Get ready! The first Under The Knife of the season comes tomorrow and there’s plenty to start out the season. Subscribe now and you’ll never miss the best injury information available. The sale on annual subscriptions is over but I’ve set that to $60 to have cost parity with monthly. It’s your choice.
Writing about Ronnie Mauricio the other day brought my mind back to a concept I first brought up back in … I think 2007 or so. I was learning how European football worked due to a consulting gig and trying to get up to speed. It’s so much easier now with the expansion of the game, but I was fascinated with the concept of the loan.
If you’re not familiar, a player is loaned to another team, even in the same league, for a period of time, usually a full season. There are sometimes conditions and who pays the salary is negotiable, but the only hard restriction is the the player cannot play against his “home” club. There have been some teams that have used this to their advantage, developing players by getting them on the pitch at other, often lower level or foreign places, and others that have used it as a loophole for acquisitions and sales, but largely, it’s good for the game.
There’s no reason the same couldn’t work in baseball. A player like Mauricio is a perfect example. While he may be blocked in New York right now, he would be a huge upgrade for a number of teams. If one of them was willing to take him on, promise that he’d play, and the Mets would get him back at the end of the season, I’m not sure what the downside is for either.
Sure, the downside is injury. If Mark Vientos goes down, Mauricio would normally be there, but that depth would be a part of the calculation. You wouldn’t loan him out if you didn’t have a backup. That alone would make pitchers much harder to loan out, especially if someone wasn’t interested in maintaining a long term workload. Think how teams work a free-agent to be they get at the deadline. That with a younger player could be a problem.
This isn’t a brand new idea in baseball. There are other mechanisms that have similarities, though none with the flexibility of what exists in European soccer. The Rule 5 Draft, for instance, is meant to prevent teams from hoarding talent in the minor leagues. A player selected there is effectively a forced, one-year "loan," but instead of returning the player, the acquiring team takes on full ownership, though many come back, along with the token payment.
Similarly, the option system has allowed teams to shuffle players between Triple-A and the majors, creating what is often referred to as a Triple-A taxi squad. Teams like the Dodgers and Rays have perfected the art of using minor league options to maintain MLB-ready depth, sometimes at the cost of player development. But a formalized, full-season loan system could provide a structured way to improve competitive balance and player development.
A player like Mauricio, who might not get playing time with his current club, could be loaned to a rebuilding team that guarantees him everyday at-bats. Instead of wasting away in Triple-A, he could be playing in a major league environment, facing real competition, and refining his skills against top-tier pitching. If the Mets could be assured he’d play every day, they’d get back a more polished player without losing his rights.
Think of someone like Colby Mayo, who could be stuck behind Gunnar Henderson and Jackson Holliday. Think of the Reds plethora of infielders. Rather than burying him in the minors, Baltimore could loan him to the White Sox or Rockies, allowing him to get a full season of experience. By the time he returns, he’s no longer a prospect in limbo, he’s a major league-ready asset.
There’s also a strong case for loans improving competitive balance. Small-market teams that can’t afford to sign big-name free agents often struggle to acquire top-end talent. A loan system would let them temporarily boost their roster without the financial burden of a long-term contract or the prospect cost of a trade. Imagine if a team like the A’s, rather than scouring the waiver wire, could borrow a young, MLB-ready hitter from an organization overflowing with talent. The Rays and Dodgers, loaded with prospects but short on major league playing time, could send a high-upside bat or arm to Oakland for the season. The receiving team gets an impact player without giving up assets, while the loaning team ensures their young player gains major league experience in a controlled environment. Then again, those players signed in a place for a reason, so there would have to be a control mechanism. A player could refuse, but could face a season in Norfolk or Durham, so is Sacramento or Denver so bad?
Contenders also face roster crunches. They develop players so well that their depth becomes a problem, often forcing them to trade away talent or risk losing players to waivers. A loan system would give them a new tool to maximize player value. Rather than DFA’ing a player or keeping him in the minors, they could send him to another club for a full season, ensuring he stays sharp and productive. This is already happening in a way. The Dodgers routinely cycle pitchers like Ryan Pepiot and Gavin Stone between Triple-A and the majors, not because they aren’t ready, but because there’s no room on the roster. If loans were an option, Pepiot could spend a full season in another rotation rather than bouncing between Oklahoma City and Los Angeles.
A loan system would also introduce a new strategic element to roster management. Teams could negotiate salary splits, playing time guarantees, or even an option to buy at the end of the loan period. Imagine the Royals agreeing to take on a high-upside pitcher from the Astros for the season, but only if Houston covers half his salary and guarantees he starts instead of relievers. The Astros get a fully developed arm when he returns and the Royals get a competitive piece without long-term risk.
Of course, there are concerns. Service time manipulation is already an issue and a loan system could be another tool for teams looking to game the system. Loans would count against service time, potentially starting the clock on some prospects and making a loan less positive for the holding team. Injury risk would also be a factor. A team might hesitate to loan out a valuable prospect if they worry about how another organization will manage his workload, particularly for pitchers. Workload philosophies vary and no club wants to see its future ace overworked on someone else’s watch.
Fairness in competition would also have to be addressed. In European soccer, loaned players can’t play against their parent club. MLB would likely need similar restrictions to prevent an awkward scenario where a powerhouse team loans out a player only to face him in the postseason. There’s also the risk that teams could use loans as a way to stockpile talent, farming out excess players to struggling teams without really losing them. (Just look up “Loan Army” to see what Chelsea did. Don’t give Todd Boehly and Mark Walter more ideas for Dodger deferrals, please.)
MLB is often very slow to embrace change, but the loan system solves real problems. It would help teams develop players more effectively, allow small-market teams to access better talent, and give contenders more roster flexibility. While the MLBPA would likely scrutinize any service time implications, the benefits outweigh the concerns. Baseball already operates with a version of this, from the Rule 5 Draft to the way teams manipulate Triple-A rosters. A formalized loan system wouldn’t just be a European import — it would be an evolution of what MLB already does, just with more structure and more benefit for everyone involved.
I would add a rule that you could only loan to the other league, otherwise what's to stop someone like the Phillies from loading the Marlins with talent that will play 13 times each against their division rivals, then sit for the 13 games against their parent club.