|
|
Post by Lunatic Fringe on Dec 28, 2009 13:46:33 GMT -5
I noticed an issue that arose the other day. The rule for adding MiLB players has some ambiguity to it. Someone traded a minor leaguer away and wanted to replace him with a free agent. It's not written in the rules that this is allowed, but I think it should be. I'm going to work on clarifying that rule. If there's another area of this rule that I'm missing, let me know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 14:00:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this will affect any one team positively or negatively without also considering an increase in the number of MiLB keepers, e.g., from eight to ten. Otherwise, this adds another aspect to the free-for-all that is still going on.
Also, I wonder if we should discuss an MiLB/MLB free agent cutoff date following the season. Something (common sense) tells me that not every team pays attention to FLB in the off-season, which allows avid owners (like the five or six of us who are crazy-active all the time) to swoop in and pick guys left and right without the others even having a chance. At least if we all have a cutoff date, we can all operate within a given time frame and have an equal shot. I mean, who knows?
For example, maybe Steve Corder or another team owner would have liked Julio Teheran as an MiLB keeper. NOTE: I'm not picking on you, Beard. I'm citing that as an example since Teheran is the Braves' #1 pitching prospect who should NOT be a free agent at this point in the off-season. If we as a group leave him out there until mid-December, then no one should be given a mulligan with an opportunity to add him. He and others should be locked after a certain date and held over until the next draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 28, 2009 14:21:52 GMT -5
I don't mind the rule being how it is, but I'm against the cutoff date because I think it penalizes me for being active.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuke LaLoosh Express on Dec 28, 2009 19:24:07 GMT -5
I don't mind the rule being how it is, but I'm against the cutoff date because I think it penalizes me for being active. Agree 100% |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Dec 28, 2009 19:53:48 GMT -5
If you trade a minor leaguer, you should probably be able to replace him during the season. That seems to be in the spirit of what we're going for. Even Gary could agree with this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 20:21:43 GMT -5
Maybe. I don't have a position on it either way, but I am just bouncing ideas. I do wonder what we can do to get more teams involved on the Minor League level. I feel like it's a secret in this league or something that, yes, you can actually pick and choose for a LONG time in this league. Hell, Randy Wells kind of saved my season when you think about it, and I picked him up as an MiLB free agent. But even after the off-season, there are always those who are busy with jobs, lives, or other sports that they don't pay attention to baseball when it's not in play.
Maybe I'm just upset that not everyone is as pumped about Sandlot as the lot of us seems to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 22:58:29 GMT -5
Two edge sword, I agree with Jimi, but I also agree with Colin. But we really need to put a lock only MiLB players. The owners that are active an overzealous will usually own the really good MiLB players that perform great during a season, they will be on-top, but on a certain date we should lock MiLB players. We are not allow to sign the Strasburgh or Ackerly's, so locking down MiLB players on a certain date won't hinder anybody.
And YES I agree with Bobby. The rule in place is stupid. So Colin can't add another MiLB player because he traded a MiLB, but Jackson can add MiLB players all year? Just doesn't seem right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Dec 28, 2009 23:20:57 GMT -5
Two edge sword, I agree with Jimi, but I also agree with Colin. But we really need to put a lock only MiLB players. The owners that are active an overzealous will usually own the really good MiLB players that perform great during a season, they will be on-top, but on a certain date we should lock MiLB players. We are not allow to sign the Strasburgh or Ackerly's, so locking down MiLB players on a certain date won't hinder anybody. And YES I agree with Bobby. The rule in place is stupid. So Colin can't add another MiLB player because he traded a MiLB, but Jackson can add MiLB players all year? Just doesn't seem right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 23:33:58 GMT -5
You are a great fantasy owner an your record cannot be beat, an why are you such a tight-ass about helping teams that are completely decimated? A last place team should have the 1st pick in the MLB & MiLB drafts......but, you say NO. Strasburgh should be drafted by the last place team, thats why the Nationals have him.., but in Sandlot you want the 9th place team?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 23:40:36 GMT -5
That makes a lot of sense Gary/Bobby/people. I think my swing vote will become a "Yay" if and when we vote on that.
The holidays are a magical time when mortal enemies can agree on a rule for the common good of the league. "It's the most... wonderful time... of the year..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Dec 29, 2009 8:38:50 GMT -5
You are a great fantasy owner an your record cannot be beat, an why are you such a tight-ass about helping teams that are completely decimated? A last place team should have the 1st pick in the MLB & MiLB drafts......but, you say NO. Strasburgh should be drafted by the last place team, thats why the Nationals have him.., but in Sandlot you want the 9th place team? Why are you such a tight ass about picking on me? Why is it me that's been adding and dropping players all year, and now I don't want to help bad teams and I think the 9th place team should pick first....as if I just made that rule up yesterday. Whatever GB. It's not that I want to punish bad teams, it's more that I don't want to reward teams that pay no attention, which has been the case for the last place teams that past 2 years. I like Mack's original draft order which calls for the top half of the league fighting to win, and the bottom half fighting for the first pick. The team who tanks or quits doesn't get screwed, they still pick in the top 5. This year with Strasburg it seems like a big deal, but look at last year, the number 1 overall picks in both drafts were Max Scherzer and Brett Wallace. Both solid but neither is the unquestioned the best pick in the round a year later. Gary I'll never finish last or 9th, so I'll let you argue it out, since it's going to have a far bigger impact on your team. |
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 29, 2009 10:12:52 GMT -5
Good point, Beard. I might finish 9th next season, but once I've had a year or two to rebuild I don't ever plan on being in the bottom half of the league, so I guess I'm done wasting energy arguing. I still plan on playing devil's advocate, though.
|
|
