Expansion has been proposed as part of the new CBA. My preference is to put a team in Salt Lake City and one in Nashville to bring us up to 32 total.
Cleveland Guardians Perspective
I have been posting on Indians' forums and blogging about the Indians for most of the last 30 years. Stop by here to read interesting articles and opinions not allowed on most Tribe forums. This site is not affiliated with the Cleveland Guardians
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
It's Time To Re-Align - Let's Goooooo
Thursday, September 17, 2026
Thoughts for a Friday - Nine Games To Go
Lots to talk about relative to our first place Cleveland Guardians.
Reminds me of a funny story that I hope doesn't repeat itself with our baseball team. A number of years ago, before they were national champions, the Indiana Hoosiers came to Ohio State to play the Buckeyes in football and, as fate had it, Indiana scored first, taking a 7-0 lead. As the legend goes, during the TV timeout after the extra point, the Indiana coach had his entire team pose in front of the scoreboard that showed them being ahead of the Buckeyes. I think the final score was like 63-7. Let's hope we haven't poked the bear by beating the White Sox the last two days.
Thursday night brought us Texas losing at the end to Boston (good for us because it moved us further ahead of Texas and cemented Boston as the #2 wild card which might help us when we go to Boston next week). It saw Murikami hit a 3-run homer in the first for Chicago's only runs against Detroit and Houston predictably beat up KC at home.
The stage is set.
The Guardians are tied in the standings with the White Sox for the AL Central Title
They are two games ahead of Toronto for the Wild Card
They are two games ahead of Texas for the Wild Card
They are one game ahead of Houston for the 2nd seed in the AL
Obviously, the Guardians do not own the tiebreaker over Toronto or CWS but do own the tiebreaker over Texas and Houston.
You will read countless articles between now and the end of the season about playoff scenarios but scoreboard watching on Thursday night reminds me that there is only one certainty: if you keep winning good things will likely happen. Happened in 2024. Happened in 2025. Yes, Toronto and Chicago have easy schedules. Texas and Houston have similar schedules to Cleveland. But you just have to keep winning.
So, let's go Guardians! L
Let's hope the crowd is effective at giving us a big home field advantage this weekend and we use it.
Let's hope the boys play their best, most solid baseball of the year, batters work deeep in counts and pitchers get ahead early in counts and our hitters do what is necessary to score runs in picket fences with the occasional crocked numbers.
These are our boys of summer and, though we're moving into fall, more than anything else, I hope they keep making great memories for themselves and for us fans. Go Guardians!
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
Thoughts For A Tuesday Morning - Hangover from the Biggest Game of the Season That Wasn't
Have Hope - Last Night Just Made It A Little Harder
First, no season hangs on one AB or one pitch. Yeah, Peters had a historically crazy long AB, Lowe screwed up, Rocchio didn't make a spectacular play to get Benitendi to open the inning and Herrin threw gasoline on the fire.
But we are only 1.5 games out of the lead in the AL Central and, thanks to the Tigers' fight and grit last night, we still hold a one game lead over Blue Jays.
Of the three teams (CLE, CWS, TOR) the Guardians have the most difficult remaining schedule. And even Texas is still lurking as the slight dark horse in all this.
All we have to do is take care of business.
1. We need to win the next two games against Chicago to stay close.
2. We need to win the rest of our series to not require A LOT of help from the teams Chicago and Toronto play.
3. We need to pitch, hit, run the bases and play defense at a very high level. But this this under-resourced team, when has that NOT been true this season.
But there is hope. Win the next game. Then the next. Win the next series and don't get wrapped around the axel if we don't sweep series.
It is still there for our taking. We can win the division...or we won't. We can be the 3rd wildcard...or we won't.
I just ask fans to keep the over-reaching negativity to a minimum. Yeah, be ticked about the one inning last night. Be ticked about the one inning on Saturday. But, in the past two weeks, that's all it's been...two really bad innings.
It all comes down to the players now. Let's just get it done, guys.
Random Thoughts About Last Night's Game
1. I know it's just my thing, but I really want Kwan to get his 5th gold glove and he will only do that in LF.
2. Bazzana, on defense, is really bad. The throw from Kwan should have resulted in an out. He is the caution cone people say he is. His work taking throws from the catcher and the OF is just freaking abysmal. He will need to work in the OF in the off-season.
3. I hope Martinez is not hurt but I am pretty sure he is going to the IL for the rest of the season. He should have come out when he felt something even though it was in the middle of his AB. His machismo cost us that AB because he had no ability to hit the ball on his last two swings. This is a team game, Angel, and you need to learn when to gut it out and when not to. If, in fact, he is done for the rest of the season, he should have been pulled in the middle of that AB.
4. In the face of frustration last night, one ironically comical, nervous laugh-generating moment did occure. Fry, who came in for Lowe, mad a weak out against a LHP but hit a HR against a RHP, supporting his splits this year. How does that make you feel, analytics nerds, who have no doubt promoted the platoon idea re. Fry this year.
5. We simply need to take advantage of our chances on offense. There is no other way to say it. We have to be able to make up for pitching or defensive gaffes.
6. Two throws last night made me scratch my head:
a. Bailey's setup on the bases-loaded grounder to Ramirez was very bad. He should have been on the fair side of home plate with his left foot ont the plate so Ramirez had a lane to throw. Instead, Ramirez had to make an unbelievably risky throw that almost hit the runner. I mean, from the Ramirez-eye replay, you couldn't even see Bailey with the runner coming down the line. No excuse for that.
b. Lowe's error could have been avoided if Rocchio had been on the infield side of second base. Instead, he didn't give Lowe an angle to throw, leading to the error. Yeah, the runner being where he was did contribute but, actually, Rocchio didn't have to be on the bag when he took the throw to defintely get one out and still maybe get a DP.
Both these defensive plays were inexcusable when you knew you had to play solid defense because you offense wasn't producing.
Summary
Let's go Guards. Your back is againstt the wall. This is when champions come through. Let's be champions! Just win every series from now on and let the chips fall where they may.
Wednesday, September 9, 2026
Thoughts for A Wednesday - Sick Dog Version
OK, our puppy is sick tonight so I am sitting up with her and, as I had some thoughts rattling around inside my skull, I thought I would post.
Monday, September 7, 2026
Thoughts For A Labor Day
THE STRETCH RUN
Thursday, August 27, 2026
Thoughts For A Thursday - August 27th Edition
On this off-day I had a lot of thoughts rattline around in my head:
Friday, August 14, 2026
Why We Need To Do Away With the Rule 5 Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 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.
- 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.
- The threat of potentially losing prospects to the Rule 5 has caused teams to roster players who are too early in their careers to be effective major leagues. This resulted in needlessly using up some or all of their minor league options before they are ready for the majors.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- Players who have been DFA'd one time can elect free agency if they are DFA'd a second time.
- Players with enough ML service time can elect free agency instead of being sent to the minors
- In 2022 the number of players a team can have in their US minor league system was limited to 165.
- 130 players were drafted in the MLR5 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.
- 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. 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.
- 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.
- 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 and 70% of those were players who were R5 drafted and not returned.
- 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 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.
- 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 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 players who were not returned generally 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 to be true.
- 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
- 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.
- AAA: Protected (40), not protected (20)
- AA: Protected (37), not protected (36)
- A+ : Protected (6), not protected (21)
- A: Protected (1), not protected (3)
- 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.]