Rule change discussion: official player transaction sources

[Admin]

I wanted to present this as one of the potential rule changes to be considered for the 2018 ballot. Any thoughts, comments or suggestions are welcome below.


Rule change proposal:
Any roster transaction to protect a formerly unprotected player will not enter into effect until 24 hours after the protect announcement is posted. During those 24 hours, if the player is traded, released, or otherwise ceases to be part of your hometown team, then the claim is void and the player's rights are lost. The player is not eligible to be added to a Fantrax roster until the completion of the 24 hour window. (The process would resemble free agency, although with no other bidders.)


Reason for the proposal:
It intends to close or at least shrink the loophole that currently exists by which a player can be protected after a real life trade is announced so long as the "official" paperwork, physicals, or other delays are in process. This also avoids adding more administrative work to the TC or commissioners.

The "spirit of the law" behind our method of protecting players is that salary should be allocated in advance if we wish to retain a player's rights. Allowing players to be protected after an announcement, which is currently legal, removes some of the decision making and responsibility involved in monitoring one's resources. (In my own words... it's more fair and fun if this loophole can be removed.)


Negative consequences:
The 24 hour delay slows down a team's ability to use the player. Some call-ups may not be able to be protected in time for use on their first day.

[Toronto Blue Jays GM]

This feels like more cumbersome than the benefit would be to having the rule. Obviously someone did something to ruffle your feathers, but I'd wager that 99% of the time the actual add/drop players are bench players/last guy in bullpen type players that are added and dropped in real life. I personally don't check FA every day to find these guys, and not being able to add them for 24 hrs seems arbitrary. I didn't set up the rules so perhaps I'm missing the spirit of the law point. I just don't see how this affects anything one way or another.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Ideally I would like to see something which helped protect the spirit of the protect/unprotect rule/concept that we have in place, but am very weary of any administrative burden which this sort of addition would bring.

Fundamentally, I believe that each team should be paying a salary to any player that they want to protect (and therefore keep if they are traded away from their real life organisation). It is not the intent of the protect rule/concept to reward the vigilant. When your real life organisation trades or releases a player you have unprotected they should be lost from your ownership, and there should not be a loophole/delay for the responsive to exploit by protecting that player (and thereby keep them) before the transaction is 'official'.


If anybody has any views on how this objective could be achieved in a relatively simple and easy way then please do step forward and make your idea known, because I would be very interested to consider it.

[Toronto Blue Jays GM]

In my mind this could be a case by case basis. There can't be more than a few instances a year where this happens. Hard to be fair I guess.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

If we were to use a case-by-case basis, who is the judge? What are the criteria or guidelines they follow?

Unfortunately, Adam and I have come from a league where we were painfully aware of the problems caused by leaving holes in the rule book. As commissioners (as well as league participants) it is important to us for there to be complete transparency on how the league operates and the rules to which we play.

[Admin]

I can see how the burdens of this proposal may outweigh the harm it intends to avoid, especially since we're accustomed to doing things a certain way. The situation has never been a real issue in this league as of yet. But I'd love to explore if there's anything we can accomplish to avoid a future potential source of controversy.

One alternate idea, borrowed from the 15 team league which has several members here, would be to use an official pre-approved list to determine eligibility. If any transaction which removes an unprotected player from a team's control is mentioned in a media source on the pre-approved list, then the player is no longer eligible to be protected.

[bill (Bill, SD)]

I like the idea of a set media source(s) dictating this. Say if someone attempts to protect a guy the same day mlb or espn mentions a transaction involving the unprotected guy and he is lost, then the protect claim is voided.

[Admin]

Pulling this back out so that we can have a clearer idea of what to present when the time comes.

The following list is borrowed from another well run league in which several GMs here participate:
"The agreed reference point for determining the timing of a real life move will be the first report of said move by any of the following media:
"Sending" team's official Twitter feed
"Receiving" team's official Twitter feed
@mlb
@mlbrostermoves
The MLB.com transactions page (found via the 'Players' drop-down on the MLB.com homepage)"

If anyone can chime in regarding its efficiency, how well is this list working? Do you think it would be an improvement or a complication to include news aggregators or reporting sites? Any input would be appreciated.

I feel that the list above would be a vast improvement over our current "official transaction time" policy. I'd rather defer the decisions about specific sources to those with more experience. Also, just to reiterate, the ideas and list under discussion here are for the purpose of knowing how to present the ballot in the off-season. No changes are happening at this time.

Thanks.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Actually, it isn't used that often.
I guess that since the rule is in place teams actually protect the players they care about. I don't think I've had to review a single protect where the player is no longer on the 'owning' team (which would then trigger me to investigate those sources to find out when the move was announced).

[Pirates GM (TJ)]

I think we are adding administrative burden without benefit here. I understand the logic behind it. But it adds extra layers of work for the TC/Commissioners to solve a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. Because if this rule is on the books and something gets missed and is discovered months later, it's now the administration's "fault" for not catching it?

We are now two seasons in, and have yet to have a significant issue this rule would fix (as far as I know).

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

There are two aspects here - 1) protecting players around the announcement of a real life trade/release, and 2) the accuracy of player details when they are protected.

We've not had a real issue with last-minute protection of players around the announcement of a deal, but it certainly leaves a grey area which could be exploited.

We do, however, see issues with roster and transaction accuracy. Whether it be spellings, contract details, or actual rights to the player being protected, we do see inaccuracies.
I understand that this change potentially adds a huge overhead. The question is whether we receive a fair return on investment. I'm sure the time will come when a playoff race or matchup is affected by an ineligibly-protected player or an incorrect salary/contract which takes a team over cap - do we as a league take steps to actively avoid this happening, or do we leave every owner to fend for themselves (and potentially encourage more match-up altering roster checks/penalties)?

[Admin]

I don’t see this change as adding any additional administrative work. Even under our current rules, player protections need to be accurate. We all try to police the roster transactions as much as possible, and that administrative responsibility will remain exactly the same.

I’m also grateful that it hasn’t been exploited here yet. However, experience in other leagues has allowed some of us to see players “protected” after a trade was announced. I’d rather see that possibility closed off.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

I think there is a fair administrative overhead - instead of you or I or anything "keeping an eye" on protects we would be introducing a formal requirements where someone (I guess TC) would be responsible for checking and approving every protect.
The 15tm league where this rule already operates is slightly shallower and we have less teams, so protects are fewer than here. I don't think that this is a walk in the park...

[Admin]

What in the language of the proposal indicates that someone will now be responsible for checking every protect?

[Mariners GM (Travis)]

I think it would only matter if there was a dispute. With this proposal, you could look at the official release from the approved source announcing the trade, then compare it with the time stamp on the protect post. But 99% of protects would not need to be checked.

The main thing this would do IMO is fill in that gray area surrounding when a team actually loses the rights to a traded unprotected player.