Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 22:26:19 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. It's dysfunctional cause it's not enforced regularly, have a good night. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 22:40:45 GMT -5
Again, I'm very open to expanding the time allowed to sign a player. I have been this entire time. Personally, I'd like to keep it shorter cause I can't envision a scenario in which 72 hrs isn't enough time to post a signing, but at the end of the day, I don't really care if it's a week. Regardless of what we decide, I don't think the rule is broken or needs to be tweaked, outside of maybe how long owners have to post a signing.
To accommodate this, how do you feel about this for a poll that mat and I put up:
1) keep rules the same
2) expand time allows to post a signing to 72 hrs or more
Then, if 2 is voted on, we can decide the amount of time to expand. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Apr 24, 2017 22:46:11 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but as a late coming to the discussion, I think we're bickering over nothing. As the rule states, the owner who wins an auction has 48 hours to post the transaction. If not, he is subject to the $1M fine and possibly losing the player. Plain and simple. If there were instances where an owner got more than the 48 hours to post and no one noticed, then the owner got lucky. It makes no sense to go back and whine about owners who weren't "caught". In my mind, if you're bidding on a player, you''d be checking to see if someone outbid you. So how hard is it to check the website every day or other day for a few minutes, even during our "busy" lives? Keep the rule as in and just enforce it period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 23:24:37 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but as a late coming to the discussion, I think we're bickering over nothing. As the rule states, the owner who wins an auction has 48 hours to post the transaction. If not, he is subject to the $1M fine and possibly losing the player. Plain and simple. If there were instances where an owner got more than the 48 hours to post and no one noticed, then the owner got lucky. It makes no sense to go back and whine about owners who weren't "caught". In my mind, if you're bidding on a player, you''d be checking to see if someone outbid you. So how hard is it to check the website every day or other day for a few minutes, even during our "busy" lives? Keep the rule as in and just enforce it period. That's the nature of what happened Paul. Somebody went back and bickered over a signing not getting "caught" or at least laid claim to a player cause a transaction was posted 12 hours late, this a half day after the transaction. Keep in mind when the bickering happened a transaction had been posted thus completing the addition. So, yes I pointed out a few other scenarios that went unnoticed to further my point that we shouldn't retroactively look back at transaction timeliness, which you seem to be agreeing with... |
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 25, 2017 19:55:47 GMT -5
I'm going to avoid the cases where the owners make the transactions as required since they're not the issue. Here are the two proposed scenarios.
YankeesGM proposal
Scenario:
Mets bids $50,000
Astros bids $100,000
Astros doesn't post transaction for 48 hours. Mets is still interested so he sends a PM to Astros and includes a commish, thus starting a 5 day clock. (someone has to note the date and time)
Astros can then sign the player within the 5 days or pay a $1M fine. (Mets and/or Commish need to check on this, and if Mets GM notices that it's the case, he will have to contact the commish who will have to look into the transaction and confirm the accuracy). If Astros did not sign the player as confirmed by both MetsGm and the Commish, Mets GM is awarded the player - IF he still has room, the budget, and the willingness to acquire the player. IF that's the case, a message needs to be sent to Astros letting him know that this has taken place.
I'm ignoring the whole portion about "Owner C" because there's no way I'm going there.
CardsGM proposal:
Scenario:
Mets bids $50,000
Astros bids $100,000
If it's for an MLB player bid, Astros has 72 hours to complete the signing. If he doesn't, he loses all rights to the player and the player becomes a FA once again. If Mets GM decides to reopen bidding, Astros is not eligible to bid.
If it's a Minors player bid, Astros has a week to complete the signing. If he doesn't, he loses all rights to the player and the player becomes a FA once again. If Mets GM decides to reopen bidding, Astros is not eligible to bid.
I haven't gone back to read through the other proposals, but there are a few things to point in differences between these proposals. First, with Cards proposal there are no fines. I like that. Losing the player should be punishment enough. Second, it's a quicker process and requires little to no communication. All that would happen if Astros noticed that the player was put up for bid again is that he'd ask himself what happened and notice the time lapse issue. Ryan and I would also note as such and lock the initial bid thread as we clean up the MLB and Minors signings area.
Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 21:03:39 GMT -5
I'll add something late.
I think multiple offenses need escalating punitive measures due to holding up players that others may desperately need. an owner could game the bidding just to keep another owner from winning the player and all they'll get is a slap on the wrist while the team that needs a player is having to rebid for another week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 21:30:08 GMT -5
I agree with Dbacks. The problem with your proposal is that a team could bid on a player, wait 5 days and not sign him, take a $1m fine, and then let him be released as FA again. I think you should leave it to where the 2nd highest bidder has a chance to claim the player if winning bidder fails to sign the player in the allowed amt of time.
Personally, I think the best option is just increase the time allowed to post a player won on auction to 72 hrs for both MLB and minors auctions. I really dislike having a different amt of time for mlb and minors auctions (that adds unnecessary confusion for everyone, especially the commissioners)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 22:14:02 GMT -5
I'm behind CardsGM proposal. I like the idea of removing the fine and also not allowing a GM to benefit from it. As deep as our league is, depth becomes a roster management issue, not a free agency issue. In scenarios where there are multiple offenses and abuse is suspected that is escalated to the commissioners under 'General Rules E.6'. I'd still like to see a longer window, maybe 5 days, where you could make ML and MiL the same window to prevent confusion as others have mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 26, 2017 4:57:51 GMT -5
Ok, I like where the discussions are going and am getting the feedback that we want the same time for both MLB and Minors. With owners in favour of 48, others in favour of 72, and others in favour of 96, we can list all 3 options and have this polled unless anyone has an issue with going with the following main proposal:
CardsGM proposal:
Scenario:
Mets bids $50,000
Astros bids $100,000
Regardless of whether the player in a Minors or MLB player, Astros has (insert time frame which we will poll on to be either 48 hours /72 hours/ or 5 days) to complete the signing. If he doesn't, he loses all rights to the player and the player becomes a FA once again. If Mets GM decides to reopen bidding, Astros is not eligible to bid.
Does that work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 6:33:05 GMT -5
Personally, I still don't see any of those rules as written preventing someone from continuously bidding on players and then "missing" the signing deadline.
Example: Team A submits Player A for bid. Team B gets involved over the course of a few days and keeps the bidding open with no intention of ever signing Player A. Team B eventually wins the auction, but doesn't sign the player in whatever window is voted on. 1st time, sure no problem. WE ALL have busy lives. The 2nd, 3rd, etc times, its becoming indicative of Team B's intentions. What subjective measure are the commissioners proposing for this scenario? Because, the damages are pretty light for the infraction as outlined above.
I know this is probably waaaaaaaay to complicated and i'm overthinking things. I just wanted to throw that scenario out there for frequent violators.
I have no issue with the signing time frames and will be fine with whatever. It's the damages to prevent teams from taking advantage of the system, so if there is an option to leave the rule as is in the vote, i'd like that as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 7:57:49 GMT -5
Ok, I like where the discussions are going and am getting the feedback that we want the same time for both MLB and Minors. With owners in favour of 48, others in favour of 72, and others in favour of 96, we can list all 3 options and have this polled unless anyone has an issue with going with the following main proposal: CardsGM proposal: Scenario: Mets bids $50,000 Astros bids $100,000 Regardless of whether the player in a Minors or MLB player, Astros has (insert time frame which we will poll on to be either 48 hours /72 hours/ or 5 days) to complete the signing. If he doesn't, he loses all rights to the player and the player becomes a FA once again. If Mets GM decides to reopen bidding, Astros is not eligible to bid. Does that work? Please read what I replied before Mat. This rule does not do anything at all to prevent someone from bidding up as high as they want and not signing the player a week alter |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 8:46:12 GMT -5
Sorry, was on my phone earlier. I have no idea why we would remove the fine AND the part where the 2nd highest bidder gets the player if the winning owner fails to sign the player... with that proposal, I could bid up a player as high as I possibly wanted (as long as I could afford it in cap space) just to prevent someone else from getting the player. Then, when the 5 days that I had to sign the player expires, I could just say "ah, yeah, things have changed since I won that bid - I don't want to sign the player anymore. Then, instead of me being fined OR the player going to the 2nd highest bidder, the player goes back into FA and the team who originally wanted him has to bid all over again (could delay someone getting the player by several weeks). And as for me (the person who gamed the system to prevent a rival team from getting his player), I have no penalty other than I can't bid on the same player I didn't want (if he gets bid on again). That doesn't really accomplish anything...
I guess I'm just confused as to why we've suddenly removed the fine for failing to sign the player AND the part where the 2nd highest bidder gets the player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 8:48:44 GMT -5
I really can't understand why we don't just keep things the same, but extend the time allowed to sign a player (I don't care if it's 48 hrs, 72 hrs, or a week). If teams cannot sign players in a 7 day period, then they probably shouldn't be playing a league like this haha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 9:25:57 GMT -5
Stros, we have a 27 man active roster, 13 man reserve roster, and a 40 man minor roster. Are you saying you want to build a rule around the scenario that a GM has an immediate need in their starting lineup that they can't solve with their bench, have zero options on their reserves, and no ready solution in their minors while the trade market is blah. While this scenario is unfolding an upcoming opponent has studied your roster and is determined to block any player that could fill that gap.
I haven't seen that scenario play out in 12 years playing under this rule and should it happen we can cover it under General Rule E.6.
"then they probably shouldn't be playing a league like this haha."
Kind of agree with you, I'm here asking for a longer free agent signing window for busy lives and we are discussing scenarios that involve some of the most intense fantasy baseball GMing that I can imagine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 9:36:16 GMT -5
I'm not saying I think it will play out, and I of course hope it doesn't. However, there is no reason to change a rule to where that type of abuse COULD happen, especially when it's so easy to prevent (just say the player goes to the 2nd highest bidder or enforce the fine as before...). It's not like Mat's proposal couldn't easily be tweeked to still include some type of penalty for failing to sign a player a week after the fact.
Whatever we vote on, there 100% needs to be an option to keep the rules the same and just extend the time allowed to sign a player. I don't understand why we're talking about voting on just 2 options (Cards proposal and Yanks proposal) when the vast majority of the league seems to want to keep things the same. In order to help give owners more leeway and time in signing players, the ONLY thing that needs to be tweaked is the time allowed to sign a player. This has gotten shockingly complex for something that is so simple! I don't think anyone is opposed to giving owners a bit more time to sign players before any fines kick in. Thoughts?
|
|
