’s a player have to pay the player $5-10k. Teams will think twice about tossing guys back and forth, and these fringy guys benefit. I can’t recall which but I’m fairly certain one of the other pro leagues does something like this.
They really need to shorten the amount of time a guy is on the DFA’d list. 10 days was a fair amount of time when teams were using carrier pigeons to work out trades, but in todays internet age, 24 hours should be more than enough.
That’s too short of a time period. 3 days at the minimum.
I was more arguing that it was far to long, as opposed to being for it only being 24 hours. Just a number I threw out. 3 days wouldn’t be horrible, unless you still get locked into a pinball loop like some of these guys are.
24 hours wouldn’t give teams enough time to evaluate the player and their situation to the fullest. In other words, no team would truly be doing their due diligence before picking up these players. 3 days would allow them enough time, while still being 70% shorter than the current 10 days.
1 day may not be enough for a team to do “due diligence”, but look at it from the player’s perspective. They’re being hung out to dry while they’re in DFA limbo.
Also, we’re not talking about spending multi-millions of dollars on these DFA’d guys. For the most part, I’d think that the costs associated with these DFA’d guys is chump change for MLB teams. And if some of them were to have failed if the team’s had had a longer time to do that due diligence, I’m not exactly all bent out of shape about it. It’s chump change compared to the big money contracts where serious due diligence is truly warranted.
I’m sure players would be happy with 3 days and going to a team that appreciates them, not to the team that happens to have top priority. Imagine Adam Rosales bouncing back and forth between Texas and Oakland 15 times through August instead of 3 times. 24 hours and you’re talking a player could conceivably be DFA’d 162 times in a season and never play in a game due to always being traveled. A bit of an extreme example, but your viewpoint is pretty extreme.
And now Oakland has designated Hassan yet again.