EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the proposals made by BOTH MLB and the MLBPA as part of the new CBA negotiation, is the continuation of the Rule R5 draft and, actually, changing it to make some players eligible one year sooner.
The article below looks at the players drafted in ML Rule 5 drafts from 2015-2024 and in the one year, 2021, when no ML Rule 5 draft occurred. It also looks at the 2025 roster freeze to see who teams protected or did not protect in anticipation of the upcoming R5 draft.
My research showed that, while the ML R5 draft is one method to give some players a chance at playing in the ML before they would get that opportunity through normal development, it is not useful today and likely does more harm than good because:
1. The ML R5 draft was only slightly more effective at giving players the opportunity to play in the majors and become successful than if those players had just stayed with their original team.
2. The R5 draft caused a number of players to have to play in the ML after having not played much, if at all, at levels above AA.
3. The threat of potentially losing prospects to the Rule 5 has caused teams to roster players who are too early in their careers as defined by their ability, at that time, to be effective major leagues, some of whom have not advanced past "A" ball. This resulted in needlessly using up some or all of their minor league options before they are ready for the majors.
4. In the one year, 2021, where no ML R5 draft was held, a number of prospects who likely would have been drafted wound up having ML success the next year (2022) and beyond with their organizations.
5. If we exclude a few players who had good careers after being drafted in the ML R5, many R5 draftees, even if they had long careers in the majors, were mostly used in low leverage situations (e.g., middle relievers, backup position players/role players)
6. R5 draftees often have very limited playing time in the season following when they are drafted. While a good number do get reasonable reps in their first year, the impression still exists that many are simply being stashed on the ML roster for the requisite one year (actually 90 days on the active roster).
7. Rostering of players not ready for the major leagues to protect them from the R5 draft creates 'dead spots' on the 40-man roster being taken for years by players who weren't ready to help the ML team. This limits a team's roster flexibility and causes more experienced players to be DFA'd (or not signed at all) to make room for these young, not-ready-for-MLB prospects on the 40-man roster.
8. The R5 draft, in its current form, does little to redistribute talent from the richer teams to resource-limited teams. Instead, it mostly just shuffles prospects between the middle and bottom teams in baseball.
9. It is estimated that, for each team, the ML R5 draft takes up roughly 200 hours of work per team/organization when considering three categories of time spent: (a) time spent in deciding who a team should protect on their own 40 man roster; (b) analyzing, post-roster freeze, who is available to be drafted; (c) resources in spring training to analyze whether or not a spot on a roster is even available for a player. So, roughly, 6000+ hours are spent by teams each year setting up their roster, preparing for, and executing upon the ML portion of the R5 draft.
10. Every ML R5 draftee who stuck with the team that drafted them took up a roster spot from a player who was more deserving, at that moment, of a spot on a ML roster.
11. HS and international amateur signees take, on average, 5-7 years to make their ML debuts, meaning they would not be ML ready until 1-2 years after they are R5-eligible. The 5-7 year average is probably skewed because the best players, those who would never be exposed to the R5 draft, bring down that average. So it is likely more like 6-7 years until the ML debut for players who might actually are exposed to the R5 draft. Instead of the antiquated R5 system, the current 6 year MiLB free agent rule is likely a better measure of when players should be rostered or potentially lost to other teams where they might find a ML opportunity or, at least, a fresh start.
In summary, the ML R5 draft takes up a lot of resources from teams trying to prepare for that draft. At the same time, the ML R5 draft is not effective in improving the competitive balance in baseball and does very little to get players chances at playing meaningful roles in the majors. It also doesn't appear to give players chances that they wouldn't have if they had just stayed with the team they were R5 drafted from. The ML R5 draft should be eliminated so teams can build their 40 man rosters to be more competitive each year and prospects can develop at a normal rate and not pushed to the major leagues by an artificial construct like the ML R5 draft that has outlived its original, stated purpose of keeping rich teams from hoarding prospects.
BACKGROUND
The Rule 5 draft has, in some form, existed for over 125 years. The intent, before the Rule 4 draft was instituted in 1965, was to prevent the wealthiest teams from hoarding talent by offering the largest bonuses to, essentially, buy up all the best amateur players. Once a player was signed by a team, he was considered perpetually bound to that team as long as they continued to offer him even a minor league contract by a clause in the baseball rules known as the reserve clause. A number of rule changes have been made to try to stop this practice:
1. The original Rule 5 - While this had many variations over the years, teams could draft players from other teams as a way to negate, to some extent, this hoarding. Many of the players attributed as successes in the Rule 5 draft (e.g., Roberto Clemente and George Bell) were actually obtained as part of the original first year player draft, where players could be drafted by other teams after they had played professionally for only one year.
2. In 1965 the amateur draft was started with the goal of allowing all teams to have more equal access to amateur talent BEFORE they were signed by the wealthiest teams
3. In 1975 this 'reserve clause' was challenged and an arbiter made a ruling that abolished the reserve clause and established free agency. ML players could then become free agents after 6 full seasons in the majors. Shortly after the reserve clause was invalidated, it was also established that players not on a team's 40-man roster could become minor league free agents after they had 6 full years in professional baseball.
4. Shortly after that, the rules were changed so that players on a team's 40 man roster could only be sent to the minors in three different seasons without having to pass through waivers before they could be sent down a 4th time. [NOTE: in some cases MLB grants a 4th option year to teams for certain players]
- a. Players who have been DFA'd one time can elect free agency if they are DFA'd a second time.
- b. Players with enough ML service time can elect free agency instead of being sent to the minors
- c. In 2022 the number of players a team can have in their US minor league system was limited to 165.
All these rule changes have, when considered together, addressed a lot of what the original Rule 5 was intended to address. Amateur players are now acquired more equitably and players are allowed to move from organization to organization more freely.
So, the question becomes:
HAS THE MAJOR LEAGUE PORTION OF THE RULE 5 DRAFT OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS?
We have calls for a salary cap to keep well-financed teams from just buying championships. We have calls for a salary floor to make the owners with limited resources spend more money to at least attempt to be competitive and/or keep their own players instead of trading them as they approach free agency. Both these proposals, like the original intent of the Rule 5 draft, are intended to improve competitive balance.
But is the Rule 5 draft, at the present time, really improving competitive balance?
[Note: All the data below comes from me counting up players. Even though I checked my work, it is quite possible that I overcounted or undercounted by 1 or 2 in some of these categories.]
Looking at the 9 R5 drafts from 2015-2024 (there was no ML portion of the R5 draft in 2021) here is what I found:
- 130 players were drafted in the ML R5 draft. 59 were NOT returned to their original team while 71 were offered back
- The Yankees had the most (21) players drafted but only 4 of them were not returned. The team with the 2nd most players drafted was Cleveland (9), followed by Tampa Bay and the Dodgers (8). Baltimore (12) and Philadelphia (9) drafted the most players.
- 23 of 30 teams had at least 1 player who was drafted and NOT returned, 28 teams (not LAD or NYY) selected at least 1 player with 25 teams selecting at least 2 or more in this period.
- No team had more than 4 players that were lost for good in this period.
These numbers clearly give the impression that, for the most part, teams were just re-arranging the deck chairs within the financial lower echelon of ML organizations and that redistribution of talent to those teams from well-financed teams was not effective.
Let's look at some more numbers from the R5 drafts during this period:
Of the 71 players who were returned to their original teams
-- 29 returned players (41%) NEVER played in the majors
-- 8 returned players only played briefly for the major league team that drafted them in the R5. Once they were returned, they never played in the majors again.
-- 13 of the remaining returned 34 players (38%) made their major league debut with their original team the season after they were drafted in the ML R5 and a total of 25 (74%) made their ML debuts in the first 2 seasons after they were drafted but returned.
-- 9 of those 34 players (26%) returned who played in the majors after they were returned have had major league careers of 5 years or longer, 21 (62%) have had ML careers of 2 years or longer so far.
Of the 59 players who were NOT returned to their original team
-- As said above, 59 of 130 (45%) of R5 drafted players were not returned to the team they were drafted from and, therefore, most made their ML debut the season after they were R5 drafted.
-- 21 (35%) have had ML careers of 5 years or longer and 38 (59%) have had ML careers of at least 2 years so far.
-- 32 of the 59 (54%) players not returned have had ML careers as mostly middle relievers, 5 have been leverage relievers and 6 are starting pitchers. The remaining 16 are position players.
-- Aside from the SP and leverage relievers, most of the 59 players not returned have had careers as low leverage players either middle relievers or low leverage position players.
Notable players from these drafts include
-- Players returned to their original team : Nester Cortez Jr., Trevor Megill, Will Vest
-- Players who were not returned: Anthony Santander, Brad Keller, Shane Smith, Mitch Spence, Liam Hicks, Garrett Whitlock and Jordan Romano.
Therefore, over these 9 drafts there was, on average, one player per year who had a career as a high leverage player.
-- The highest playing level a drafted player had obtained (using MLB's rookie definitions as a rough guide) at the time they were drafted were:
- AAA: not returned to their original team (19), returned (21)
- AA: not returned (26), returned (32)
- A+ : not returned (8), returned (10)
- A: not returned (3), returned (6)
- Rookie ball: not returned (1), returned (1)
- Previous MLB experience: not returned (2), returned (1)
Using the numbers above, players drafted in these ML R5 drafts were mostly at AA or lower in their development at the time they were drafted.
- 40 AAA
- 58 AA
- 18 A+
- 9 A
- 3 Rookie League
The 59 players taken in these rule 5 drafts who were not returned filled the following roles in the ML careers:
- Middle reliever (32)
- Starting pitcher (6)
- Leverage reliever (5)
- Position player (usually platoon or backup) (16)
Major league average for players making their ML debuts is 24-25 years old and the number of times players had to be sent to the minors after their debut before they stuck in the majors is twice.
- Players not returned averaged 2.2 times returning to the minors before they stuck in the majors
- Players returned and not returned both had an average age of about 24.5 years old at the time they made their ML debuts.
Looking at this second set of numbers gives the following impressions:
- -- Players who were returned to their original team actually had similar chances to make the ML, even in the year after they were drafted in the ML R5 draft, compared to R5 draftees who were not returned.
- -- 88 of 130 (67%) drafted likely were not ready for the major leagues when they were drafted in the R5.as they had spent most or all of their careers up to that point in AA or lower levels.
- -- While a few players who were not returned had good major league careers, a number of players who WERE returned had good major league careers, as well. This is even more compelling as you would guess that the players who were NOT returned had, by definition, a much greater likelihood of having good careers as they were likely more talented and ML ready than the players who were returned.
- -- Finally, given the rules behind the Rule 5 draft, it appears the data supports that teams drafting players in the ML R5 are looking for players they can put in low leverage situations (e.g., middle relievers) in their first year with the idea that those players might develop into more later. The data, however, doesn't support that those players end up in higher leverage situations later in their career. This clearly limits the chances that players drafted in the ML portion of the R5 are anything more than slightly better than replacement level.
WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT RULE 5 DRAFTEES BECOMING ALL-STARS?
Various sources list up to 41 players drafted in the Rule 5 draft who became all-stars since the early 1960s. As it turns out, after looking at this closely:
- -- 17 players drafted in the ML portion of the R5 and not returned fit today's criteria for what a ML R5 draft pick looks like and who also became an all-star.
- 10 became all-stars AFTER being returned
- -- Of those 17, three (Jeff Nelson, Willie Hernandez and Ryan Pressly) became all-stars 8-10 years after they were drafted in the ML portion of the R5
- -- 3 (George Bell, Paul Blair, Dave May) were drafted in the R5 when you could be drafted after playing as little as one year of professional baseball and May and Blair, in particular, were really not Rule 5 draft picks at all, rather being part of a different draft of players with one year of professional experience. [NOTE: Other supposed ML R5 success stories like Roberto Clemente were not actually R5 draft picks, either. Clemente was drafted to Pittsburgh after only one year of minor league baseball]
- One additional player (Jason Grilli) became an all-star after playing for 3 ML teams before he was drafted in the R5
- -- An additional five Rule 5 draftees became all-stars after being selected in the minor league portion of the R5 draft
- -- One of the 17 (Derrick Turnbow) appeared to have required 4 minor league options before he established himself in the big leagues and became an all-star
- One of the 17, Josh Hamilton, was not even playing baseball when he was selected in the Rule 5 draft and turned his career around to become an all-star
In summary, the data from the last 60 years suggest the following
- -- It is slightly more likely (17 to 10) that ML R5 draftees who are not returned become all-stars compared to those who are returned after the R5 draft.
- -- There were a number of players, e.g., George Bell, who are portrayed as R5 success stories when, in fact, their entry into the R5 did not even fit today's criteria for being R5-eligible, making these lists of R5 success studies questionable.
- -- The number of all-stars (5) who came out of the minor league phase of the R5 adds support to keeping this phase going in the future.
- -- The number of ML R5 draftees who became all-stars, when each example is looked at closely, implies that these cases are more anecdotal than a trend and, therefore, do not support continuation of the ML R5 draft.
ARE PLAYERS SELECTED IN THE ML R5 LIKELY TO JUST BE STASHED ON A ML ROSTER FOR A SEASON SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE RETURNED TO THEIR ORIGINAL TEAM?
Looking at the 59 players who were not returned, here is the usage data for those players in their first year after being selected in the ML R5 draft.
If a player met or surpassed the usage limits below in their first year they were considered to be used appropriately and not just stashed on the ML roster to fulfill the R5 requirement.
Relief pitchers: 35 games
Starting pitchers/swingmen: 70 innings
Position players: 300 plate appearances
The number of players for each type who met these criteria
POSITION PLAYERS: 4 met the PA criteria, 13 did not and so were considered 'stashed'
STARTING PITCHERS/SWINGMAN: 6 met the criteria, 0 did not
RELIEF PITCHERS: 18 met the criteria, 9 did not
INJURED LIST - 7 could not complete requirements
From the data above it can be concluded that most (73%) of pitchers drafted in the ML R5 draft from 2015-2024 were used enough in their first year to not be considered just stashed on the major league roster so they wouldn't have to be returned. On the other hand, only a few (24%) of position players played regularly enough to NOT be considered 'stashed' on the major league roster.
It does appear that most of the pitchers drafted in these ML R5 drafts did pitch enough in their first year to NOT delay their development. However, it does appear that many of the position players were, met the criteria for low usage and, therefore, being stashed on the ML bench for their first year, likely delaying their development as baseball players. Thus, the overall impression is that some of the ML R5 draftees are stashed on ML rosters although many are NOT stashed, using my definition. As a proviso, this is not to say that these players had increased roles in their 2nd year after being drafted in the ML R5 draft, but at least a lot did not have their development terribly hampered by just sitting on the bench in their first year.
WHICH PROSPECTS DO TEAMS TEND TO PROTECT FROM THE RULE 5?
It would have taken more time than I could devote to this project to look back for 10 years at which R5-eligible prospects teams chose to protect. So I just looked at what the demographics were for the prospects teams chose to (and not to) protect against the upcoming 2025 ML R5 draft. Looking at the MLB article on which TOP prospects each organization protected (or did not protect) from the 2025 ML R5 draft by their roster additions this November, the highest level these players achieved (using MLB's rookie eligibility rules to establish if a player has had enough experience at the top level they had played in to have been able to graduate from that level), coming out of the November 2025 roster freeze was:
- AAA: Protected (40), not protected (20)
- AA: Protected (37), not protected (36)
- A+ : Protected (6), not protected (21)
- A: Protected (1), not protected (3)
Looking at these numbers, teams in 2025 seemed to prioritize protecting players who were close to ML-ready, with emphasis on players with significant AAA experience. Although players with less upper level experience may have been better prospects, teams seemed to be gambling that those less experienced players would not be drafted and, if drafted, would not be able to stick with a ML team.
ANECDOTALS
In my research and listening to people argue for and against the ML R5 draft over the years, I have encountered (or propagated) the following anecdotals regarding the ML R5:
- The ML R5 draft gives players who might not be developing in a system a chance to move to another system where they CAN develop. [NOTE: I have seen no evidence of that in my research and, even if it did occur, it would be very anecdotal]
- Teams dedicate a lot of time and money analyzing their prospects, analyzing other teams' trends in the Rule 5 and analyzing players available in the Rule 5 after the roster freeze is announced. [NOTE: While this is another one of those things that appears obvious, I have found no evidence that this is true. I will say this, though. For small market teams that are resource -challenged, they could probably find a better way to use their analytics and team resources if they didn't have to worry about the ML R5 draft.]
- Fear of the R5 draft causes teams to protect players earlier than they should, just to avoid the risk of losing a prospect. [NOTE: While there is anecdotal evidence of that (e.g., Jhonkensy Noel protected by Cleveland when he barely had played in A+ and Juan Brito being protected when he had just completed a season of A ball) I did not see any evidence that teams routinely protect large numbers of A+ or A players (or lower) against the R5. It does happen, but it does not appear to be common.]
- The ML R5 gives players a chance to get to the major leagues quicker than they normally would. [NOTE: My research has shown this may be a fallacy created just because it is impossible to look at an alternate future where a player stays with their organization instead of being drafted. I will acknowledge that this is possible but, to me, is unimportant as the issues the ML R5 creates for players AND teams greatly outweigh the benefits for these few players, if they exist, which I could not prove through my research AND because there is ample evidence that a good percentage of returned players make it to the majors with the organization they were drafted from either that season or the next one.]
- We need a R5 draft because, without it, there is a chance that a player could be held by a team for 9 years (6 as a minor leaguer and 3 option years if he is rostered near the end of his first 6 years). [NOTE: I acknowledge that is a possibility, but I think it is probably just theoretically possible or, at best, very anecdotal. Again, exceptions cannot drive the continuation of the ML R5 draft.]
- Players are emotionally scarred if they don't make it to the make it to the majors as a ML R5 draftee. [NOTE: I have anecdotal evidence that this is true from interviewing players who have been ML R5 draftees but, to my knowledge, no studies have been done to show that this is true.]
- Players not returned suffer developmental delays in their baseball career as a result of being 'stashed' on a big league roster (and bench) for a season, seldomly playing. [NOTE: Another example of something that appears to be obvious. My research did show that many of these players were sent back to the minors (sometimes the low minors) the season following their ML R5 draft season, staying in the minors, sometimes, for a number of seasons before they returned to the major leagues for good. However, my research failed to show that this stashing occurred frequently nor was it necessarily a factor in delaying their development. Rather, players who are returned to their original team don't appear to develop any faster or turn into better players than those who are NOT returned and are seldomly used in their first ML season.]
THE ML R5 DRAFT THAT NEVER HAPPENED
In 2021, teams set their ML rosters and their AAA reserve lists as usual, but the ML R5 draft never happened that year due, in part, to the lockout as the new CBA was still being negotiated. This gave a unique chance for study of what would happen if the ML R5 draft was abolished and prospects who might have otherwise been drafted just stuck with their original team until they were rostered or just became 6 year minor league free agents.. That is, a lot of the proponents of the ML R5 draft point to the all-stars, MVPs and HOFers that have come out of this draft without considering whether those players would have achieved the same status if they had just staying with the organization that had spent years and lots of money to sign and develop them.
So let's take a look at some of the significant players who would have been available for the 2021 ML R5 draft and what happened to them in 2022 and in 2023-2025. I will admit that, at this point, I am worn down from the research that I have done for this article. I also acknowledge that I was not able to find, for 2021, an article like I found for 2025 that listed all the top prospects for each team that were or were not protected against the ML R5. So the list I am about to give you is absolutely anecdotal, but it's the best I could do at the moment; So here is the list of significant prospects I have found who were not protected against the 2021 ML R5 draft that never happened [NOTE: list is in no particular order]::
1. Yainer Diaz
2. Oscar Gonzalez
3. Will Benson
4. Joey Cantillo
5. Cooper Hummel
6. Lenyn Sosa
7. Kody Clemens
8. Jordan Diaz
Obviously this is just a cursory look. I am sure if I could see a list of the top prospects teams chose NOT to protect in 2021 more names would jump out. In addition, teams had their lists of players they would consider drafting that might be in addition to the list above. Just by inspection, this looks like a pretty decent list of players who could have easily been lost had there been a ML R5 draft in 2021. The takeaway for me from this list is that players succeed or fail, in many cases, irrespective of the organization they are in but, rather, based on how talented they are. It supports the presumption that a number of the biggest success stories coming out of the ML R5 draft would have been successes if there had NOT been a ML R5 draft.
In my opinion, this just adds to the overall data that supports that the ML R5 draft is not needed and, in fact, can actually hurt the teams it should be helping, the resource-limited teams.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT ML R5 DRAFT
My research shows the following would be an alternative to the current ML Rule 5 draft:
1. Adjust the MiLB free agent criteria as follows:
a. Players signed before their 18th birthday (mostly international amateur free agents) would be free agents after 7 full seasons
b. Players signed when they were 18-19 years old would become MiLB free agents after 6 full seasons.
c. Players signed when they were 20-21 would be MiLB free agents after 5 full seasons
d. Players signed when they were 22 years old would be MiLB free agents after 4 full seasons
e. Players who were 23+ years old would be MiLB free agents after 3 full seasons.
2. Keep the minor league portion of the Rule 5. This gives teams an extra 38 players (AAA protected list) who could not be drafted. This gives each organization 78 players (almost double what they have now) they can protect. All other Rule 5-eligible players could be drafted in the minor league portion using the current rules.
3. In order to streamline this whole system and eliminate a good deal of the issues with drafting players who are too far from the majors:
a. Institute an international amateur draft where all draftees have to be 18 years old or older at the time they are signed following the draft. Currently they have to be 16 to be signed, turning 17 by the September after they are signed.
b. Limit the domestic amateur draft to those players who are 20 years old or older, eliminating HS players and some young college players from being drafted. Currently, HS players are 17-19 years old when drafted and, although JUCO players are rarely drafted, JUCO freshman would generally be 19 years old.
Institution of these rules and elimination of the current ML R5 draft would allow players to develop with the teams that originally signed them or traded for them.
