14. SIGNING FREE AGENTS
(c.) When a NF player is waived by a National League team, the NF owner retains his rights until (a) the player signs with an American League team or (b) the date next spring when each owner is required to submit his keeper list.
(d.) So if a NF player is waived by his NL team and picked up by another NL team several weeks later, the original NF owner retains his rights. But the minute he signs with an AL team, the NF owner must relinquish the player's rights.
On June 16, Cleveland waived Luke and he was subsequently traded back to LA on June 20 for cash. Because he never heard otherwise, the Starfish have kept Luke on their roster all along (he's now hitting .282; he hit a 3-run HR last night). How do you think we should handle this:
1) The Starfish lose their rights to Luke as of this Sunday (7/26); they keep all Luke's stats through that point.
2) Since nobody caught Luke's time with Cleveland, allow the Starfish to keep Luke as if nothing happened.
3) Eliminate Luke's stats from the Starfish from June 9 through this Sunday and put Luke on the No Fehr free agent list.
Here is the final vote tally:
Decision: Starfish lose rights to Luke after Sunday's game (8/2). He becomes a free agent following that time. Final vote: One (7), Two (4), Three (0). Votes outstanding: 2.
From Doug (moderator): (7/28) While we've had a productive flow of dialogue over the past 48 hours, it doesn't appear the vote tally is changing. According to the rulebook, issues such as this (not covered specifically in the rulebook) are to be decided by a league-wide vote, which we're now conducting. (Let me know if i've got your vote recorded incorrectly.) So my thinking is that this issue is just about resolved, no? Let me know. Thanks.
From Bill C.: (7/28) I always felt in the past that an owner kept the rights to a player all season even if released. And that way, if by chance the guy showed up back in the NL during the season or the following season, that owner still had something to show. I felt rights were only lost when a returning player in a trade or a free agent was selected. So even when a player was traded to the AL, if the owner made no compensation choice he would retain those rights up until the roster freeze for the following season; if he is still in the AL then the player is lost. This would cover guys crossing leagues at the ML deadline and then returning to their original league as free agents. But this was overruled during the expansion draft when Abreu and D. Young were "officially" in the AL for a few hours. Before this new rule I believe Luke would have been his all along and these discussions would have never taken place because we have never had any compensation rules for released, waived, or retired players.
From Bill E.: (7/28) Let's not make a decision based upon the reasoning that " it would be easiest this way", and anything else would be "a pain in the ass" as Jeff T. put it. Make a decision based on the facts. A rule is written. That rule was clear, and the player involved clearly fit into the scenario.
The whole argument of "no one caught it" should not be factored into the equation. That kind of lazy rule enforcement can create animosity among owners. I like to have fun, but I also want to know the black and white of what the league allows. If we start creating gray areas, the game is not as much fun. If I ripped off $100.00 from Jeff T. two months ago, and he just realized it yesterday, do you think he would want it back? My vote stands at #1.
From Tim P.: (7/28) My feeling on the Matt Luke situation is the same as any other rule question. How have we address this issue in the past? According to Bill's email Dimitri Young and Abreu were in a similar position and their owners lost their rights. So if that is the case then the Starfish should also give up the rights to Luke. Also, I know this is probably not the politically correct response but I would also venture to say that the stats should be re-worked as to reflect the true standings. So in a nut shell my vote again is option #1.
From Jeff T.: (7/27) I say he gets the option to keep Luke, or pick up a player before the end of the weekend to be activated for next week's games. It's our fault we didn't catch this. I don't think he should be penalized. Frankly, I think he should just keep luke for simplicity's sake, but I know some people won't go for that.
Also from Jeff T.: (7/27) Frankly everyone, I think this whole Matt Luke situation is ridiculous. Yes, in theory, I understand the argument, but here is what I don't understand. Am I correct in my understanding that Matt just lost a player without ANY compensation? If he has his choice of free agents right now, go ahead and disregard this message. However, I don't understand that to be the case. Let me ask you all this...why is it that a player in the majors getting traded to an AL squad warrants compensation, but a minor league player doesn't? That kind of shit happens all the time to minor leaguers. Waived. Signed. Released. Reclaimed. Whatever. Are you telling me that the league is expected to keep track of every minor league transaction? That doesn't seem realistic to me at all.
Here's the way I see it: Matt used one of his reserve picks to draft Luke. If Luke goes to the AL, it should basically be that he's screwed and he lost his player. But if that player puts on an NL uniform in the big show any time that year, Matt should have the rights to him. I mean that's really what you're doing when you draft a minor league player in No Fehr, right? You're drafting the RIGHTS to get his production if he gets to put on a pro NL jersey. I don't see how it could be any other way. What about minor league clubs that are INDEPENDENTS? Are their players not draftable because they don't have a league affiliation?
Now, if your point is that Luke had already reached the majors, so it's a different situation... you're absolutely correct. When a major-leaguer switches leagues, you lose his production, but you get some kind of compensatory pick. I don't totally understand your system, but I know it exists because Bill got Brant Brown from Chicago (even though Brown wasn't on the master free agent list...but that's a different story, I guess). It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE that Matt loses Luke, gets no compensation, and now someone else can pick him up. Think about it. That's just dumb, and not in the best interest of the league at all. I just traded the RIGHTS to Jacob Cruz to Bill before the deadline. Now he's in the Indians system. Am I to understand that Bill gets no compensation either? I would hope he would, but apparently not.
My opinion on Matt's situation was that he should be able to keep Luke because anything else is a big pain in the ass and not worth the hassle. However, I know that establishing rules and consistency has value, so I figured that idea wouldn't fly. Let him take the stats he's received with Luke, and pick up a free agent now to replace him. Like...uhhhh...I don't know... Matt Luke?!? Do you see how ridiculous this is? Either he's getting shafted out of a major league starter, or we're making a big deal about nothing. Whoever went back through and scrubbed the NL transaction wires for this whole transaction has too much time on their hands. If you're going to do it for one, you'd better go back and do that for EVERY PLAYER on each of our teams, or just leave well enough alone. It's all about consistency, right?
If a highway patrol officer showed up at my door right now and told me I was speeding for ten minutes back in June, you know what I'd say? BEAT IT. That's what this whole thing sounds like to me. A roto league is supposed to be fun. Why is it that we spend all our time taking votes to decide miniscule little controversies? That's not fun. Make trades. Get players you like. Trade players you hate. Talk shit. Dump your good players to try to win next year. Mortgage your future to make a run this year. 100 bucks. BFD. Who cares.
From Tim P.: (7/27) I agree with (Doug) that choice # 1 is the best solution for this dilemma..
From Bill C.: (7/27) I vote for him giving up Luke after Sunday's game and keeping what he has. But if I was fighting for money I would probably want everything to be retro because it looks like he might lose a couple of points, that looks like the "right" way to do it.
From Mike: (7/27) I vote for the 1st option on this. He keeps Luke's stats accumulated thus far only.
From Eric: From that great movie "The Bad News Bears" when they go to play in the Astrodome: "Let Him Play, Let Him Play, Let Him Play. Luke stays on the Fish.
From Barry: (7/27) I never heard anything about Lukes time spent in Cleveland. So I too, think that the number 1 scenario is the best choice. He should keep the stats until Sunday and then Luke is dropped from his team and becomes a free agent.
From Bill E.: (7/27) I vote for #1
From Greg: (The following is an e-mail I sent to Doug at 5:15 p.m. Friday, July 24th. If you have any comment or input, please respond to all so we all can be involved.)
I'm grateful that you are taking it upon yourself to try to help make the league run smoothly, however, it also seems like you might be moving things along a little too quickly. On this Matt Luke issue, I get on-line at 4:30 p.m. Friday afternoon to see that we've already discussed, voted, and decided what to do about it without myself and several other owners having a chance to vote or lobby either way. I and others around the league don't have access to e-mail until we get home from work, or until we get free time at work. I would like at least a day or so to either think about the issue or in this case, to have a chance to see the issue at hand before I have to vote on it.
In this case, I didn't even get a vote. Also, you closed the voting saying that only three people didn't vote. By my count, there are five, including Robb who didn't get a vote. If those five, or even four, vote for #2, then we have a completely different outcome don't we? It would be one thing if you had an 8-0 vote or even a simple majority, but the fact is, you don't. I also would understand your decision to close the vote if the issue had been up to vote for a week or something and only a few people respond. For example, I don't expect to have a vote in the Robb free-agent vote because I've let the e-mail sit in my box all week, but when I get an e-mail during the day, I should at least expect to have a say when I get home the same day and I read the e-mail for the first time. Does the rulebook have a clause about how long voting should be allowed to go on? If there isn't, maybe there should be.
I'm not trying to insult you, because you're doing a great job as pseudo-commish Bud Selig, but I think we need to slow down a little before deciding on an issue. This issue is not that important, but my query is more for the future than for this one issue. However, my vote on this issue is for #2 because I think if it's not caught when it happens, the rest of us are SOL. Plus, with all the roto-geeks in this league, it's hard to believe it slipped by us. I'm going to forward this to everyone in the league, so they all know my gripe. Thanks for listening.
From Matt: (7/27) I just got back from a horrific client meeting that was unexpected and realized I did not get a vote-in light of Jeff and Greg's messages, I would just like to go on record as voting for option 2.
From Tim J.: (7/27) I agree option 1 is the best choice. Nobody caught it until now but the rules state that he lose the rights.
