IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND!

OK, after substantial research I have now come to grips with something that I had not considered previously.

THE PLAYER DEVELOPMENT RULES IN MLB ARE SERIOUSLY FLAWED AND THAT WAS EXACERBATED BY 2020.  

In brief, here are the issues:

• Latin amateur free agents generally sign when they are 16.   That signing period, up to last year, started on July 1st.  
• If they sign on July 1st or anytime up to around Sept. 1st, they have to be assigned to a team that year even though they don't really start playing until the following year
• Baseball's Rule 5 draft rules say that if you are less than 19 years old when you sign your first contract you have 5 years of development before you would be eligible for the Rule 5 draft.  It is 4 years for guys who are signed after they turn 19.   Again, the Rule 5 'clock' starts the year they are drafted as they have to sign before the minor leagues end play that year.   
• While there are rules for US HS kids (under 19) and college-age kids (over 19), the 16 year old Latin kids are lumped in with the 18 year old HS kids, the latter having been exposed to traveling teams and, in a lot of cases, to the showcase circuit and for a select few, to youth national team coaches.

In summary, the Rule 5 rules assume that the development (emotionally, physically and professionally) for 16 year old Latin kids playing in another country is identical to that of 18 year old HS kids who are playing in their own country.

That just is not fair for these young Latin kids.   One way to think about it is that a good number of these HS kids who are drafted every year didn't even start on their HS teams as 16 year old sophomores whereas the Latin kids are playing professionally.  Should they be placed on the same Rule 5 clock?  Absolutely not.

Now, on top of the standard lack of fairness that Latin kids and the teams that sign them have to live with, the fact that even though there were no minor leagues last year, the Rule 5 clock for minor leaguers was allowed to keep going.   

So, an unfair system became more unfair.     

And that is what will likely have a huge impact on the Indians this off-season.   

So, here is the thing:

 MLB, right now, even ahead of the labor negotiations this year, needs to not count 2020 on any prospect's Rule 5 clock.   

They should have done that already as I am sure teams have made trades (e.g., the Indians trading Yainer Diaz to the Astros) knowing they won't be able to protect a player this winter and may lose them for little or no return if they didn't trade them now.

However, there is still time to do it ahead of this year's freezing of the 40 man rosters in preparation for the Rule 5 draft.

For teams like Cleveland, their lifeblood is player development.   They can't, like the Dodgers, Yankees and other big market teams, buy their way out of bad player development.   Exposing guys who have lost a year of development, especially the then 16-year old international free agent class of 2017 (Valera, Tena, Noel, Rocchio, Planez) to the Rule 5 based on a flawed system exacerbated by a global pandemic that wasn't addressed at all by MLB really helps to keep the disparity between the haves and have nots in baseball.   

This isn't right.   MLB needs to address this now and, then, in turn, change the rules so players who have not graduated from HS at the time they are signed (i.e., Latin amateur free agents) get an extra year of protection from the Rule 5.