A Quick Look at Where The Guardians Roster Is Heading Into 2026 - Part 2 - Who Should Be Extended

This is a short list and, therefore, a short post.

Steven Kwan - Although they could easily trade Kwan and I wouldn't be overly distraught...assuming they got a good return, I would rather they extend him.  That being said, if Kwan totally refuses to discuss an extension, he needs to be moved to the trade list immediately.  Again, Kwan is not THE guy but he is A guy in this lineup and, enough 'guys' does a lineup make.

Cade Smith - Relievers are really tricky as they have off years and get hurt.  However, I believe the Guardians need to set precedents and, frankly, we are looking at a salary floor in the next collective bargaining agreement and so getting Smith (and others) signed before then means they are signed before players have that leverage of knowing their extension might be necessary to push a team above the floor.  So, sign me up for a Cade Smith extension.  He has earning it so let's get a 5 year deal done with him.

Gavin Williams - Ditto for what I said about Smith.  The Bibee extension looked like a bad one until the end of last year so this is more of get some rotation stability signing that hope for proportionately better results with high salary signing.  

Jose Ramirez - OK, I know, we have him signed to an extension right now.  What my dream would be would be to extend his contract 3 more years @ $33 MM a year with some significant incentive clauses as he sets more and more club records and gets more national accolades.  This shows him that we care about him and reads into him saying that his next contract will NOT be a team friendly contract. Hey, no way do I think he will be worth $33 MM a year in those 3 years but keeping him through the end of his career is as important a business decision, long term, as competing longterm, IMO.  Anyone who has been outside Busch Stadium in St. Louis and has seen all those statues knows how important it is to keep Jose here for his entire career.  Plus, like the other guys above, it will help with the salary floor in those years.

That's it.  That's all I want from the Guardians for Christmas, these 4 extensions.

A Quick Look at Where The Guardians Roster Is Heading Into 2026 - Part 1 - Who Should Be Traded

 OK, time for an honest look at where the Guardians are in terms of their roster for 2026.  Poepl may not like these assessments, but they are my assessments, nonetheless.

IMPRESSIONS OF THE ROSTER AS IT CURRENTLY IS CONSTRUCTED

1. The roster contains a lot of likely 'dead wood', meaning guys who should be on minor league deals and guys who have underperformed in the past and are on their last chance, which they MUST be given before we can feel good about dumping them for nothing.

2. The roster has lots of guys competing for bullpen spots but very few of them could be counted on in the 8th or 7th innings.  To think that Matt Festa is your clear, #1 7th inning guy is scary, given what our pullpen has looked like in the past, when it was the strongest in baseball.  You could make the case that 2 things are occurring: (a) the Guardians are trying to be the smartest people in the room by taking failures who have certain attributes they like and turning them into successes that they weren't with their previous teams.  That is, essentially, the definition of hubris; (2) while I say this tongue-in-cheek, the bullpen acquisitions they have made look like they are designed to tick off the fanbase and make it hard to get excited about this team. IMO, I think this will likely tick off players who are trying to win (hint: one of those player's names rhymes with Mose A. Ha-Meer-Ez)

3. A trade of position prospects for proven veteran position player(s) is likely the only way we can improve the offense.  The FO says they believe in our prospects but I think, instead, it is because they are scared to have another Junior Caminero, Yainer Diaz, etc. blossom for another team.  They would rather ride or die with the prospects they have.  That might work but the hitting coaching on this team sucks and doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results is the definition of insanity...or a combination of insanity and hubris.  So, I would trade for Willson Contreras and Luis Robert Jr. and call it an off-season.  I would do this using some of the assets below in addition to players whose playing time they would take.   So, for example, I would trade Halpin in a Robert Jr. trade because they play the same position.  I would trade Kayfus in a Willson Contreras deal for the same reason.

PLAYERS WHO I THINK SHOULD BE TRADED

CJ Kayfus - IMO, Kayfus is a tweener.  He is not fast enough to be a good defensive outfielder and has no base stealing ability. His arm is weak. Yes, you can put him in the OF and he won't kill you there. He doesn't hit for enough power (and never will) to be a first baseman and doesn't hit for enough average that, without power or speed, he can start at either position.

Outdome - I think Kayfus should be used in a trade this off-season, e.g., to obtain Luis Robert, Jr.

Gabriel Arias - Arias is one of those teaser prospects.  A guy with one great tool (arm) and a bunch of other tools that you hope, someday, catch up to his arm strength.  So far they haven't.

Outcome - I look to trade Arias this winter as part of a package.  Bite the bullet, put Rocchio at SS and move on from Arias while he has value 

Peyton Pallette - If we need a roster spot, I think we should return Pallette to the White Sox instead of DFAing anyone on the current 40 man.

Nolan Jones - Part of the FO's premise for the 2026 season is to give our young position players who haven't had a chance yet, to play to see how they turn out.  Trading Jones opens up more playing time for guys like Valera and DeLauter...and even Halpin, when the opportunity arises.  

Outcome - I package Jones in a trade to get another asset that we do need.

NOTE: I would have never signed Holderman or Brogdon or traded for Bruihl so any of the three of them could be traded or released, IMO.

Looking Back on the 2024 Draft

 If you read my posts you know that I think the Guardians blew the 2025 draft where the upside grade I can reasonably give them is a C+

The 2023 draft is much more promising with the Guardians signing the following prospects (prospect status in parentheses)

1. Velazquez (11)

2. Clemmey (Traded in Lane Thomas deal) 

CBB. Walters (20)

3. Kayfus (Majors, topped out at #6 in Guardians' system before his promotion_

4. Ingle (4)

That's quite a haul for a single draft.  A couple of things about that draft: After the 4th round the Guards took a bunch of slap college hitters with no power and very little upside and, if you remember that draft, Colt Emerson, who slid down the draft and was my top pre-draft choice for the Guardians, was selected right before the Guardians could draft him, causing them to have to 'settle' for Velazquez.  Now Emerson is a consensus top 10 prospect in ALL of baseball while Velazquez hasn't broken the top 100 on most lists. So, while very successful, even the 2023 draft has its faults.

In 2022, the Guardians drafted DeLauter, Messick, Humphries, Austin Peterson, Zibin and Ellerts as the notables in that draft.  There were lots of misteps, like the drafting of slap hitting Lampe, furman, Lipscomb and soft tosser DeLucia and the unexpected career-long (so far) injured, CBA pick Justin Campbell. Still, they got something out of that draft.  

The 2021 college pitcher draft is legendary with our top two starting pitchers coming out of that draft.

But this post is about the 2024 draft and, particularly, the #1 overall pick.

The Guardians used that pick to draft Travis Bazzana.  It is safe to say that Bazzana has not playeded well.  His supporters will say that prospect development is not linear and that his development was slowed last year by injury.  The Bazzana detractors will tell you that his ABs look weak, resulting in more swing and miss in the zone and more weak contact, much more, than you would expect from a  polished college player drafted first overall in the draft.  

The key here is that this was Cleveland's first #1 overall pick EVER in the draft.  Frankly, Bazzana has to hit big for him to be an asset to this franchise and with Ramirez's contract nearing its end, Bazzana has to get the majors quickly to have good overlap with Ramirez and to give Cleveland the best chance to win in the Ramirez era (which we HOPE continues after 2028!).

The problem, as stated above, is that Bazzana has looked overpowered and overmatched a good portion of the time he's been in the minors.  Simply, he has NOT passed the eye test for what a #1 overall is supposed to look like. Compounding this is how many other players drafted in the first round of that draft have fared.  Here's a list:

1. Bazzana (#14 in MLB Pipeline)

2. Chase Burns (Majors)

3. Charlie Condon (61)

4. Nick Kurtz (AL ROY)

5. Hagen Smith (88)

6. Jac Caglianone (Majors)

7. JJ Wetherholt (5)

8.Christian Moore (Majors)

9. Konnor Griffin (#1 overall prospect in baseball)

10. Seaver King (Not in top 100)

So, while not ALL of the first 10 picks in the 2024 have had the ML success of Kurtz or the prospect success of Griffin and Wetherholt, it is clear that a lot of these guys have been more successful than Bazzana, who was drafted as a plug and play.  In fact, last spring it was: 1. Wetherholt, 2. Kurtz, 3. Bazzana until Wetherholt and Kurtz got injured.  Then it became Bazzana and Condon with Griffin as the dark horse to go 1-1.  So, looking before and after the injuries, it was likely Wetherholt, Kurtz, Bazzana and Griffin.  Of those 4 guys, only Bazzana is underperforming so far.

There is a very real chance that Bazzana may be a bust or, at least, perform more like a 2nd rounder than the 1-1 he is.

To a small market club like Cleveland, that would be devastating.

I get that playing for his country is very important to him but my feeling is, given his struggles so far in professional baseball, this could dig him a deeper hole in trying to reach his potential if he tanks it in the WBC.

Bazzana works for Cleveland and he needs to make it to Cleveland and be productive in the majors, hitting the ground running.  Despite the nationalism of the WBC, which is important, the only way Bazzana should be playing in the WBC is if he has mastered professional baseball and, frankly, profesiional baseball has, at this point, mastered Travis Bazzana.

Quick Thoughts About The 2025 ML Portion of the Rule 5 Draft

 Well, the 2025 Rule 5 drafts (ML and MiLB portions) are in the books and here are my thoughts:

Guardians

Once again the Guardians FO put on a masterclass as to how to conserve their prospect assets.

• ZERO players selected in the ML portion
• ZERO players selected in the minor league portion (almost unheard of!!!)

[NOTE: I think that is the first time in at least 10 years where they haven't lost ANYONE. More on that later tonight when I get a chance to research it.]

Major League Portion

• Definitions (my, arbitrary, decisions)
• Small market/weak teams: TB, CLE, DET, KC, MIN, CWS, ATH, LAA, MIA, WSH, CIN, COL, STL, PIT, 
• Large market/strong teams: TOR, NYYH, BOS, SEA, HOU, TEX, PHI, NYM, ATL, MIL, CHC, LAD, SD, SF, ARZ
• 13 players were selected 
• Teams losing players
• Small market/weak teams: Tigers, Marlins (2), Athletics, Reds, Rays, Cardinals
• Large market/strong teams: Red Sox, Phillies, Orioles, Giants (2)
• Teams drafting players or trading for those drafted:
• Small market/weak teams: Rockies, White Sox (2), Nationals, Athletics, Cardinals, Guardians
• Large market/strong teams: Giants, Rangers, Red Sox, Astros, Blue Gays, Yankees, Phillies
• Competitive Balance Implications (Including trades after the draft)
• 4 of the 13 players selected went from a small market/weak team to another small market/weak team
• 2 went from a large market/strong team to a small market/weak team
• 7 went from a small market/weak team to a large market/strong tea

• More players (7) were lost from small market/weak teams than from large market/strong teams
• Only 2 players drafted (after considering trades), went from a large market team to a small market/weak team
• The Yankees selected a player for the first time in at least 10 years and had no players drafted
• Both WS teams in 2025 did not lose a player
• One WS team (TOR) actually drafted a player 
• 7 (including trades) went from a small market/weak team to a large market/strong team.

SUMMARY

The Rule 5 draft was originally set up to redistribute talent and to keep the richer franchises from hoarding prospects.  In 2025 this effort failed.  In fact, weaker teams actually had more players drafted than they drafted.

More analysis to follow later tonight!

Guardians Top 100+ Prospects - Pre- Rule 5 Version

 OK, so this milestone (the Rule 5 draft) as an arbitrary place for me to place this top prospect list.   But for any team that picks up one of our players in the upcoming Rule 5 I thought this would be good to have as a reference.  I will update this  (and change the title) after the Rule 5 but, for now, here it is.

* - 2025 draftee

*** - Regular season ML experience but has not exceeded rookie eligibility limits

BOLD - Rule 5 Eligible

1. Chase DeLauter 

2. Angel Genao 

3. Travis Bazzana

4. Ralphy Velasquez

5. Jaison Chourio

6. Jace LaViolette *

7. CJ Kayfus ***

8. Braylon Doughty

9. Parker Messick ***

10. Juan Brito

11. Cooper Ingle

12. Juniker Cáceres

13. Khal Stephen - due to looming shoulder impingement

14. Alfonsin Rosario

15. Dean Curley *

16. Joey Oakie

17. Welbyn Francisca

18. Robert Arias

19. Andrew Walters ***

20. Khalil Watson

21. Josh Hartle

22. Franco Aleman

23. George Valera ***

24. Nolan Schubart *

25. Doug Nikhazy ***

26. Aaron Walton *

27. Dauri Fernandez

28. Yorman Gomez

29. Jackson Humprhies

30. Chase Mobley

31. Austin Peterson

32. Matt Wilkinson

33. Michael Kennedy

34. Daniel Espino

35. Wuildredo Antunez

36. Will Hynes *

37. Jacob Zibin

38. Cam Sullivan

39. Gabriel Rodriguez

40. Petey Halpin ***

41. Luke Hill*

42. Milan Tolentino

43. Dylan DeLucia

44. Jonathon Rodiguez ***

45. Jacob Cozart 

46. Nelson Keljo*

47. Ryan Webb

48. Will Dion

49. Logun Clark 

50. Aaron Davenport

51. Trenton Denholm

52. Anthony Martinez *

53. Kody Huff

54. Dayan Frias

55. Riley Nelson *

56. Hiverson Lopez

57. Heins Brito

58. Alex Mooney

59. Luis Merejo

60. Jose Devers

61. Jack Jasiak

62. Justin Campbell - has not appeared in an MiLB game but will be R5 eligible in Dec.

63. Aiden Major

64. Tommy Mace

65. Caden Favors

66. Juan Benjamin

67. Sean Matson

68. Esteban Gonzalez

69. Jake Miller

70. Rodney Boone

71. Alaska Abney

72. Magnus Ellerts

73. Steven Perez

74. Rafe Schlesinger

75. Ryan Prager*

76. Guy Lipscomb

77. Harrison Bodendorf*

78. Connor Whitaker

79. Jervis Alfaro

80. Raudy Rivera

81. Luis Flores

82. Johan Rodriguez

83. Christian Knapczyk

84. Yeiferth Castillo

85, Melkelis Hernandez

86. Zach Jacobs

87. Maick Collado

88. Zane Morehouse

89. Will McCausland*

90. Tommy Hawke

91. Davis Sharpe

92. Jay Driver

93. Aaron Savary *

94. Ryan DeSanto *

95. Evan Chrest *

96. Jose Pirela

97. Evelio Hernandez

98. Jogly Garcia

99. Keegan Zinn

100. Anthony Silva *

101. Tyrese Turner

102. Jake Fox

103. Nick Mitchell

104. Joe Lampe

What Should We Do Instead of the ML Rule 5 Draft?

 As a follow-up to my last post talking about whether the ML R5 draft should be discontinued, here are my suggestions on what should be done instead of having that draft.

• Continue the MINOR LEAGUE portion of the Rule 5 draft. Teams would still be able to protect up to 78 players in their organization from this draft (40 man ML roster and 38 spots on their AAA reserve list).  I think this draft is necessary as it does give 2nd and 3rd tier prospects the chance to move to another organization to continue their minor league development in a normal manner AND it limits stockpiling and gives teams a chance to right size their 165 man organizational roster.  Also, although infrequent, major league players HAVE come out of minor league R5 draft, even a handfull of players who became all-stars.

• If we continue to have the ML R5 or some variation of that, I would swap dates for the roster freeze date and the non-tender date.  It continues to make no sense to my why you would set your roster THEN remove more players from that roster. I think this is less of a problem if there is no ML R5 draft as teams will not have to waste spots on their 40 man roster on players who likely will not help them that year or, in some cases, for a few years. Still, setting your roster, whether it is 40 man or 78, should be done AFTER you know which players the team would non-tender and if any non-tendered players would be added to a roster before it was frozen.

• With the elimination of the ML R5 draft, the main way left to help stop prospect hoarding would be the minor league free agency rule.  Right now, a player not on a 40 man roster can choose to become a free agent after 6 full seasons in the minors.  What I propose is to modify that rule to take into account that we have so many 16 year old players brought into ML organizations every year. Those players can become 6 year minor league free agents as early as 22 years olds, when they are still in the steep part of their development curve.  At the same time, college seniors can come in as 22-, 23- or even, in rare cases, 24 year olds after having high level coaching for years and years before they even turned pro.  In order to give teams a fair chance to develop their prospects and give older prospects a chance to change organizations before they get too old, I suggest changing the limits on when a player could become a minor league free agent as follows:
• Players signed when they are 16- or 17-year olds can become minor league free agents after SEVEN FULL SEASONS in the minors (up from the current 6 years)
• Players signed as 18- or 19-year olds could reach minor league free agency after SIX FULL SEASONS
• Players signed as 20- or 21-year olds could become minor league free agents after FIVE FULL SEAONS
• Players signed as 22 could become minor league free agents after FOUR FULL SEASONS
• Players drafted (or signed as amateur free agents) who are 23 years old or olders can become minor league free agents after THREE FULL SEASONS.

I think these changes/continuations will give players more freedom to change teams before they get to their mid or late 20s AND give teams a fair chance to develop their very young prospects before potentially having to choose between losing them to minor league free agency or placing them on the 40 man roster before they are ready to play in the majors.  These changes will also somewhat improve competitive balance by allowing teams to have more ML-viable prospects they can either trade for veterans or keep for their own roster.

I have heard feedback that elimination of the ML R5 needs to come with other, related, changes so this is my proposal for those related changes.

Is The Major League Portion of the Rule 5 Draft Still Good For Baseball?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This article looks at demographics and statistics for 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.  The minor league phase of the R5 will not be considered in this article as there appears to be no evidence that the status quo for that phase will negatively impact future competitive balance or player opportunities to make major leagues.

The data from 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 through normal development:

• 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 to protect them from the Rule 5 draft  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. The latter point produced, in a domino effect, situations where young players who were still developing to have to pass through waivers before they could be sent to the minors.
• 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 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.

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.  A number of rule changes have been made to try to stop this practice:

• 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. 
• 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.

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, is 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 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.

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 teams 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. 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.

Looking at these 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 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.

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 above 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 team 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.