|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 23, 2017 9:58:33 GMT -5
If at all possible I'd like to stay away from making this too complicated. Knowing that the camping season is coming up and connectivity can sometimes be an issue, I do think 72 hours in manageable.
There's nothing wrong with communication between owners, but to include it in the rules only provides a way out of responsibility on the part of the owner who can say "well nobody contacted me, so I thought I was clear". Meanwhile, that same owner can be waiting for a player to be placed on the DL, jamming up a line of signed players he's trying to work into his rosters..... That can get messy and complicated imo.
Part of the reason we want to expedite - within reason - the MLB side is to make sure the player pool remains strong, but also so that the accounting and overseeing aspects can be done without falling too far behind. If a team has 2,3, or 4 pending transactions, it's hard to tell what's what.
Having said that, I'm still ad advocate of 72 Hrs for MLB side and 1 week for Minors side. We can also make it simpler and cleaner by saying that if he doesn't sign the player, that player goes into the FA pool and all bidding has to start over. That simplifies it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 16:03:23 GMT -5
I dislike the Yankees plan. If you want a player, would you have the time in the 48-hour window to post a new bid? If the answer is yes, then you should have the time to post a transaction within 48 hours. We are not asking you to update your team page just post the transaction. To prolong posting the transaction means the GM did not really want the Player. Plus, now I need to take time out of my day to PM another GM about not following the rules and give them an extra 5 days, so I might get a player they outbid me. What happens if GM A doesn't have the time to PM the GM B and the commish does GM B have forever to complete the transaction? I can understand extending the window on the minor league free agents, but I like keeping things simple and like one rule for both major league and minor league free agents. Appreciate the feedback. "To prolong posting the transaction means the GM did not really want the player?" Not really, could just mean that he is busy. The GM wanted the player enough to win the bid. So far no one has pointed out a problem with allowing longer than 48 hours. I don't get why we are so set on 48 hours. "Plus, now I need to take time out of my day to PM another GM about not following the rules and give them an extra 5 days, so I might get a player they outbid me" Yep, if the GM really wanted the player they could have won the bid. Unless a GM is abusing the window and stashing multiple players then I don't see the harm. And if abuse is suspected the commissioners can review as stated. So questions for you: First, why are we so set on 48 hours? It adds a lot of work for the commissioners and they have already shown it is not consistently enforced (not blaming or suggesting we go back and enforce, just saying in support of change). Why not place the burden on the GMs and give the commissioners a hand? Second, as it is now we introduce gamesmanship into the process. Rockies was upset that a bid was placed on a player he posted. After losing the bid he retroactively reviewed a transaction and determined it was placed just outside the window to prove a point. People are busy, and in the offseason when FA is in full swing there will be frequent slips. Why reward GMs who have way more time and introduce friction just to enforce an imaginary 48 hour window? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 16:20:10 GMT -5
If at all possible I'd like to stay away from making this too complicated. Knowing that the camping season is coming up and connectivity can sometimes be an issue, I do think 72 hours in manageable. There's nothing wrong with communication between owners, but to include it in the rules only provides a way out of responsibility on the part of the owner who can say "well nobody contacted me, so I thought I was clear". Meanwhile, that same owner can be waiting for a player to be placed on the DL, jamming up a line of signed players he's trying to work into his rosters..... That can get messy and complicated imo. Part of the reason we want to expedite - within reason - the MLB side is to make sure the player pool remains strong, but also so that the accounting and overseeing aspects can be done without falling too far behind. If a team has 2,3, or 4 pending transactions, it's hard to tell what's what. Having said that, I'm still ad advocate of 72 Hrs for MLB side and 1 week for Minors side. We can also make it simpler and cleaner by saying that if he doesn't sign the player, that player goes into the FA pool and all bidding has to start over. That simplifies it. "Meanwhile, that same owner can be waiting for a player to be placed on the DL, jamming up a line of signed players he's trying to work into his rosters..... That can get messy and complicated imo." This league rosters 1,600 players. I don't think it's possible to jam the free agent market. In scenarios where abuse is suspected that is a different story and can be enforced differently. "If a team has 2,3, or 4 pending transactions, it's hard to tell what's what." I was rosters commish at BCN for ~4 years. It could be different but we only reacted and updated spreadsheets when a transaction was posted. Pending transactions were a non issue. Again, this proposal puts the responsibility on the GMs to police the aftermath of a free agent signing, it creates less work for the commissioners. "If at all possible I'd like to stay away from making this too complicated." I see it the other way, repeating the above, this proposal puts the responsibility on the GMs rather than the commissioners. You simply write the rule and move on making things LESS complicated. As is now we are expecting the commissioners to police a hard deadline and it has not been consistently enforced thus far. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 16:33:25 GMT -5
I'm on my phone so sorry in advance for the brevity. First, I'm not super passionately opposed to extending the time allowed to sign players a bit. Having said that, I just don't see much of a reason to change it. As I've said before, 48 hours is plenty of time to post a transaction (takes 30 seconds). Also, like Kaj said, if you have time to bid on a player in the 48 hr window, you've got time to sign the player. I just would prefer keep the time shorter so we can keep things moving. I think a week between winning a player and signing him is unnecessarily long. As for the other parts of your proposal, I do like some of it because it could take pressure off Mat and me. However, I don't really like putting responsibility on other teams to notify an owner to post a signing. I think ultimately, the responsibility to post the signing should be on the actual owner and not other owners. Having said all that, I'm fine with whatever everyone decides. I appreciate the detailed proposal! Thanks for responding. I realize it doesn't take that long to post a transaction, but 30 seconds is a stretch. There is often thought involved and it leads to additional waivers/transactions, roster updates and number adjustments. I realize this doesn't all have to be done at once but I personally like to do it that way and I typically reserve this for the weekend. Why is the 48 hour window so important? Please see my responses to IndiansGM and CardsGM regarding a reason to change. It's to make the rule more flexible, make your life easier as rosters commish, and reduce opportunity for friction through gamesmanship of the rule. Change to make the league better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 17:43:22 GMT -5
I'm on my phone so sorry in advance for the brevity. First, I'm not super passionately opposed to extending the time allowed to sign players a bit. Having said that, I just don't see much of a reason to change it. As I've said before, 48 hours is plenty of time to post a transaction (takes 30 seconds). Also, like Kaj said, if you have time to bid on a player in the 48 hr window, you've got time to sign the player. I just would prefer keep the time shorter so we can keep things moving. I think a week between winning a player and signing him is unnecessarily long. As for the other parts of your proposal, I do like some of it because it could take pressure off Mat and me. However, I don't really like putting responsibility on other teams to notify an owner to post a signing. I think ultimately, the responsibility to post the signing should be on the actual owner and not other owners. Having said all that, I'm fine with whatever everyone decides. I appreciate the detailed proposal And let's be honest Astros, I don't think the 48 hour window is even closely enforced currently and I don't blame you guys. We've had 3 recent infractions brought to the league attention and infractions that have slipped (Sal Ramano, Paul Blackburn, Sandro Fabian). The 3 infractions brought to the leagues attention: Rox pointing out the MetsGM was rostering several additional players. fieldofdreams.freeforums.net/thread/1401/rostering-additional-playersDodgers failing to sign Matt Cain, ironically also involving Rox. fieldofdreams.freeforums.net/thread/1397/matt-cain-sp-sfgAnd now the situation were Rox reviewed a transaction after the fact cause he was mad. "I could've also brought up the coincidence where I posted 3 players.. where 12+ hours had passed and "coincidently" you and your brother "coincidently" decided to bid on all 3 of the players I posted, but of course none of the same ones. I will also point out that was within a period of 25 minutes.." - Rox "I couldn't give two shits if you got TJ Friedl, I just wanted to point this out because I knew this was going to happen and I love it." - Rox So, it sounds like we have a rule that is loosely enforced by Rox and you better watch out if you upset him cause he'll watch you like a hawk. Yeah, I think we can do better... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 12:21:52 GMT -5
First, as I stated before, I'm not opposed to increasing the time allowed to sign a player. I said I prefer 48 hours because I think it's plenty of time, but I really don't care too much if that time is extended some. Having said that, I would like to keep it shorter rather than longer so that we don't have players who are just stuck in a pending status for a week or more. Regardless, I'm fine with whatever the league decides on the issue.
Having said all of that, I am opposed to your proposal sent the other day (the one with the various scenarios involving owners A, B, and C). I appreciate you trying to take some of the pressure off Mat and I, but the idea you presented just seems unnecessarily complex... I don't want 3 owners involved in a single team's transactions. I think the rules we have now (again, time allowed to sign the player can be adjusted if needed) work perfectly fine. Mat and I may miss a couple violations here and there, but ultimately, it's working pretty damn well. With the very high volume of transactions that get posted each season, I really want to keep things as simple as possible. I understand that it's frustrating that your transaction was called out by Rox GM and it feels like he's watching you like a hawk, but at the end of the day, you failed to post the signing in 48 hours (which the rules clearly stated you had to do). As long as owners are following the rules, it shouldn't matter. If the issue is time, let's propose we tweak the 48 hours to 72 hours (or longer). I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that.
Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Again, I appreciate the discussion and civil discourse! I'll talk with Mat and we'll try to get a poll up so that the league can vote on this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by TwinsGM (Kaj) on Apr 24, 2017 16:58:49 GMT -5
I agree with you that the 48-hour window should be better enforced. But it is currently up to the losing GM or the commissioner to point out the issue. I don't watch or care if people are signing players where I am not involved. I watch if it is a player I lost out on because of Salary cap issues or I didn't want to pay that much for the player. I would be pointing it out if they didn't sign the person in time. Yankees are right I should not be so set on a 48-hour window because technically I prefer a 24-hour window. But I understand that would not be popular. So, I will stay with the 48-hour window. And as the Astros stated, I will go with the majority because in the long run the monitoring will be left to the losing GM and the commissioner.
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Apr 24, 2017 20:35:49 GMT -5
I have been on the short end of two of these decisions. - I got fined, AND I DESERVED IT. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, maybe it was gamesmanship. Guys bid up players all the time, some of the tools of the trade.,
Either enforce it to the letter of the law, or don't... if enforcement has been slack, and their is a demand to tighten it up from this point forward- so be it. Let's be not be retroactive- the LPGA did that a few weeks ago- why repeat the chump walk? If their isn't a problem with the rule, but a question of enforcement of the rule, then don't change the rule- just enforce it..
But making this an issue because somebody didn't get their man is the worst reason to make it an issue...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:07:14 GMT -5
First, as I stated before, I'm not opposed to increasing the time allowed to sign a player. I said I prefer 48 hours because I think it's plenty of time, but I really don't care too much if that time is extended some. Having said that, I would like to keep it shorter rather than longer so that we don't have players who are just stuck in a pending status for a week or more. Regardless, I'm fine with whatever the league decides on the issue. Having said all of that, I am opposed to your proposal sent the other day (the one with the various scenarios involving owners A, B, and C). I appreciate you trying to take some of the pressure off Mat and I, but the idea you presented just seems unnecessarily complex... I don't want 3 owners involved in a single team's transactions. I think the rules we have now (again, time allowed to sign the player can be adjusted if needed) work perfectly fine. Mat and I may miss a couple violations here and there, but ultimately, it's working pretty damn well. With the very high volume of transactions that get posted each season, I really want to keep things as simple as possible. I understand that it's frustrating that your transaction was called out by Rox GM and it feels like he's watching you like a hawk, but at the end of the day, you failed to post the signing in 48 hours (which the rules clearly stated you had to do). As long as owners are following the rules, it shouldn't matter. If the issue is time, let's propose we tweak the 48 hours to 72 hours (or longer). I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Again, I appreciate the discussion and civil discourse! I'll talk with Mat and we'll try to get a poll up so that the league can vote on this issue. I completely disagree with your logic and we are past the Freidl situation so please let that be, I created this thread to discuss a fix to a dysfunctional rule. "I understand that it's frustrating that your transaction was called out by Rox GM and it feels like he's watching you like a hawk" It doesn't "feel" that way, he told us in this thread that was the case, that is Rox being a douche. "I think the rules we have now (again, time allowed to sign the player can be adjusted if needed) work perfectly fine" There have been at least 3 violations that have gone unnoticed and I'm willing to bet there are more. I haven't seen any infractions brought to the leagues attention other than Rox. So, all I've really proposed is that instead of allowing GMs (Rox) to point out infractions with a hard deadline they do it with a soft deadline, you can replace the time allowed however you'd like. But all I'm hearing is nah, it's working, and I really like a 48 or 72 hour hard deadline cause i do, I think it makes things more simple... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:15:51 GMT -5
Dustin, there is not going to be a perfect system. Like Kaj said before, there is already incentive for the teams who lost a bid to report if a winning owner failed to post the signing (as rox did to you). Some rule violations may got unnoticed, but at the end of the day it's up to the owner who won the auction to post the signing in the allotted amount of time. If teams don't want to be fined, don't violate the rules - it's very simple.
As for the Friedl situation, I wasn't talking just about that... In my last message I addressed your proposal and said it's unnecessarily complex. If you disagree with that, that's fine - people have difference in opinions. But I don't see how wanting to keep things simple (and potentially expanding the amount of time owners have to post a signing) is flawed logic. On top of that, I don't seem to he the only owner that is opposed to the type of proposal you mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:28:58 GMT -5
I agree with you that the 48-hour window should be better enforced. But it is currently up to the losing GM or the commissioner to point out the issue. I don't watch or care if people are signing players where I am not involved. I watch if it is a player I lost out on because of Salary cap issues or I didn't want to pay that much for the player. I would be pointing it out if they didn't sign the person in time. Yankees are right I should not be so set on a 48-hour window because technically I prefer a 24-hour window. But I understand that would not be popular. So, I will stay with the 48-hour window. And as the Astros stated, I will go with the majority because in the long run the monitoring will be left to the losing GM and the commissioner. See the rule below, I don't see the part where it is the losing GMs responsibility to point out the issue. This is why I have taken issue with the process. As I've mentioned multiple times I don't think we need a hard short deadline but I see you are also advocating for an even shorter 24 hour window signing window. I don't get why we need such quick turnaround but thanks for taking the time to join the conversation. 17. GMs will have 48 HRs full days, after closure of the auction, to post the signing in their transaction thread. It is the winning bidder's responsibility to sign the player within the allotted signing window. The league is not responsible for notifying the bid winner that he failed to complete the signing. In the event of a medical or family emergency or if the GM had previously posted to the out of town board, an extension will be granted. 18. If a player is won at auction but the winning GM fails to post the signing in the allotted time, the team will be fined $1,000,000 and the second highest bidder may claim the player at the cost of that GM's highest bid. If the second highest bidder does not want the player, or can no longer afford him, the bidding will be closed and must be restarted by another owner. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:33:38 GMT -5
Dustin, there is not going to be a perfect system. Like Kaj said before, there is already incentive for the teams who lost a bid to report if a winning owner failed to post the signing (as rox did to you). Some rule violations may got unnoticed, but at the end of the day it's up to the owner who won the auction to post the signing in the allotted amount of time. If teams don't want to be fined, don't violate the rules - it's very simple. As for the Friedl situation, I wasn't talking just about that... In my last message I addressed your proposal and said it's unnecessarily complex. If you disagree with that, that's fine - people have difference in opinions. But I don't see how wanting to keep things simple (and potentially expanding the amount of time owners have to post a signing) is flawed logic. On top of that, I don't seem to he the only owner that is opposed to the type of proposal you mentioned. "In my last message I addressed your proposal and said it's unnecessarily complex" I addressed that, it is simply EXACTLY how it is now but instead of enforcing a hard deadline it is enforcing a soft deadline. How is that more complex? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:56:25 GMT -5
I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason for a soft deadline... 48 or 72 hours is plenty of time post a signing. There is also no reason to implement a system in which one owner notifies another owner to begin a clock in which the original owner has to sign a player. The current rules just ask people to post a signing in a reasonable amount of time. If they don't, they violate the rules and are in jeopardy of receiving a penalty. It's so simple!
As for what you said in your reply to Kaj, no one claimed it's the losing owners responsibility to notify the league that winning team failed to post a signing. However, if he does, so be it. It actually makes sense for him to do so as he has a shot at the player. It 48 hrs isn't enough time, then increase it to 72 or 96 hours. I don't see how that wouldn't fix any issues with people failing to post signings... If you can't post a signing in 3 or 4 days AND can't notify a commish that something is going on, then there really isn't an excuse. No reason to over complicate this
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Apr 24, 2017 22:16:38 GMT -5
The rule isn't dysfunctional. It is very clear... 48 hours to sign at the end of the auction, or risk both a fine and the loss of the player in question.
If the owner who wins doesn't comply, he risks the owner who came in second invoking the rule. Follow the rule, or risk the consequences...
You guys have a good night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 22:25:01 GMT -5
I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason for a soft deadline... 48 or 72 hours is plenty of time post a signing. There is also no reason to implement a system in which one owner notifies another owner to begin a clock in which the original owner has to sign a player. The current rules just ask people to post a signing in a reasonable amount of time. If they don't, they violate the rules and are in jeopardy of receiving a penalty. It's so simple! As for what you said in your reply to Kaj, no one claimed it's the losing owners responsibility to notify the league that winning team failed to post a signing. However, if he does, so be it. It actually makes sense for him to do so as he has a shot at the player. It 48 hrs isn't enough time, then increase it to 72 or 96 hours. I don't see how that wouldn't fix any issues with people failing to post signings... If you can't post a signing in 3 or 4 days AND can't notify a commish that something is going on, then there really isn't an excuse. No reason to over complicate this Sure, I get it, but as it is now it's purely the losing GMs responsibility to point out the infraction. If a "rule is a rule" then we should expect it to be managed that way by the commissioners and not subject to bitter GMs. I concede your point about a soft deadline, attempting to solve the issue where a douche GM hangs around the board getting his rocks off when someone misses a deadline by 12 hours, but that's sounding like a hard sell. Hope I drove the point home... So in an effort to find common ground I see absolutely no reason to concern ourselves with a deadline less that 1 week. The ML free agent market in the season is so slim it's silly to concern ourselves with short delays and in the offseason we can be flexible. It's a nonissue with MiL players in a league that is deep 800+ MiL players. So, is there any reason to force a window shorter than 1 week or are we just hell bent on having an uber active presence here on the forum? And please don't just say "I like 48 hours cause it's plenty of time", that's great if it works for you, but can we be more accommodating for those who find themselves busy with life when it makes no difference? |
|
