Winter Meeting Proposal Results – Rules Passed
1) Farm Eligibility – Rule passed. One amendment, players who were placed on the farm pre draft must stay on the farm through week one. They are then eligible to be activated in week two. If your player starts on the MLB roster but is rookie eligible, you have the ability to place him on your farm team prior to the draft.
2) Shutting down players in Sept – Rule passed. After Sept 1st, you have the ability to reserve players if you can produce any written report that a player is going to be shut down. Once he is reserved, you can not activate, nuke, or waive him.
3) DL players stats Active from Week 1. Rule passed. After the draft, players can replace DL players during the Spice Draft and those stats count from Week 1.
4) Reserve players stats Active from Week 2. Rule passed. Original roster player (Chris Tillman) stats count in Week 1, but his replacement from the Spice Draft counts in Week 2.
5) Player options for guys who have rookie status entering the season. Rule passed. Teams have 3 options per year on players, if a player gets traded, his options move go with him. An option, is sending a player down, or putting him on the Reserve List.
6) Adding a pitcher to the roster in 2011. Rule passed.
7) Every player not activated in two weeks, needs to be included in the commish transaction email each week. Failure to report a player not being activated within two-weeks is a $5 fine.
8)Reserving Players after 2pm based on new info – Rule passed. When submitting moves, you have the ability to reserve a player based on info you’ve read even if there hasn’t been an official transaction made prior to our deadline. This rule works for players being activated, reserved, or acquired off the free agent market. Teams must provide backup players when submitting weekly transaction reports. Commish will be sending his weekly moves through CBS site by the deadline each week.
9) In 2011, the Saves + Holds gross total category will be combined – Rule passed. The category is worth 2 points.
10) In 2010 SB’s are a gross category – Rule passed.
11) Position eligibility moved from 2 to 5 games – Rule passed. During the first week of the season, if the player has played in 2 games, he qualifies. After the first week, it goes from 2 games to 5 games.
12) Additional Nukes to accommodate trade involving NL player to stay on top of priority list – Rule passed.
13) Draft day reserve list, moved from players with 6 years of service time to 3 years of service time – Rule passed.
14) Compensation for minor league players traded (Arodys Rule). Rule passed. All eight teams submit their vote, Rd and pick, remove the two outliers, then take the average.
Nice work fellas. We got a lot done yesterday. Seems the only thing left to do is discuss compensation for free agent major league player signings to the NL. I think the majority will agree that we should now adopt the same process we voted to approve for minor leaguers above #14.
We have three votes that we didn’t get to yesterday due to time constraints:
1) Rule #14, but for major leaguers.
2) The Tiebreaker Rule in the event a vote ends 4-4 (current commish discretion)
3) The Hate Crime Rule in the event EE calls someone a “fucking moron” again.
Maybe we can take a day off and tackle them tomorrow.
2011 the year of the pitcher!!! Get your closer ready!!
I disagree AG on #14. I dont think the circumstances are remotely close on Major Leaguers vs minor league trades. Compensation should not be anywhere near the same. I feel pretty strongly about this. Looming Free agency is a known. You have at minimum one year to deal with that circumstance. Arodys/Maybin type deals you are typically blindsided with.
I agree with that point; but are you ok with the potential that under our current system a minor league prospect who is traded could bring back higher compensation than if Mauer signed with a NL team in the offseason?
I thought the reason why this rule was passed to accommodate equal compensation for the player lost. For example. Montero lost in trade. We each submit where we think that player would have drafted. That rule passed at the WM. So, if we are compensating for the value lost of that player, it only makes sense to apply the same rules for MLB players.
With a farm player, they haven’t added any value to our SOT team. who knows if they ever would have. A MLB playeer, say Mauer,has contributed for 6 years. Who have zero control on where that player signs. We can be as you say “completed blindsided” by Mauer singing in the NL.
The actual SOT value between a Mauer and Montero types isn’t even close in my mind. Mauer has contributed for 6 years, while Montero is mere projection as this point. So to allow more compensation for a MOntero type seesm like are placing way too much emphasis on farm guys.
Allow the league to vote on where Mauer or Bay would have been drafted in the upcoming draft only seems fair.
Disrupted 10x while writing. May be have repeated a lot of things.
Thoughts?
I just think the main difference here is a known vs a unknown. I’m in favor of rewarding comp for players lost in trades because we cant control it. We KNOW when Mauer’s contract is up.
the farm compensation is good for SOL. I really dont think SOL applies with ML FA’s when you have at minimum 1 year to figure it out. Often more.
We had compensation in place for farm players. We agreed a couple years ago to have the farm comp after the MLB compensation. Not sure what has changed in the two years. Why are putting more emphasis on farm guys over MLB players?
Right now the best case for losing Mauer is Supp pick after 2nd round. Essentially, we just created a rule that will allow more compensation for a Farm Player. I don’t get why we have a rule to in place that rewards Farm players over MLB players.
I’ve told you why now 3 different times and at the WM. Known vs. unknown.
The philosophy doesnt have to be 100% consistent. It cant be because of the nature of our league.
That works for me. I prefer to award more compensation for the player who has actually and would have contributed in SOT over the unknown. But I understand it’s just a matter of preference.
I appreciate the discussion.
I agree with Peter that there’s a clear difference between losing a prospect to a trade and losing a FA to the NL. One should be prepared for, the other can’t be. But similar to the prospect comp rule that we just passed, I would be in favor of awarding different levels of compensation for players that qualify under our current rule only. For example, if Mauer were a free agent this year instead of next year, under the current rule the comp is the same for him as it would be for Bay (or two years ago, when Ibanez and KRod both were rewarded comp, it’s clear not all players who qualify for comp are of equal value). I think that’s a problem that can be addressed.
Mike, I disagree with your premise that, “Mauer has contributed for 6 years,” and therefore is more valuable. His contributions over the past 6 years are for the most part irrelevant. We should be awarding compensation based on the players projection going forward, at the new salary, and not what the player did in 2005 when being paid 400k.
If I am to believe what you’re writing, it’s your opinion that either Miguel Tejada or Nick Johnson will be drafted #1 this year because they’ve contributed more stats in the past, and Dustin Ackley is still unproven. The past two years are reflective of SOT philosophy, and in both years “unproven” prospects were taken before major leaguers. We were just talking about Tex on Saturday, and you were admitting that he has very little value right now. Why would someone who is so productive have so little value? Salary, that’s why.
What if we just move MLB comp up to follow round 1 instead. In the case of Arody’s my guess would be he falls some where between early 2nd to early 3rd round. I would tend to think that we won’t be awarding high picks all that often for minor leaguers lost in trades.
I don’t think it makes sense that both Mauer and Bradley would be awarded comp picks in the same round. Maybe we need to tighten rule 14 up a little.
Players production has zero value in this discussion. For the obvious reason, we are dealing with prospects. So correct me if wrong, but you proposed this rule to compensate all prospects being lost in a trade. The argument being JM should be awarded a 1st round pick to replace Montero because that’s his current value.
With this being the case, and stats are irrelevant shouldn’t MLB players be treated the same way? It’s all about the position in the draft where the MLB player or Farm guy would have been drafted?
“One should be prepared for, the other can’t be”
- The problem I have is:
1. Shouldn’t a team be prepared for most of their prospects to flop or not meet expectations? Or even get injured (pitchers)? We all know how prospect status changes every year. Say AG got a 5th pick for Montero in 2010 draft, then for whatever reason tanks on 2010. The next year his ranking could be considerably higher. Won’t it look silly that we awarded AG a 1st round pick when in fact Monteros value is considerably lower? And while a MLB can have a down year following FA, we at least know that player is most likely contributing to an SOT Team.
2. A team never fully prepares for their player to leave for the NL. Most of the time that information isn’t available till a couple months prior to the draft. While each owner realizes there is a chance this may happen, there is nothing they can do until the moment that player signs in the NL.
I’d like to add that I didn’t think we would compensate every single prospect lost. Just as we don’t comp every single major leaguer lost. The rule was supposed to address situations like Arodys/Melky were a top prospect was lost for nothing. We could look silly if Melky flopped and Arody’s rose up prospect list, so it goes both ways.
If you agree that a players production has zero value in this discussion, why are telling us that you think we should award compensation based on it (“I prefer to award more compensation for the player who has actually and would have contributed in SOT over the unknown.”)?
The argument for awarding compensation is pretty simple, and it goes for both minor leaguers and major leaguers, not all are created equal. So why award them as such?
Peter already brought up the difference between awarding a prospect compensation and awarding a FA compensation, evidently you don’t agree with that?
“1. Shouldn’t a team be prepared for most of their prospects to flop or not meet expectations?”
- Yes, so how does this relate to compensation?
“Say AG got a 5th pick for Montero in 2010 draft, then for whatever reason tanks on 2010. The next year his ranking could be considerably higher. Won’t it look silly that we awarded AG a 1st round pick when in fact Monteros value is considerably lower?”
- It sounds like the point of compensation is getting lost on you. At the time of awarding compensation, we’re awarding it based on that players SOT value. In the Montero example, AG would have lost him and received nothing in return, which is why we’re compensating him. Montero’s current day equivalent value is worth a first round pick. If Montero shits the bed, it’s irrelevant. At the time we awarded compensation, it was determined that he was worth a first round pick. It’s the equivalent of saying your Alex Gordon and Brandon Wood for Miggy trade is silly. At the time of the deal, you got what you felt was equivalent (or better) value when dealing Miggy. Now it make turn out that it’s not equivalent, but the day you made the trade is what is important – same here.
“2. A team never fully prepares for their player to leave for the NL. Most of the time that information isn’t available till a couple months prior to the draft.”
- Very true. But there’s still no denying that having an upcoming FA is a known commodity, and it lowers the players SOT trade value considerably. This is completely different than losing a minor leaguer via a trade. Each SOT team is required to have a farm system, each SOT team is not required to have soon-to-be FA’s.
I’m in favor of changing our compensation for FA’s, but I’d prefer to keep the standards we currently use (Top 10% VORP – or whatever it is), and look at each player individually. If we did it this way, not all players would be guaranteed a comp pick as high as we currently have it (end of 2nd rd). For example, I don’t think there’s any change KRod last year would’ve been awarded a pick that high. If Mo and Nathan were unowned last year, it’s likely KRod would’ve been as well. And obviously, Mauer and Ibanez wouldn’t be worth the same compensation.
1 Correction here: MOntero would be awarded a supp pick as he qualifies as top 20 in AL.
You answered my question above in this line “At the time of awarding compensation, we’re awarding it based on that players SOT value”
- I agree 100% on this. Just make it the same for MLB players.
I’m good with that, but I don’t think it should be for every major league FA lost to the NL. I’d be in favor if we used our current method, and then voted on compensation.