|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Nov 21, 2017 16:56:02 GMT -6
www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21506598/ex-atlanta-braves-gm-john-coppolella-placed-mlb-banned-list-team-loses-prospectsCould fix the whole thing by creating some process by which we each have control over our IFAs. I actually agree we should NOT go back and try to fix things in the Braves instance. But I also think we shouldn't use a system that just blankly hands top talent to teams based on real life financial situations and real life roster situations. And where cheating also occurs. Teams here benefit due to something that got multiple people banned and fired. And keep in mind, TB signed the #1 IFA last year. And they do go after guys. This isn't sour grapes lol. I brought this up a long time ago. I'd like to see us create a system for IFAs. One that doesn't tie up huge contracts to kids, but one that allows teams to compete for these players. I've even volunteered my time to manage such a process since some think it might be time consuming. I think there is a realistic way to go about this. Beating a dead horse isnt going to help things we get it you hate the current system you don't have to keep telling us every change you get maybe let others express themself what they think.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Nov 21, 2017 17:08:13 GMT -6
Just because a couple of GMs do not like the current rule does not mean we are just going to scrap it for your idea we will discuss it as a TAB then decide if we want to re-open this or just leave it as is.
There is a lot here and many different ideas to weigh and discuss. As a TAB ran league we will do what we feel is in the best interest of the league clearly.
|
|
|
Post by morf1980 (Rays GM) on Nov 21, 2017 17:35:54 GMT -6
Good deal. The only reason I kept beating that poor horse was because I didn't want it to just "go away". The TAB discussing it and deciding to change or stay the same is all I can ask for. You hadn't said the TAB would review it until this last posting.
Also, in all honesty, it's the offseason so there may be only a couple active vocal GMs that want a change, but that doesn't mean others that are less vocal may not also support it.
But I'll be quiet now and let the TAB discuss. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Nov 21, 2017 17:43:17 GMT -6
Good deal. The only reason I kept beating that poor horse was because I didn't want it to just "go away". The TAB discussing it and deciding to change or stay the same is all I can ask for. You hadn't said the TAB would review it until this last posting. Also, in all honesty, it's the offseason so there may be only a couple active vocal GMs that want a change, but that doesn't mean others that are less vocal may not also support it. But I'll be quiet now and let the TAB discuss. Thanks. According to check-in we are only missing one GM so seems like a pretty active league from that standpoint. And yes we (TAB) always discuss possible rule change talk to might come up even if nothing comes from it we discuss it and then will make a post about what we (TAB) determined.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Nov 21, 2017 18:00:07 GMT -6
This is the rule my league currently uses and we have tried probably nearly half a dozen different rules over the last 10+ yrs including one year of putting them into the FYPD which we decided to scrap. We have also tried a version of the rule we currently use here ML Vs MiL.
We call it "The Opening Day Rule".
|
|
|
Post by morf1980 (Rays GM) on Nov 21, 2017 20:26:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Giants on Nov 21, 2017 21:34:52 GMT -6
Just for the record I'd support a change, I was just kind of staying out of it because of anyone I'd be the biggest benefactor of a change, even if it's a one round draft.
Additionally the opening day rule is okay in principal, I just wouldn't put it past teams to screw around with the whole system to gain a year and not have him join the club until 2 weeks into the season.
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Jerry) on Nov 24, 2017 7:01:25 GMT -6
I'm against it as well. Researching 16 year old international players doesn't sound fun to me. Granted, I have maitan now, but I personally wouldn't like a FA period for it. I agree, the percentage of IFA players that we are talking about are minimal. There are a gem or 2 a year and we should not change our rules for that 1 or 2 players.
|
|
|
Post by OaklandGM on Nov 24, 2017 22:52:09 GMT -6
I'd keep the Braves players where they are....though will be curious to see how official transactions on sites like MLB or Baseball Reference will record the players history. If there is a wipeout of their Braves history, which I don't see as possible since they accumulated at bats/IP's....but if it is a wipeout scenario, would be hard to track them back to the Braves someday.
Whatever we do on IFA's, I'm not overjoyed by the opening day rule. Too much roster and salary cap uncertainty to introduce a FA at that point of the season. I'd rather keep our current rules even if someone lucks into a great new player.
|
|