Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 19:50:58 GMT -5
I know I am late to this conversation and my $.02 is limited but have you considered requiring a player be "benched" instead of "dropped"? That way he isn't accumulating stats but is still on the roster. The whole concept of pitchers skipping starts because of trades comes to mind. Then once it's approved both parties drop the players. And anyone that "starts" a traded player after approval is in clear violation of the rule
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2017 22:25:31 GMT -5
RJ, your $0.02 is appreciated. We need to find a way to get more of us involved in conversations that affect the group as a whole.
I think the primary concern that this issue addresses is to make players available to the receiving team as soon as the trade is completed and processed. Everyone plays the game different, and some GMs check in less often. When trading with someone who is around less frequently, it could get annoying to have a trade processed, yet the players are still stuck on the wrong team on the scoring site. At the minimum, that can no longer happen. It’s not as much about preventing the sending team from accumulating stats, but rather assisting the receiving team to have the player (and stats) available at the earliest possible moment.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2017 2:55:14 GMT -5
6.4 states that it applies to “traded players before a trade has been fully approved”.
I’m disappointed in myself that I didn’t know our own rulebook! It really does say that. To be honest, I hadn’t paid any attention to this at all previously. Certainly, it has never been enforced. I can think of multiple occasions last year when several teams, myself included, should’ve been penalized according to this. I apologize for letting this pass under the radar for so long. At the same time, I’m also content that we haven’t let this clause derail the league because of the dozens of occasions it would’ve applied.
The discussion thread for this rule change proposal refers to players that aren’t dropped after the third approval. Imagine if we had penalized all the times players weren’t dropped before the first approval. The standings would've been completely scrambled.
Now that I’m aware of the clause, and looking at it, it simply seems out of character for the rule. Rule 6.4 is designed to prevent the use of ineligible players. Traded players are legitimately on the roster of the sending team, and continue to be their property until a trade is approved. It has been established that any team can withdraw from a trade at any point up until the third approval. (http://mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/thread/1133/mia-min) This can only be possible if the actual ownership transfer is considered official as of the third approval. The penalty as written is far too harsh for something that isn’t even an infraction.
If a team were to be caught and penalized by this clause, I’d imagine they could try immediately withdrawing from their trade. Would we still require them to forfeit a week over a trade that never took place, for using a player who never left their possession, and whose salary they have continuously paid?
I’d love to see if we could get that clause removed from 6.4. If it remains, I can’t plead ignorance anymore, but goodness, I’d hate to have to enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Nov 2, 2017 4:56:32 GMT -5
Do you mind if we take a step back here. What is this this proposed rule change actually trying to achieve?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2017 6:56:36 GMT -5
Making sure that traded players are available for the receiving team at the moment of the third approval.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2017 7:20:08 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts:
Option 2 in this proposal should’ve never been an option. Dropping in a timely fashion would wreck one’s season.
The proposal appears to be a simple solution to help change our habits as a whole. In the discussion thread, it appears that Pirates, Reds, and Dodgers were also unaware of the existing rule that accomplished the same objective through harsh penalties. (I’m assuming my co-commissioner best friend, like myself, was similarly unaware given how few penalties were handed out...)
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Nov 2, 2017 9:29:27 GMT -5
I remember the rule, but have never even thought to consider it for a recently traded player.
If our intent is to ensure that a player is available to be picked up by the acquiring team on Fantrax immediately upon the 3rd approval then I think we realistically have two options: 1) the player must be dropped from Fantrax as the trade is posted/approved 2) all traded players must be dropped from Fantrax before it can be approved by TC Taking a step back, they're pretty much the same thing - so long as we don't end up in a Mexican stand-off where neither player wants to be the first to drop their player after agreeing to a trade.
However, my understanding of the intent of the vote was that we were trying to speed up the time between a trade being agreed/posted and the player being available to be picked up in Fantrax. Was that not the case? Perhaps stricter enforcement of the current rule achieves our goals without the necessity to actually change a rule? Perhaps it wouldn't. (If we were to enforce it (and perhaps we should) I would advocate perhaps a day's grace in this scenario - if a 3rd approval is granted on a Thursday then I'm not sure how comfortable I would be calling that player ineligble on the same day)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2017 10:06:01 GMT -5
Looking over the discussion thread, I’m not sure that speeding things up was the concern.
Just my summary of the conversation: Problem: Some teams take too long to release their players following the third approval. Solution: Players are dropped when the trade is posted. TC will check that this condition has been met.
The solution proposed was simple and clean.
I’m very grateful that you posted a copy of 6.4 Stephen. Otherwise, I would have continued oblivious. My hunch is that many of us were oblivious to the pertinent clause in 6.4. The newly voted rule probably has more support than enforcing the unknown existing rule.
The intent of rule 6.4 doesn’t seem to match this scenario, even though that how it’s currently written. If a GM picks Mike Trout off the waiver wire, the penalty is simple, severe, and corrects any issues from the illegal usage. I’d feel very bad if it’s also sweeping up GMs who post a trade out of sequence.
Side note, a standoff is a risk associated with any trade regardless of the penalty. “Please go ahead and post the trade; I’ll confirm my side soon.... (three days later)”. The biggest thing at stake is our reputation. Neither solution can eliminate that possibility.
I’d love to see the recently voted change implemented, and the concerning clause removed from rule 6.4. Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Nov 2, 2017 11:43:11 GMT -5
Thinking out loud (and in public), how about the THIRD approval can't be posted until all involved players are dropped from Fantrax. Those wishing to lose as few stats as possible can hang on to the player until one or two approvals are received, and when the third approval is posted then both players can immediately pick up their new player(s). It makes a shade more work for TC (which in another discussion we're trying to avoid) but perhaps is a compromise which suits all parties best whilst achieving our desired goal?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2017 12:44:18 GMT -5
We had a good suggestion as summarized by Stephen in the discussion thread: “I like this. Post or approve a trade, and drop the player immediately. Pick up guys traded for once the third approval is in. Simple.” I wholeheartedly agree. Read more: mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/thread/2247/rule-change-discussion#ixzz4xIOsWxsd We had a good suggestion. It received support in the discussion thread. We held a vote, and it squeaked out a win. By all appearances, the new rule should work fine. There’s no reason to continue to tinker with it that I can see. Rule 6.4 is a separate, yet related, concern. To leave it as written would be a change to the way our league has operated. To remove one previously unnoticed phrase would keep things as they have been.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Nov 2, 2017 12:56:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand how 6.4 needs to be changed? As written, you can't accumulate stats with a player you are trading for until the 3rd approval on the trade has been received. Is that not correct?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2017 13:53:15 GMT -5
6.4 Accumulating Stats with Ineligible Players If a player has accumulated stats on the scoring website whilst they are not legitimately on your Proboards roster (including unprotected arbitration eligible players or traded players before a trade has been fully approved) you will be given a loss in any category impacted by ineligible players. If the same player accumulates stats in multiple matchups (whilst continuously being ineligible for the same reason) then losses will only be applied in the first and last matchups where he is identified as having had any impact on any category. For example: if you play an ineligible player in your active lineup for one day and they go 0-1 with a Run (but no HR, RBI or SB) then you will automatically forfeit R and AVG for that matchup. HR, RBI and SB (as well as the pitching categories) will continue to be contested as normal.
The words I’d wonder about are: “traded players before a trade has been fully approved”.
Perhaps it could be changed to: “players expected to be acquired via trade before a trade has been fully approved”.
As it currently is written, a “traded player” could refer to an outgoing player that hasn’t been dropped from Fantrax. (It was used this way earlier in this thread.) In other words, a GM posts a trade, but forgets to drop his player fast enough, and rule 6.4 could apply. (If applied that way, dozens of teams would’ve been penalized over the past two years.) Thats a use for 6.4 which we’d probably be better off avoiding.
|
|
|
Post by notoriousgman (Gman, NYM) on Nov 11, 2017 0:06:56 GMT -5
I know I'm late to the discussion on this, and hate to convulude something that seems to already have been made way more convulude than it probably needed to be...I understand the spirit if why the rule change was proposed, but I couldn't even wrap my head around the whole discussion regarding the existing 6.4, etc... And none of that really matters regarding what I'm going to say anyway...
If the whole premise behind the rule is to ensure players are dropped in a timely manner to be added by the aquiring team, and/or not being used ineligibly by the former team... Right, that's why the new rule is in place for players to be dropped, before a deal is approved?
Why does it have to be year round? Wouldn't it serve the same purpose and be just as effective if the rule was only engaged during the season? What does it accomplish to follow this same process or enforce the rule during the off season?
Personally, I don't want to manage Fantrax at all during th off season, and I sure as heck don't want to have to go to Fantrax to check to see if a guy is dropped as part of approving a trade. I haven't done it yet, as I just got back on the TC a few days ago, but that sounds miserable. Fantrax is perfect for what we need, but it still remains painfully slow and clunky to maneuver in my opinion... Consider that a vast percentage of the trades for the year are completed in the off season, its a ton of unnecessary work in the off season... During the season, I agree 100% that it should be enforced, and there is less trade volume so it isn't as burdensome for the TC to monitor.
What is the worst case scenario of not applying the rule during the winter? Everyone has to have their Fantrax roster on point to start the scoring season, period. If someone is trying to hang onto a guy they traded months ago, or doesn't have their Fantrax ready to go before opening day, then we probably have another problem all together with that owner, either he's gone inactive or whatever and in that case, as long as the commissioner has the ability to make an emergency change if necessary... basically, that's not really an issue that should ever be an ...
What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 11, 2017 0:38:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the input. Sorry, I got carried away out of concern that 6.4 could apply in marginal cases. That rule has since been amended. It’s applicable if you pick up a player acquired via trade too early, yet does not apply if a team is slow to release their own player from Fantrax. If the offseason is any indication, dropping players from Fantrax on time may be a common enough occurrence that we’ll be grateful not to have such a stiff penalty.
Why apply the new rule in the offseason? I think it does us good to build the habit. As a comparison, we enforce the requirement to post a link for all 1st year players even though some are widely known. Doing so keeps us in the habit.
What harm is there in applying it throughout all parts of the year? - For the teams making the trade, it’s no additional work. The players need to be released sooner or later. Might as well make it sooner. Or if someone prefers, there’s no harm in scaling back on the Fantrax roster in general in the offseason. Not a bad idea. - For the TC, it is an extra step. With or without the step, I have trouble checking trades on my phone. On a tablet, I just leave an additional tab open for Fantrax. I’m finding it to be only a small part of the review process. My perspective is that if the TC has to get accustomed to it anyway, why not start building the habit? That’s just my opinion though. If it is adding too much on to the TC, we can surely rethink this.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 11, 2017 2:58:11 GMT -5
My response above may have been a bit hasty. The question is legitimate.
How does the rest of the TC feel about checking Fantrax as part of a trade? Does it bog the process down too much? Do the benefits outweigh the effort?
|
|