|
Post by Fenway Faithful on May 30, 2012 14:15:06 GMT -5
Gong to post this for future discussion.
We currently are not allowed to have any player on our rosters that is not associated to a MLB team (be it major or minor league team). This rule would make a team drop an established player should that player get cut from a team or (as in the Roy Oswalt situation) if that player doesn't sign a contract in the offseason.
I'm not sure what is the right answer, but this doesn't seem right. The intention of the rule was to limit teams from stocking up players from other non MLB leagues (japan, cuba, bill's softball league).
I think we should tweak this rule, so that a player that was previously on a MLB roster AND on a FPBL roster should still be the property of the FPBL team until the time comes that the player signs in another league or after a set time limit or something to that effect.
Again, this is just for discussion in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on May 30, 2012 16:42:08 GMT -5
I'm not entirely against tweaking the rule some how as a compromise, that being said I would be very much against allowing teams to keep MLB FAs on their active roster. In my opinion this opens the door to legalized tanking. Just my 2 cents. Not even sure what the tweak should be actually but i'd love to hear everyone's ideas on it.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on May 30, 2012 19:55:23 GMT -5
I get what your saying Ed, but really I think this is a fairly easy one. Teams can't go pick up a player that's a real life free agent, but if they own a guy that's cut...they should be allowed to keep his rights for X amount of time (I'd say at least 1/2 the season, if not the whole season). The odds of a team having a tear of free agents is astronomically tiny if it's set that the player MUST be owned at the time of him becoming a real life free agent.
I fully support the rule that restricts us from owning real life free agents...I pushed for it. But the intent was to restrict players in foreign or semi pro leagues, not real MLBers that get cut or wait until May to sign.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on May 31, 2012 15:34:08 GMT -5
Like I said in my response on the ESPN boards, I don't have a problem with tweaking this a bit, although I am absolutely against the idea of letting people keep inactive players on their active roster. Your active roster is the place where you put the guys you think can help win you the week, and hopefully the season. More importantly, there is a certian level of obligation to the league to field a competitive roster from week to week, as failing to do so impacts competitive balance. If a guy doesn't contribute to your score he doesn't belong on the active roster. It's the same rationale behind not letting guys keep demoted players on their active roster, which brings me to my suggestion.
If a guy is owned by a team, and goes unsigned during the offseason, I think the farm would be a more appropriate place to stash him than your bench. Much like an guy getting demoted, he no longer contributes to your immediate effort to win, and his value rests in his potential future return. This would in affect (effect? I can never remember. I think it's affect) turn the MLB free agent pool into a "minor league" for our purposes, and MLB free agents would then be subject to all the same rules and restrictions that over-aged demotees are.
My question is how necessary is it really? During the offseason I floated the idea of allowing foreign-based players be farm eligible, specifically in an attempt to preempt any possible issues that might have occurred had Yu Darvish not signed with anybody before our waiver draft started. Somebody (my brain wants to say it was you Randy, but I'm not sure) brought up the fact that Yu Darvish is a relatively unique situation, and should we really be making rules for a specific circumstance that isn't likely to be repeated in the future? It's a valid point, and so I will pose the same question here. How many times is the a potentially fantasy relevant player that goes unsigned for the first chunk of the season only to join a team after the year starts?
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on May 31, 2012 15:48:22 GMT -5
Farm team...main roster...whatever works. I don't have a strong opinion on where we should be allowed to keep these freak-a-zoid players who should be on a team but aren't. I don't see this as such a huge issue that a team will have so many on their roster that they'll end up tanking their season, but I agree that a roster should be full of usable, actual playing players.
It probably was me that fought about having a nit picky rule to cover an anomaly like Yu Darvish but this situation is more about forcing a team into losing the rights to a player that is an actual MLB player. I disagree to a strong degree that league management should tell a team how to manage itself (see my very loud arguing the post season roster freeze discusion...which I'm still VERY unhappy about).
I don't think you should have had to drop Oswalt, knowing he would have been signed at some point. That's not fair to you as an owner and it's not the place of the league to tell you to lose his rights. Now should management have a say where you keep his rights (farm team, main team etc) absolutely.
So in my mind this is a different situation from the foreign players (specifically rights for Yu Darvish) in that Darvish might not have signed so then a team would have owned the rights to a player not associated to a MLB team.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Jun 2, 2012 19:08:23 GMT -5
The concern isn't that there are ton of guys that fit the Oswalt mold that will drag down a roster, the concern is that people might abuse a "you can keep non-active players on your roster" rule to tank within the confines of the rules. That's why I think keeping them on the farm makes the most sense.
My Yu Darvish comparison wasn't about the specific situations of the two players as much as it was about the idea of creating a rule that really only applies to something that might happen once every five years or so.
I think what we seem to have in place here (essentially making free agency a minor league for our purposes) would work well. I'd love to hear what everybody else has to say about it though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 11:36:04 GMT -5
Without reading the back and fourth going on, I was under the impression that in this situation, the player who had not signed with the team was still property of the team that previously had him.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Jun 9, 2012 16:13:50 GMT -5
Without reading the back and fourth going on, I was under the impression that in this situation, the player who had not signed with the team was still property of the team that previously had him. I don't recall a situation where a guy was cut from an active roster because he was a free agent, but when he came back the team that owned him previously was given first crack at adding him. If you can think of one that would be great, because I want Oswalt back!!! lol
|
|
|
Post by Chippy's Monkeys on Jun 9, 2012 17:54:44 GMT -5
My two cents (which due to the current condition of the economy are really only worth .75 cents) are this: I would agree that being forced to release the player may be a bit harsh, however the rules as stated force such a move. They clearly indicate "Only players on an active MLB roster or in the process of being demoted to the Farm Team are allowed on a fantasy team’s main roster."
It would seem to be a reasonable compromise to make these FA's farm eligible, as they are not considered on an active roster and need to be placed somewhere.
|
|