a) yes b) no
From Jeff T.: yes
From Matt: no
From Bill C.: It depends on what the rule says about compensation; yet to be decided?
From Barry: I do think that trades made during the season with "a player to be named later" should result in some compensation for the team losing the player. But if "the player to be named later" was a minor league player who never made the at bats or innings quota in either league then there should be no compensation.
From Mike: PTBNL? This is a little trickier, but I'm inclined to say that if this PTBNL is named before the end of the real regular season, then the owner of that player would proceed as if the trade had been made prior to August 31. In other words, that owner could pick up any remaining ALers or choose any free agent. This would be the one exception to the Aug. 31 deadline. After the season though, it's too late. Any free agent/player still needs to meet the minimum AB/IP req.
More from Mike: I think owners retain the rights to their players until the deadline for the protected list. As far as a player being traded, any returning player should have have the same status as if the original player was never traded.
Question: If Brian Johnson (BatBold, 3A) is traded to the AL, any returning AL player that I pick up should be an A. Of course, he becomes a B next season. If I lose a B player, the returning AL player is a B, and then becomes a C.
When exactly do our As become Bs, Bs-Cs, and Cs-Ds? My suggestion is that this transfer becomes effective immediately following the end of the regular season. This means that Brian Johnson would actually be a B when traded, and remain a B until the end of the '99 season.
Lastly, also from Mike: PTBNL: No compensation after end of regular season unless AL player in original trade is still available.
This is a lengthy and often confusing ballot, but hopefully it'll help us get some resoltion on this thing so we can consider the rulebook done (or as done as it can be). Take your time looking it over (it might be easier to read if you print it out) and send your votes/comments to everyone by Sept. 8; I'll post everything on the website daily (as we did w/the Matt Luke situation)...thanks...scroll down to end of this section to read comments/votes.
RULES H-M VOTING BALLOT
The rulebook has been approved except for rules 15 h-m, which focus on off-season trade compensation. A vote on these issues is being held now so we won’t be rushed into policy at the season’s conclusion. (A copy of the ballot will be posted on the website.)
*1.) In terms of off-season compensation as a result of interleague trades, do you:
a) Believe owners are entitled to some form of compensation (continue with the ballot)
b) Believe there should be no compensation in off-season deals. There will be cases where it will not seem fair to the owner losing the player(s), but it is more unfair to compensate one and not another. (Do not proceed with ballot; simply submit vote)
*2.) Should rule 15h:
a.) Remain as it currently reads:
All of the following (rules 15h-m) only applies to A, B or C players; D-player owners lose their rights immediately at the end of the regular season. If you lose a C player in an off-season trade, whoever you replace him with becomes a D player for the next season. Similarly, if you lose an A or B player in an off-season trade, whoever you replace him with becomes a B or C player, respectively, for the next season.
b.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
If a A or B player is lost, the new acquisition will be designated as a B. A lost C will be replaced by a D at the assigned salary.
Reasoning: If someone loses a B player after the end of the season, the rule seems to say that whatever player is retained, the returning AL player or a free agent, that player will be a C the next year. Bill C. does not think that we should have to be "forced" into a contract. In this scenario, a free agent would be a 15C (10+5) the next season and an AL player would be at his assigned salary + $5. He thinks this kind of nullifies the valuation process if a $5 + $5 contract is going to be slapped on the player.
*3.) Should rule 15j:
a.) Remain as it currently reads:
If two or more No Fehr players are traded to the AL for one player, the highest-valued NF player's owner can either take the AL player at his assigned value, or he can pass him onto the second highest-valued NF player's owner. If the first owner declines the AL player, he gets nothing in return and the second owner can choose to accept the AL player. If the first owner accepts the AL player, the second owner gets nothing in return. If both owners decline the AL player, neither gets anything in return.
b.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
If the first owner accepts the AL player, the second owner gets an second-round draft choice added at the end of the round. If both owners decline the AL player, neither gets anything in return.
c.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
There should be no compensation for off season, interleague trades.
Reasoning: This is the only rule in the off-season section where a second owner would potentially not get any compensation. The problem with this rule is that the second owner might not even get a choice for compensation. If the first owner accepts the returning player, the second owner is without any option at all. I (Bill C.) propose that there no compensation for off season, interleague trades. If this were the rule, it would mute all of the other rules pertaining to this subject. I also say this because I believe some other owners do not want to have off-season free-agent pickups. And I believe there would have to at least be the potential for a free-agent pickup to make this rule fair to the second owner.
*4.) Should rule 15k:
a.) Remain as it currently reads:
If two or more NF players are traded for two or more AL players, the highest-valued NF player's owner can either select one of the AL players at his assigned value, or he can pass him onto the other owner. If the owner declines the AL player, he gets nothing in return and the second highest-valued NF player's owner can choose to accept the AL player. If the first owner accepts the AL player, the second (and other) owner(s) gets nothing in return. If all owners decline the AL player, nobody gets anything in return.
b.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
If two or more NF players are traded for two or more AL players, the highest-valued NF player's owner can either select one of the AL players at his assigned value, or he can pass him onto the other owner. If the owner declines the AL player, he gets a secon-round draft pick and the second highest-valued NF player's owner can choose to accept one of the AL players or take a second-round draft pick.
c.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
If it is multiple for multiple, then each owner should have a choice on some player. What if there is 3 NF players for 2 AL players? Then we are back at the 15j problem.
*5.) Should rule 15l:
a.) Remain as it currently reads:
For both (15h) and (15i): If the multiple NF players traded for the AL player(s) all belong to one NF owner, the owner can take the AL player or decline him and get nothing, thereby freeing up a roster spot for the auction.
b.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
If an owner were to lose 2 players for one AL player, does that mean he only gets 1 replacement? No free agent for the second player? If the same owner loses the same players one at a time in separate trades, he would potentially be able to replace all of them.
*6.) Should rule 15m:
a.) Remain as it currently reads:
In cases where multiple NF players (and owners) are involved in an interleague trade (see 15h. and 15i.), if the higher-valued NF player's owner chooses to select the AL player at his assigned value, he has until roster submission day in March to either trade the player or keep him on his draft day (protected) roster.
If he fails to do either of those two things, then the other owner involved in the interleague deal will have the option of accepting the AL player. Note: If the higher-valued NF player's owner fails to either trade the player or keep him on his draft day (protected) roster, the second owner will be allotted another 24 hours (past the roster submission day) to make adjustments to his list.
b.) Or do you agree with this train of thought:
The problem here is that the first owner has the entire off season to try to trade a player he may not want/need. Here again the second owner is at the mercy of the first. And if the first owner does keep or trade the compensation player, thesecond owner is again out of luck with never having had an option to receive any compensation. There has to an allowance for the second owner to receive compensation (free agent); this is in the interest of fairness.
From Tim J. (Johnsons): (1B) If you lose a player in the off-season tough that is the breaks. Less player(s) to retain and leaves more players to be available to be drafted. Someone has to lose out and it is best to compensate the league as a whole rather than one team. Unfair real baseball trades can hurt the league with uneven distribution of players and money. Valuation system seems to put a lower value than the auction.
From Bill C. (Infections): No compensation.
From Bill E. (Splinters):
My votes for Rules H-M
1. a 2. b 3. b 4. a 5. a 6. b
From Jeff T. (Shepherds):
1) b; although I think the fairest thing is for us to get compensated, to do it right would be an absolute nightmare. I think this league could use some simplification, and this would be a good place to start.
From Jeff O. (I'm Idaho!):
I think an owner should not receive compensation for losing an a, b, or c player to a trade. He should have the option of replacing him with someone else, but if given a compensation, who's to say how much, if not the value attributed to the player?
From Barry (Master Batters):
I vote for b) Believe there should be no compensation in off-season deals. There will be cases where it will not seem fair to the owner losing the player(s), but it is more unfair to compensate one and not another.
We will all lose guys in the off-season at some point. Loss of players can be both positive and negative. But regardless, your team isn't set until the auction during the spring so teams will be able to deal with the loss of a player by filling that hole at the following season's auction.
From Mike (BatBold):
1. a 2. a 3. a 4. a 5. a 6. a (the 1st owner who takes the AL player should make a decision prior to roster submission day; I suggest 2 weeks)
If it's just as simple as whether or not to compensate off-season, this is what I think:
1. Owners should be entitled to AL players coming over just as during the season.
2. This should not include the right to a free agent.
3. In multiple player deals, first choice should proceed as during the season.
Again, this should not include the right to a free agent (tough luck).
From Greg (Winning O'Men):
Here's how I vote on the off-season compensation issue:
1. a 2. a 3. a 4. a 5. a 6. a
Basically, I agree with Mike on his comments.
From Robb (Oriole Connection):
1.) a 2.) a 3.) b 4.) b 5.) b 6.) b
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 current vote tally:
Decision: Starfish loses Luke's rights; check here for complete recap.
Decision: Starfish keeps selection based on 7-6 league vote. Matt is entitled to pick any player listed on the NF free agent list during his initial 7-day period.
No - six votes (Barry, Tim J., Mike, Tim P., Bill C., and Robb)
Yes - five votes (Greg, Doug, Bill E., Matt, Jeff O.)
On the second issue regarding total approval of the rulebook, the results are pretty simple. Everyone voted to approve it except Bill C., who cited his disagreement with the off-season trade policy. He still thinks that if you are going to compensate one owner in a 2 for 1 trade, you should also compensate the other owner losing a player, instead of him getting nothing. He got no response when he first sent out this proposal in early March, so this issue may have to be re-visited at some point. The rulebook is now approved as it reads on the website. Eleven out of 13 owners voted on the rulebook, and all 10 voted to approve the document.
Here are the results of the league-wide vote issued March 10-13. Since everyone except Matt has submitted their vote and Matt's vote's would not alter the results at this point, the following results will stand. Thanks for everyone's quick responses. The result is shown first, then you can scroll down to see the voting rundown (since these issues don't involve specific individual owners, there is no effort made to keep voters anonymous).
As long as both owners are making an effort (intent) to better their teams either this year or in the future, we should let trades happen.
75% of the teams must veto a trade within 1 week from the time of the trade, otherwise it stands. This would hopefully prevent a bare majority from vetoing a trade. Owners involved in a trade that is disputed would usually only need another 1-2 owners to agree with them in order to protect their trade.
Each team (including those involved) could vote "yes/no" with the following number of "no" votes required to veto a trade:
In summary:
This will make it difficult for trades to be overturned, but also allow trades to be vetoed if almost everyone thinks it is damaging to the league. Remember, a lot of trades are lopsided, but not all trades damage the league/race unduely.
On Thursday, Feb. 12, the eight returning No Fehr owners were invited to vote on items related to the reserve draft and the upcoming expansion process. The following vote results will stand, since they were resolved by a majority: