Post by Cardinals (Steve K) on Jul 14, 2020 14:25:27 GMT -5
In the offseason I'd like to propose one more minor change to the bidding on players in free agency:
As it stands now if you drop/buyout a player in season you can not bid on that player until the following season.
I'd like to propose a slight modification to the rule:
If you trade a player and the player is dropped/bought out within 5 days of the trade, you as the previous owner are not able to bid on the player you traded if the bidding for that player begins within 5 days of the drop/buyout. A lot to digest in that sentence but it basically boils down to avoiding trading of players from team x to team y and then player ends up on team x at a lower salary.
The maneuver is creative and not frowned upon by me, but I figure it might be best to close the trade/rebid loophole for 2021 and beyond.
New Member 2019 Follow on Twitter @steve_kinsella1 14th Place in 2018 (other owner) 6th Place in 2019 (first year)
Obviously I’ve done a couple of these types of deals where I give up some short term money to be able to rebid (commonly with Brewers), but It’s a risky move since everyone else gets the same opportunity to bid. I’m cool with a vote, but don’t really see the problem as it’s just open bidding on a player I still like
Post by Cardinals (Steve K) on Jul 14, 2020 15:13:55 GMT -5
I believe its a loophole that could be closed. Personally, I have no problem with the maneuver as I believe anything an owner can do within the rules to make their team better should be encouraged by all! I bring it up to avoid any future issues and raised eyebrows from any other owner...we can always go back and say, "hey, this was brought up, voted on, and is 100% legal"
New Member 2019 Follow on Twitter @steve_kinsella1 14th Place in 2018 (other owner) 6th Place in 2019 (first year)
Post by Brewers (Kyle) on Jul 14, 2020 17:46:54 GMT -5
Agree with Marlins. Marlins is paying a few extra dollars for the risk of losing the player to others. I don't think a vote is needed unless multiple people comment otherwise.
My only question is what is the purpose of not allowing the team that buys out the player to bid on him. I think it is ridiculous to allow another team to do the dirty work to cover up the buyout.It is just using a loophole to get around the rule. Why have the rule when you can easily get around it.
Post by Brewers (Kyle) on Jul 14, 2020 17:54:35 GMT -5
I would disagree that it's easy to get around. It cost the team the buyout, and they have to pay more to acquire the player again (if they win the bid). Using David Price as the example, Indians could've gone $20 and won the bid (assuming Marlins would've stopped bidding). No guarantee Marlins would've won it.
Post by TB Rays (RSP) on Jul 17, 2020 6:33:51 GMT -5
I agree with Indians. If we allow a loophole to bypass a rule, whats the point of the rule. Again, the way teams can choose to eat up buyouts all in one season in here, it makes perfect logical sense if they have someone on a pricey 2 year contract to work out the back alley trade, buyout, then re-bid in hopes to win him at a cheaper rate for more years in season when generally people have less $ flow than actual free agency. We purposely pushed up the buyout date in this league because people used the buyout allocation rule to basically buyout any 2 year contract on the last day of the season basically penalty free. I dont see how putting in this kinda of rule "hurts" anything. AGain, its a valid and legal loophole and if we dont have a problem with it, then why not just let them cut the person and re-bid on their own instead of going through 2 or 3 extra transactions to get to the same end result.
Because you have to pay an added tax to get it done. I pay 3 extra dollars and still have to win a bid. Sometimes I just lose that cash, sometimes I can get him at a lower number. Takes extra work in order to get it done
Post by TB Rays (RSP) on Jul 17, 2020 9:39:07 GMT -5
You pay the tax with a buyout technically too. and again, $3 in a year where you have extra cap for 3 or 4 more years of ownership at a lower per year seems like a fair trade off. Again, if we allow that, just skip the middle man and eliminate the rule. all it really does is allow 2 owners to collude (legally) to bypass a rule using excess $
Post by Brewers (Kyle) on Jul 17, 2020 10:22:31 GMT -5
If you get rid of that rule, you'll have end of the season buyouts and people who have lots of cap waiting to prey.
What's stopping a manager from cutting the last year of a contract for 4 more years at a reduced price? I disagree, and would've disagreed even if I wasn't the benefactor of Marlins extra few dollars.
If you get rid of that rule, you'll have end of the season buyouts and people who have lots of cap waiting to prey.
What's stopping a manager from cutting the last year of a contract for 4 more years at a reduced price? I disagree, and would've disagreed even if I wasn't the benefactor of Marlins extra few dollars.
Whats stopping them from doing it now? at the cost of a few $$ -- if they have the money, nothing is stopping them now with the loophole, so nothing is going to stop them then either... again, other than a few $ changing hands and creating 2 or 3 additional transactions.. whats the point? Thats all we are saying.
Everything in and late season in here is always all about who has $$$ to throw around for stuff. Thats the disparity with having teams start with $30+ more than other teams. Its a league of the haves and have nots. This loophole clearly favors the HAVES as do so many other rules. The have nots cant afford to paysomeone to use the loophole for a chance to reduce their contracts.
If you get rid of that rule, you'll have end of the season buyouts and people who have lots of cap waiting to prey.
What's stopping a manager from cutting the last year of a contract for 4 more years at a reduced price? I disagree, and would've disagreed even if I wasn't the benefactor of Marlins extra few dollars.
and whats stopping them is all the other managers with $$$ -- that part isnt any different. I dont care if Team A cuts the guy or Team B does.. everyone else can still bid on him.
Ryan (Cubs): Today is the last day to re-sign your restricted free agents! All players that are left unsigned will be dropped tomorrow and eligible for free agency
Feb 23, 2024 10:02:14 GMT -5
Padres (Rodger): Luis Matos is showing up twice on my roster sheet, as a OF and a SP, can you remove the SP line please.
Feb 24, 2024 6:56:36 GMT -5
Pirates (Gregg): Everyone update your Yahoo Roster!
Feb 25, 2024 12:41:26 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): We still have a MAX 20 prospects, correct?
Feb 26, 2024 9:15:10 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Yes. 20 prospects is the MiLB max, you either need to drop a prospect or call someone up if you are over that limit.
Feb 26, 2024 11:56:08 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): I don’t, but I know that some do. So, to be clear, we can draft over the 20 limit as long as we cut down before the season starts?
Feb 29, 2024 23:45:26 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Technically you should be dropping a player anytime a draft pick or trade takes you over the limit of 20. I must've missed it but Yankees needs to release one of his MiLB players, they are the only team over the limit right now
Mar 1, 2024 7:43:12 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): Thanks for clarifying
Mar 1, 2024 8:48:23 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Still willing to talk SP......
Mar 3, 2024 1:12:18 GMT -5
Rockies (Jose): Is Yuki Matsui rostered?
Mar 12, 2024 16:15:04 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Technically you can't bid on Yuki in free agency until he pitches an inning in the MLB. You could have drafted him in the MiLB draft, but players that haven't made their debut can't be nominated in Free Agency.
Mar 13, 2024 13:37:27 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Shopping Gallen if anyone needing an ace level sp
Mar 29, 2024 11:53:28 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Shopping Vaughn if anyone needs a 1b?
Apr 2, 2024 19:06:22 GMT -5
Mariners (Rook): I do believe Ronel Blanco free agent final bid of $3/3 by LAD is invalid and the player should be returned to free agency. That was LAD last transaction and it put his cap -0.25. We can’t go negative cap. What say you?
Apr 5, 2024 21:29:05 GMT -5
*
Ryan (Cubs): @mariners, correct. LAD's bid on Blanco put him $.25 over the cap so the bid is invalidated. I've messaged LAD and dropped Blanco from his roster
Apr 8, 2024 7:28:32 GMT -5
*
Pirates (Gregg): @mariners Tyler Holton RP DET
Apr 8, 2024 19:39:18 GMT -5
*
Ryan (Cubs): NEW FORUM UPDATE: I created a new space to list your Prospect Promotions. A lot of the promotions get lost in the Roster Moves tab. Please post all of your prospect call-ups in the new section and I'll be able to update the page faster!
Apr 16, 2024 7:42:44 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Of course D’Arnaud hits 3 HR today…after I put him on waivers
Apr 19, 2024 20:46:13 GMT -5