Proposal #5: If he’s on the farm he’s on the farm/Bartolo Colon Rule
The current “Bartolo Colon” rule states: Once a player exceeds MLB rookie status (150AB’s, 50IP, etc), he has to start the following season on an SOT active roster, regardless of his actual MLB placement – big leagues or minors.
I propose we change this rule. We initially added this rule to prevent Colon situations, where an established MLB player signs a minor league contract, rehabs in AAA, then gets called up the MLB level. The league decided that a Colon-type player should have to start on an active SOT roster. I’d like to see us separate the Colon’s, who had more than 6 years of MLB service time, from Kyle Seager, Josh Bell, Fautino De Los Santos, Mike Carp, Kyle Drabek, Zach Stewart, Tyson Ross, Carlos Carrasco, Trayvon Robinson, Sal Perez, etc.
If the MLB team decides to start this type of player on the farm, in my view it’s unfair to require the SOT team to start them on the active roster. This group still falls under the “needs more time in the minors” tag, hence the MLB team is starting them on the farm. I’d suggest we use 3 years of MLB service time as demarcation to separate Colon’s from Drabek’s.
Not a fan. I don’t like the idea of keeping players who aren’t good enough to start at MLB level without having to take up one of those 24 spots. I see arguments on both sides of this. Everyone can give an example for SOL.
I’d rather see the farm filled with non-MLB players and not a Travis Snider type who is down in AAA because he’s ultimately a AAAA player. Or a Dan Johnson type who’s 29, but starts the year in AAA.
A reserve list for these type of players could be an option. With a max of 1-3.
Travis Snider is 23 and has 2.015 years of MLB service time. If Toronto believes he’s a farm player, and therefore starts him in the farm, why would SOT overrule that decision? We’re essentially saying we don’t care what the MLB team is doing with the player and dictating our own rules. Dan Johnson has 3.018 years of service time, so he wouldn’t qualify under what I proposed.
We’re currently keeping 20 players who aren’t good enough to start at the MLB level, that’s our farm – all of them are filled with non-MLB players. However, we’re overruling the MLB team’s decision on that player based on an arbitrary number of AB’s, IP’s, etc. – that’s what doesn’t make much sense to me. If Snider’s on the farm, he’s on the farm, and should take up one of my 20 slots.
I agree with WTNY on this one. Should be a way to differ from the Colon rule
I don’t buy the “why are we making our own rules” argument. We’re a fantasy baseball league, we are of course going to differ from MLB.
Couple issues:
1. When do MLB teams make their final cuts? This could have a serious impact
2. Can we assume all players sent to Minor League Camp due to injuries are eligible for the farm?
3. Tor, a competing team and good staff, starts Drabek in AAA. Oak, sucks, starts Tyson Ross on the MLB roster for whatever reason. I get to put Drabek on my farm, but have to put Ross on my roster?
Why should we be at the mercy of how each ind team handles their young guys?
I’m going form an Un-Holy Alliance with DMB on this one. Pretty Obvious that Colon should never be on the farm so let’s call this the “Snider House Rules” Staring Marc Larusso as the wide eyed Toby Mcguire and Chris Galvin as a scene stealing Miachael Cain.
Richie, under what I proposed Colon wouldn’t be on the farm because he has more than 3 years of service time. My suggestion is to take care of players who fall into the oh shit zone, and most teams have them. Drabek, Tyson Ross, Trayvon Robinson, Kyle Seager, etc. Guys who have accumulated enough AB’s not to be considered a rookie but have yet to solidify themselves as MLB starters. Mike Trout, if not reclassified, would’ve fell into this zone.
DMB:
#1 – I don’t know but it’s sometime before opening day, what’s the impact?
#2 All players sent to the minor league camp – not following. Players are assigned to minor leaguer rosters.
#3 Yes, you would put Drabek on your farm team because Toronto has the player on the farm team. Instead of asking why we’re at the mercy (and we’re really not since we have a reserve rule which gives you the power to protect this player), shouldn’t we ask, “why are we dictating where a player should start the year when MLB is already doing this for us?” Drabek/Ross/etc are not starting in the bigs because the MLB teams doesn’t feel they’re ready, for one reason or another. It doesn’t make sense to me that as a league we’re saying, they’re ready, start them on active roster and reserve after. This rule puts teams at a severe disadvantage on draft day.
Couple issues:
1. I don’t buy the “needs more time in the farm” thing. MLB teams all act differently. TB left Jennings in AAA in 2011 not because he “needed more time in the farm”. Conversely, the seattle mariners had Pineda start on the MLB roster. By this logic, wouldn’t you also be in favor of having Pineda starting on your active roster because that’s where his MLB started him?
2. Al Alberquerque – Is injured and starts the year in minor league training camp. Does this qualify him to start the year on my farm?
3. Not knowing how your 24 man active roster is going to shake up until 4/1 (when MLB teams make final cuts) certainly doesn’t make it easy to plan one’s offseason accordingly. Right now I know that I want to keep Drabek, Ross, and Gentry, they will have to start on my active roster then be reserved after the draft. I have made other moves to account for this. Now it’s 4/1 and Drabek is sent to AAA to start the year. This now opens up a roster spot for me. While it may seem like a good thing, because I can now draft a player instead of picking up one in week 2, I may not have enough money to pick up someone to fill in. Or another SOT team has the opp to draft another player whom normally would have been available in the “spice”. The uncertainty of not knowing the makeup of your roster until 4/1 seems a little archaic to me.
4. Service Time – The proposal forces SOT teams to place their player wherever the MLB team does. In my Drabek/Ross example, the team with Drabek essentially gets access to the “spice draft” or better on draft day. Players in our league value is somewhat tied to the MLB team they play for. For example, TB doesn’t call up prospects to save money, while Sea has no problem starting the arb clock. So, as SOT owners we should be fully aware of which teams are prospects are on and deal with any of the consequences that arise. Like hitting FA a year early or player X losing farm eligibility.
I understand the unfortunate examples of Kalish or S. Perez. But this type of shit happens every day. I’d love to be able to evaluate each situation to determine where a player should start, but that’s just not possible in SOT.
I’ve read both of your arguments here, and while knowing I’m going to receive a ‘ Lets talk Kyle Seager ‘ when I know its really Snider House Rules phone call from Galvin. I’m in agreement with DMB.
1 – my point is, who cares why a team leaves someone on the farm? If he’s on the MLB farm, the team has determined that there’s more value (for multiple reasons as you point out – more AB’s/IP/salary implications) to leaving that player off the MLB roster. And if that’s the case, why would SOT over rule the teams decision?
2 – starting in the minor league training camp doesn’t mean he’s on the farm by MLB terms. I believe the MLB team needs to make a decision one way or another on injured players. That being said, I wouldn’t care where you decide to start Al – if you’d prefer to have him take up one of the 20 farm slots, go ahead.
3 – In that example, you were going to replace Drabek in the spice draft, where’s the difference? If you didn’t have money to draft a new player, you’re not going to have money to spice draft a new player.
4 – Right now, we have a rule that “protects” rookies who make the MLB roster – think Pineda last year. He made the MLB roster, somewhat surprisingly, and EE had the choice to leave him on the farm or start him on the SOT roster. That’s protection, flexibility, and to me a fair rule. However, when Kalish starts the year in Pawtucket because he’s not ready to take the starting RF spot in Boston, Si7 has no choice but to start him on his SOT roster with zero chance to get SOT production out of him. There’s no need to rule on this case by case, service time is an easy demarcation point for us. I started by saying 3 years, but even if we lower it to 2 years it’s better than our current rule.
Kalish/Perez is shit out of luck that can be easily fixed. To me, Si7 starts the season on Day 1 behind the 8-ball, yet it’s an easy fix.
K4l – I first looked at this prior to Trout being reclassified. To me, that’s an unfair situation I think SOT should try to avoid. 20 year old put in AAA to start the year, yet SOT owner needs to start him on MLB roster because of an arbitrary number of at bats or days on the roster originally created by writers to determine who’s eligible for the rookie of the year award. Kalish, another example where shit out of luck can be resolved. If you think I’m doing this because of Snider, you’re wrong. I’m proposing this because it’s a dumb SOT rule that unfairly punishes teams with an easy fix. I also proposed 2 years of service time, which is better than our current rule.
I’m with WTNY on this. I think this is something that needs, and is easily fixable. Pete, why don’t you like it? Is it because of the “Snider House Rules”? I don’t see why if I have a player on my farm for 3 years, and then that player gets some AB’s that make him active, but yet hasn’t played in the majors for 2 years. You really think I should have to decide on whether or not to keep Kalish? So this way some other team gets to maybe get the benefits of a player I drafted highly and kept for 3 years? Just because Galvin proposed this doesn’t mean he’s looking for an advandtage. Yes, it impacts his team, but isn’t that how we all realize flaws in some of our rules? If it impacts a team that it should be looked into, not disregarded. I really think this has to be addressed one way or another. Maybe we all discuss a better way to handle this type of situation. But remember, every team is going to come across this at some point since we all have 20 farm guys, so why not try and fix it? And the whole “shit out of luck” is the dumbest thing SOT has ever come up with. Nobody should ever be shit out of luck if we can prevent it, and this is one way can
I don’t think it’s about SOL. It’s about separating Kalish as no longer being a prospect. We keep talking about if Kalish starts in AAA, well what if he starts for the Sox. Marc can still reserve him.
I guess I’m just trying to figure out the danger of having Kalish on Si7′s farm team. What’s the advantage he gains from this? It’s pretty clear there’s a big disadvantage, and to me, it looks unfair/SOL.
No danger we just treat all pre-arb players the same, active roster, salary then reserve in spice draft whether they make there team or not. Allowing an owner to reserve a player that actually makes their parent club is a pretty sweat rule.
We’re treating all pre-arb players the same, even though they’re clearly not the same since some are able to contribute SOT value, while those in the minors can not.
I disagree that it’s a sweet rule, instead I’d call it a necessary rule. We have 20 farm slots and zero bench. Roto leagues usually have benches – we don’t, which is fine, but it’s also the reason we’ve created additional rules to allow for flexibility.
To me, if we can find a reasonable solution to avoid SOL situations, I think we should. And when two players are on the MLB farm, but one had 149 MLB AB’s and the other had 151 MLB AB’s, I don’t see why we’d classify those players differently.
Really reserving a player that makes there team isn’t a good rule? Name another league that would even fathom that.
Another league would call it a bench player, that’s the difference. We don’t have one. Also, name another league that has 16 year olds? 20 farm slots + no bench = flexibility needed. Simple solution here, not trying to do anything drastic, just looking at the reason why we’d classify a player with 149AB’s any different from a player with 151AB’s.
That’s he beauty of SOT. Well I guess this is why we use the rookie rule
Determining rookie status:
A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).
directly from MLB.com
Marc, I simply wanted to include ‘ Snider House Rules’ because I thought it was a hilarious line. My main reason for opposition is that I think its another form of roster hoarding. I like when teams have to make tough decisions on their players. I’d like to see more young players available for our draft..our ‘ Christmas in April ‘.
And if you chose not to keep Kalish, then some other team has to use a draft pick on him and be ‘behind the same 8 ball’ that Si7 was.
I’m confused, what part is the beauty – the SOL component?
I see the rule, but it has nothing to do with how MLB teams treat their farm players. MLB has farm players and MLB players. SOT has “rookie eligible” and MLB players, which of course means there’s group of players falling into a zone where often SOT teams are at a disadvantage because of a few AB’s or IP and nothing to do with the players readiness to compete at the MLB level.
Pete, I get the tough decision thing, and I also get the roster hoarding thing. I’m with you. However, we all have 20 farm slots, no one gets more or less. In my opinion, if Kalish is in the MLB farm, he should be on the SOT farm, and he should take up one of those 20 roster spots.
By not changing this rule, Si7 would actually be doing exactly what you don’t want. He’d have his 20 farm slots, but he’d also be reserving Kalish after the draft. How would this make more players available during the draft?
I didn’t mean SOL was part of he beauty I meant SOT being unique is the beauty.
How is me having Kalish on my farm hoarding players? I’ve had him since the day I drafted him. If anything, I lose a farm spot by keeping him. And I don’t think this makes the league fun at all. I think it actually sucks. The league is already pretty hard as it is, which is fine and I like that, but why give up a player I drafted? Obviously, we’re going to disagree. Some owners like the way some things are done and others don’t. I just think if we can avoid any team getting screwed losing a player of potential significance then we should try. Obviously this league still enjoys the benefits of another teams misfortunes for their gain. As stated “I’d like to see more young players available for our draft..our Christmas in April” Didn’t know I had to be Santa
I’m leaning more towards the WTNY/SI7 side of the argument right now with the limited service time component.
well if owners want more young players in the draft we’d have to start with scaling back 20 farm hands, not sure anyone wants to go down that route.
Eliminating the pre-arb reserve rule would also help strengthen the draft since owners would have to decide whether they want to roll the dice with young players.
What owners are asking for more young players in the draft? And why would we want to create less flexibility?
I don’t know but Marc was quoting Pete about Xmas in April.
Waiting till April 1st to find out where your players are eligible for DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE for full keeper fantasy baseball league.
Our offseason roster creation shouldn’t be affected by what MLB teams with these type of players on 4/1.
What’s the scenario where a player is assigned to the farm that will impact your SOT active roster?
I agree with WTNY and SI7 on this one. I was thinking of a reserve list but if SI7 is going to keep Kalish, it should cost him a minor league spot.
WTNY,
I really shouldn’t have to explain this.
Scenario #1: Dayan Viciedo
He no longer has farm eligibility. He’s on my roster. I know if he doesn’t start for them, I have to either release or keep on roster will the ability of reserving him. I have planned my whole offseason on Viciedo tying up a spot on my 24. On 4/1 if the White Sox send him down I now have the option of placing him on my farm creating an opening on my 24 man roster. However, it’s 4/1 and I won’t have enough money to replace a bat come draft day.
Scenario #2: Jesus Montero
Your rule and personal believe would leave each SOT team players at the fate of their MLB team. Meaning: If Montero was going to be a backup catcher for the m’s for the first 6 months of 2012 season, this rule would force JM to start Montero on JM’s 24 man active roster because that’s where his MLB team started him. If Seattle thinks he’s ready, then he’s ready. So JM should have to place him on his 24 man roster.
This creates a mess for JM on 4/1 when he first realizes he has 25 players for his 24 man roster as he didn’t expect Montero (fill in any farm player) to make the MLB opening day roster.
BTW. Kalish may be on the MLB DL list come 4/1. He’s out till May/June with an injury. If he wasn’t injured, he’s most likely be on the Sox opening day roster. So to allow him to be stashed on the farm seems a bit crazy to me.
Correct me if I am wrong but as far as SOT rules Montero is still eligible for the farm regardless of where he starts the season.
Current rules allow Montero to be placed on farm.